BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
rap battle 3

first i wish to say that this will be the only time i post on this rap cuz i wont have access to internet so you sha'll have many chances to bring this back and try to win yo mr. pirate guy, how about you lose the sty, then you won't have to wear a patch on your eye, do you have a peg-leg, when i'm done with you... you will beg, for ya life, unlike you i dont blow on a fife, i'll cut your head off with my deadly scythe, i am a grim reaper, your just a lonely peeper, stalkin little girls like a creeper, i may not be a king, but you will still bow before me and kiss my ring, i'm like a bee i attack with a deadly sting, you have such a small ding-a-ling, i bet your a pedophile, trying to fire off your projectile, hell i'm gonna make you run a mile, your gross man you stink like bile, whats with pirate, are you that irate, i may be only half straight, but i'm in this to win, now i kick you in the shin, and toss you in a bin, store you away, and there you stay, trying to act gay, but my demons sha'll keep you at bay, i sha'll not be lead astray, i'm up all day everyday, when i'm done with you..you will be totally frayed, guess you should've stayed, in that bin, i willl not keep you delayed, for i'm a green light, but not in that way, for i won't go down without a fight, in the middle of the night, i'll give you such a fright, you can try with all your might, to win this rap, but you look real dope wearing that ball cap, you need directions??? let me print you out a map, but it sha'll take you to losertown, you try to win this crown, but you are rewarded with a frown, is this why you look so down, now i turn it over to the fool, who thought it would be cool, to take me on, but you cannot win against con. drops mike and exits in dramatic gangster fashion.
Execution should be removed

To your first rebuttal- I agree with you general sentiment, but I am of the opinion that there are some mistakes too grave to forgive. I do not think money is more important than everyone's life, however I see money spent on keeping a murderer in prison for 10 years until he dies anyway as a waste. Life is the most important thing, that is why it is necessary to take it sometimes. Consider the safety of the prison officials, or the other prisoners. A prisoner who is serving life without the death penalty has virtually nothing to lose. He has already shown a predisposition to homicide, and could commit the act again inside prison. The death penalty sends a message to other inmates that violence won't be tolerated in prison. First Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Troyer has stated: "If prosecutors don't seek convictions, inmates might believe that the U.S. attorney doesn't care. That is a hall pass to kill anyone you want."(1) The death penalty should be kept in place for the safety of prison officials and other prisoners. To your second rebuttal- While some may be able to repent, the vast majority cannot due to the nature of their horrendous crimes. Here is a list of murderers who were released on "good behavior" (i.e. Pretending to repent) and who killed again. http://www.wesleylowe.com.... As this list shows, once you murder someone it stays with you. I believe that the death penalty should be kept an option for the safety of the public, prison officials, and prisoners. Thanks to my opponent for a very well thought out debate. (1) http://www.denverpost.com...
Execution should be removed

I'm not okay with two things;1-In my opinion every person has a right to demand a second chance. No one can be perfect. And, as we, we should learn how to live with other people's mistakes.So if we don't give a chance to murderers who had been punished with death penalties, we will ruin that right. By the way, we're not giving them another chance by leaving them free: we have prisons for them. Moreover, my opponent thinks that money is more important than a living person's life. This is wrong. In modern democracy, a life is the most important thing. We can't find a bigger value. 2-My opponent said "You can't make them see the wrong of their ways. Therefore imprisoning them and waiting for them to die on their own is a waste of time.". For me, it is depending on prisoners. Maybe the prisoner will not see the wrong of their ways but like I said, they are still human and they need a second chance. We're giving it to them and it is their option to use it. If they won't use, it is just a waste of time for them but for us it is a success for not killing someone for their behaving. At least, this world isn't being ruled by the ancient Babylon laws. Every person has right to live and everyone can have a second chance. That's why I think execution should be removed.(I wish my all respects to my opponent, thank you for debating)
Execution should be removed

To your first argument: I can't really tell what point it is you are trying to make, but if an individual has committed acts so heinous that the population of an entire country cannot be impartial towards him, then the death penalty should be a pretty easy decision to arrive to. Actually, this can be a subject of this argument. The money that would otherwise go to keeping a murderer alive could instead be funneled to public education or national defense. Otherwise the state would be paying to keep a murderer alive for the rest of his natural life while he does nothing with it, simply spending the rest of his life in a cell until he eventually dies anyway. You argue that "Prisons were made because people who commits crimes should captured and placed in a place IN WHICH THEY CAN THINK ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS." Once again I repeat, and I can't emphasize this enough: Individuals who willfully plan take the life of another are highly unlikely to regret their decision, as they took time to think over their future actions before they carried them out. They have NO remorse. You can't make them see the wrong of their ways. Therefore imprisoning them and waiting for them to die on their own is a waste of time. I believe execution should be kept in place for people whose actions are beyond redemption and whose guilt is provable without a doubt.
Execution should be removed

Con is believing that some cases, the death penalty is justified. Firstly, I want to argue about this state and I'm truly against this opinion, however I honestly give my all respects to my opponent. The Turkish government have a prisoner named "Abdullah Ocalan"(1). He was/is the head-chef of a terrorist group named PKK. Turkey is struggling with this terrorist actions for 30-40 years. Finally, soldiers of the Turkish army captured him. And we know that this guy killed thousands of people or he made people kill. There is lots of guys he (in my opinion) deserves to be death. But we can not be objective with a guy like this. Neither jury nor judge. And now, he is a prisoner for 10 years in a cell. He is watching the Turkish people hating. So I believe that judge or jury can not be objective about this guys. A person doesn't have to die if we say that he/she needs to die. We can't decide in a living person's life which is highly valuable. Neither we nor the court. On the other hand, in my opinion, if executions are going to be removed, the alternative would be life imprisonment. Now, Con stated that the cost of life term prisoners are very expensive. This can not be a subject of this argument. Everybody should know that a life is more estimable than money. I don't want to argue of the cost of life imprisonment because it not very humanistic. Another reason of executions must be removed is that it is meaningless. Prisons were made because people who commits crimes should captured and placed in a place IN WHICH THEY CAN THINK ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS. They need to know that actions have consequences and they understand that in prisons. Finally, I again believe that execution should be removed. Thank you for arguing with me. Waiting your state. .. (1) . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Execution should be removed

I believe and will be arguing that the death penalty is justified in certain cases, and as such should not be abolished. I wish my opponent a good debate. Pro's first argument is that life in prison is a stronger punishment than execution because life in prison would force the criminal to live with his/her actions. However, those on death row are on death row due to having committed horrendous acts, such as first degree murder (1). First degree murder is defined as "an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated" (2). Individuals who willfully take the life of another are highly unlikely to regret their decision, as they took time to think it over before carrying out their plan. My argument for the death penalty is that if execution were to be removed, the alternative would be life imprisonment, which would be of greater monetary cost as the government would have to support every prisoner for the rest of their natural life. The cost of a life term for a prisoner in the United States averages $1.5 million (3). With the death penalty in place the government in question would be free of the financial burden of keeping murderers alive. (1) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... (2) http://criminal.findlaw.com... (3) http://www.heartsandminds.org...
Execution should be removed

We can see that the executions are still legal. So I support that the executions must be outlawed. We can not decide on a living person's life. We don't have that rigth to kill someone. So why do we have a law which declares to kill someone. You may ask how are we going to punish the people who committed severel crimes whose punishment are execution. RESOLUTION I truelly belive that prison for life is a stronger punishment than execution. Person will think his/her mistake all along his/her life. But an execution is a easy path to escape form his/her conscience
Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

Argument 1: In case of emergency, it is important to have the ability to regulate. Op. Argument: "I don't see any threats of terrorism" Response: First, there is a difference between regulation and censorship. Regulating has to do with net neutrality as much as censorship. Second, it doesn't matter if you don't see the cyber terror threats. The fact is that they exist. It was exemplified by Sony, and there is proof in my evidence. Third, if you don't understand how government regulation would help, follow the link I gave in round 2 for more information. Argument 2: Net neutrality, econ Op Argument: they spy on us Response: Again, if you don't want someone spying on you, it is your duty to elect leaders who will produce anti-spying legislation. It is important that we deal with the real threat over my opponent being paranoid. My opponent has shown no evidence that the government's goal is to spy via or heavily censor the internet. Argument 3: Net neutrality, ethically Op argument: Governing isn't neutral Response: We need to look at what is definite. Right now on the internet, there is definitely a lack of net neutrality, more money equates to a larger internet presence. However, the government is an uncertainty. I think it is important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. We are electing them from us. They are not out to harm us. Additionally, when my opponent says "It's just taking some of the power from the rich and giving all the power to the government", he/she is mistaken. Maintaining net neutrality is about giving the rich and the poor equal opportunities on the internet. Argument 4: Protecting privacy Op Argument: Government can't be trusted with privacy. Response: Business have real interest in taking information whereas the government does not. We again need to look at what is certain. Although I disagree with this, we can call the government a maybe in terms of privacy for the sake of argument. We should trust a maybe to protect us instead of letting companies that are with certain trying to get our information succeed. Stepping back, it remains important to not treat the government like a foreign entity. The government consists of people we have given our trust by voting into office. We need to put our safety in their hands. These are the four voting points in this round, I urge a pro ballot.
Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

Okay now I am just going to rebut my opponents rebuttals. US government does not censor internet . And I don't see any treats of cyber terrorism .I will just define cyber terrorism for pro" Cyber terrorism is the use of Internet attacks in terrorist activities, including acts of deliberate, large-scale disruption of computer networks, especially of personal computers attached to the Internet, by the means of tools such as computer viruses."I don't see have government's internet regulation which means"Internet regulation is restricting or controlling access to certain aspects or information. Internet regulation consists of: Censorship of data, and controlling aspects of the Internet such as domain registration, IP address control and more."If there is treat due to some virus the government can inform people about it. 2.The pro said" As citizens of the United States, we are the ones electing who will make the decisions. For this reason, we must give trust to the government as we decide its contents." firstly as US citizens we did vote for the government that spied on us .That doesn't give them the right to spy on us right. What happens when a government has access to such power is that now when anything against the government comes up on the internet it can take it down right.Now the people become less informed right .Cause any of the wrong doing of the government can be taken down from the internet .this is exactly what china and north Korea do .As a result people in north Korea don't even know of the wrong doings of the government . 3.How is the net neutral when the government can take down anything on the internet .Internet regulation highly favours the people who can regulate it .Its just taking some of the power form the rich and giving all of the power to the government. 4.When I vote for a candidate I don't give my right to privacy to him right.Not matter who invade my privacy it is wrong right.The point to privacy was that we can't always trust the government ,even though we elect them as shown by the example of US government.
Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

In my second rebuttal, I will simply refute my opponents refutations of my arguments. I shall also point out that none of my responses have yet been responded to. Argument 1: Right to regulate. Op response: The government is not always good. Response 1: In the case of a real threat, not always good is better than definitively bad. Even if you accept my opponent's argument that the government is not always good, when choosing between definite bad and only sometimes bad, you are going to choose the government every time. The government needs to be able to regulate in the case of cyber terror. Response 2: As citizens of the United States, we are the ones electing who will make the decisions. For this reason, we must give trust to the government as we decide its contents. The government is built on a checks and balances design. If the executive branch acts based on the wrong reasons, the legislative branch, the people we actively elect, have the power to impeach. This means that we need to trust the government to do right. Argument 2: Econ. Op response: "I don't think government regulation is required to make the internet free." Response 1: My opponent clearly lacks sources. This is not a debate of opinion; this is a debate of facts. My source clearly shows a need for government regulation for maintaining net neutrality. Response 2: Net neutrality isn't just about making the internet free: it's about making it so people with more money don't have visibility on the internet. This, in fact, cannot be achieved without government regulation as it would be the large companies such as Google making these decisions, companies that have invested interest in no net neutrality. Government regulation is important for maintaining net neutrality. Argument 3: Purpose of the internet. Op response 1: People should decide the importance of the internet Response: I agree. I happen to be a person, and I believe that that is what is important about the internet. Op response 2: Online business is important. Response: Net neutrality in no way harms online business. Net neutrality would only make more fair for the smaller online business with less money. I would agree that online shopping is beneficial, though regulation in no way prevents that. Argument 4: Privacy. Op response: We can't trust the government because it spies on people. Response 1: Go back to my second response concerning my first argument. As we are the ones electing these officials, we need to trust them in order for them to do their job. If they are spying, we must trust that it is for good reason. Response 2: This is similar to my first response concerning my first argument. The companies have real interest in breaching privacy via the internet, whereas the government does not. We need to trust this government because it can protect us against people that are actually trying to harm us, whether or not the government is perfect. Accordingly, I affirm.
Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

I am going to rebut my opponent's point one by one. OK let's start with the rebuttals. 1. I will just right the motion again "The government should be able to regulate the internet".As pointed out by my opponent this motion is about whether the government should have the right to censor the internet.But a big assumption on his side is that the government is a always a good entity(which is not always the case ).Further more their is no way you can ensure that the government is doing it for the right reasons. 2 The pro bring about the point of "promoting economic equality". How does censoring internet promote equality.I don't think government regulation is required to make the internet free.It can just fund the internet servers and make it free.So his entire contention 2 is fallen .As regulation of internet is not required to make internet free. 3.Coming to contention 3-" Maintaining what is important about the internet". The government is in no position to decide what is important about internet. It is the people who have to decide this.And internet is no longer a place in which people just share ideas .It has developed further more there is an entire e-market created.And it does make the life of people a lot easier.Now people have access to products from different places in the world.So we don't want the internet to go back to the way it was supposed to be.It is much better developed the way it is. 4. Contention 4:-"Maintaining privacy" Firstly how can we trust a government who is already know for spying on it's on people.When it is allowed to censor internet it will only increasing it's spying ,as now it can hide any allegation which come on the internet as it censors it.
Resolved: The government should be able to regulate the internet

I'll begin with a few statements and then refute my opponent's arguments. Statement 1: I'd appreciate a conduct vote due to the excessive use of caps in my opponent's argument. Statement 2: It is important to remember that the ability to regulate doesn't mean active regulation. This is more of a broad argument that should be carried through the debate. Specific responses: Op argument 1: The government has no place in internet regulation. Response 1: Extending statement 2, the government should have the ability to regulate without constant regulation. Response 2: As important as freedom is, net neutrality should not be compromised. The government has the responsibility to do what is right for its citizens. If that means sacrificing some freedom for protecting the freedom of the less-rich, that is what the government should do. Response 3: The government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. This can mean online as well as not online. A key way to do this is regulate. This prevents information theft by large corporations. Op Argument 2: Poor reaction to censorship. Response 1: Extending statement 2, the government should have the ability to regulate in case of terrorist attack without necessarily exercising it. Response 2: Exterior opinion (and even interior opinion) should not prevent us from making the right decisions. What is the right thing to do is the right thing to do however people view it. For example, look at the show "The West Wing". President Bartlett is forced to decide whether or not to bomb Palestine (instead of peace talks). Despite everyone, even his own advisers, telling him he needs to grow a pair, Bartlett does what is right and eventually makes a peace deal. Now, sure, this is just a TV show, though the message can be cross-applied to everyday life. Op Argument 3: Free speech. Response 1: Again, extend statement 2, the government doesn't need to actively regulate for a pro victory. Response 2: Free speech isn't whole. In some cases, the government has suspended free speech for the purpose of the safety of its civilians. For example, for the people's safety, shouting fire in a movie theatre is not allowed. Is free speech violated? Maybe. Is it right? Yes. Free speech only goes so far as civilians aren't being put into danger, and government regulation of the internet can ensure the safety of the American people. Accordingly, I affirm