BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Regular Rap Battle

Thanks my opponent for complimentin' me,He's definitely afraid, I'm the great Yoda for goodness sake! Only makin' insults about Star WarsHis vision's so limited, showin' his poor job I encompass the world, see your actions unfold-in'Mr. "Vader" thinks he's chokin' me when in reality he's the one rottin' like mold I beat him to a pulp, he can't even take a religious insultIf your rap was "art" it'd never be soldYou need paragraphs of explanation while all I need's a single source You're far too wordy, your own useless babblin' crushes you From the start you were doomed, you're just a joke to meLike a lame pawn even worse than Jar Jar Binks [1][1] http://www.cracked.com...On cracked [above site] Jar Jar Binks is considered by the editors Star War's worst character
Regular Rap Battle

Space King? What you think you're Yoda?!It must be dark 2knight 'cause I'm chasin' a Joker,I rek noobs, you're right it's victory,You vs noobs, fair match honestly.Vader here chokin' Yoda, son,Luke breaks down and cries because I f**ked his Mom,Leia's with Han solo, secretly watched by OBI WAAAAAN,Pro is tryna make me rage but like R2D2 I'm oh-so calm.Yoda tries to insult my name but I cut off Luke's arm,My name's an imperfect 'imperfect' so get rekt you stupid bum.Youre rap done in fourteen lines,Mine's 12-non-rhymes, call me Mastermind.~SOURCES/REFERENCES~"Dark knight" is the batman who defeated the Joker."2knight" in place of 'tonight' is, ironically a 2-fold reference to both 2Pac and the dark knight while night was the intended word for the sentence structure.9spaceking often jokes in his debates, in fact in almost every single one of them. http://www.debate.org...rek = internet version of 'wreck'http://www.urbandictionary.com...get rekt= get wrecked (online)http://www.urbandictionary.com...Yoda (first line) is the ugliest Star Wars main character but is so overpowered and high status that it's clear that I'm saying that 9spaceking has narcissism and yet is still ugly and patheticlaly small despite his ambition, like Yoda. Yoda (second line) is referring back to first line to lead onto a series of Star Wars puns.http://starwars.wikia.com...R2D2 is a really chill, super-efficient robot from Star Wars.http://starwars.wikia.com...Conduct Notice:Pro insults a Hindu Indian cultural forehead dot of major sentmentality. This shows severe ignorance as well as disrespect to an entire culture and/or religion. the 'red dot' is known as Bindi (or Pottu if black). It is locating wher the soul is supposedly kept and this is not an insult but simply an ignorant racist remark.http://www.sanskritimagazine.com...http://hinduism.about.com...http://www.innovateus.net...
Regular Rap Battle

You think you're so good, winnin' against all those other peopleBut they're all noobs, you got no true talent in realityYour username says you're "perfect" but even that's spelled wrong [1]Seriously, Mr. "Perfiect", I sing you to death like I sing those songsYou look very sick, filled with the spelling-error-pox,Profile pic. lookin' terrible with that weird red dotWhat's this gibberish? "Dass verr nyse?"It's like you're sayin' "I have no livin' right"It's over, I don't even have to use all my 16 linesYou better concede right now before you dieYou already crushed an' defeated yourself before this even begunNot even one-fourth of your bad traits have been sungYou already lost this, no one can save your skinLike a cow all you do all day long is say "moooooooo"[1] http://www.debate.org...
Regular Rap Battle

This is so called the "Regular Rap Battle" to be ironic. It is actually going to be very irregular. This is an experiment, so it might not work out.RULES -16 line limit-Round one acceptance-No "True Rhymes"Plural/Singular do not "truly rhyme"--You cannot have boon/moon, but you can have boon/moons.Near rhymes do not "truly rhyme"-"The" has no perfect rhymes [see http://www.rhymezone.com...-You cannot use "cup/up", however, "cup/club" is usable-A word does not rhyme with itself, so you could be like:My opponent is so sad and bad,His wording is bland and bad(But that would minus points for creativity of course)-Your lines don't have to rhyme at all, just have cool flow, creativity, and rhythm, the three main objectives that the rap is going to be based on-Bonus points for rhymes that don't truly rhyme-Bonus points for good methaphors, similes, and wordplay-Bonus points for having good insults despite the fact that the lines don't rhymeGood luck and have fun!
The United States, democracy and popular vote.

Hi there Mark. I am happy to take up your argument. The popular vote is there, but it is not as visible as people would like it to be. The popular vote is defined by Wikipedia as "the total number or percentage of votes received by a party, candidate or group of candidates, as opposed to the number of seats they win in the representative assembly or, as in the United States, in the Electoral College in a presidential election." In reality, the popular vote is the percentage each of the candidates got in terms of people voting for them. Take for example the 2016 Presidential Election. Hilary Clinton got 65,853,514 votes, while Donald Trump got 62,984,828 votes. Hilary Clinton won the popular vote, as more people voted for her (Source: Wikipedia). However, she didn't win because of the system the US has, called the Electoral College vote. The number of votes the person receives is based on how many people the state has in the government. Since Trump won the states who had the most people in the government (the "Swing States"), he got the 270 votes needed to become president. I believe that the Electoral College method of voting, although biased, is a method we've used for countless numbers of years, and so we should keep it. I wish you luck for your challenge. MasterPhoenix
Martial Law in Iraq Would Have Been a Sound Strategy

The underlying opposition of martial law is the very fact that you are ruling a country by force. It matters little if cultural sensitivity was the priority, you would always have opposition to a military run state, especially one run by a foreign country. I reference my home of Ireland and its occupation by Britain. It didn't matter if they brought order and policing, or new technology, there was constant uprisings all across Ireland by the Fenians, which later became known as the IRA (not to be confused with the provisional IRA responsible for atrocities in the Troubles). Al Queda or some other militant terrorist group, who defy all logic and attack the American troops stationed there. You bring up that all MacArthur had to do was recognize the Emperor to make it pliable. This is false, and I hardly need to bring up any sources. You know, all he had to do was nuke Japan twice and then offer to recognize the Emperor. You missed the two nuclear bombs part. But I'll target the feasability and forwarding of interests part now. Firstly, you haven't stated a finish time for this martial law. Is it indefinite? You can't hope to occupy the country with enough soldiers to make it safe on bonds to the people, especially since there's no advantage to the people with buying bonds. Do you mean bonds as in loans? When can the people expect a return on these loans, especially when you don't make money being there. On a side note, maybe America shouldn't have let Saddam Hussein publicly view the plans for the original Fat Man and buy the materials necessary from the US and Britain. On the issue of forwarding US interests, remember that you will anger people in Iraq by flat out invading, it will cost money and will also make America seem cruel and unfavorable on a global scale. Russia is already looking better than America right now by trying to avert a war in Syria, and protecting Snowden, so adding invasions to the list wouldn't help America abroad. It doesn't benefit the US strategically either. Why would occupying a former trading partner help protect you any better from terrorists? It would only provoke those jihadists into further attacks. I guess I should suggest an alternative to occupation. Simple. Just leave. Complete evacuation. The US isn't some Starship Enterprise that can beam down to other countries and fix all their problems. If America wants to remain safe, then they should play defensive, not offensive. If any offense should be used, it's proper education in these areas, which would lead to less extremists, and more support for America the way it funded Europe post WW1 to help them avoid resorting to Communism. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

Let's just keep it simple. State your argument and we will see who wins. Homophobia is rooted in unwanted sexual advances (Pirlott, Angela et al) Homophobia rooted in disgust, not fear. (Olatunji et AL 2001) Beneficial - favorable or advantageous; resulting in good. 1. Straight friend crushes is one of the most common issues in the gay community. Many closet and open gays crush on their straight friends. Many heterosexuals consider this a problem. Homophobes are less likely to experience this problem because homophobes wouldn't befriend open gays in the first place in which keeps open gays out of their life to avoid any possible discomforting friendship issues. Gays are less likely to come on to homophobes in which saves homophobes from being discomforted compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals . Gays are more likely to attemp to sexually seduce non-homophobic heterosexuals based on wishful thinking that the non-homophobic heterosexual might be a little gay. Closet gays are less likely to even reveal their crush on a homophobe in which prevents discomforting homophobes. Closet gays are also less likely to come out to homophobes in which also prevents discomforting homophobes. These real situations gives homophobes the favorable outcome resulting in good for the homophobe compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals giving the same situation. 2. Some non-homophobic heterosexuals experience homosexuality out of curiosity in which increases the chances of contracting deadly stds. Unlike some non-homophobic heterosexuals, Homophobes will not experience homosexuality thereby decreasing std risks. Unlike homophobes, Some non-homophobic heterosexuals experience homosexuality for the money. Some non-homophobic heterosexuals are weak so they let homosexuals persuade them to be sexually seduced. Some gays use alcohol and drugs to sexually seduce their non -homophobic heterosexual friends. These sceneros could never happen with homophobes because homophobes wouldn't even befriend gays or hang out with gays in the first place..Homophobic heterosexuals get the advantage because our homophobia make it impossible for heterosexuals to experience homosexuality in which decreases the risk of contracting deadly stds for homophobes. The homophobes who are caught engaging in homosexual behavior are fake homophobes. In other words, they are pretending to be homophobic.
Homophobia is beneficial to many heterosexuals

I will be arguing that homophobia in practice is an undesirable trait that is destructive to society. Definitions: Undesirable - not desirable or attractive; objectionable Homophobia - unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. 1. "Straight friend crushes" being deemed undesirable can easily be compared to unwanted advances from men to women, which are often more open and more destructive. In a recent study, [1] Cosmopolitan found that 1 in 3 women ages 18 to 34 have experienced sexual harassment at the workplace, with only 10% of that coming from female coworkers. The argument I am countering simply describes "crushes", which are innocent in nature. The problem we are dealing with in our society is not unwanted advances on straight men, but unwanted advances on straight women by straight men. I'd like to ask for sources upon which the pro argument has used for logic behind the following statements: "Gays are less likely to come on to homophobes in which saves homophobes from being discomforted compared to non-homophobic heterosexuals" and "Many heterosexuals consider ["crushes" on them by LGBT men] a problem". 2. Those who are purely heterosexual do not experience a desire for homosexual acts. [2] The Kinsey Scale is a widely accepted scale to rate heterosexual and homosexual attraction. An exclusively heterosexual person at 0 would feel no attraction to members of the same sex, and would not be inclined to perform sexual acts with them. [3] Furthermore, there is no way to change sexual orientation, so associating with an LGBT individual would not make you LGBT. [4] HIV can be found among all groups of people. The single reason for a higher HIV rate among LGBT males than straight couples is that LGBT males are less likely to use a condom, due to improper sex education on homosexual acts, leading some to believe that condoms are not needed in homosexual intercourse. Finally, alcohol and drug use is nothing short of rape. [5] The prevalence of using these is also large with straight people, with 25% of female rape victims reporting that drugs or alcohol were used in their rape. This isn't an LGBT problem, it's a societal problem. I'd like to ask for sources for the logic behind the following statements used by the pro side of the argument: "Homophobes will not experience homosexuality thereby decreasing std risks." in regards to decreased STD risks, "Some non-homophobic heterosexuals are weak so they let homosexuals persuade them to be sexually seduced", and "Some gays use alcohol and drugs to sexually seduce their non -homophobic heterosexual friends" Thank you for debating this important issue with me. I look forward to your argument. Sources: [1] http://www.cosmopolitan.com... [2] http://www.kinseyinstitute.org... [3] http://www.hrc.org... [4] http://www.thebody.com... [5] http://www.sexualityandu.ca...
You shouldn't be allowed to vote for yourself in debates.

Yes quick responses are normal but my world is vice versa to what is normal hence i still feel grateful. 1)"There are no true winners, its just for convincement."I must disagree because if i can prove that abolishing this ability is completely useless and that theres another way, you lose. 2)"Sure he has a big win ratio and all but thats still an opinion, however u look at it."Yes but due to his experience his opinion is worth more meaning that you're at a bad start. 3)"You clearly state that users with lower win ratio gets hated." Out of context.Kleptin was talking about himself hence only people with high win ratios which get lower for no reason are a result of hate. The conclusion however can be be applied to everyone. 4)"2. Its something uncommon to show up with the increasing debaters." and "There are millions of debates here (well maybe lower) and you want me to find such a thing? Its the same as finding a needle in a forest." The conclusion: This change is of no importance hence its a waste of time. 5)"I already told you, personal opinion is allowed. What you are now telling me is YOUR personal opinion. You expect that eveyone will nicely play by the rules and vote for the winner instead of choosing someone else because you hate a certain person?" Cant a personal opinion be a fact? I expect people to vote fairly and to vote for who has won the debate.The rules of this website agree with me hence Im correct.Incidentally Grammar Nazi told me that you misspelled everyone. 6)'I already told you, personal opinion plays a factor in votes.' I agree.Furthermore personal opinion is what decides the outcome of the debate and not the ability to vote for oneself. 7)"Thats why its called a vote, you vote with personal opinions about the debate."Wrong. The only votes which have anything to do with opinion are the "agree before the debate" and "agree after the debate".The other votes have nothing to do with opinion. 8)'How can you call it something small? A vote is still a vote which people abused to get an extra 7 points." If its not a small difference then give me a debate where someone has won because of this ability on the other hand this website is filled with personal biased votes which decide the outcome! Challenges: 1)Find 1 debate where the debate was won because of this ability. 2)Refute the idea that not caring about the win ratio does a better job. 3)Refute the idea that bias votes arent against the rules. I await your response
You shouldn't be allowed to vote for yourself in debates.

"This is more of HIS opinion over this. " Please remember that we're debating your opinion and that you're a very inexperienced compared to Kleptin hence his opinion is worth. This doesn't mean that you're wrong but it does give you a bad start. "Do you believe that every loser with zero wins is hated? " I never said that and never will. I dont think that youre a loser nor do i think that Im hated (not enough time for that to happen). "Do you feel hated because you lost all your debates? " This has diminished my enthusiasm but no (I think that people simply didnt care enough to read the whole debate but thats the past). "But, 1 thing that strike me hard in the back is that you have clearly won the debate, yet your opponent has more points because he was voting for himself. For this reason, I'm against voting for yourself. "Please give me an example where i lost because of this. "Sure, but to be able to vote, you need to verify yourself yes? Someone who has multiple accounts and registered as same number can easily be blocked if you just block the sole number from voting yourself. " So all one has to do is barrow few cellphones like from brothers and uncles and close friends plus old phones are almost free and people usually have at average two phones (In Ireland thats a common truth) "Personal opinion exists in here, you are allowed to not agree with the winner. " Personal opinion is irrelevant to who won (for most debates). If I see a debate called "Jesus is a myth", I will obviously disagree but despite this I oath to vote for who won the debate even if Pro did (even if i could refute Pro I still ought to vote for Pro because it not my debate). "Voting because of personal grudge or opinion is allowed in my opinion. " Yes it should be allowed but voting of this kind doesnt consider the debate itself and who made better arguments. Hence the winner is random despite those 7 points which one can add by voting for oneself. "1. The ability of being able to vote for yourself is abused since it gives clear advantage over someone who can't vote for himself because he doesn't live around US. "It does give an advantage but only microscopically when compared to other factors. The best way is to simply not care because although there are plenty of instances where the voting was fair there are just as many of unfair examples. In conclusion: Follow Kleptin for he will lead us to oasis! I eagerly await your response
You shouldn't be allowed to vote for yourself in debates.

Id like to remind you that you have the burden of proof anyways here are my arguments: A). http://www.debate.org... Kleptin (having a high win ratio) says no one should worry about their win ration: "Now, the lower your win ratio, the more evidence there is that you are hated/discriminated against. I find that amusing, so I sank myself down to 0 to make several points. " B)People will make multiple accounts and vote for themselves albeit not for long but there will always be someone winning purely on this reason. Please note that even if we abolish the ability to vote for oneself people would still vote for oneself except with different accounts (. http://www.debate.org... one person having over ten accounts ! ). c)People will down-vote other people that they don't like or don't agree with on the site and many people are frankly bias hence you'll lose even if you win the argument! There's no reason to remove this ability because when it comes to unfair winning it all usually comes down to the B and C reason and its rarely only because of voting for oneself (. http://www.debate.org... one person having over ten accounts ! ). I challenge opponent to produce 3 instances where a debate won just because of this ability. If not I suggest that this ability shouldn't be removed because removing it is a waste of time. Instead we should follow Kleptins example which I believe solves the main problem you seem to have with the ability to vote for oneself. Furthermore Id like to say that even if you do provide 3 examples which is unlikely, you still don't abolish the main problem only diminish it however Kleptins way does destroy the problem. In conclusion I suggest not to waste our time with these things but lets just follow Kleptin instead! ! !
Women are smarter than men

It is true. It does level out. But it is slowly rising, due to the fact that these days women have an easier access to education around in some parts of the world, letting them be able to express their intelligence to the world. I'm not saying men are dumb; I'm saying woman can definitely be as smart as them and even smarter. http://newsfeed.time.com... http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
Women are smarter than men

That is a weak argument. It is true that some guys don't care about studying, I will give you that. According to Quartz, men can be both dumber and smarter than women. They said that men have a wider distribution of intellectual ability. That means that there are more men in the higher end of the intelligence area. I am not saying that men are superior. I am just stating some facts. There are also men in the lower end so it levels out.
Women are smarter than men

Women have a higher IQ than men because they are more committed. Nowadays, in high school, middle school, collage and elementary school girls strive to get good grades. Unlike boys, they study and, boys, by "study" I don't mean reading it once and closing your notebook. Girls memorize. In fact, women have more capacity at remembering than boys. This allows them to get better grades and to have a bright future. I rest my case.
Genetic modification of Humans is ultimately a good idea

Whereas it's implementation for children I do not believe we need special caveats. But can simply use existing structures and morality. It's legal to encourage/force a child to be active or participate in sports so it should be legal to give a child an athletic advantage from birth. It's illegal to cripple your child, So it should be illegal a GM that would cause muscular degeneration. As for the wealth argument I completely disagree. Over the course of human history there have been multiple disruptive and transformational technologies: Saffron, Coffee, White clothes, Mobile phones, Televisions, Refrigerators, Washing machines, Fruit, Tattoos, Clean water, Shoes, Stainless steel cutlery, The list goes on. All of these, Every single one, Started of as being exclusive for the "super rich", And every single one of them is something even people in poverty nowadays can afford. The last thing we should have is the Government, Creating artificial scarcity and choosing a special "class"
Genetic modification of Humans is ultimately a good idea

I would agree with 90% of what you say geneitc modeification is a great advance, But again i have important caveats, Forst of all some modification might constitute child abuse maybe when they become adults kids might be horrified by the stuff their parents did to them, Their neds to be over sight by child welfare bureaus, Other wise yeah it has great potenticial it just needs to be regualted to aviod abuse Secondly most of this stuff only rich people will be able to access, Giving them an unfair advantage in the future, Again te state must intervene to rpovide grants and laons so poorer people might also benifit from a technology that the wealthy might at first only be able to afford thats no good, In some ways i think that this might not only be regualted by the state but run by it deciding who is the most worthy instead of basing it on wealth the rich aren't always the most fit,