BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling)

The days that all high school wrestlers practice on is monday through friday. thats 5 days a week of intense work outs with out a chance to rest. it mainly consists of drills in order to push ur limit as for example sprinting for as long as you can, or to do as many push ups as you can, or doing a wall sit for 3 minutes. and a match is just as hard, fighting someone of your weight who knows what you know. most inexperienced guys get gassed out within the first minute. imagine a 6 minute match going 100%. most wrestlers lose because they are not willing to go the extra mile in the 3rd period and give up because it is just physicaly and mentaly too hard
Wrestling is the toughest sport there is. (not fake wrestling)

Wrestling is the toughest sport ever. You have to train 5 days a week and do tournaments on weekends. You sometimes have to lose multiple pounds in a short time period. i have lost 4 pounds in one day due do wrestling imagine more days of that tough training. for two minutes a round for three rounds you have to use 100 percent of your strength about 90% of the time. that's pretty tough to do. i have wrestled people who don't wrestle and they get gasses out within the first minute and they also end up loosing. you must constantly push your body to its limits in order to be a successful wrestler.
Funny Rap Lyrics Battle (10 Bars)

Yo listen up, the vital title says 'funny'But the way you be rappin' is like you in poverty and quality is money You come up with sh*t bout cock and d*ck,Is that all that runs through yo' mind? You must be thick I spit bars, I swallow 'em too,And before you watch out I'll swallow you I'm a f*ckin' monster, invincibilty to infinity,If you just glanced my way you'd think I was a creation of divinity My lines spit like a rational madman on the loose,I'm a f*cking huntsman you a b*tchy goose And it's Christmas, on my little girl's wishlist is you and a moose,Such a little itty bitty request like that, why would I refuse? The moose is your mother, When I held out my weapon of choice,She didn't let me hunt her down, she just choked on my d*ck, and with her muffled voice She said how she loved for that instant more than she loved you all yo' life,How, out of boligation, as opposed to obligation, she'd ended up as yo' father's wife How while she was with me, her life on the line, she felt more in love than with any man before,How she didn't care, if I shot sperm at her hair, how she was only my slut, not just some common wh*re See how I just turned dirty lyrics into a deep confession? How philosophically I alter the nature of my expression?How I didn't simply take your mother, sex and me and put it all in a mixture and then add compression? Oh dear, I broke the rules, I guess I added a half-bar eleven.
Funny Rap Lyrics Battle (10 Bars)

1-You may be right I rarely get pus.sy that's what makes my life tough. I beat my dic a lot that why only my right wrist is buff. 2-I go crazy on two packs of now and laters. and fight people like I was the white power ranger. 3-I aint gonna lie you hit a good @$$ round. well guess what its my turn now. 4-I'm like Mac miller I like my music real loud. I put my dic in broken glass and shove it all in your mouth. 5-I'm losin it and I think I'm provin it. see a fat bit.ch down the street and I start doin it. 6-haters want me to stop but they will not provoke me. before I wack off I grab a belt and I choke me. 7-I gotta loud mouth and I will never shut up. I dont want to go to jail with the fear of being butt fvcked. 8-I'm so idiotic the game cant handle me. am I the only guy that wanted to fvck Casey Anthony. 9-I dont give a shizz if she just killed a kid. and stuffed her in the trunk I still let that bit.ch suck my dic. 10-I couldn't remember my password I almost got locked out. but now I rock out with my co.ck out.
Funny Rap Lyrics Battle (10 Bars)

You want to hear a joke? Yes or no.The joke is hilarious, it's the rap of pro's Not hilarious 'cos it's creative or funny,But 'cause it's like it's been written by a kid with an IQ of zero point three I roll my rhymes, sput bars like fire,My bars are lethal, I'm a prostitute for hire My pimp is Shakespeare, my client's are people with good taste,I rap with no fear, Put all b*tches in their place You said you went on a treasure hunt with Nicholas cage,Did he mention his intention with a kid like you, who's underage? I guess he failed to tell the tale of how his you-know-what impaledYour anus, shameless as you are, I still think he took the perversio way too far. But you didn't hide it, yo liked it Cage screamed "B*tch are you high kid?"You said yes sir please beat me lower so my a$$ can feel you inside it You shoked and you broke every bone in your jaw,As you suck his thick d!ck better than any comon wh0re You say you 'never been a pu55y' well you shouldn't be what you ain't ever gonna get,You see, you and me, we have a good work relationship G, You dry ussies up after I get 'em wet Bar ten, 8 mile, my Gangnam style, got my swag in the sl@g named your mother, what a hag,Last chance to prove i'm worthy, of the Herpes she gave me, but I guess I'll do my best to live life with an STD.
Funny Rap Lyrics Battle (10 Bars)

Each round will be 10 bars long. You can do what ever you want. Be creative and go crazy with it. who ever people think has tha funnest lyrics will win this is not a rap battle it just spitin shizz thats funny. Check it........... 1-Hey its me yo what it do my friends. Kinda crazy and ima fvckin holagain. 2-i get some bologna and put it on my bread. Jam my skull inbetween my legs and i give myself head. 3-if you try to stand out ill put you in your place. I get head and i ask her how tha ciphilis taste. 4-i go on a treseare hunt with niclous cage. on some idiotic shizz i hit a bit.ch with a gage. 5-ive never hit a home run but i have hit a tripple. bit.ch its tha winter and i go hard like my nipples. 6-you still in a sleep you need to be awakin. all these people starin was i was satndin butt naked. 7-gotta keep it real cause ive never been a pus.sy. i went and fvck a girl til her vag got mushy. 8-i aint gonna lie she had a bigg @$$ tushy. thats because she was fat more coushin for the pushin. 9-Fakeness i see and thats that shizz i wont take. bend you @$$ over best belive you get raped. 10-i jizzed on the mic now ima bout to pass it. but not before i shove it up some @$$es.
There is a possibility of the nonexistence of absolute truth.

The contender has posted an argument which contradicts his position. I am unsure whether or not this signifies forfeit.Dictionary:"'Absolute truth' is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares."The fact that you alive is alterable, so it would not be absolute truth.My argument:The statement "there is no absolute truth" is an absolute statement; if it were true, it would be an absolut truth, and become untrue. This statement also cannot be worded in such a way that it would pass through the uncompromising tests of logic.
A Debate on Time

Thanks again. My opponent drops my arguments, but just apply them as refutations against infinite time. They are essentially extended. Moreover, as refutations *against* infinite time, the play into the con case as reasons *for* finite time. Going unrefuted, extend them into the fourth round. The reason being, that, if I prove infinite time to be impossible, finite time MUST be possible because the two positions are clearly mutually exclusive. As of now, Con leads the round. Mongeese's defense is a misconception of theology, and an attempt to define me out of the round somehow. Although I don't appreciate arguments from semantics, I will do my best to refute them. First; the putting in motion from inaction to action is NOT an event in time, for the reason that time has not yet happened. The shift is the beginning of time, which proffers finite time as an explanation. My opponent's next paragraph is a non-sequitur. He claims "given that this [God defying logic] would mean that logic would have to be defied for a finite time, finite time would still be logically impossible..." 1) If God begins time, time remains unaffected; rather, it begins. 2) My position does not argue that God defied logic to begin time, anyways. 3) (God defying logic --> Finite time is impossible) is not a logical conclusion. My opponent's argument from the universe is rather laughable. He claims that God must be in the universe, simply because he defines the universe as "everything that exists". The problem is, as I would hope my opponent would agree, God created the universe. If I created a shoe box, it does not mean that I have to be in the shoe box; if a building company created a magnificent edifice that is inclusive of all aspects of life, it does not mean that the employers and employees of the company have to be in the building. For the same reason, God does not have to be in the universe. On a side note, my username is m93samman; not m9samman. I thought you made a mistake the first time, but it happened twice. I'm not offended, just pointing it out for the sake of relief from debate. With that, I wish Pro luck.
A Debate on Time

Thank you, m9samman, for your response. My opponent starts with contentions against an infinite time. I have no qualms with them, as I have used them myself in almost the exact same way. However, as outlined in Round 1, my task is not to prove infinite time to be possible, but finite time to be impossible. Therefore, I can only move on to his rebuttal of my contentions. My opponent claims that the universe can go from inaction to action, provided a cause. However, what caused this cause? My opponent points to God as the cause for the universe's shift from inaction to action. This reasoning is flawed, however; is this not in itself an event, a part of time? The putting into motion of time by God would in itself be an event before all following events in time, and by the given definition of time, would be an event in time. Logically, God cannot start time, because the starting of time would require an event before time, even though any event that is sequentially linked to time is part of time. I can see only one path that my opponent can now take, which is claiming that God can defy logic in triggering an event that is not part of time itself. However, given that this would mean that logic would have to be defied for a finite time, finite time would still be logically impossible, so I would still have met my burden as outlined in Round 1. As a final note, I would like to point out that at any point that I use "universe" in this debate, I mean the totality of everything that exists [1]. Arguing that God exists outside of the universe would be futile, as for God to exist, He must be in the universe, as the concept of the universe would expand to include God, wherever He may be, just as time does. My opponent would run into the same flaw that I outlined in the above paragraph. Well, good luck, m9samman, although I don't think I've left you much room to work with. We'll just see what you can do with it. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
A Debate on Time

Thank you mongeese, for kicking off the debate rather interestingly. I will be arguing from a theistic standpoint, as well as a logical one. == Content == o Arguments (con case) o Rebuttal o Sources ========== o Arguments 1. Infinite time violates basic mathematics. Infinite, as defined in the previous round, implies a state of boundlessness at which there exists no beginning or ending. So, the timeline is, therefore, everything from (-infinity, infinity); the current state of time is in between the two non-defined bounds. So, let's divide this into two hypothetical situations for the sake of clarity. A. Our beautiful memories. If we had a video that has recorded everything that ever happened from (-infinity) time until now, and we stuck it in a VCR, we would arrive at a conundrum. In order to watch the memories sparked by humanity, dinosaurs, etc., we would have to click rewind. The rewind state would persist infinitely until we reached the start; this is impossible. B. We've arrived at infinity? If we were to hypothetically pause time at this very moment, how much time has elapsed? By my opponent's position, an infinite amount of time has elapsed. It's like counting from negative infinity to zero; it is impossible, just like infinite time is impossible. o Rebuttal My opponent claims simply that for time to have "began", there must have been a state of inaction previously; the problem arises that we can't go from a state of inaction to action. But he misses the link- we can't go from inaction to action (or vice versa) *without a cause*. Being theist, I argue that this cause is God. God exists outside of the realm of space-time, being its creator, and therefore could definitely be the spark that brought action from inaction. If the argument is washed in the sense that we can't prove or disprove God, we have to drop both my rebuttal and my opponent's case because both of our arguments are viable in our own worlds. Based on what Pro responds, I will act accordingly. Until then, thanks for the debate, and I'll hand it back over to mongeese.
A Debate on Time

However, it seems that we have forgotten a definition for "time. " Using my opponent's chosen dictionary, only one definition of "time" seems to fit this debate: "[T]he system of those sequential relations that any event has to any other, as past, present, or future; indefinite and continuous duration regarded as that in which events succeed one another. " [1] Now, time is a sequence of events. This requires something to occur. If, at any point in time, nothing is happeninng at all in the entire universe (a state which shall henceforth be referred to as inaction), then time will not pass, and effectively end. In this state of inaction, since the universe is never changing state at all, it can never reach a state of action. Since change continues to occur, the universe must never have reached a state of inaction. It only follows, therefore, that the universe must always be in a series of events that change its overall state, to avoid freezing and essentially ending time. If the universe had a starting point, then the universe would have to change from a state of inaction to a state of action, which I have demonstrated to be impossible; the universe could never have been in such a state of inaction. The universe must be in perpetual and infinite motion in order for motion to continuously exist. Given that motion currently exists, therefore, time cannot be finite, and must be infinite. I do believe that that will start the debate off nicely for now. With that, I leave the floor to my opponent. Good luck. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
A Debate on Time

I thank mongeese for this debate. My position will be that time is finite, as opposed to my opponent's advocacy which will be that time is infinite. So that we have an equal number of rounds to debate, I will only provide definitions in this round, and arguments can take place in rounds 2-5. All definitions from fiï¿½nite [fahy-nahyt] –adjective 1. having bounds or limits; not infinite; measurable. ================================ inï¿½fiï¿½nite [in-fuh-nit] –adjective 1. immeasurably great: an infinite capacity for forgiveness. 2. indefinitely or exceedingly great: infinite sums of money. 3. unlimited or unmeasurable in extent of space, duration of time, etc.: the infinite nature of outer space. 4. unbounded or unlimited; boundless; endless: God's infinite mercy. 5. Mathematics . a. not finite. b. (of a set) having elements that can be put into one-to-one correspondence with a subset that is not the given set. All definitions from http://dictionary.reference.com... Thanks again.
A Debate on Time

Here's how this debate will work: In Round 1, CON will choose to argue either that time is finite or that time is infinite. In Round 2 through 5, PRO will attempt to prove that my opponent's chosen argument is logically impossible. Whether or not CON can prove the other possibility to be impossible is irrelevant to this debate; if both debaters prove the concept that their opponent defends impossible, the debate defaults to PRO. In balance, if neither debater can prove their opponent's concept to be false, CON wins. Finally, good luck, m9samman, and may this debate be worthy of the front page.
A Debate on Time

Though this debate has become rather frustrating, I'll give mongeese the advantage of last word because he won't be able to respond to my arguments. I'll merely use this round to close out the semantics issues. 1) Time. My opponent treks on in saying that time is any sequential event, therefore the creation of time must mean that time had already existed, etc. Here is the problem: time is only the force for "sequential events" in space. My opponent applies the laws of the known universe (such as physical and natural laws) to a being which is not bound by them. God's transcendence IMPLIES that God is not bound to laws of the universe, and for this reason is not limited by time. God can act outside of time, or within it. As opposed to treating God like a human who invented time, I request that my opponent (in the future) refer to Him as the supernatural being that He is. If we simply define time as "events" as my opponent did, the pitfall forces us to believe that time is infinite. But I digress; my opponent, through 4 rounds, has STILL not responded to my arguments against infinite time. The law of the excluded middle, that my opponent attempts to use against God, would most certainly work against the Pro advocacy. The issue of time has been abused by my opponent overall, so for the tagline of "time", I urge a Con vote. 2) The Universe. We look here http://htwins.net... and zoom out all the way to see the scale of the universe. The universe is measurable, to what we know, as is its age. http://en.wikipedia.org... If God is supposedly a part of the universe, I sure hope my opponent doesn't believe God is 13.75billion +/- .17 billion years old. For far too obvious reasons, my opponent also abused the definition of universe. I urge a Con vote here as well. In conclusion, there is really nothing left for me to say. I urge a Con vote, because of the semantics that have totally detracted from the debate on my opponent's part, and the unrefuted argumentation that was extended throughout mine. I apologize for not addressing definitions earlier, but I had not anticipated such horrendous tactics from Pro. Thanks, readers, and happy holidays.
Truth

Well, first of all Jesus will not support anyone, because he did not have the power to do so, a historical Jesus has been said to have lived but he did not have the magic that the bible represents him with. Even if an omnipotent being existed, and if he was truly benevolent, he would never condemn anyone to an eternity of death and suffering in a place created by him for the sole reason of torturing people who's crimes are not worthy of such an horrible fate. Second point, if there is a god, he's probably laughing at the religions who believe the earth was made in a few thousand years when there is solid evidence that it is a few billion years old. The 'truth' is that you're wrong either way.
Truth

God and jesus only knows what jesus had said to believers. you and i were not present at that time. God has created you and your forefathers and our beloved jesus(aw), He has created me and all creatures that exist. He is One and highly Exalted. He is the Purest. But we are all to be gathered on the day of judgement. Lets wait and see to whom does our beloved jesus(peace be upon him) is going to support and to whom does our CREATOR has created the fire. Truth will never hide for ever.
Abortion

To begin, I will have to explain that you have a wrong idea. A fetus is not a life. It is incapable of surviving on its own, and it has yet to develop. It is incapable of life-like mental or emotion processes. To continue advancement towards life, it relies completely on draining nutrients from its mother's body. This is also true for an embryo or a zygote. Therefore, during the process of an abortion, there is not a child's life at stake. And now, I present to you my own argument. If a woman is pregnant and not ready for a child, wouldn't the soon-to-be newborn be better off not born at all, rather than being sent to live in a possibly dangerous environment? As there is nothing lost but a fetus during abortion, saving a family from pain sounds like the better option to me. Abortion is a life-saving advancement in our medical capabilities - not a life-ending one.
Minimum Voting Age -Speed debate

Voting age regulates that people are fit to vote, and can make educated decisions. Children under 10 and even up to 14 depend on major figures in their lives. Many kids from my school could care less and would just vote blue because all of the authority in their lives are democratic, without looking at facts and forming an opinion of their own. Mainstream media also plays a role, but much less than authority figures in these kids' lives.
The best ideas for a new "Call of Duty"

- Conclusion and Final Thoughts - The "skills" feature I have mentioned does not in any way make it a RPG. This system is easily used and would give a lot of depth to such a simulation style FPS as my version of "Call of Duty" would be. Now that I have reevaluated the skill set, I would scrap "strength" as the weight to speed ratio idea I gave already takes care of this attribute. It would work similar to this. Each character is given 25 skill points to be distributed to different skill categories. This set number of 25 skill points would never be changed in any way. It would look something like this... - For a quick stealth assassin - Agility - 10 ADS Speed - 0 Reload Speed - 0 Shot Accuracy - 0 Stealth Ability - 10 - For a Sniper - Strength - 0 Agility - 3 ADS Speed - 0 Reload Speed - 0 Shot Accuracy - 12 Stealth Ability - 5 - For a run n' gun soldier - Agility - 5 ADS Speed - 5 Reload Speed - 5 Shot Accuracy - 5 Stealth Ability - 5 As you can see... You could distribute these skill points however you wish in order to create your custom soldier. The possibilities aren't endless, but my "skills" feature gives a much broader more realistic range of "custom class" soldier creation options than the current "perks" feature. Just think about what kind of game it would really be if all the ideas I have given were present in a new "call of Duty" video game. It would be Bad A$$. These are my final thoughts. - Seth Lionheart -
The best ideas for a new "Call of Duty"

these are some really cool ides. to me when you started to talk about solider skills then thats when you away from the type of game that call of duty is. call of duty a 1st person action shooting game not an RPG. Now it would be a good idea for a game and better idea is after you beat the game then your idead could be a "diffuculty" excludeing the skills part. and theunlocked throughout the gaame for muliplayer
Politically Correctness is Politically Incorrect in itself

To be Politically Correct is all ways stressed to people. To be politically correct is to: describe language, ideas, policies, or behaviour seen as seeking to minimize offence to racial, cultural, or other identity groups. Conversely, the term politically incorrect is used to refer to language or ideas that may cause offense or that are unconstrained by orthodoxy I believe to be Politically Correct is to be in itself Politically Incorrect.(HaHa what a paradox) To be Politically Correct you can't express your religion or beliefs because it might exclude or insult someone elses. I really thought of this today in my homebase when we started talking about not being able to say Merry Christmas because you had to say Happy Holidays to not offend anyone else who celebrated Hanakah or Kwanza. (srry 4 my spelling might be...Poltitically Incorrect) Now being Politically Correct is to be in itself Politically Incorrect because it stops people from expressing there own religion or beliefs...Does that make sense?