BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle : (Pro)Cloud Strife vs(Con) Link

I'll bet your thinking right now how you never told her The shame you brought home. Never making it in Soldier Your past is ashes and your dead in your mind You even took your sword to her before Aeris died! You boast your strength while beating up snakes But you never noticed what you left in your wake Jenova serves you up as slaughter While the black purge is infecting the water! You don't have a materia that can change what you have done I have the Triforce mother fcker let me tell you what you have won! I am the chosen master to end your everything When you here the name Link you will know to kiss the ring! How did you get that I was gay when I was fcking your crew? I never said that Barret or cid was there so I never fcked any dudes! Although when im in wolf form Nanaki looks pretty damn hot but only when I was in college I swear I really don't like cok! I bashed into trees so I could make enough rupees To track Yuffie down and play with her boobies! Are there any chicks that I havn't fcked yet I won't Fck Cait Sith because that dudes a cat! I know what your thinking How could I forget about Zelda? That skank blew me this moring before I met with the elders! I know you might think I'm obsessed with my dck How could I not its 9 inches thick! Bahamut cast your might shadow over lake Hyrule I will turn it into How to train your dragon 2 Ultima can't protect you now I got my last heart peice By the time you read this final word Cloud will be deceased
Rap Battle : (Pro)Cloud Strife vs(Con) Link

I am bout to own this little btch, I am going to leave him behind I have got my blade on my back, and mako in my mind Just look at this fruit, he wears tights and has a fairy Swings his sword around and tries to pretend he is scary Keep pretending you are scary, I am going show you the meaning of fear Slash you 100 times with omni slash ,then listen to all of midgar cheer I use to be in solider, that was my one and only profession This little btch should quit before he starts and just offer me a concession Every Time I slash you , I just get one step closer to my limit break Every word that you spit, we can just tell you are another fake You have a pointy hat, and like to walk around a field picking up rupees for fun I am going to stick my busterblade in your back, just like aerith you are done He spent an entire round talking about fukin tifa and aerith The only thing that has ever touched his dik is his hand, believe that it has merit. He wanted to ignore his own btch and try to focus on mine Thats okay because aerith is a pimp, she sells dandelions Even if you managed to bone them, did you assume they thought that you were good? Who do you think they enjoy more? A fairy or a soldier with a real piece of wood He said he was in a porno with the rest of my crew, I had to listen to what he was trying to say I wanted to read it twice, because if you pay attention that btch just admitted he was gay. At least he is out of the closet, it was about time he came out That tiny little master sword, can make some gay guy pout This guy is more of a fairy than navi He prances around in tights, he needs to find a new hobby LISTEN LISTEN, link you can call me navi just this one time Even if you equipped rapping materia , you still wouldn"t be able to rhyme. Jenova is my mother, that is one fact that can never be ignored Your kind of like Mario because your always trying to get your btch back from ganandorf I have slain countless dragons, own a airship, and saved the world before it was lost Why they are trying to put you up against me blows my mind , you are nothing compared to sephiroth I am going to end this, My bars have been on point I am going to roll this little fairy like pixy dust and smoke him like a joint
government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

I bet my opponent wishes that he had until 2040 to post his round. This is exactly the kind of thing we are preparing for by giving the automakers time to get prepared. This transition from fossil fuels to alternative energy is as important as the change form wood to coal and coal to oil. It is progress pure and simple. The United States simply cannot survive without implementing these new systems. It would be terribly irresponsible if the government did nothing about the situation Please vote in affirmation.
government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

The difference between the two examples is obvious, your idea was five hundred years in the future and required us to become psychics. My idea is thirty years away and is necessary in order to reduce our dependence on foreign countries, keep the environment safe, stimulate the automotive industry, and stay competitive in a global market. There is absolutely no assumption involved here, these changes are necessary right now. You have repeatedly argued against yourself, first you say that it is too far in the future, then you say there is not time to accomplish it, what is it? I have already provided several examples of alternative fuels. The most up and coming of these is hydrogen fuel cell use. This systems on emission is oxygen which we need to survive obviously and also is not a greenhouse gas. Also I already defined alternative fuel so clearly there is a standard set that automakers can follow. I also doubt that everyone is going to forget the mandate over the next thirty years, that idea is simply ridiculous. When the technology to make this transition already exists why not take these important steps to keep the United States an environmentally, economically, and globally healthy country. To anything else would be a mistake.
government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

Now, for my rebuttal. "What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be teleporting instead of using cars. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect. " BINGO. This resolution uses that kind of thinking. It's based on assuption. Let me say it this way: What if scientists proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that we would run out of oil in thirty years and the word from the white house was, hey don't worry, by 2040 everybody will just be USING ALTERNATIVE FUEL CARS, SO WE WONT EVEN NEED OIL. If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect You just argued against yourself. :) Uh. .. . yeah. That sorta nullifies your counterarguments ie: "1) "Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. " That is a mere thirty years away, the resolution is allowing the automakers time to prepare for the switch to alternative fuels. " Now, to rebut your other points: "This mandate will solve global warming, will help jump start the automotive industry, and keep us competing on an international level. " To make such a claim, like it would solve global warming, you have to be specific as far as to WHICH FUEL, and how it would solve global warming. That's the thing, the resolution is too vague. "It is becoming clearer by the day that it is time for the government to step in and point the automotive industry in a new direction. " Well, if the government is going to step in, they shouldn't take a vague, incomplete, half-behinded approach. Making this a mandate, saying 'Oh, we don't like oil, so you companies better come up with something. ' And what, we are to assume that every company will agree on something. One group might think hydrogen cars are better, the other group might think propane is. You see, because it's so vague, it doesn't define a STANDARD, and that approach is blind, unorthodox and only invites bad things to happen. And to make matters worse, the government will MANDATE this. So, we have to assume that 31 years later, all companies will agree on a standard, and infrastructure for the fuel and everything will be ready, and everything will go 100% perfect. WE ARE MANDATING A LAW THAT WON'T TAKE EFFECT UNTIL 31 YEARS LATER. You know what would be funny; If we 30 years into it forgot that we did such a thing, and someone reads the law book and goes 'Oh $#! +, next year, all new cars have to be alternative fuel based. ' Like I said, and you even agreed and argued yourself: "If we allow that kind of thinking to prevail then we will be in a world of trouble by the time the mandate goes into affect" -Amphibian :) Negated
government should mandate that by 2040 all new cars/light trucks sold in US must run on alt fuels

Hello debate. com. Oops, I mean debate. org. I negate the resolution that the federal government should mandate that by 2040, all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the US must run on alternative fuels. I have three reasons: 1) Timeliness. This is 2009. 2040 is a long ways off. It's out of scope. 2) Vagueness. What will this solve? Any alternative fuel is acceptable? What's the plan behind this? 3) Mandate. Why are we MANDATING something that is so far off. That's dumb. That's like if I say by year 2500 all cell phones must be solar power or something. The world might end, or we might be psychics that use telepathy and no longer need cell phones. We're not prophets. We don't know the future. Oh, and can mandates be undone? I suppose all businesses will be 100% ready to do that then.
Capitalism cannot fullt accomodate human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies

"an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels." Again read the resolution. It says " certain socialist principles". Not all of them. The principle of socialism where there is absence of competitive economic activity. Not completely however. I ave stated repeatedly that I do not advocate an entirely socialist economy. I am advocating that the free market only go so far. Socialism is characterized by "production for use rather than profit". That is, for the needs of the people. I seek to partially apply this principle to areas where capitalism exploits workers or consumers. "I ask those who are reading this debate, and indeed my opponent to apply the definition that he opened with for socialism to these problems and help me understand how they are solved by the state controlling production." Again, you apply the whole definition. I said CERTAIN socialist policies. I never said that government owned production was the answer to capitalism's pitfalls. "Then he says that the anti-trust laws are really a socialist concept." I say this because the antitrust laws go against the profit motive(by the absence of competitive economic activity). Not fully but to a degree. "The goal was to diminish anti competitive activity [3], not to have government control production." Again you seem to think I am seeking to implement an entirely socialist economy. I am beginning to think you didn't read the resolution. "My opponent also says "My resolution stated clearly is that there are some times in an unrestricted capitalist society where people are exploited for profit." Actually, I am trying to find in your resolution where it actually says this, particularly about "people are exploited for profit", your argument does at some point, but I don't see it in your resolution." My resolution says that capitalism "cannot fullt accomodate human needs". This happens when workers or consumers are exploited for profit. "We need only look at the entire continent of Asia and its history to see how well socialism served it's people." Here you equate every form of socialism with authoritarian socialism.
Capitalism cannot fullt accomodate human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies

I am arguing to counter the precise policies that my opponent will claim that capitalism cannot accommodate. I also ask that the definition of Socialism as cited be used in its entirety: "an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels". It is an important distinction for the purpose of my counter arguments. Other than that i agree to the rules as put down by my opponent and his definitions, and look forward to his first argument.
Capitalism cannot fullt accomodate human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies

I will be arguing that capitalism cannot function in a manner in which it fully accomidates human needs without implementation of certain socialist policies. I will only list two socialist policies which I will argue that capitalism must adopt if it is to truly accomidate human needs. These two policies are nationalization of certain industries(firefighters, education, healthcare, police)and some form of government regulation of the free market. I will list my arguments in round 2 as this round will be used to set up rules, and to make sure we both clearly understand the resolution. The rest of the debate will go as follows: Round 2: Opening Arguments Round 3: Counter Arguments Round 4: Closing Arguments Definitions: Accommodate:to provide suitably; supply http://dictionary.reference.com... Human needs: Life Food Clean Water Socialist: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. http://dictionary.reference.com... Policies:a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, etc http://dictionary.reference.com... The reason why I am being so specific is because I recently had a debate very similar to this and I think it was too vague. I don't think either of us argued as a result.
Any Religious topic (preferably from a theist)

I would like for a theist to present a religious topic to discuss. I'm pretty open to possibly any topic as long as it is relevant and that both parties have sufficient knowledge to discuss it. A little background to help the opposing side choose a topic: I am an atheist who used to be a muslim and also a reasonable amount of knowledge in Christianity. In terms of morality, i tend to stand with Moral Nihilism and my life philosophy is Optimistic Nihilism. The 1st round will be my introduction and for the challenger to declare the topic and describe his/her position. Rounds 2-4 will be discussion/rebuttals/arguments/etc. (This isn't extremely formal. Treat it like a dinner discussion.) Round 5 will be a mixture of closing rebuttals and closing statements.
The Christian God As Described In the Bible Does Not Exist

Rules Round 1: No arguments. Just acceptance. Round 2/3: Arguments and rebuttals Round 4: Closing statements. No new arguments No "god of the gaps" arguments allowed. Any violation of the rules results in conduct points going to the other debater. Mutual violation results in a tie for conduct. Definitions: God of the gaps: If science can't explain it, god did it. Exist: To be real I look forward to a good debate. If you cannot accept it, it is because you have not completed a sufficient amount of debates. I argue that the Christian God as described in the Bible does not exist.
Dogs are better than cats

What you say is true; dogs can be very loving companions and express that love in a lot of ways. But if dogs are that way, why not cats? Cats, as you probably already know, pur when they are delighted or happy. Is that not a show of affection? Is it not the way they say, "I'm happy"? You see, your argument is made of stereotypes. As I said before, not all dogs are angels and not all cats are demons.
Dogs are better than cats

Your points strike home on the topic of dogs being loyal and friendly, but what you say about cats is all but incorrect. Sure, cats can get a bit ornery sometimes, but the same goes for dogs, doesn't it? Just because cats are less free spirited than dogs does not mean they are totally and utterly evil or ignorant. Of course, there is always the occasional feline out to get someone, but aren't there dogs that hate people as well? To compare the two, in my eyes, cats are "better" than dogs. Remember, not just dogs can be sweet hearts.
Dogs are better than cats

OK, so I personally think that dogs are better than cats. Why? Well first of all they are loyal. You see countless videos of people returning to their homes and their dogs greeting them with open paws. You would be lucky if your cat even acknowledges your absence, let alone when you return. Most dogs are friendlier, too. If trained properly, dogs can be a joy to everyone, dubbing the nickname "Man's Best Friend". Cats are mean, erratic, sarcastic, and will hiss at you no matter the circumstances. Lastly, you can have more fun and bonding time with your pup rather than your cat. Go outside and play fetch with your puppy or roll around in some mud. With a cat? You can watch it eat or take a dump in its litter box, I guess. Bottom line is that I believe that dogs are better pets than cats.
This year will have one of the lowest voter turnouts

Okay, first let me bring up the primaries. Donald Trump got 14,031,998 votes in the 2016 primaries. Mitt Romney in 2012, got only 10,031,336. That is over 4,000,000 MORE voters than Romney got in the primaries. Trump's number would have been ever higher if Colorado and North Dakota held primaries. Now, Hillary Clinton got less votes in 2016 than she got in 2008. This is interesting, considering Barack Obama basically tied with her on the popular vote in 2008. Clinton beat Bernie Sanders by about 3,000,000 votes in 2016. So, there was a HIGHER Republican turnout in 2016 than Democrat. Now, remember, there were a bunch of Republicans running this year. Now, voter turnout in 2012 was 3.3% lower than 2008 (only 54.9% to 2008's 58.2%). That is the first part of my argument, thanks for reading :)
This year will have one of the lowest voter turnouts

Yes, it is quite annoying to see Trump vs. Hillary or Hillary says this or Trump says that. But, in retrospect, I have met even a ton of college students who say they will vote. I know my mother who refused to vote in 2012 will vote in 2016. A lot of people want change and a lot of people want Clinton to continue what Obama started. P.S. these people are in Greeley, Colorado if that makes a difference? The best thing to look at is voter turnout in the primaries by state. New Hampshire had the highest turnout at 52.02%. Louisiana had the lowest at 18.17%. If that many voters turned out in New Hampshire for the primaries, then I still believe it will be higher in the general election. I can see the overall turnout increasing by at least 1-2% from 2012 during the general election. I, too, respect your opinion, as that it is a constitutional right to have an opinion :). (Also, if voter turnout truly is low, then basically that will give Trump a huge advantage, since there are more registered Democrats than Republicans, just to let you know. Not saying Trump would have a 100% chance of winning, just a bit higher than if turnout was high.)
This year will have one of the lowest voter turnouts

First off, thank you for accepting my challenge. And as this is an intelligent, civilized debate, I would just like to add that I totally and honestly respect your position. Honestly, I hope you prove me wrong. Now for my standpoint: As we all can get behind this statement, it is imperative that I make it : We are all tired of turning on the news, or reading a newspaper, or looking on your news app and all you see for 8 hours, or for many articles, is TRUMP and HILLARY. I mean honestly, I am tired of hearing it over and over and over. Aren't you? I mean with all this beating of dead horses, people are bored, and are just ready for it to be over with. Thank you for your time
quickfire debate: Opponent chooses topic

RND3REB1: My opponent is missing my point. I am for giving one a chance based on their skills, not their race like he is. My opponent admits that he is for unqualified applicants into colleges as long as they get "a chance. " This is both fallacious and asinine. We need the most qualified, not giving unqualified candidates a chance over a qualified one. SAT scores are an important indicator of success in college (like GPA, etc). As said above, a 130+ IQ is in the top 3-4% so it is irrelevant to nearly all candidates. . http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com... R3R3: It harms schools because the less qualified override the more qualified. As I've said before: a white student that scored 1360 on the SATs would be on equal footing with an Asian student that scored 1500. Blacks gain 310 points, Asians (historically discriminated against, too) get a -140 penalty. This is unjust. . http://priceonomics.com... My opponent also stated in rounds three and four that affirmative action is better than the status quo. Currently, affirmative action IS used, and is therefore the status quo. As I've stated many times before, eliminating ALL discrimination is better than affirmative action. Affirmative action eliminates NO discrimination. In fact, even with affirmative action in place, many people still discriminate against them because they think that they probably got into high positions based on affirmative action. If we eliminate all discrimination, it will eventually dwindle down close to nothingness. Just look at how blacks have risen up and are equal to whites (except in AA). Encouraging NO discrimination will continue this trend. With NO discrimination, self-esteem of all youth will go up. What Pro fails to realize is that while blacks self-esteem may go up due to AA, Asian's self-esteem will go down; which is just as wrong. As stated above, and in the link, Asians are facing stress b/c of this.