BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rematch: Truth_seeker vs. JasperFrancisShickadance

You know something Jasper? You look exactly like your cat Scratch dat, your so white, your a lab rat who been spat at You must not be snorting crack right after doing your last line Started a wise proverb, how the heck did you mess the 1st rhyme? You talk about my poetry, but i'm going high off the top (1) cuz you ain't as dope as me Only reason you take too long's cuz your writin' poems, i'm ballin' like im supposed to be You did crack before you spat, white girl tryna be black, try takin' it up a level with morphine Pleasure centers risin' maybe you should mix it with a lil bit of bodily sensation, dope i mean It's wiser to be a silent jay than to let that uzzi spray as the KKK will shoot the night away You foul play, so on the Lord's day (2) I wonder: i'm on my style, why you tryna be Lecrae? After this battle, my wicked styles will manifest in this lyric JasperFrancisShickadance will be laid out slain in the spirit (3) I'm going to lay hands on you not figuratively but literally Do you interpret the serpent physically or simply liberally? Now that we showed Jasper did heres , it's all hypocrisy She don't take the Bible literally, so it's all just Apostasy Rigorously in my ability to expose naivety, inconsiderately throwin up clean hands ridin dirty There's no ignorantly thinkin you bigga than me, expose ya bigotry as sure as John 16:30 (4) I'll join the Taliban after you admit you've been in the Westbro baptist church with your right hand Then you'll get a backhand as planned as you fall like quicksand, get hit with this chain of command When i'm done with you, i'll expose your ignorance, reboot your brain and hack into your knowledge base Take everything out ya database like your beta case and your poker face, so you'll forget how to say grace My lyrics are gimmicks, pickets have tickets for chirping crickets to witness your limits In my limericks,i spit truth,listen to the critics, ignorance is bliss so mind your own business Pigeons in Quantum physics will explain phonically why this girl is in tidbits among misfits If you can't rap like this, it's cuz you have slit wrists, your pissed that ya style don't exist 1. freestyling 2. Day of judgement where all Christians will be judged by their actions 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. John 16:30 "30 Now we are sure that You know all things, and have no need that anyone should question You. By this we believe that You came forth from God."
Rematch: Truth_seeker vs. JasperFrancisShickadance

Dude, you making this rap battle into a published kiddy Rhyme Bible You think yo fit for a war but this rap thing is exclusionary tribal E'rybody's starin at you, saying 'look at dat white boy tryna rap' Man ya might attract Japs in the pace lap, but you'll neva get the crowd to clap Try to resort to poetry, sure there's a hotel for it in Kandahar Afghanistan [1] I'm like Joseph, my bros jealous but I become King after the slave caravan Jesus loves you but I'm his favorite, we all like some bias arguing action Yo be better off without rap yet with more sadism, now go join the Taliban When you visit Kandahar be sure to bring John 6:35 cuz that's the only bread you'll get Thirsty? Go down to the mud river and pray or you can always drink my ice cold sweat I'm loving it cuz this battle you set in an illusion in McDonalds, fo food you so desperate Since there's nothin left but rats and dirt and violent people, go eat that last cigarette Was your mama in an insane asylum when she gave birth to you? Or are you just hopelessly lost and waiting for a Heavenly cue or clue? My love for God never ends but you concerned for your love life true, oooh This harassing will never end, naw, cuz your sins will always be skew [2] Don't you know slappin a gal in public or private is downright illegal I watch you buy fake guns in the Hood, you fall for the unbelievable Proverbs says a fool's lips walk into a fight, and his mouth invites a beating Once we see your dumb brain and yo followers see you duped dem I be leaving [1] http://warnewstoday.blogspot.com... [2] https://www.google.com...
Global Warming is a Hoax (Assertion)

So, let's see if I get this straight. As a society, that has a tendency to over-consume and waste, and engage in all manners of illogical habits that the are harmful to the environment, including the very air they breathe themselves, you see them just dropping all this so they can smell the daisies? Even under the sword pf 'supposed' global environmental disaster (which dfalls under 'benefits for us'), these people don't act. I'm not in anyway, saying we should use GW as a bogeyman to frighten people into action. I'm just saying depending on people's sense of responsibility is totally daft. You, sir, are daft.
Global Warming is a Hoax (Assertion)

I never once said we shouldn't do these things. I'll quote myself so maybe you'll actually read it this time: "Keeping air clean is great, but they need not be justified by a myth of global warming, as they have other benefits for us". Again, there are sometimes weird effects: increasing efficiency leads to higher consumption, and the last thing America needs is to consume even more, from an environmental point of view. The topic of the debate is 'global warming is a hoax'. I do not think we need to believe in myths in order to encourage good behavior. Please stay on topic, its appreciated.
Blue-Frosted Cake Donuts

I am in favor of blue-frosted donuts. I think we should eat them, in moderation, as a special treat. They are really yummy. Some of your statistics are, indeed, shocking, and I would never recommend a diet of just eating blue-frosted donuts. You point out that donuts are a high source of fat, and not a source of vital vitamins and nutrients the body needs. However, this is to be expected from an oh-so-naughty dessert that, again, would be an unimaginable part of a daily diet. Your "evil corporations" argument can be made in a similar respect regarding any form of junk food. Yes, perhaps it is sad that many businesses will always be out to profit from human vices. However, I like to think most people are smart enough - especially in a world saturated with advertising - to know which choices are healthy. Nobody is forcing us to go to that donut drive-thru every lunchtime. I would like to have the right to eat a donut, when I want, on my terms. I am sympathetic to those who feel addicted or victimised. But, in almost all cases, that is an issue regarding their strength of character, just like those of us who manage not to be addicted to the casino / smoking / whatever. We're not being force-fed anything; to condone any scrumptious delicacy just because some will abuse their bodies with its excessive consumption is unfair on those who enjoy such items in moderation. I feel that your image of the drive-thru (kids SCREAMING at their parents / leaving the GAS running!) is more an emotional outburst than an arugment. I, for instance, have remained calm in many a drive-thru scenario, even with young children present. The nothing-is-really-blue-in-nature point is interesting. However, I don't think eating some blue artifical colouring will kill me, if, again, I am careful and only eat blue icing on occasion. Here are my arguments in favor of blue-frosted donuts: (1) Blue makes them visually interesting, standing out from the average donut. (2) They taste great. Thanks for debating!
An afterlife exists

I'm sure you would like an answer that you could turn into a strawman and hack into a haystack with large red herrings by way of clubs. However, your apparent need for a irrational answer (it sounds as though you assume anyone who differs from your point of view is by definition irrational--a stance which is in and of itself irrational. While you are quite welcome to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, and that a deity many call Dog sends asteroids to hack off pieces of it for His supper periodically, the fact of the matter remains that people have gone to the moon and returned and have found no cheese on it or in it. To the same point, you are welcome to believe in an afterlife--but stating your belief as a fact that somehow is supposed to apply to other people than yourself merely makes your need to have others affirm your belief look... well, needy. If you want to believe in an afterlife, then that's your business. I don't care what you believe as long as you don't insist that your beliefs are facts that somehow apply to me.
An afterlife exists

To be in denial, in the event of constant evidence, one could call that irrational. To not understand what objective reality is, and assert your opinion as a matter of fact can be borderline irrational as well. When you forfeit two rounds in a row, and then act like you didn't just forfiet two rounds, this is also borderline irrational. Rationality has to do with objective circumstance, aside from what YOU personally hope or have an "opinion" on. As a matter of fact, this being a debate, no one asked for your opinion, sir, though it is appreciated. Your opinion was very much fabricated and then conveyed upon thos channel, very much by Cons own intentions and will power, without the behest of my own. Yet Con continues to act like i infact do care for his personal opinion. I do not. That is irrational. I Only care for facts. Further, the question of an afterlife is not particular conception to any one particular religion. Auspiciously enough, the thematic notion of life after death exists through out ALL religions. In fact, many scientific findings point to the possibilty of an afterlife, and no science has ever been able to disprove it. I have already linked scientific research pointing to an afterlife. And my opponent only wishes to continue his dishonesty in pretending like science has disproved something it has not. If my opponent has nothing but his own opinion that "science has demonstrated" exactly how NDEs, without any evidence of this assertion, it can be disregarded. Science has done nothing of the such. And without a rational reason to believe afterlifes do not exist, To say you arent sure is one thing. To say you disbelieve is another. And from my point of view, rejectin claims without proper scrutiny is entirely irrational. Reserving thy judgement is far more rational. No one is talking about a deity. I have demonstrated by lack of reasoning by my opponent that afterlifes most likely do exist given the current state of our knowledge. Thank you.
An afterlife exists

I have just been called irrational merely because I forgot about this and I have a life outside the computer (and therefore did not answer; instead of assuming that this might be the case, my opponent decided to pretend that I somehow "forfeited" the round--as opposed to just forgetting about it). Now for my answer. Just because some people have had near death experiences, it doesn't follow that those experiences are real. They are a matter of belief, held by some people who had them and some who wish to believe them. Personally, I don't care if you want to pretend you are cavemen from the neolithic period and are using stones and paint to create gods. All I care about is that you do not do me the indignity of pretending that I should for some reason credit your beliefs as valid. If you truly think that I'm irrational, I don't know why my opinion would bother you. Science has demonstrated that there are many changes that take place in the human brain during death. That's the reason for the so called "white light" that many people see in near death experiences. Many people take these biochemical changes and project religious explanations onto them. In my opinion, this is futile and rather blindsided. I don't wish to meddle with or insult anyone's belief system, but I must say something in regard to arguments that contradict the scientific data that we already know. First, you (gen. you) are welcome to your belief system; however, you are not welcome to tell me that I am irrational because I do not accept it. Second, you would come off as much more approachable and as someone I could respect if you acknowledged that I can disagree with you without being pegged as irrational--you seem to assume that anyone who answers you / disagrees with you is somehow irrational and this is offensive. While many people, through the ages, have preferred to believe that their kings become deities (or whatever), or that some people attain sainthood (which would infer that there is some sort of supernatural authority that transcends death), that is entirely their problem. Merely because there are a lot of people who have strange beliefs, the sheer number of people like this does not add credence to their beliefs. In fact, throughout human history, there have been many atrocities that would not have happened if so many people did not sign onto beliefs that were untenable and dangerous. The mere number of people who have beliefs in a deity doesn't prove there's a deity--it means that there have been a lot of misinformed people (big surprise--the majority of humans throughout history have lived in a state deprived of information that they either cannot access or simply refuse to consider or learn to understand). I don't have any bad feelings toward anyone who would like to believe in a life after death. I do dislike people who pretend that people who disagree with them are irrational and then offer non sequiturs to explain why. It's annoying.
An afterlife exists

and an irrational challenger has accepted. Thanks Con. Why would you accept this debate if you have absolutely no interest in what I believe? Why are you on here at all? Since the beginning of civilization or recorded history, we have evidence that clearly shows people have WONDERED about what happens after death. No one really knew what happens, certainly didnt need evidence, but many people seemed fo believe that there was some sort of life after death. Each culture explained this in their own ways and we have artifacts of eqyptian and mesopotamian kings that tell odd tales of venturing into a parrallel world that exists beyond the physical. This place is called hades, the underworld, land of the dead, and so on. None of this proves anything, I know. Sure, the kings had much to gain out of creating stories about an afterlife, gods, etc. why wouldnt they fabricate stories? Surely they would. But just because someone decided to lie about getting into Harvard, does that mean "there is no such thing as Harvard?" So the question remains. Does an afterlife realy exist? If we look around today, there are over an estimated 8 million Near Death Experiences to have been recorded. http://listverse.com... Still. NDEs alone would not sufficiently convince the most skeptic that an afterlife exists. Especially if that NDE didnt happen to the skeptic and the skeptic has all the opportunity to skeptically review the claim. Though in the past atheistic skeptics were able to shrug NDE accounts off as "hallucinations" resulting from brain damage, Recent studies are starting to discover the validity of NDE claims. http://www.independent.co.uk... Now there is actual scientific evidence to conclude these a NDEs are more probable than not. Then we can logically conclude... Did all cultures all around the world ubiquitously believe in life after death since the beginning of civilization because ... A. Because the kings told a fantastic story about riding a boat into heaven B. Because there were NDEs in the past as well? Obviously B is the rational choice. Do we all really believe our government when it says it aims to protect our rights? Laughable. Perhaps Con does. Yet he will not believe his neighbor about his experience in the afterlife? Some people are simply more inclined to choose A as their reasoning for stories about an afterlife. They are unable to think independently, and therefore unable to discern fact from fiction. Fact is...these accounts exist, and they testify of something more than this material life on earth.
belief=false...

I accept. Observations1. BoP is on Pro.FrameworkI will be telling why belief is not false.Definitions1. False: not real or genuine2. Belief: Something BelievedAll definitions are from Merriam-WebsterArguments 1. HopeYou are believing something. You are not sure if it is true, what you are believing, but it is not false. It could happen. There is hope. That is why you are believing on that thing, your belief. Why would you believe something that you know that will not happen. There is hope in your beliefs, and it might be true. There is always a possible, making belief not false, and making it hopeful, and can be true.2. What is it What is it? How is believing fake? You are believing, and that is not false. It isn't not real. Why would believing be not real? You are believing it, and as long as you do, it is true in a way.Rebuttals1. Belief= unknownThis is true. But this is not part of the resolution. Unknown, there is a possibility, you don't know, not making it false.2. Second sentenceThat is an opinion, and a made up thing. My point is not everything is false when yours might be fake. Belief= False, is not true. The resolution should change as belief can be true, or false.Thank you.
God is real

Sorry this took so long. I'm not going to argue that there are a lot of possibilities about how the world has formed, but there is only one way. God is that answer. Where did you come up with Bob's a parrot idea? I now get your math, but Bob's a parrot doesn't having anything to do with this. You said because both are mortal then they are each other. I'm saying that someone had to have created the universe and I believe that's God. It is illogical to think that the complexity of our society and of things could come by chance. Thus, God has to be the Creator. Someone does. I am going to say that someone did create the universe before humans were created hinting that there is a God somewhere out there. It's the only logical explanation. All the other theories are completely humorous in my eyes. There has to be someone who created the things that are out there today and he is God. God IS REAL.
God is real

"Just as a note, I didn't really get your maths equation" Well, let me elaborate on it: The chance of flipping a coin that is unbias landing on heads (on a traditional coin, that is) is 50/50. both numbers are constant. rolling a dice has a 16/16/16/16/16/16 chance, roughly. If we wanted a heads in the primary equation, it would be 50% chance of favourable over unfavourable outcome. That is, 0.5 chance of being unfavourable outcome over 1. with the dice, say we wanted a chance for a six, it would be 1/6. or an even number, 1/2. With the universe, we know neither the favourable outcome number (other than it is a real positive number, or Q+) and the number of possible outcomes (other than it is a real possible outcomes, or Q+). "You've pretty much said NOTHING to disprove God" Well, I put forth this argument, and I refuted the argument from imaginative creation you put forth. I can put it forth in a syllogism: (P1) The Universe is amazing and pretty etc. (C1) Therefore God exists. This is blatantly false, and inductive being the first of its problems (which is where my example of bob the maybe-a-parrot comes in) and other pieces of information. Also, I expect people to wonder why I did not put forth any other arguments, or refute any more "famous" ones. This is because of what I will paraphrase: "The burden of proof is entirely on the affirmer". There is nothing for me to refute, except the single argument my opponent put forth, which is false.
God is real

Just as a note I really didn't get your mathematical equation, but I got some of it. Yes, there are a lot of possibilities of how the world formed. There's also a lot of possibilities of when I was born, but there is only ONE right answer. Also, with your Bob/parrot thing, I'm not going to pay attention to that because it is totally off topic. Now that I've touched on that I shall continue with the rest of the debate. You have pretty much said NOTHING to disprove God. All you said was there are possible ways that the universe has formed. Yes, that could disprove God's existence, but I don't really have anywhere to start given that you gave me a math problem and didn't back up anything. Also, you said that if I "cannot fulfill this basic requirement to be giving a strong argument, then there is no reason to be rationally committed to something; in fact, it makes it irrational to believe something." I find this wrong. I can argue my butt off without knowing your person point of view and beliefs. I'm saying that if I knew your beliefs, it would a) make my argument stronger and b) know what type of person you are. I have many reasons to believe what I believe. I will just say that for now and give Con time to give an argument so that I can say more than this.
God is real

Alright. Sorry, I misread the text. God is real. There should be no question. Those who deny God are denying everything around them. Think of the yourself, the people around you, animals, plants, and the universe. Do you truly believe that was all by chance? God has to be real because he created the whole universe. In order for me to debate with you fully, you will have to tell me your point of view of how this world began. Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory, evolution, etc? Thank you for this challenge.
God is real

Alright, I'd like to do this debate with someone. I'll try and be concise, and answer any other questions in the comments section. The debate says 5 rounds long, but in reality it is 4. This is for a) extra round if needed and b) so that the pro can make his argument first. The burden of proof is entirely on the affirmer. God - The Judeo Christian God with the qualities of: omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, transcendent, immanent, personal, anthropomorphic, etc. is - verb, from "to be". God is real. He is smart. Micheal is a mafia member. Real - NOT AS IN A CONCEPT. As in the common usage of the word. Real as in able to effect the world in some format. Not as in the currency either. Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed: "Julius Caesar was a real person". <-- That definition. I hope that clears everything up.