BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle

Man, look at yo' profile pic, what'd you use photoshop? Funny how you call me a boy, seein' i'm older than you..kid stop Talk about you focused on God, but you rappin' with an older so called holy man? Everyone online will probably call me a pedophile, lock me in the pedo files, i'ma be banned You chose the wrong person to mess with, cuz i'm like hannibal lector Chose the wrong vector to inject this injector, i'ma cannibal I ate a whole bunch of rappers back in the day, boy your raps whack My lyrics are so sick, if i stepped on you, you'd break like a tooth-pick You had to steal other rappers styles like blood being sucked by a tick In case you didn't notice, in the past, had girls fall for me, adults n' pre-teens, so i lean I hold my head up so high, look around, oh and btw, where the heck is SONOFGOD2013?!? Alright, let me call you out for a minute, this is what i heard in words you n' softball_32's are in the tree, like 2 ragin' love birds Boy thinks he's in love, he don't even know the 1st thing about love He'd think he'd get butterflies in his stomach, purity like a dove I laugh at how crazy your hormones are goin', this kid's goin' through puberty I'ma animal, you are too (if u know what i mean lol) if i dissed you, it'd be animal cruelty This dude bouncin' in, tryna rap battle me, like he's enthusiastic Boy you better off rappin' in a dream-world so fantastic You like a rat in a maze chasin' that chedder You don't know that i'ma predator n' i'm better Step your intelligence up, learn how to rap in high school, i'm in college Where the knowledge is advanced in your own time, better make a collage You so soft, if you hit me as hard as possible, i'd think it was Nicki Manaj
Rap battle

See I'm growing up in the hood, so at rapping Im very good And I hope it's understood that if I could spare your life I would But at least you stood your ground but I'm about to end you for good I'm cutting you up worse than wood, I'm even making you lose your manhood I'm sorry but for you I'm just to clever, and I'm man enough to battle whoever After this you'll be in depression forever, and it's because of the pressure You'll never battle another like me ever,but however you can still surrender Because you just a pretender, who's not even worthy enough to be a contender I blew you away in this battle, I'm like a air bender Well I guess this is my last statement, I actually tried a little to leave you in amazement And I'm taking my time because I don't care about your patience The greatness of my raps will leave you lying on the pavement After I win I have an arraignment to put you in enslavement In end I'll be standing over you victorious and posing Then I'll be disposing of your body and leave it decomposing I've been roasting you so bad, I even burned your clothing This whole battle you've been choking, and with every rap I post my skill is growing I bet after the beaten that your undergoing, rap to you isn't even worth knowing
animal testing should be banned

Since my opponent had forfeited this round again, I will just state my opinion and extend my argument.My Opinion As I have stated, animal testing should not be banned. Animal testing may save the lives of living things, and it will develop medical treatments and science. Also, animals will get to benefit from animal testing since animals get better medical treatments, and those things could even save their lives. Also, the environment of animal testing is not harsh since it is highly regulated. Also, even though we do not do animal testing, there is no another thing to replace the animals for the experiments. It is because the body structure of humans are highly complex, and the animals are very similar to the humans.Questions to my opponentPlease clarify your reasons, and answer my questions I wrote in round 2. To conclude, for these reasons I disagree to the topic that animal testing should be banned.To add, I will extend my arguments I wrote before since my opponent forfeited this round!
animal testing should be banned

Since my opponent forfeited this round, it will somehow be unfair for me to write a long refutation. I will refute my opponent's argument as brief as I can. . Animals have their own rights. -freedom -life -happiness -protection Animal tests violates these rights.What do you mean in this case? How does the animal testing violate this rights. Please specify. I think my opponent is saying that the environment for the experiment of animals are harmful. However, it is highly regulated so the animal testing is done safely. Also, for the happiness and protection, without any animal testing, it won't be able to cure the diseases of animals, either. So, animal testing will worth more and more animals being cured and protected from diseases, and that will give surely more happiness to the animals. 2. Animal tests are replaceable. -inaccuracy -alternative What does it mean for inaccuracy and being alternative? How are animal testing replaceable. Please clarify this.Living things like humans and animals are too complex that there are not any appropriate things to replace the animals.
animal testing should be banned

First, I thank clajen for giving me a chance to debate this topic. To start, animal tests are really helpful for the development of scientific studies. Animal tests are the experiment that the humans do for such medical development and scientific development. Animals are comfortable, fest, and easy for the humans to do experiments since they have similar body structure like the humans. For example, chimpanzees share 99%of their DNA with the humans, and mice are 98% genetically similar to the humans. That may save the time of the experiment. Animal tests may give much help to the life time of the humans. Humans have life cycle, and these animal experiments may expand the humans' life cycles. It is because it deveops the medical curing system for the humans.Animal tests creates the products to be better and safe. Also, science became more and more important these days because of environmental problems and the development of technology. So, improving the science will be helpful. Also, animal tests may even benefit the animals themselves. If vaccines were not developed by animal testings, the animals might have died from some diseases. Animal testing benefits the health of the animals and the medical cares for them
Church is a business, selling faith and hope.

The church is not a business, selling faith and hope. Business is commonly defined as a process of exchanging goods or services for economic benefit. While the church is an entity whose basic existence is to give hope. With this, I would like to point out certain points. Point 1: More often than not, personal experiences are only mere over generalizations. Please note that your argument is a personal experience only. It does not hold water in this debate. As the matter was raised, there might be circumstances that you might not have a knowledge of. Point 2: The world's baptized people are mostly comprised of people who do not have the capacity to be large contributors. Based on various sources, we can tell that developing countries have the most recipients of baptism. In a developing country, people often do not enjoy income distribution equality. Sometimes, they cannot even complete the basic three meals per day. Yet, they are baptIzed. Though, not accorded with the same luxuries which the affluent can afford. Not being a contributor in the church does not compromise your right to be baptized. It only compromises the luxuries of a grand baptism. Grand baptism entails having a longer baptism rite, flowers, red carpet and other unnecessary luxuries. Point 3: Giving favor is not included in any process of doing business, rather, a personal relationship. Business often has a rule, " There is no free lunch". Favor seems like having free lunch. We can all see here that favor is not related in any way to doing business. Generally, people in business who do indeed do "favors" are most likely to collect these "favors" in one way or another by some near future. People in business rarely do things without value, even time is gold. Giving favor is basically not expecting any return. So here I say, "favor" is a wrong word to use. Instead, you can always say "give". Point 4: Churches do indeed give their major donors some privileges. There is nothing wrong with it. When a church gives special attention or token to their donors, that is due their desire to encourage more donors. Getting more donors is also a priority of the church. Aside from daily operational expenses, churches basically needs to help and support some of their unfortunate flock. Help and support without finances, seem like talking without doing. Hope must be not only be an impossible dream. To fulfill the dreams, the church must do something, as long as it does not violate morals. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate on this matter.
Church is a business, selling faith and hope.

My family left "the church" when I was 6. The reason being was my father was told he was not "worthy" of baptizing my older sister. The church told my family that my grandfather was to complete the baptism. Of course my grandfather was a more prominent figure in the church, and a huge financial contributor and still is today. Today's Christian churches operate as a business, and favor their "customers" who are larger contributors to the organizations agenda.
Church is a business, selling faith and hope.

This clearly does not apply to only in america. The vatican holds enough gold to cure world hunger. Christians are not only in America, and whether a church is a mega church or not they still operate on similar principals. Not for profit organizations often hide some secrets... such as world vision's CEO salary is half a million a year. Justified? Not for profit, for profit, what's the difference? all you have to do is make sure your revenue does not exceed expenses in salary, etc and you did not make a profit. But you still operate as a business. I don't think that there is anything wrong with making the spiritual choice to join a church. Some may see value in this and some may not. However you don't have to look to hard to see the reality that church is a form of business selling faith and hope. I do see value in many aspects of the church and I can see how many would take part in these organizations however we must keep an open mind and critical thinking.
Church is a business, selling faith and hope.

Thank you for pointing that out. In the first place, your statement "Church is a business, selling faith and hope." is very general. You must have made it a point that you are only referring to the country USA. Also, your argument is a type of faulty parallelism. Hiring staffs is basic in all organizations, whether for profit or not. Just because USA has mega churches, doesn't mean the world world has it. Moreover, USA has one of the most competitive economies. Therefore, many prominent and well to do people can really contribute to church welfare. That is just a normal case. Last, I would want to stress that as long as the Church doesn't mistreat us or deprive us of our basic spiritual needs. Whatever special treatment or privilege they have accorded to the rich, we have no reason to envy or question us. Simply because such situation doesn't harm us.
Church is a business, selling faith and hope.

I don't completely understand how you feel that the church does not provide a service in exchange for a percentage of your income. It is widely accepted that Christians shall give 10% correct? Churches also hire staff to fill positions, such as book keepers etc. The whole structure resembles a Business, From cnn: "Mega churches across the United States are becoming increasingly popular which is not only bringing thousands of worshippers together, but also billions of dollars in profit. From self-help books to CDs and DVDs, mega churches are becoming big money makers for the pastors and ministries they are a part of." How do you not see a parallel. Of course within this organization you are taught how to think and maybe this would sway your thinking form a logical point of view. In the USA churches are a billion dollar industry in fact. And pastors are the CEO's driving this force.
we should play outdoor games .

I disagree with Con's argument. It is not that indoor games are bad or should be replaced with outdoor games but rather that outdoor games themselves are good that makes the resolution hold true. For children [http://www.fisher-price.com...] outdoor games stimulate their hand-eye coordination and general dexterity in ways that indoor games cannot (unless they are indoors in a big hall of some kind where they is similar room to move as there is outdoors). For teenagers and adults there is gradually less spare time at hand to play outdoors (unless the profession and/or study of that person is sports related or something outdoors). This doesn’t mean that cutting out outdoor activity is a good idea at all, rather it means that the outdoor activities should become more intensive than before in order to make more use of less time for the body. Past adulthood, meaning in one’s mature/elder years the body is weakening and cannot cope with as much outdoor activity without collapsing [http://www.runnersworld.co.uk...]. This is sometimes extremely psychologically damaging for athletes whose entire pride and income was from their sporting ability. Nonetheless, simply doing less than when they were younger can still garner benefits for that person. Accepting one’s own weakening body is an important part of maturity and is inevitable, as is the death that comes at the end of the aging process. Making the ride to the grim reaper healthy and enjoyable is no crime though and if anything is very advisable to do.
gun rights

Mate what you said about black people is not true. You just say that because that is the way the media portrays them to be that way. And the example you used is highly unlikely because I live in Australia and that would not happen. Even if I was living in America that would be highly unlikely and you shouldn't need guns for self defence that's just moronic. If you live in America I feel sorry you but having a bank account that you can get a gun for free and having guns at Kmart is just stupid. So many kids have died due to school shootings so don't even come for me. If you look at Australia's history then you will know that we have had about two or three shootings max but America has everyone single year.
gun rights

As pro, I will argue in favor of gun rights. We need guns for self-defense. Think about it: if a mafia or gang or something broke into your home at night, how will you protect yourself? You could try to hide, but they could just easily find you, especially if you make a noise. You could use knives to stab them, but they could pull the knife out of your hands and stab you back. Thus, we need guns. Common people need to be allowed to own guns for self-defense purposes. However, blacks should NOT be allowed to own guns, due to their violence and high crime rates.
Portraits art challenge.

I never forfeit. So... I like this portrait because it captures a feminine glamor you do not see anymore in head-shots. Her skin is smooth & flawless and every feature on her face is in symmetrical proportion to every other, equivalent in dimension & geometric angle. The most striking feature (in my view) is her eyes: captivating, sensual, seductive yet coy with a slight semblance of dalliance. http://www.debate.org...
Portraits art challenge.

I think I misunderstand this debate. I interpreted it as a debate of which opponent could present the best, thought-provoking portrait out there, not personally created ones. Anyhow, since I never forfeit I'll continue. For me, this portrait depicts a subject of interest. "Who is she? Where is she from? My gawd, look at those eyes!" It has a sort of Assassin's Creed/80s Fantasy Movie appeal going on about it. Although it is a HD image, it has a resembling look of a matte surface grade. http://www.debate.org...
Portraits art challenge.

(http://www.debate.org...)This is my picture for the first round. It is a digital sketch of Adele (Reference photo used: Adele 21 album cover).I have chosen this for numerous reasons. I enjoy the reference photo because of the black and while which greatly emphasises the shadows and highlights of her face. I also enjoy the fact her face is rounder and slightly more masculine than others, meaning that it was a greater challenge for me to draw.(Please note, Con does not have to post his in black and white and does not have to use a reference photo if he does not wish to)
PC Gaming is better than Console Gaming.

"To begin this discussion, This is merely a opinion. " Well, Objectively, The PC is better. "Gamers decide what's best for them by what they can play better at and what's comfortable for them. " Yes, However, Objectively, PC gaming is better. "Console gaming was the first to created before pc, The first game being Spacewalk! " https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/History_of_personal_computers www. History. Com/topics/history-of-video-games The PC came first, By a year. "! In the 1970s. Console games have always been a better option when it came to family game nights, Playing at home with your friends, Lying down and relaxing playing Halo 3 on a Saturday night. " https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Halo_3 Halo 3 wasn't in the 1970's, And you can do the same on a PC. Just hook it up to your TV and get a couple of controllers and enjoy. "There is gaming laptops, But most of the time you have to sit up and play for PC making it uncomfortable for players and making them wanting to "rage quit"" No you don't. You can slouch over on the couch and play video games on a PC if you wish. In the next round, I will try to make points supporting my claim that PC gaming is better than console gaming. Con, I suggest you do the same in the next round.
PC Gaming is better than Console Gaming.

To begin this discussion, This is merely a opinion. Gamers decide what's best for them by what they can play better at and what's comfortable for them. Console gaming was the first to created before pc, The first game being Spacewalk! In the 1970s. Console games have always been a better option when it came to family game nights, Playing at home with your friends, Lying down and relaxing playing Halo 3 on a Saturday night. There is gaming laptops, But most of the time you have to sit up and play for PC making it uncomfortable for players and making them wanting to "rage quit" even more than usual. I know alot of what I said is goofy :) but this is about gaming so. . .
Freedom of expression should not be supressed by accusations of sexism.

Sexism can inhibit the personal growth and self-esteem of women, and thus prevent them from ever living up to their potential (which can greatly hinder the progression and well-being of society) if, say, they were willing and able to be a prominent and prestiogious figure. Or, think of it this way - your sexist comments might make women think twice about taking on those sexy/slutty/sultry/ultra femme roles that we all know and love. Either way, it'll be your loss should you continue making incredibly sexist remarks, instead of finding a more articulate way to compliment your women. My opponent has not stated otherwise, or even made a somewhat decent case. Plus the whole forfeited round thing was not cool. WOO VOTE 4 ME!
Humans should be allowed to have pets.

Hello and welcome to my debate. Resolved: Humans should be able to have pets. Some people object this resolution and some agree with it, I will be Pro and my opponent will be Con. I will give my arguments in Round 2 and so on, I would appreciate it if my opponent would say he or she accepts the debate in their first round without the arguments; since I have the burden of proof. Now, I will state my definitions. Humans- a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) Should- used in auxiliary function to express condition Allowed- to reckon as a deduction or an addition Have- to hold or maintain as a possession, privilege, or entitlement Pets- a domesticated animal kept for pleasure rather than utility All definitions are from the Merriam Webster dictionary.
The use of Atomic bombs on Japan was justified.

For the purposes of this debate, I will be arguing that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was conducted without a reasonable exploration of possible alternatives, with questionable motives, and resulted in a very unsavory precedent. I will also contend that the claim that the defeat of Japan would've involved an extremely costly ground invasion is at best overblown, and more likely an outright falsehood. Good luck to my opponent.
The Frisch-Smith Time-Dilation Experiment

"The primary premise of my opponents argument is that the speed of light could be violated by muons. As the FS experiment assumes the speed of light not to be exceeded, measurements of muon density could be skewed by assuming the conclusion." "However, as shown, relativistic effects are seperately measured and not assumed without reason." It all boils down to this. Muons are assumed to be incapable of exceeding c; in every instance where they are determined to actually do so, as in the 2 experiments cited by my opponent, a very convenient systematic error comes to the rescue.This isn't science. When you perform experiments to test whether muons can exceed c, and find they do, you don't resort to assuming systematic error. The experiment that suggested, "perhaps there are some systematics at play" should have redone the entire experiment from the ground up. Instead, they neglected to even fully describe the source of the error, being content to say "it need not be characterized". Voters, Frisch & Smith detected muons traveling a distance they could not possibly have if they were traveling less than c, giving their rapid rate of decay. Anyone with common sense would infer this is simply because the muons are moving faster than the experimenters thought. Or maybe, muons from the sky have a different rate of decay than the muons at rest in the laboratory.It's patently absurd to resort to the explanation that they were experiencing time-dilation.
The Frisch-Smith Time-Dilation Experiment

My opponent's entire argument depends on his claim that muons have been independently measured to travel slower than the speed of light. To back up this assertion, he cites a few sources (#1, #3, & #4).#1 doesn't even prove muons travel slower than c. #3 is simply the Frisch-Smith experiment, which asserted muons have been confirmed to travel less than c but provides no citations or evidence aside from their Relativistic calculation which I proved to be circular in the previous round.#4 actually proves that I'm right, and muons do travel faster than c. From page 3 of my opponent's own source: The result obtained from this trial was an average speed[...] greater than the speed of light c.