BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Vi vs Geo Round 1 Feverish Rap Battle Tournament

http://www.youtube.com... Lyrics: (No music) What should we chalk that s*** up to? Schizophrenia, hyperventilation? You sound like you're shay-ken Good gracious, I couldn't understand a single correlation Please! Put that nut up in a space station! Earth can't possibly be the place for him! Are you serious, Neo - damn I mean Geo You sound like you're telling me fortunes, Should I be paying you quarters, Miss Cleo? The only flow you've got is from PMS Your distress and wrath don't impress you need to progress to fluid beats for success boy just listen to some real finesse the only way into a girl's panties is with a steady caress Quit the Aggression, slow it down proper fashion smooth and steady is how you make some real passion (Music) This is how you make love with the beat hip hop is a woman and you've got to be sweet Everyone's riding my melody, steadily You're only supplying nightmares like you're Freddy The only thing going "brrring brrring" is my telephone they all got the hots for me, asking me bring um home Where you from, Scotty? Beam you to the moon? You're a monsoon? Correct, you blew more than Monica, typhoon For give me for bangin' away at this beat as you sway Don't topple over like London bridge on that ridge, from the "edgy" you think you ah' you'll just fall, down the cliff, oh boy, if only if, something saved you from this, disastrous diss Could of swore you were Courtney Love, from above so f***** monstrous, please don't empty you're whole cartridge all you'll be smokin's cigars for this making you roll like you took a hit I'm ecstasy, while versing me you get freaky, and then you plea with your talk of gutting and cutting my gut-see for going up against this sexy lady MC Cuz I got my mind on the money, and money's on my mind! people just love gin and juice, cuz it's quite the excuse to seduce these girls, and get girls for use And crowd loved my first verse, and, this is the sequel well everyone except for that f***** Leethal Who's too much a p**** to submit his own spit He couldn't excel, so he got crushed by L Your lines so abhor-us, you sound like thesaurus please Geo, don't! Please don't bore us! ease off the hardcore rush And try to sound a lot more like me, and brush- that dirt off your shoulder
Vi vs Geo Round 1 Feverish Rap Battle Tournament

http://www.youtube.com... Lyrics: Yo, this is the cosmic rebirth of the greatest MC The stellar mage performin chemical alchemy Levitatin the seven seas and drownin all of my enemies The entered apprentice initiated into the mysteries I know you be thinkin cynically, but I'm not even finished see I know it's a tragedy, don't get mad at me, rhymes are hazardly Uttered emphatically, impacted drastically, eradicate the fallacy The psychosomatic, the post-traumatic Rhyme acrobatic esoteric flowmatic Never been able can't kick the habit, this is madness, it's tragic I know Rhymes slaughter millions like an apocalyptic cyclone The tight flow raging psycho versed in tai bo, this a no fly zone You might get picked out of the sky by my verbal projectiles Checkin the hidden repository of secretly kept files The power to control your mind like Illuminati Drivin around findin a place to dump ya body, nobody saw me Peep me creepin the reaper never stop sleepin I'm deep in, yo bloody body be leakin This is the death defyin, leave you cryin, master rhymin monster You ain't a worthy competitor, you eliminated from the roster You thought I was jokin when I said I would destroy you, but this is for real I'm a professional assassin rakin the cash in, burnin you with liquid hot steel Chasin you with a knife, I'm snatchin and hatchin ya life Dare to battle me again, you outta be thinkin twice I'm decapitatin yo head and stuffin it the blender Try rappin now, get rejected like retern-to-sender, me no pretender I'm aimin a optical blue ray and it's headin your way I'm sendin a tropical hurricane right in front of your door way I don't care what you say, I'm the arbiter deliverin doomsday Your bloody body was depicted dismembered in the diagram So I'ma complete my mission and continue rippin out your diaphragm If you really wanna get at me then we can go I be pickin up your body and slammin to the floor I don't even know why you wanna battle me, I'm incredibly lyrical I'm the greatest contender really, even though you can't hear it though So many have tried, many have died But my rappin technique is unparalleled I'm finna make this lyrical battle a maniacle scary hell This is a new kind of vernacular, far more spectacular I'm findin new ways of attackin ya, let me get back at ya My flow be floodin you with a deluge of epic proportions This new type of rhymin is energetic like torsion My rhymes are beyond sophisticated, imbeded with equations This is the Grand Unified Hip Hop Theoretical dissertation
Vi vs Geo Round 1 Feverish Rap Battle Tournament

Round One Check it, my flow be flawless For Diamonds rain without rest This is why they call me Neptune My beat stellar, yours a mess Introductions aren't required For Geo has found me out Galileo-scoped my route Now he believes, with no doubt I'm the puppeteer, you see Swing the threads of string theory Rhymes so gravitational my big bang makes them chicks weary Check this vibrational Your big clang not for the hearing Slow like black holes, flow don't end This can't be natural, let's not pretend Do they like you where you're from? The the real world don't want them some If you're happening in Vegas Then you better stay there, Son I'm so killah', I'm so smooth Operator here to seduce You're so wack your trippin' face You just can't keep with ma' pace Geo, see - you know the deal Clown sees aliens - for real They said take me to your leader So he took them straight to me, here http://www.youtube.com...
I want to find out about you like your profile said

Accepted. One condition. No weblinks. You are more evil than I am crazy. My opponent must affirm the topic, and I must negate it. I can take this debate in 2 ways: 1. Show why my opponent is wrong, and in doing so, negate that I am more evil than he is crazy. If I refuted all his points, we could default neg, since pro has burden. 2. Show that he is more crazy than I am evil, since that would negate the topic. I choose the first option. I await my opponents attempts at affirming
We did not come from monkeys!!

No, I don't think you quite understood my argument. I agree with absolutely everything you said there. I believe in evolution. I do not believe we came from dirt. But you are misrepresenting your own beliefs unwittingly by saying you believe in monkey evolution, which is the idea that there is a direct evolutionary link between humans and monkeys. As you said here: < > You clearly believe in the common ancestor theory, which states that humans and monkeys both evolved from a common ancestor, which was neither human nor monkey. If you disagree with that claim, then you disagree with the entire scientific community, and you need to present some real evidence to back up your claim.
We did not come from monkeys!!

No, actually I do not assert how my opponent can possibly NOT believe in the theory but rather how my opponent can possibly NOT understand why people would believe it? I made no grave error in accepting this debate. And actually I am a philosopher and that entails me to say I do not not know; I do and do not believe in evolution is what i'm trying to say I guess, lol. I think it is rather fallacious for my opponent to say that most of the scientific community believes that the monkey theory is ludicrous. I have confidence that my opponent, in the next round, will bring forth evidence substantuating his claim. Their is plenty of evidence that shows that Modern Man diverged from an Ape like creature. I think the fossil record and genetics is best in supporting such evidence. 98% of human DNA makeup is similar to Chimpanzeen DNA. Now I know their is much controversy about this proclamation between Geneticist, so let us stray away from arguing solely on this. But their are some who argue this and have plenty of evidence to point to it. But besides genetics, look at the fossil record. From Australopithecus to Homo Habilis!! Let us infer logic here- As the fossil record shows, these creatures are the closest in similarity (besides the Neanderthals, which I will get into a bit later) to us than any other creature on the planet. Homo Habilis were the first creatures to utilize fire!!! And here is my final brief support: Their is no other way to explain the link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens than by Monkey Evolution theory. Neanderthals share an even closer genetic similarity with humans than chimpanzees (99.9%) and this is rarely disputed by Gentecists, Physical Anthropologists, etc. The Monkey theory claims that the link between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens Sapiens comes from a common ancestor (Homo Something... I forget what it is called) that were somewhat different due to Geographic location. That's why Neanderthals have bulkier bodies and a shorter stature because they could live in the freezing temperatures of Western Europe and effectively ambush from behind tries. But I did not want to rely by whole argument on empirical evidence. Rather, I want to argue that my opponent doesn't really give me much argue him against, and thus I should win. And since he doesn't give me anything to argue against, I am forced to draw the ignorance from his decree: "how can anyone believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys...that's just ridiculous....." Well, how can anyone believe that we are made by the dirt of the earth? Well they do, and they have reasons for why they do Same in the Monkey-Evolution theory. I have faith that my opponent will bring forth true arguments against the monkey-ape theory in the following rounds so to allow me to refute them.
We did not come from monkeys!!

My opponent has asked me how I can possibly NOT believe in a theory that we came from monkeys. The simple answer is, I don't, and neither does the scientific community. Not a single reputable scientist believes in the idea that we came from monkeys. In fact, I believe in evolution. This is a theory that states that many million years ago, there was a species that resembled neither monkeys nor men. This species diverged and eventually evolved into both monkeys and men, while going extinct itself. There is a wealth of evidence to support this hypothesis, but I see no reason to dive into it. My opponent claimed to believe in evolution, as I do. On that point, we agree. If my opponent believes in the modern branch of evolution, which states that men did not evolve from monkeys, but shared with them a common ancestor, he has made a grave error in accepting this debate. I eagerly await your rebuttal.
We did not come from monkeys!!

*sarcastically* Dude I know what you mean!? Crazy stories out there!! I heard of this theory in a book that said that we were made by the dirt of the ground and that females were made from another man's rib!! Crazy right? ..... And yes, fundamentalist do believe in the literal account from Genesis 2. I believe the best question to ask here, before I proclaim certian empirical evidence that points to the contrary of my opponent's view, is: How can anyone NOT believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys? Their are hundreds, possibly thousands, of creation stories around the world about where man came from: From the dirt of the ground manipulated by an omnipotent God to Aliens transmitting their semen across the earth's surface. Their are people who believe these stories. And the Theory of Evolution is simply another story in the vast intellectual imagination of man. So I ask my opponent, once again: How can anyone NOT believe in a theory that says we came from monkeys?
When you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house.

Secondly, sorry for the typo. I did intend to soul and not sole. In response to your argument: 1) My claim is that a person's soul gets stuck up on a house, not necessarily their own. 2) Just because a soul could end up in the same place as a Frisbee doesn't mean that the same forces brought it to that place, or apply to a soul at all. Also, a person wouldn't necessarily have to be in a house at the time of death in order for their soul to end up on a roof. 3) My claim is that "I believe that when you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house and remains in that spot for all of eternity. " Just because a house with a soul on top eventually will be demolished doesn't mean that the sole won't still occupy the same spot for eternity. Perhaps once a soul becomes stuck on a roof, it remains suspended in that spot for all of eternity, whether the house is there or not. 4) Your claim that it isn't possible for my theory to exist if your spaghetti monster theory exists is false. Just because a theory regarding the same subject exists doesn't mean that the other cannot. It just means that at least one of those theories is wrong. I'm glad that you recognize the serious nature of this debate. That said, do be careful not to anger the Church of Frisbitarianism and invoke its wrath by referring to us as "Frisbeeist", "Frisbeers", or "Diskies. " There was a bitter separation from the Frisbitarian Church several hundred years ago when the Church was known under a different name. The defecting Frisbitarians refer to themselves as "Frisbeeists" or "Frisbeers", and now seek to infiltrate the Church of Frisbitarianism and destroy it from within. It's a secret, hidden war that few know about, but the casualties of which are too numerous to count. The term "Diskies" is just an offensive religious slur, which enrages Frisbitarians.
When you die, your sole makes like a Frisbee and gets stuck up on the roof of a house.

So, this is my second debate, i comment on debates and such, but generally dont partake in them because they are time consuming, but this was too hilarious to resist. First, i assume that my opponent refers to the human "soul", not sole, such as one has on a shoe. If my opponent wishes to be tricky and argue that he did mean the sole of a shoe, then my argument will be that many people dont wear shoes, but hopefully that was simply a typo. Next, since my opponent has no clear cut definition for house, ill define it to be a shelter or place of residence. I could be a real jerk, and define house, as the house of representatives, and make the debate all about how my opponent should have defined things properly, but i resist the urge to do something that fun. In addition he compares a human soul to a frisbee, and claims that our souls will stay stuck on a house roof for all eternity. This creates several mistakes in his theory. 1) In many rural regions people unfortunately do not have a roof over their heads, and upon death, which roof would their souls get stuck on? Of course he may be referring to a metaphorical roof, like the sky, or heaven or something to that extent, but since he failed to define house, the duty fell to me to define what it was, therefore i would urge voters to stick him to my definition. 2) It is an inaccurate comparison to say that a soul is like a frisbee and will get stuck on a roof. A frisbee flies both horizontally and vertically, and is affected by gravity. How can a spiritual object be subject to gravity and be pulled down onto a house. In addition if the dead person is inside a house, pure vertical movement would be required to get a soul stuck on the roof, any horizontal movement, as implied would occur by the frisbee analogy, would make it impossible to get on the roof. 3) Saying eternity destroys his argument; say hypothetically a frisbee is thrown onto a house and gets stuck and stays there for years upon years. But eventually by human forces or forces of nature, the house will be demolished and the frisbee will escape the grasps of the roof, if we are to assume a soul is like a frisbee, then it too will be eventually freed. If I win any one of these three points, then his original claim is proved entirely false, and therefore he loses. In addition heres a cool counter interp Upon death ours souls go on to exist in nirvana with the flying spaghetti monster, and are pulled up to him by his noodly appendage. If you cannot prove this wrong, then you will lose as it isn't possible for your theory to exist if mine does. I thank you for choosing such a serious topic, this promises to be a education filled debate. But for real, im sorry for being picky about definitions and such, but i like to be on the safe side. Voters, please read the arguments instead of voting based on personal decision, although i doubt there are many hardcore frisbeeists out there. Thanks again for what will most likely be a cool debate, jason.
God (Yahweh) Is Immoral Based On The Book Of Job

To begin with let me tell you a story. "A boss makes a bet with a psychopath, to test an exemplary employee's loyalty. Giving in to the temptation by the psychopath, the boss stops the security system in place to protect his employee's property and friends and lets the psychopath destroy the employee's life. The psychopath burns down the employee's tower and slaughters his family. If only the security system was on, none of this would have happened. Despite this, the employee does not blame the boss. Still unconvinced, the boss allows the psychopath to test the employee further. The boss denies heath care to Bob. The psychopath poisons his food, making him very sick. Yet, the employee still does not blame the boss. Finally, when the employee asks the boss why he let the nightmare happen to him. The boss answers, "Who are you to tell me what to do? Did you start the company? Did you help everyone I've helped? Were you born before I was? You should not question me." The employee asked the forgiveness of the boss, for questioning him." Lets look at this story from objective morality. I think we can all agree on the "Golden Rule" is the basic back bone of all morality. Golden Rule 1. One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself. 2. One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. 3. What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself. The Bible obviously agrees with the Golden Rule also. Luke 6:31 "Do to others as you would have them do to you." Now here is the question. Is this boss moral or immoral? If as I think we can all agree, he is immoral. He made a bet with a psychopath, allowed the psychopath to kill others, and once asked for an answer spins it where the victim is blamed for questioning him. But this story is from the Book of Job. Replace: Boss with God, psychopath with Devil, and employee with Job. Agree with God? Is God just in this situation? If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't mind your boss making the same test. If you disagree with God and don't think he was just in this then the morality of God (Yahweh) is something, at the very least, we shouldn't be following. Let alone get our morality from it. Because that story isn't moral. It's tragedy.
I make the claim that a God exists

I'd like to point out that my opponent, being an Atheist, doesn't even believe what he's trying to argue about, so this debate is pretty much senseless.Devil's advocating is an actual, legitimate, thing. It is to practice debating skills and to find flaws in both sides. It is not neccesarily senseless.1. Fine tuningMy opponent claims that there are many planets that are in habitatible zones. However, the only habitatible and potentially habitated planet discovered is Gelise 581g, according to astronomer Paul Butler. Other potentially habitatible planets are too hot or too cold. Gelise 581g is tidally locked, making the possibility of life on it even less. [1] Although hypothetically, there may be more of these, but Qopel is putting the possibiliy of habitatible planets too high.2. EntropyThen how did the solar system form? There was not a lot of energy put into the solar system, yet high entropy particles made a low entropy system? If lots of energy was coming in, then it is possible. But because the only energy was friction from the particles, it is not possible for it to happen.A closed system exchanges energy, but not matter, with its surroundings. [2] Because the only thing the Earth receives is the energy from the sun, it is a closed system. The second law of thermodynamics applies to closed systems, so evolution which increases order, also could not happen. This futher shows that entropy is against a naturalist world view. [1]http://news.nationalgeographic.com... [2]http://rationalwiki.org...
I make the claim that a God exists

I'd like to point out that my opponent, being an Atheist, doesn't even believe what he's trying to argue about, so this debate is pretty much senseless. Now, let's get to the same old arguments that have been debunked over and over again. My opponent wants to claim that the Earth has liquid water and is full of life. Yeah...so what? That doesn't prove there's a God. Then my opponent claims that "It is highly improbable for those to happen just by chance." So far, more than 2.4% of confirmed exoplanets spend more than 90% of their time in the adopted habitable zone boundaries. http://exoplanets.co... http://phl.upr.edu... Considering that there are over 200-400 Billion stars in this galaxy alone, and that there are over 100 Billion other galaxies in the Universe. Having planets in habitable zones, isn't really such a rare occurrence. http://www.universetoday.com... Even if it was a rare occurrence, that still doesn't prove there is a "creator" behind it. Now to the next argument "Entropy" The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that entropy is always positive overall in a closed system. That doesn't mean you can't have things that reassemble; it just means that overall you have more things falling apart than reassembling. Probability shows that over time, you will eventually have things that assemble, (such as life). Mostly things fall apart, but a small percentage of things come together. Just like if you have a mixture of chemicals mixing around for millions of years, you'll eventually have complex molecules forming and still have a positive entropy because the heat lost from the millions of years of mixing more than makes up for the combining of chemicals. The Big Bang started very hot and has spread out, cooled, and condensed into atoms, then into stars and planets. The spreading out of energy and the cooling of it is very much entropy. The Big Bang verifies Entropy. Since this can happen naturally, no God is required. Thanks for the "debate".
I make the claim that a God exists

Thans to Qopel for instigating!I will be playing devil's advocate in this debate, in order to improve my debating skills and to know better about the opposing side. I accept the BOP and the rules. As I hae the BOP I will provide evidence/arguments.1. Argument from design/fine tuningThe world is near perfect. It is right in the centre (eh?) of the habitable zone [1], is full of life, and contains the right conditions for liquid water. There is a total of 1,740,330 species on Earth. [2] It is highly improbable for those to happen just by chance. Therefore, it is likely that there is a creator that created the universe.2. EntropyThe second law of thermodynamics shows that in a closed system, entropy can only stay the same or increase.[3] The whole universe is a closed system, no energy or matter comes in or out. Usually, but not always, entropy=disorder.The information above shows that the whole universe should gain disorder over time, but that means that the universe will just become more chaotic, not more orderly like the big bang says.Therefore, the universe must be created, since an orderly universe requires energy from outside the universe to keep the entropy down, as that is the only way to reduce entropy in a closed system. [3]ConclusionI have given proof of a creator backed up with sources that are not creationist websites. The case for a creator is strong.[1]http://www.universetoday.com...[2]http://www.currentresults.com...[3]http://physics.about.com...