BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Lyrical Games #3 (Celebrities Love/Hate)

Vs. 1Dear Mr. Decadent President: I, a US resident, hope you have a non-accident aboard Air Force OneHopefully Iran will commence with nuclear armaments & put you under a tense offensive gunI didn’t vote for you in '08, not outta hate, but I seen then like now you lacked great political experienceYour puppet masters staged debates to exploit your half breed appearance to deceive us from true coherenceThrough platitudes you wooed Democratic fools to sleep, professin’ no lobbyists in the White House1You broke your own rule, you tool, letting Bill Lynn stick his Raytheon dick in your mouth1You make no sense, claiming "no corruption in the IRS," yet evidence showed paranoid emails2We saw Lois Lerner mastermind a cover-up to validate falsely lost self-incriminating details2You handled Americans like diseased-infected imbeciles just like a 5th Century tyrannical VandalsLike Lois Lerner & Jeremiah Wright, nigga, not even Olivia Pope3 could fix those Scandals3Tryin’ to give illegals Social Security, a calamity that would bankrupt the system, you knuckleheadYou lie in bed with the Fed Reserve that has bled our pockets red; oh yeah, and ObamaCare is deadConceited like Satan you boost your ego declaring you passed 900 bills in the Senate of IllinoisBoy, you annoy me with your untruthful ploys & decoys; it was 26 bills so kill that idle noiseBarack you flip flop so much, every lie drops ya cred, you idiot you even voted against YOUR Economic BillYou never did, never will drop Islam for Christendom, cause you love the thrill of doing the Illuminati’s evil will 1- 2- http://www.foxnews.com...3- http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lyrical Games #3 (Celebrities Love/Hate)

His name is the Barack Insane Obama.He lives in the nations country of America,and he look like the llama.He think he can rule world,But the American think he from Ghana.The American think he wise,But he is no dalai lama.If he want to fix American economy,He better pray to Allah.The capitalist praise him,But American poor has not reached nirvana.He think he built the America to riches,But you may as well call him the economic Osama.All he do is complain and blame,But I say quit your drama,You're causing nothing but the trauma.All the capitalist like the Obama Care.What west don't know,Is that it is no fair.People wonder why the American so poor,I say because Obama's laissez faire.Obama no give cititizens the electricity,Unless you the multi-billionaire.While rest of the America starving,Obama and billionaires are walking on air.While Obama is in the office,The economy is like the snail.When trying to sort things out in the Ukraine,Putin make Obama look like he fell down the stair.When Obama want to lead,He can't compare,Because what he says is hot air.
Lyrical Games #3 (Celebrities Love/Hate)

This is a rap competition series hosted by me. I ask that everyone respect the name & do not reuse it under your own profiles. Anyone who wants to participate, just message me and I’ll initiate a personal 1-on-1 debate.Qualifications:An opponent will be chosen by me after the eligible debater is vetted.Must have 10 or more debates.Must have a reasonable amount of your profile completed.Prefer 18 years or older unless your win percentile is 80%+Use comment section to apply or PM me. Rules:1. Battle Lyricsa. insults, put downs, censored profanity* OR PRAISEWORTHY-THEMED WORDS*(limit 5 per verse as to not offend most readers)b. braggadocio, superiority vs. inferiorityc. original compositions2. 16 bars TWO ROUNDS ONLY 3. Con begins R1 with his First Verse AND MUST PASS R34. Commenter will supply the celebrity we vilify or praise, as well as indicate which option: vilification or exaltation.5. Once I vet & establish an opponent he or she will ALONE choose from the comments the celebrity & method of attack. 6. Judges you will be grading which opponent dehumanized or glorified the celebrity the most entertainingly.This is a test of lyrical proficiency & superiority. 2 verses, 16 bars each. If you cannot establish yourself as lyrically dominant with an industry standard of two 16 bars, then this debate is too complex for you. Lyrical Masters don't need 3, 4, & 5 rounds to "prove" they are dominant wordsmiths.Now enter with Celebrity Love/Hate.
GTA V (Grand Theft Auto 5) is going to be the game of the year.

So just to respond to what you said :'Look, I'm not saying GTA V will be bad. If Watch Dogs, Bioshock Infinite & The Last of Us didn't come out this year, it would win. But they did, so it won't. 'I want to explain to you why I think this not to be the case. So I'll begin with 'The Last of Us', a well-written, immersive storyline. While this may make a very good experience, there aren't other things to do other than killing zombies and surviving etc. GTA V might release a zombie mode expansion pack and we all expect the storyline to be much better than previous editions with all the time and money spent on it. We are not making something game of the year due to one replayable good story. It needs to also have good multiplayer and also be alot of fun. It's like a movie you control but this within very strict parametres. There is alot more freedom in GTA V that it's like life almost (yes gun shootouts and bank robberries can happen for real). Ok Watch Dogs will be good I'm going to get it but again its NOT something completely new, its just different weapons. We're used to open world games and the mechanics are the same as Asassins Creed. YES THEY ARE look at the similarities. And although driving cars and hacking the city might appear fun, where's all the helicopters, planes, jetskis, bikes, parachuting, scuba diving, heists, buying properies, making businesses, customizing fast cars, character switching and customization, gambling stocks etc. , and so much more (in GTA V everyone! ). Watch Dogs gameplay graphics look appealing but don't get too excited the game won't run that nicely on this generation of consoles so you could argue it could be the game of the year only for the ps4, xbox one and pc which don't (xbox one and ps4) come out towards the end of this year anyway so its not looking too good for that. Ok Bioshock Infinite is no competiton at all and considering this game has already been released and not been a massive hit it wont be able to keep up once the big games are released following September, October, November. And again the majority of gamers are casuals who don't know or play these types of games and just stick to the big titles like gta, cod, fifa etc. It's obvious your not a GTA fan so I understand why you don't consider it in your list of games but in reality the actual size and anticipation is likely to make it 'game of the year'. On a side note, if you think this is bias, I'm an experienced gamer and will likely to be buying Watch Dogs, Asassins Creed 4, Last of Us, Saints Row IV and Beyond Two Souls also I'm not a fanboy as most people know it I have both Xbox 360 and Ps3 and try to use them as much as each other to get the most out of them. (This isn't relevant by the way).
GTA V (Grand Theft Auto 5) is going to be the game of the year.

this obviosuly wasn't clear enough to BabeslayerI never wait for round 2 to start just on personal preference, regardless of what anyone says. I like to have a head start. What I meant by "it tries to be dark" is that the GTA series (especiallly recently with GTA IV) has felt schitzophrenic for me. Hal fof the time, it's a dark toned realistic crime game (which on it's own I would love), but it tends to do stuff that takes me out of that mood with it's sense of humor (again, games being funny isn't an issue on it's own). But a game has to know what it's trying to be, otherwise it comes off as a wannabe. Even the trailers for GTA V seem like it's got an identity crisis of it's own. This argument could be made against Saints Row 2, a game I love, but that game knows what it is, and has the guts to go for it. It has the guts to go all out and have a mini-game invlolving SHOOTING POOP AT PEOPLE. Not to mention it makes shooting poop at people seem reasonable in it's own wacky way. A game can be dark, and a game can be funny. I just like it when a game can separate the two, and I still have yet to see the Grand Theft Auto series acomplish this. Oh and once again, F***ING PIRATES. Explain to me, how does a couple of thugs in modern day being cool in a city where every CPU is a hilarious stereotype or a drunk beat THE PLUNDERERS OF THE CARIBBEAN? Assassins Creed Black Flag looks incredible, and this is coming from someone who HATED Assassins Creed III. For me, it's going to be either Bioshock Infinite, Last of Us or Watch Dogs. These look like incredible steps in the video game industry. Are you actually going to use sale numbers as an argument? That just means a lot of people bought the game! Last of Us didn't kind of lack in sales due to it's quality (because it's a f***ing great game), it lacked in sales because it focused on story. Too many consumers in the VG market these days are morons who think sale numbers and guns are a seal of quality, but they're not. The fact that GTA V will make a lot of money doesn't make it good, it means a lot of people said "the last one made money, so this one must be amazing! ". And how on any of the moons of mars (2) does Watch Dogs look boring? If anything, it's looking like it'll just keep getting better and better! It seems to be doing that with every demo so-far, so why wouldn't the game be like that? The winner of this years VGAs will either be Bioshock Infinite, Last of Us or Watch Dogs. GTA V looks good, and I'll play it if I feel like it, but hell, Saints Row IV looks better (not saying much because that game looks awesome but whatever. )
GTA V (Grand Theft Auto 5) is going to be the game of the year.

Look, I like the GTA franchise. I think it's fun, but I've had one significant problem with it, which is the strange warped sense the game has. It tries to be dark, but gets too humorous at times. Then when that happens, it tries to be a fun game like San Andreas, but the dark bits get in the way. And it would work if it was trying to be a dark comedy, but you can tell it isn't. Now I can't speak for GTA V, because it hasn't come out yet. But what I can say for sure is that 2013 looks like it's going to be a great year for gaming. Already we've got some incredible games (Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite) which puts GTA V in a tight spot, but a lot of other games as well. Watch Dogs, Assassins Creed 4, Beyond Two Souls, & Saints Row IV.I'm not saying GTA V will suck, because it probably won't. But it's got some heavy competition. Last of Us is an incredibly bold survival story that engages the player to the core. Bioshock Infinite is a unique and fun addition to a great series. Watch Dogs looks freaking like one of the most amazing experiences I will ever have. AC4 has f***ing pirates. Beyond Two Souls has Willem f***ing Dafoe, & Saints Row IV... well in terms of competition, Saints Row IV knows what it is, and it doesn't try to please a large audience. GTA V will be nominated, I'll agree with that. But will they win? Probably not.
Seismology is a pseudoscience

a pseudoscience is something that is presented as science but it doesnt use the scientific method and it either doesnt work at all or it works but only due to experience of the "scientist" and not due to any data that prooves it is right. an example of pseudoscience is accupuncture which cant be prooven correct and that is why they dont teach it in medical colleges. you compared cellullar biology to seismology which is wrong since in seismology there are only two possibilities(there will or there wont be an eathquake) and while it is true that cellullar biology cant know what exactly will happen but it can show what wont happen(example: if a person with one albinism gene has a child with someone without albinism genes, cellullar biology cant know whether the child will have one albinism gene or none but is is certain the child wont have two) Seismologyis a pseudoscience since it is clear it can neither determine the possibility of a place to have an earthquake nor the impossibility of it
Seismology is a pseudoscience

First of all thank you for your time writing this. my main argument is that all the sciences have some standards. Classical physics for example say:" x will happen for y reasons as prooved by data gathered from studies and supported by z formula" Biology says: " we dont know whether x or y or z will happen but we know that nothing else can happen" Even Quantum physics which look crazy to the average Joe have some laws which cannot be overriden Seismology on the other hand cannot determine what will happen and therefore it can't predict earthquakes or even tell if & when there will be more earthquakes in a place with this we conclude that seismology cannot be considered a real science at least until some way of understanding where an earthquake will happen or if there will be more earthquakes is invented
Seismology is a pseudoscience

As my opponent did not provide a definition of seismology, I will provide one:"Seismology is the study of earthquakes and seismic waves that move through and around the earth. A seismologist is a scientist who studies earthquakes and seismic waves [1]. "I will also provide a deffinition of psudoscience:"A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation [2]. "My understanding of the round is as follows: The resolution is of the following statement "Seismology is a pseudoscience. " My opponent is affirming the above statement. I am negating. For this resolution, I understand the burden of proof to be shared. The affirmation must prove the status quo is false, and must refute purpose as established by the negation. The negation must support the status quo with my own argumentation, including establishing and affirming its purpose. Round one is acceptance Standard debating etiquette applies As with most sciences, my understanding is that seismology's purpose is to further understand the natural processes and apply its knowledge. I await the affirmations's opening statement. [1] . http://www.geo.mtu.edu...[2] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Should we nuke North Korea

North Koreans haven't been brainwashed since the Famine. Even people in Pyongyang often know better and many students are provided with internet access and international literature. I guess that also depends on what you mean by brainwashing as well. North Korean gym in school includes stabbing American ba*****s and learning about horrible things America did during the Korean War. But even North Koreans that truly believe that Kim Jong Un is a God snap out of it quickly when shown the outside world, many describe it as like traveling through time. Foreign movies, though highly illegal in North Korea are quite popular and though they just assume it is just propaganda just as North Korean shows, it does place a hint of doubt. The show I mentioned, it was founded by North Korean Defectors to shine a light on the truth of the Kim dynasty. They oppose the North Korean government so much that they will risk abduction, death, and their families lives in some cases to prove a point.
Should we nuke North Korea

North Koreans haven't been brainwashed since the Famine. Nuking Pyongyang would do nothing for us other than prove the North Korean propaganda right. It's also overkill, it is the leadership that needs to be wiped out and that would only take a little military strength. The best outcome for this is for the Koreas to solve this themselves and unite at last. Watch some clips from Now on my Way to Meet You and you will see the suffrage under the Kim dynasty even in Pyongyang. Fear is different from brain washing.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Thank you for starting this debate.Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Feb;93(2):284-91. Epub 2010 Nov 17. Pub Med ID # 21084650 “there was no significant main effect of breakfast condition on energy intake at lunch (P = 0.36) or throughout the remainder of the day (P = 0.85)... Leading to the conclusion that omitting breakfast affected children’s appetite ratings but not their energy intake at subsequent meals. The dissonance between children’s subjective ratings of prospective consumption and their actual intake should be further examined.” Here we can see that, though it increases your appetite, is certainly not the most important meal of the day.I would like to start off by refuting my opponents points.General refutations:(1) They did not provide any sources for their argruments.(2) Their points were about why breakfast was good, but none of them discussed why the other ones were of somewhat less importance. I will discuss dinner has a more important alternative.My Points(1) According to health24, breakfast is the most skipped meal.If it is the most skipped? How can it be the most important? Breakfast is not a necessary meal, unlike lunch and dinner. Breakfast only needs to tide you over until lunch, while lunch and dinner must keep you filled for much longer.(2) Dinner is a time of socializationAs supposed to the rushed morning, dinner is a time where one can reflect on the day, talk with a loved one, and calm downafter hectic events.
Breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Breakfast is the most important meal of the day, and there are a few reasons why it is so. Firstly, it Revs up Your Metabolism Eating breakfast is a great way to get your metabolism working well for the day. When your body receives food in the morning, it tells your brain that you're going to need to start working to digest it. This wakes up the system and warms up the metabolism so it's ready to work throughout the day. When you don't eat breakfast in the morning, your body thinks that it needs to conserve the energy it has because it isn't getting any more through nutrition. This actually slows your metabolism down, which results in a decrease in the amount of calories you burn all day long. Secondly, it Keeps You from Binging Not eating breakfast in the morning may save you calories for the time being, but it sets you up for failure throughout the rest of the day. This is because after not feeding your body for several hours overnight, a lack of food in the morning will leave you grumpy and hungry very early in the day. When lunch time rolls around, you're more likely to choose something high in fat and calories to satisfy your food cravings, because you feel so ravenous. If you can hold off through dinner, chances are you will feel an overwhelming urge to snack all night long, which can really pack on the calories. Thirdly, it Keeps You in a Good Mood Feeding yourself in the morning will keep your spirits up throughout the day for a number of reasons. First and foremost, since your body won't think that it's starving after a nutritious meal in the morning, it's easier to get in a good mood and stay that way. It also provides plenty of needed energy to help you get through the regular tasks of your day, which can help keep your mood bright and optimistic. A healthy meal in the morning can also help to regulate your blood sugar levels through lunch time, which plays a vital role in your mood. Overall, eating something for breakfast is better than eating nothing at all. The more balanced your meal is, the better off you will be. Instead of a breakfast of bacon, eggs and toast that will leave you feeling heavy and sluggish within just a few minutes, consider having a fruit smoothie and a bowl of oatmeal topped with fresh berries, which will invigorate your body and give you the energy needed to get through the day.
Contender's choice.

"The question . . . falls under the latter" I'll answer this with the definition of "treason" in a minute. "Not at all, a flag is a symbol of a country, a country is well, a country." Yes, well, imagine voodoo. You're taking a doll shaped like a person, and you're shoving needles into it, with the intent of harming that person. That's what flag burning is like. "To burn a flag would indicate that you are angry, yes, but it is a way to demonstrate anger peacefully (although in a distasteful manner.)" Not only that, but it's treasonous. From dictionary.com: "treaï¿½son Audio Help [tree-zuhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1.the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign. 2.a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state. 3.the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery. [Origin: 1175–1225; ME tre(i)so(u)n < AF; OF traï¿½son < L trāditiōn- (s. of trāditiō) a handing over, betrayal. See tradition]" In definition 3, the government trusts/is confident that you will be a faithful citizen. But apparently you don't want to be a faithful citizen if you're going to burn the symbol of freedom. One could also possibly argue over definition 1. "When there is a cause that is worth fighting for, it is worth fighting for, no matter how many good mannered people it may offend at first." True, but what oppression is the government holding on us now? "Saying that you're going to shoot various government officials on the street corner, while probably not making you too popular with folks like the FBI and Secret Service, is perfectly legal, because, at least at that stage, you show no actual means to commit such an act." I thought it wasn't >.< What if I were to say that while waving various firearms above my head and claiming I have the respective addresses of said officials? When you burn the flag, it is much the same, because not only do you want to do this, but you demonstrate the capacity to do so (using fire). "In essence, I would like you to provide a rebuttal that explains to me why the First Amendment should be ignored." I'm not saying that we should ignore the First Amendment, but acts of speech that are treasonous should not be tolerated. Besides, someone can get burned. >.>