BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Masterful is not a good debater?? RAP battle

Fanny boy is a b*tch He can't spit for sh!t cus he's too busy swallowing, finger paints and he can't stop colouring. His lyrics are a lacklustre and a cluster fvck of crap, they’re cold as colon cancer to which I might fap. No longer sat behind his computer, he stands in front of a prosecutor, he molested a young boy with many a sex toy and now he'll be meat for black men to enjoy. Eyes redder than the Devils dick, he's forced to wear pretty pink lip stick. In a drug induced high, a hung male makes him cry. Attacked by a meat sword 12 inches long, the man exposes Fanny's thong. His feminine body breaks under the pressure, no longer able to handle the pleasure, he wets himself like the bitch he is, all because he loves minority jizz. There are more important subjects to discuss, something complex and mildly robust. Let’s move onto to the real issues, beyond Fanny’s bin and beyond the cumm tissues. The people of Africa don’t wanna hear about transgender rights or other entitled little shites, they just want their right to food, water and a healthy daughter Crazy isn’t always confined to the mentally ill, when members of congress will pass a weaponry bill.As the world keeps on spinning, this isn’t the end it’s only the beginning.We are the apocalypse, our ashes rise to create a new eclipse, no more light to shine on once fertile lands, lead pipes lead to new demands. Crude oil creates chaos of catastrophic proportion, women now murdering disguised as abortion. It’s a world thoughtlessly on fire, no one cares, only burning desire, the flames are so fierce that no one can respire. I can’t cry for everyone, not when the prior and proper priests prey on your grandson. Don’t donate to the church, that’s pay to pray, your sin can’t be prayed away, you got to find forgiveness in something other than the fictitious. I don’t believe in the fat movement, fat people can’t move when wheel chairs are an improvement The human body isn’t meant to be that big, they’re bed bound and dying, portraying a pig. Shame them, blame, name and maim them, it’s a waiting game, where they wait for death, they can’t walk to the kitchen without losing breath. Despite all of this despair, we have this Fanny sh!tting everywhere. He is trolling in manner that is deeply unsuitable and his fetish for minorities is creepily irrefutable. (Doesn’t stomp on mic, because that would be retarded)
Masterful is not a good debater?? RAP battle

Picks up the mic, because there is no dyke It's called lesbian not the slur word you choose this just means now you will have to lose Talking like a true racist will only show your lack of education and this is not the racist debate nation Mentioning Jewish people and black people in that light only displays that you have no insight as to humans all being equal we can discuss this further in round 3 sequel Your rapping is just filthy and you show no respect for people your sense of humor at this is just feeble Masterful will learn his disrespect for others and that includes his racist kid brothers will come back to haunt him later in life Unless he finds himself a racist wife Wearing that white hood with the KKK letters on it might as well be wearing "I'm a racist" bonnet Wait until he gets the attention of Mossad and then I will sit back and applaud when someone cleans out that mouth with soap and tells him to stop being such a dope (mic stomped on)
Masterful is not a good debater?? RAP battle

Why did you slam the mic? I slammed your sister and she's a dike. I was bought up in the Brotherhood, made an impact like I knew I would My thoughts flow as fireflies, used in debates to help me reach verbal highs. I’m not a secular racist, I just sling facts on a regular basis. FannyBitch McTroll has just given birth to a foal. Split wide by a large horse, soon he'll be back for a second course.He's a dark deranged Jew and dines on the dead, I look into his eyes and see that they’re red. Filled with a great hate his pupils begin to dilate, as the Jew feeds on its victim, it laughs at how it tricked him. I was raised to smite demons and Jews, like a white knight I’ll shine rays of bright light as the chaos ensues. Dazed and amazed, you awake in a room with Einstein, where he attempt to define time, “Time flows like a river, while you’re in bed with an anal giver. The theory of relativity isn’t tough, it’s just you’re relatively stupid and like it rough. E=MC squared, but I’m the M.C and you’re unprepared!” You’ve been killed by a man who didn’t like Hitler, you love your wife but don’t know why you hit her. Malformed by mis-intent, you’ve failed to pay your monthly rent, money spent on madness and mis-used Autism pills, means your bills are stacked high, but not as high as your crack night, where you end up making love to a black shite. Racially raped by a larger male, here, not even a martyr could prevail. And so the heavens heave a huge hue of hail, heavy rocks drop the size of a whale, hurling and hurting it’s like an old wives tale, Ever bound to rape by befitting blackmail. You’re done. Hung high without mercy, I only used a little controversy. Now buried under a mound of sh!t, the only thing left is the stench you emit.*Throws keyboard out the widow*
Masterful is not a good debater?? RAP battle

Masterful the President of The Brotherhood says he has changed, wish he could his juvenile pre teens said he would But I believe he is just lying and should just admit he hates people who are different then him because they don't look the same this anger stems from his abusive upbringing and now on here he will be singing that this is not true until his face is blue with anger that he can not chew Well put that anger away I say Masterful and don't be so shameful because life is wonderful and this rap battle is debatable if you want to bring it on and be respectful I say lets see what you got throw your money in the pot and lets see your creative side unless you want to hide (mic slammed)
Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple.

Apologies, my first link was misplaced. This is the correct link: 1. http://cbsn.ws... To be fair to my opponent, this round will be all case defense. Note the concessions. The government MUST achieve the same amount of revenue. And yet, he also concedes that "if you are living day to day, you cannot afford to pay extra taxes that the wealthy can afford to pay." This means that either he fails to meet a basic burden, ending the debate, or he is taking necessities like food, housing, or clothing away from the poor who have to pay more for other goods, easily the most potent impact in this debate. Con's concedes "that government is necessary for commerce", which shows that government is necessary for the success of the rich. That means that they're ENTIRELY RELIANT on society to earn their riches, ergo Con concedes that the rich owe EVERYTHING to society and should be required to pay back in proportion, not just in increased amounts as compared to others, thus conceding the debate. These concessions alone should be enough to win me this debate. On offshore accounts. First, reality contradicts Con's claims, as it's estimated that $21-$32 TRILLION is kept offshore.[5] Second, there are many benefits, including lower cost bases, higher interest rates, lower government regulation, and lower taxes.[6] So there is a prospect for growth, and inflation is trumped. On Con's case for changing taxation. Several problems. First, sales taxes represent a very small amount of overall federal tax revenue, which means this would have next to no effect on taxation of companies and the rich.[7] Second, since we're necessarily discussing differential taxation based on earnings, talking about sales tax is off base. Third, a progressive taxation system doesn't "stunt [economic] growth", another unsupported claim. Progressive taxation improves economic stability.[8] Vote Pro. 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://theatln.tc... 8. http://bit.ly...
Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple.

This proves “that the rich are paying out proportionately to what they're earning”(pro). In fact, the ‘rich’ are paying nearly 200% of what they would be paying if everyone’s taxes were more simply proportional to their earnings (3). To elaborate: The top thousandth descending cumulative percentile makes 8.86% of all money made in the United States, but pays over 16% of all collected taxes (3). Then, the bottom 50%, which takes in nearly 12% of the nation’s income, has to pay less than 3% of the nation’s tax (3). Source (1) agrees that over 15% ($212 bil) of revenue from income tax goes to welfare programs; assuming that even 3% of this is used to help the lower 50% of people with income, their income taxes do end up being negative, meaning it only goes up from there. Additionally, less than 6% of income tax goes into transportation infrastructure (4), so how exactly are the wealthy more reliant on society? Furthermore, Pro’s entire argument is reliant on wealth being a zero point system. Really, one person’s wealth does not take away from another’s. When someone buys an iPhone, others still have their older phones. The ‘wealth pie’ is simply growing. Read (1). Finally, Pro’s sources… [1] and [4] are the exact same source, and BOTH times, it argues that the middle class is stingier with money than the upper class. [2] only focuses on France and Germany; it provides no statistics about the US and even explains that collected data could be an outlier. It does not even focus on exactly how many inherit their wealth. [3] argues that the wealthy do not create the jobs at all, so why would they be responsible for creating “temporary jobs”? And I do not want a system where everyone gives back equally. I want a system where everyone has an equal opportunity to grow… Sources (1) http://www.forbes.com... (2) http://wapo.st... (3) http://www.irs.gov... (4) http://www.cbpp.org...
Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple.

Alright, thanks to my opponent. I'll be rebutting this round, and defending the next. All of Con's R1 arguments are claims. None of them have any support or warrants. Note my argument from the previous round regarding how the rich benefit from society. I've shown that the rich don't earn everything on their own " they are reliant on public infrastructure. They utilize these resources more often than other individuals since they have to make shipments and travel more often. This contradicts Con's statement that the rich don't benefit from society. Beyond that, the rich are bolstered by numerous subsidies and tax breaks, billions of dollars of it.[1] Considering the number of people that inherit their fortunes,[2] I'd say the claim that all of the rich work hard is wanting. Not every rich person resulted from their own hard work. This claim that many of them are "creat[ing[] something useful to other people" is also faulted . Some are fashioning businesses and building sustainable workforces, but the majority of entrepeneurs and investors are creating temporary jobs that do little in the way of benefitting others. In fact, what does create jobs is "a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company," which is based in the funds available for the poor and middle class to spend as customers.[3] Con has failed to show that the rich are paying out proportionately to what they're earning. He's also asserting that whatever system would be put in place would garner so much more that it would double or triple contribution. And I say to that: fine. It's exceedingly low now, it SHOULD increase. In the areas of job creation and charity, they're falling very far behind the general public in terms of giving back proportionately to their earnings.[4] In fact, if Con wants a system where everyone gives back equally, he should support the resolution to balance this injustice. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://econ.st... 3. http://read.bi... 4. http://bit.ly...
Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple.

Thanks for the welcome! I agree with your introduction. This is no debate about how the government spends money or how much it takes in. It is definitely about where the funds come from. I also agree with you on the points that a government must take in money and funds in order to ensure the normal continuance of society and that government is necessary for commerce in today's society. I even agree that if you are living day to day, you cannot afford to pay extra taxes that the wealthy can afford to pay. However, I disagree that the wealthy are more likely to keep their money in secret "offshore accounts" than spend it or invest it. This is a bad idea for a couple reasons: Firstly, there is no prospect for growth. Secondly, due to inflation, the money will continually be devalued over time at a rate of a couple of percent per year. I also disagree that commerce only benefits business owners and the super wealthy. The truth is that commerce exists because it helps both sides. It benefits the people who actually receive items that are useful to them from these establishments as well as the sellers, and if it did not, it would not exist. And above all, I disagree that there is anything "simple" about it. Right now, the people who struggle day to day are financially gouged by tax on necessities, and the 'wealthy' have to give up more of their money to pack the wound. It would be far better if all people were taxed equally on non necessities. It is generally understood that all people should have an opportunity to grow and improve their conditions. Why should we allow a system which by definition taxes economic progress and stunts that growth? I would much prefer life in a system which facilitates everyone's economic progression equally instead of limiting it after a certain point. Finally, I maintain that the wealthy do not usually become wealthy at the expense of others or "society", but rather become wealthy because they worked harder and smarter.
Those who benefit most from society should pay more. Those who don't should pay less. Simple.

Thanks to Con for challenging me to this debate. As he's new to the site, welcome to DDO! First off, let's be clear: this is not a discussion of the amount of revenue the government should make or how the government spends. It's a question of where those funds come from. Rather than putting down rebuttal this round, I'm just going to focus on building a case. The reality is that society needs money. A government requires money to function in order to build infrastructure that ensures that society continues to run. Much of that infrastructure, such as roads, buildings and bridges, has a direct positive effect on businesses. Thus, that government is playing a pivotal role in their ability to do business, and, since they specifically utilize those resources commonly, they should contribute back to the economy in a larger way. There's also the much more basic issue of having the ability to afford those contributions. The rich can afford to pay more, and the poor cannot. It's pretty straightforward - if you're living day to day, then you simply cannot afford to pay extra out to others. The rich can. So, either those funds come from the rich who can afford them, or the poor who can't and thus would be debilitated by the cost. That's not to mention that the poor are practically certain to spend any funds they have, in the process energizing the economy, whereas the rich are far more likely to save the majority of their funds in offshore accounts that are of little or no benefit to anyone within their countries. The reality is that the rich do pay more, and with good reason. It will be up to Con to explain why that burden should shift to others. I'll wait til R2 to rebut his points.
I do not believe in god therefore I have free will

What kind of world do you live in? Running around saying things that may hurt certain cultures! See, i'm no expert, considering I personally do not believe in god, but still! How can you be so hurtful to other cultures, and not care about people who devote their lives to Christianity. I'm guessing you were baptised right? Well the priest that ever-so-kindly put that holy water on your head devoted years of practice and patience to learning the will of god. You only have free-will if you want it, god doesn't hold anyone down for ransom. Free will is your own decision, not gods. You can chose to believe or not believe, just don't hurt anyone in the process.
I do not believe in god therefore I have free will

There is nothing in the bible that states, in fact its not even close to saying something like "I the lord thy god grants man free will." Since this is true, man does not have free will IF you are lamebrained enough to believe in god. It will be con's job to absolutely prove that god grants man free will. No forfeits! Nobody with a lackluster edumacation trying to pretend that they have an intelligence and an education will be accepted!!! So dig through those files of yours and dig hard, because I have plenty switchblade files of mine to utterly prove that god, and through other sources, does NOT grant man free will and therefore you do not have any Free Will as your destiny is predetermined IF you are scooter wrecked enough to believe in god. I on the other hand am intelligent enough to pull weeds and not believe in god, therefore I have Free Will. Its that simple.
Feminism is relevant

first of all the disabillity rights community doesn't want equallity. they want special rights and that's fair because they were born with a disadvantage that, unlike people of color and women, cant overcome on their own i would say that the anti-racist and the gay rights movements were not about equality too but that would spawn onther debate on slut-shaming: males(in human race) are biologically programmed to compete with each other to get as most females as possible and to aknowledge as their leader the one who does it better. females on the other hand are programmed to mate with the best male possible and thats why sluts are looked down to. the funny thing is that the ones who actually dislike sluts more are other females on hyperattractivization: again its mostly womens fault. in their attempt to reverse the roles and they compete with each other Nature is sexist but on women's side. men are more intelligent, stronger and better hunters but they are also very expendable compared to women meaning that only the best of men "survive" based on this i can say that while men and women arent equal in terms of"being the same" but on terms of"having equal amount of advantages and disadvantages over each other"
Feminism is relevant

"If the anti racism movement were about equality, it would be called equalism." "If the disability rights community wanted equality, it would be called equalism." "If gay rights activists wanted equality, they would call themselves equalists." Can you see how vapid those sound? Yes, those activists want equality at the core, but the name of their activism (gay rights, disability rights, anti racism, feminism) tell specifically which group they fight for. Feminism is an ideology of women's injustices being dissolved. So here's the main biggies on why feminism is relevant: Slut shaming: a woman who sucks off four guys at a party is ridiculed and seen as disrespecting herself, whereas a guy who gets sucked off by four girls get respect by default. Sex is assumed to be for the pleasure of a man. Male sexual desire is considred normal, whereas a girl's is taboo, naughty, filthy. This world needs to know that nothing is wrong with being a slut, and that it doesn't negate intelligence or worthiness of respect. Hyperattractivization - Beauty is considered the main aspect of a woman's worth. While an actor can be ugly (like Danny DeVito) and still be popular and respected, female actresses tend to be selected for their attractiveness toward straight men and are always made to be prettied-up. Media outlets comment on women's looks, but not on men's. Living in the Las Vegas metro area, I've seen billboards for male attorneys making them look respectable and typical (and it's okay if they're ugly or old), but billboards for female attorneys put a bunch of makeup and stylish-looking skirts and high heels on them, putting them in stereotypically attractive poses. Despite Hillary Clinton's high-profile achievements, articles still spring up about her clothes and hari--never happens to her male equivalents. Female Supreme Court justices are called ugly hags--never happens to their male equivalents. I've found that my attractiveness speaks louder than my voice, and while it's not considered weird for a "hot" guy to be also smart, it strikes people quite oddly when they see me (conventionally attractive) getting high academic achievement awards and having a higher IQ than that of Einstein. That's why I feel we need feminism. Women aren't viewed equally. Their gender is considered a defining, categorizing aspect, not just another ancillary aspect such as height or eye color. Saying that feminism is female supremacism just because of the title is as facile as assuming Libertarians are fetishists of the Statue of Liberty.
Fashion magazines do more harm than good

The purpose of fashion magazines can vary person to person, and as a matter of fact every single thing in dis universe doesn't mean the same to every1 just lyk, fashion shows.For girls it may be a source of inspiration while for boys it may be merely a source of entertainment.For elderly people it may be something spreading nuisance in the society while for those of fashion industry,it may be a means to improve their career opportunities.Thus,how v perceive a certain thing is up to us.Its our mentality and our ideology that influence the consequences resulting from anything, may it be fashion magazines or something else.
in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

That really is rather abusive isn't it?? I Urge you to vote on the posted arguments not by a technicality as voting upon arguments is in the true spirit of debate and is what debate is for, who presented better arguments, who refuted better and so on... That is debate, technicalities do not make a good debate. So I think that you, as the judge for our rounds vote upon the presented arguments not upon a technicality. and Of course I urge you to vote Negative
in a democratic society a felon ought to retain the right to vote.

I received my opponent's comment about how he didn't have time to come up with arguments because of finals, that's fine, i understand, but according to the LD handbook if you don't reply to any of my arguments towards your case or the counters to protect my case, then you lose. my opponent unfortunately dropped every argument, making me the automatic winner. silence is compliance, my opponent is not allowed to come up with an new arguments or redeem the ones i smashed. therefore the only way to vote is the vote of the affirmation, seeing that all my arguments are still intact and that he dropped every single one of his. this isn't a matter of a opinion, but a matter of rules itself. according to the handbook he dropped everything and he can't come back and protect them now because he failed to respond in his last round. VOTE AFFIRMATIVE!!!!
You should have to choose whether or not to abort the child before you can find out anything about i

I'm sorry it appears you have misunderstood me. I am saying that instead of letting people decide whether or not to have an abortion after they find out stuff about the baby (ex: Gender, Conditions) how about the second the doctor notifies them that they are pregnant they should have to decide whether or not to have an abortion. This would eliminate people having an abortion just because they wanted a boy and they got a girl, or because the child has downs syndrome. This way abortion could be used for it's intended purpose, which is rape victims.