BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
rap battle

Nobody got your back. U standin here all alone You standin in my hood AKA the danger zone Mess with me garanteed to get your brains blown Beating me would be breakin one of natures laws Besides last night I was kinda like old Santa Claus Cuz I was messin around with your skanky ho ho ho And If you ask her about it she'll say "oh no no no" I run this block, hell I run this town Everyone here knows U going down Im a teacher, and Im takin you to class Imma kick you so hard it'll leave a footprint on your *** Homie U nothin but a... stupid little **** Yeah Imma smoke U out like a chronic blunt Besides your nothin but a little goody good who doesnt know whats it like to live in the hood Yeah imma give you more beef than a BK Stacker Imma tackle U down like a Green Bay Packer Yeah homie thats right, stay in your place Even better yet homie, get outta my face Cant touch me cuz I ahead of the race To catch up with me you gotta pick up the pace You think this my best, oh homie please Imma bring you fake G's down to your knee's And my flow sicker than 7 STD's I aint done You know I run I shine like the sun I already won Yeah thats right son
rap battle

Who's this T-dogg? I feel sorry for him Now let's get out of the fog And see how you spin. Your name is Mrstealyogirl? I want to make sure I got that right? So I can be sure I write it right When I brag that I won this fight You say your lyrics are brand new Awe that's cute I've been inventing new lines Since you were primordial soup Don't challenge my bars Or my sports cars You cough rhymes like SARS You'd better stop eating tar Why would I pray? When I can take a gun and spray? Or even use my mouth In basically the same way? Look, my raps are too good You already forfeited once. There's a little mind food. You just became rap battle dunce.
rap battle

You only talk **** when you"re safe at your computer. I think now it"s time for T-dogg to get neutered I use the same rhymes every time, according to you. You might wanna check your facts, all my lyrics are brand new. You don"t know what you"re talkin bout, you don"t have a clue. It"s all out my head, its comin out of the blue. White face and red cheeks, looks like you got a fever. And your teeth look like one of your parents was a beaver. I"ll go forever, and keep rhymes comin all day, Am I gonna stop soon? Son you better pray. Cause I"ll ruin your reputation and I"ll mess with you"re head. I"ll embarrass you so bad that you"ll wish you were dead.
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

Fossil fuels have been powering the world the industrial development and amenities of modern life that we enjoy since 1700s But this has not been without any undesirable side effects. Combustion of fossil fuel have resulted in abundant production of carbon dioxide , carbon monoxide , hydrochlorocarbons , chlorofluorocarbons, sulphur dioxide,oxides of nitrogen , particulate matter and the lead components. These gases are commonly know as greenhouse gases. Respiration of these gases in light quantities result in shorter life expectancy. An average car is driven about 12000 miles an year, and it it consumes about 600 gallon of gasoline .Therefore a car emits 5600 kg of CO2 to the atmosphere a year . It causes greenhouse effect and is steadily raising the average temperature of the Earth , creating an imbalance in our Eco system and challenging the existence of life on earth. Urban smog is a large stagnant air mass. It is mainly made up of ground level ozone and carbon monoxide. Both of these gases are posinous. It causes shortness of breat , wheezing, fatigue, headaches, nausea , and respiratory problems such as asthma. Another gas released by combustion is sulphur dioxide and it causes acid rain which causes damage.to life and property. Another major gas release from fossil fuel is carbon monoxide which is colorless, odorless, posinous gas. It is emitted by motor vehicles. It deprives the body's organ to get the required oxygen. It is a serious threat to people with heart disease because of the fragile condition of the circulatory system and to fetuses because of the oxygen required by the developing brain. Chlorofluorocarbons and oxides of nitrogen depletes the ozone layer. Depletion of ozone layer can cause skin infection and cancer to human beings.
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

I agree with my opponent that The technologies are advancing steadily but They are not so economical : 1)I agree it could have resolved itself but due to human activities that have completely disturbed e bio geochemical cycles which are carbon cycle , nitrogen cycle and oxygen cycle- it is not likely possible. 2) it's not to total extent possible at advancing the technology , which we are doing to completely stop the exhaustion of Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide. It's will better option for us to use biofuels which exhaust no gas at all and can be used wi current car engines by mixing them to some percentage of gasoline. Electric car are also a cheap solution and many major manufacturer are putting an effort to get electric cars in market. Hybrid cars with ability to separate hydrogen and oxygen from water and using hydrogen as a fuel are also developing and are currently present in the market. 3) Plants and Ocean surface bacteria have a major role in carbon cycle. Human hunt for deep sea fossil fuel and traveling on ships through marine routes have resulted in depletion of half of the ocean surface bacteria from the pacafic ocean which has harmed the whole world in some way or the other. I have to just conclude here that it is just because of us humans that the situation is getting out of hand and we may not be able to recove r from it if we don't react immeadetely and efficiently. 4) Launching mirror into the space to deflect sunlight is very expensive.it is much cost efficient to just move from fossil fuel which is non renewable source of energy to renewable sources of energy. To conclude I would just like to say that it is because of the greediness.of us human that the resources which takes millions of years to refurbish which available to us are depleting and we have to take a good cause against money and solve and get out of this situation.
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

I accept this argument and will argue why stopping the usage of fossil fuels is not the ONLY way to combat global warming. I will use the following arguments about why it is not the only way1) Global Warming can resolve itself2) CO2 only impacts the atmosphere in huge numbers, simply making machines that run on fossil feuls more efficient and less pollutant will do the trick3) Plants and Ocean bacteria are the biggest contributors to scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere so increasing their numbers would help combat global warming4) There are multiple high-tech ways to fight global warming, such as launching mirrors into space to deflect sunlight5) Since cars are the biggest contributors to CO2, making them more efficient will really cut back on Global Warming6) There is already more reliance being placed on greener technologies and more investment into them will offset the effect that burning fossil fuels has on the environment, meaning we wouldnt have to actually ELIMINATE fossil feul usage completely7) Technologies such as mass transit severely cut back on CO2 emissions even though they themselves often run on CO2. To those of you who thinks that global warming doesnt exist or isnt man-made, Im not going to derail this argument with those points of view im staying on topic on this one. That is my opening round, I now will wait for the Pro to give his opening arguments. Other than that,
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

Let's start the debate. Fossil fuel has some major impacts in our lifes. It usage has resulted in economic development, job opportunities and environmental issues that is industrial revolution. Today, I will be speaking for the topic. The temperatures have been rising steadily but we have to stop it. rising temperatures is turning the life of living organisms. I agree that there are other causes of global warming but fossil fuel is the most important one. It's burning have resulted in cheap and in mass way to produce energy but with the cost of our environment. It produces green house gases which pollutes our environment. It is resulted in shorter human life expectancy.
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

To conclude I just want to say by taking the effects of pollutants of fossil fuel on life and property are extreme. If stop the use the use of fossil fuel these effects will completely removed. I hope we all understand the requirement of stopping fossil fuel. It will be put to effect immeadetely. Ps: iambench, thanks for your participation and opinion in such a crucial topic affecting life.
To stop the usage of fossil fuel is the only way to combat global warming

"My position on the current global warming is the same as the overwhelming majority of international climate scientists: the current rate of global warming is unprecedented and is being caused by humans. In no way can my summary of the research regarding the impact of regional climate change on the Viking civilization and Europe during the Little Ice Age be used to "prove" the current global warming is due to a natural cycle." —http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu... The above statement was given in one of the cons source which was completely true. The cause of the Little Ice Age is unknown, but many people have pointed at the coincidence in low sunspot activity and the timing of the Little Ice. This so called Maunder Minimum2 coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, in particular during the period roughly from 1645 to 1715, when sunspots were a rare occurrence, as noted by solar observers such as Cassini and Flamsteed3. A minimum in sunspots, indicates an inactive and possibly colder sun and qonsequently less energy output to warm the earth. It is not necessary that little ice age will affect our climate in the future. The con completely ignored to main point according to which : 1) Green house effect have been keeping the earth warm from the existence of Earth 2) but due to increase in the presence of carbon dioxide and methane. Greenhouse effect raises the temperature far beyond the required temperature and it is completely dependent on use of fossil fuel. 3) it is currently happening in the world. Btw according to con by reducing the use of fossil fuel we can fight global warming But we will still be polluting the atmosphere from it's harmful pollutants. SO THE BEST WAY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING IS TO STOP THE USAGE OF FOSSIL FUEL. We can't deny the fact that urban smog is affecting the cities of many countries and it is caused due to fossil fuel , so the best way to stop it is the stoppage of the production of fossil fuel. Acid rain has been affecting us from the starting of industrial revolution and it is directly related to fossil fuel emission. In this long period human have not able a suitable method to stop acid rain , so , the best way is to stop the usage of fossil fuels.
It is generally immoral for black women to have children.

C1) Life Sucks- My opponent seems to concede that when it comes to comfort vs discomfort life is at least a zero sum game. I'd say at best life is a zero sum game. Often times people experience more discomfort than comfort in life. There are people who suffer with terminal illness their whole life as well as many other lives end with a negative sum not a zero sum. Also discomfort almost alway precedes comfort. You're tired (uncomfortable), so you sit down (comfort). You're hungry (discomfort) so you eat and become full (comfort). You see discomfort almost always proceeds comfort so most likely you'll die at a negative sum. My opponent argues that the death argument is irrelevant, but it's not. Nobody wants to die, and by a black mother choosing to have a kid she ultimately sets her child up to play a most likely negative sum game and end it by dying. Dying is certainly a relevant argument, because it's most assuredly a negative thing. There may be benefits to new blood continually entering the human race, but that doesn't make dying a thing that people want to partake in. C2) Environmental impacts- my opponent agrees that having children does have a negative impact on the environment. He argues that predominately black countries have less of a carbon footprint than white countries. However the fact is they still have a carbon footprint and the footprint could be eliminated by not having the kid to start with. It may be more important for whites to stop reproducing but that doesn't eliminate the moral and ethical obligation of black folks. Conclusion- I'm going to ignore my opponent's vulgar argument that really has no place on this website.
It is generally immoral for black women to have children.

You never mentioned how you are quantifying the pain or deprivation or why this outweighs the pleasure and provisions one experiences and receives respectively. On top of this, you state that any state of comfort is preceded by a state of discomfort but every state of discomfort is preceded by comfort so this is truly irrelevant. You state that you enjoy your meal because you are hungry but hunger only hurts because you have felt the pleasure of being full. So even thought the bad makes the good feel good, the good is what ends up making the bad feel bad. It's a zero sum, not a negative one, because subjective experiences are unquantifiable by objective means.[http://tinyurl.com...]The death argument is irrelevant. The reason we dominated the Earth is thanks to the information presented by people who are now long gone.[http://tinyurl.com...] All babies are potential information givers.Even if it's a negative sum, Utilitarianism dictates the suffering of one to alleviate that of many is morally good.[http://tinyurl.com...]Nations where global warming is hitting hardest and who have the largest carbon footprint are not black-dominated nations. [http://tinyurl.com...] Therefore, it follows that if the black-dominated nations are contributing least to environmental damage, the children being born there are a positive force t global warming and should try to outnumber the other races on Earth in order to save the environment from their pollution. The greater the army of environmentally friendly Africans there are to fight off the other nations, the more beneficial it isAdditionally, many of porn's biggest d*cks and a*ses are black [http://tinyurl.com...]. Porn helps people not have to experience pleasure without reproducing so children of all races are as undesirable as Pro suggests, having black ones is relatively moral compared to other races.In conclusion, Pro's contentions actually support blacks having babies being relatively moral.
It is generally immoral for black women to have children.

My arguments are heavily influenced by Zarroette. Also if I can prove it's generally immoral for women in general to have children, I have by default proven it's generally immoral for black women to have children.C1) Life sucks- "Sentient life involves more discomfort than comfort." http://www.debate.org...Discomfort for these purposes is defined as something that occurs as a feeling of deprivation, pain or a lack of something. Discomfort is obviously bad or our psychologies wouldn't makes us averse to it. Life is a negative sum game. The best we can hope to achieve is a state of equilibrium. Any state of comfort is preceded by a state of discomfort. If you enjoyed your meal it's because you were hungry and thus uncomfortable. If a massage makes you feel good, it's because your muscles were tense and in a state of discomfort. It's clearly immoral to have children when you are going to subject them to a negative sum game that is filled with discomfort and ultimately leads to death.C2) Environmental Impacts- one of the best things you can do for the environment is to not have children. Having children increases your carbon footprint by up to 8 times your current rate once everything is taken into account. http://www.sciencedirect.com... It's immoral to have a kid knowing it will greatly harm the environment. Conclusion- It's wrong for black women (or any for that matter) to have kids, knowing they'll face more discomfort than comfort, destroy the environment and inevitably die.
The DDO Revolution Should Control DDO

I shall begin by stating that there are other DDO organizations and other things that should control DDO, I'll break them down into 3 key areas of analysis: the DDO Elite control DDO and should continue this, the DDO Freemasons deserve control, and lastly that the DDO Revolution would be ineffective.Contention 1: The DDO EliteOn Debate.org, before my opponent was an active member a group known as the DDO Elite rose up and took power on this site. Two members on this site caused the DDO Elite to fully come to life. They are OberHerr (https://www.debate.org...) and Heineken (http://www.debate.org...). These two members had made the DDO Elite to be a powerful fighting force as they seized DDO and began the Silent Wars as they attack members and they Silently disappeared. (https://www.debate.org...) You see they have a powerful grip on DDO and if you currently look at this poll you'll see that the DDO Elite enjoy a more powerful popularity on this site as well. (http://www.debate.org...) (http://www.debate.org...)Contention 2: The DDO Freemasons The DDO Freemasons are a groupd founded by your's truely in an attempt to destroy the DDO Elite. Most of the older DDO Elite members are gone, but the war betwen the DDO Freemasons and the DDO Elite are still on going.Contention 3: The DDO Revolution won't work.We have already seen this where as the DDO Revolution tried to go to war with a single member, Imabench, and failed drastlicly. If they can't beat a single member what makes you think they could control DDO.
The DDO Revolution Should Control DDO

Yes, the debate is simple. I will be arguing that DDO should br controlled by the DDO Revolution, and all powers of the president will be facilitated through the Supreme Leader, Jifpop09. If your intrested, tell me in the comments. You will post right away in R1, but WILL NOT POST IN R2. You can have no more then two short sentences for your R2 argument. Let the troll debate commence...
women hade rights in the 1900s

'an retard'?? Clearly...'woman' is a singular noun and is not used for plural. Try 'women'.'right', is also a singular noun. Try 'rights'.The word is THEN not 'thin'.And no, I did not notice how women did not have rights back then because I was not alive back then, and based on your profile picture, you haven't been alive for more than 12 years, so you cannot validate this fact either. Women had no right to protest? You do realize that woman who had jobs during that time got paid entire dollars less per hour, and barely had the right to vote! If you didn't have those rights, you would probably be whining about it just like you are in this debate.The funny thing is, I have to act to seem dumb. I hope English is not your first language because that would be pretty sad.But let's let the voters choose the more qualified winner of this debate.(DISCLAIMER FOR VOTERS: I had to dumb down my language to compensate with the obvious learning disability of my opponent)fin.
women hade rights in the 1900s

First of all, the reason I spelled everything wrong is because you are an idiot and do not realize your own spelling mistakes. I also just figured this was a troll debate because your first (and quite frankly, your second as well) argument is complete garbage. You say that women (woman is singular btw) had the right to go to church and to marry, but if you think about it, marriage is decided by the man. Also, it is very unlikely for a woman to go to church without being accompanied by a man. And to react to you first argument (if you can even call it that), just because a woman is a 'princess', doesn't mean that she has power over any man whatsoever. The only right a princess has is to be looked up to by younger girls. Just a quick side note, misspell something else and I will call you out so f*cking hard. fin.
women hade rights in the 1900s

I's thanks dat yoo awr ay ritard. Woomen ded note hab rites oontel Donale Tromp wos ilekted phor preezidant. Wiman wer treeted liek slayvs phor secks. Dey mayd da baybis aynd dat wos et. Dey hat too mayk sanweeshes phor da myen aynd kleen da shilderen.
Gun control

I extend my pbs. org claim saying that it is impossible to compare firearm statistics from nation to nation because of economic, racial, ethnic disparities etc. This erases your Canada evidence. You have misunderstood my government claim I have never once said that the government would buy and sell weapons I have just said that the government would be apart of the regulations process, much like it is in the voting process. The only feasible way for the government to track gun distribution is through some sort of licensing system. Extend claim that, that sort of system would deter people, good citizens from buying guns which would negatively affect the gun market. Since you assume that buy cutting jail expenses that the atf would magically become effective, I must extend my claim that it is virtually impossible for the atf no matter how much money we pour into it to be effective. If the government is not buying the weapons then it would be impossible to track the illegal purchase of guns. Since the aff isn't stopping the illegal purchase of guns then we can assume that crime and suicide remain the same. From my standpoint gun control in the aff world is non-effective and would just be a misuse of tax payer money especially if we are taking money away from prisons to do so. For these reasons I ask that you vote neg Good round
Gun control

My previous definition still stands- the government is not to buy and sell these weapons, but to rather oversee the entire process. If you wish, I will forget about my Australian argument, and move on to Canada. Canada also has gun control- however slight it might be. The government has more regulations on firearms, and therefore Canada has a lower firearm-murder rate. And while it is possible people can have other people purchase firearms for them, it is possible to crack down on this as well. As of right now, acquiring a firearm is not that difficult, and as we progress toward a safer tomorrow, we can develop new ways to keep weapons out of criminal hands. My original argument, how murder and suicide rates will drop still stands, regardless of where you go in the world. Gun control does not necessarily mean taking the weapons out of the hands of heard working, decent Americans, but it does mean that sacrifices must be made to provide a safe tomorrow for the next generations. As the government worries less on putting criminals in jails and prisons, and spends less on lethal injections, the federal government will have more money to spend on ATF, and therefore, eventually they will become powerful enough to deal with these issues.