BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle

Phoenix thinks he's a Heavyweight.. it"s so fun to pretend! But leaving his corpse in an "elevator" is the only way this lightweight bum could "ascend"! When people say he's Top 5 it"s only done to befriend.. Sh*t, he's been "Tier-Gassed' so much, it"s about time the rebirth comes to an end!! [Tear gassed] Your decline has been steep and unacceptable! This creep is a professional? Nah, if Phoien"s (Fiends) "in the booth" he"s kneeling for confessionals! And I know the truth isn"t easy and digestible" But the only time this herb would be "On the Rise" is after I leave him as a vegetable!! Ever since this lying pri*k came along I"ve been suspicious of him! Cuz if he claims to be 'collecting the paper' it"s in class after he issues exams! He returned and said he"d be vicious again.. So we thought "Pheniox"ll verse Answer, Fire!" - But when it happened we only saw those Pistols get jammed!! A hall of famer? How could he cast as a nominee? When this wack cu*t wouldn"t have "a leg up" in this match if he passed as an amputee! That first drop had "sloppier lines" than actors with ADD.. And we saw WF cancel the "Revolution Sho" season faster than NBC!! [A phoenix rises from the ashes like a revolution] I"ll fuc*ing BURY THIS VET! You losing is the result that many expect.. Cuz you"ve "fallen off" quicker than buildings that've been failed to inspect! & it"s not just me who thinks you've steady regressed.. I mean, go ahead and ask voters for "L's and W's" -- And you still wouldn't get any respect!! So in actuality I'll "voice my opinion", your verse is fake as a Ken doll playin" with all the Barbies! Rank-wise, "Cee, Lo on the charts" cause him beating me is as crazy as Gnarls Barkley! As far as storylines go, he"s at a loss for words, but I"m not tracing out the path of his fate Plot twist! It"s true that a Phoenix is known as a legend"for creating bouts with actual greats! I"m a phenomenon with fatal blows, him winning won"t be seen like Ramadan in Pagan homes! Drama"s gone, just face the known; debates last weeks? more "Walking Dead" than ComiCon & cable shows! This is no deadlock, votes are feeble; if you "act up in the playoffs", I"ll take a few headshots, show the people Your belt is an embarrassment; the way you "hunted down a sub", you could audition for a Red October sequel! Verbal bullets miscue, your ammo"s missin" the target, and you"re Russian to the Fire, like burning pictures of Stalin! Your judgment day is near, if the verdict involves wit"cause "quality finished the run through this Emcee on his PC" like marathon winners in Charlotte!!
Rap Battle

Alright, seems to be both of our first rap battle on DDO...let's go Alright well I've got the first rap, it seems Until I rip this b*tch open at the seams A twinkle in my eye begins to gleam As I begin to kill a human being See he's afraid of going first Because his rap skills are the "worst My raps are the curse That bring his alien a$$ back to earth Let's start with your name," Xenology, Acknowledging, That aliens are following" Us right now? (dumba$$) See the x is for extra stupid, The e is for easily loses, The n is for numerous bruises: Call yourself captain bruisin' Cuz that's where the f*ck you're cruisin'" Ok now o, out of his mind For challenging me cuz I'll kick his behind L, lower than dirt, Dirt that's going to be kicked in his eye, O again, because this b*tch is repetitive G isn't for gay, too easy to say that he is sucking a d*ck G is for get the f*ck out, what voters will be saying to him When his raps lose, and he walks bruised, back to his cardboard box by the gym And y, of course is a question, "Y" has he messed with, Me? King of the MC's? So don't be surprised when he bleeds, Actually, get ready, call the EMTs Now it's time to hear your words, see if they can beat these
morality is the blood of humanity

Morality is a personal and societal perception of what is considered good and evil. Personal and societal perceptions change over time. To some, it is immoral not to put a Murderer to death; due to the financial burdens keeping them alive in prison. To others, to kill that Murderer is immoral for that action is murder "Only God can judge" Over history everything we now consider evil was once considered a moral act by some civilization. Who knows what the futures definition of morality will bring.
The bible is immoral.

To start off I will present the verses Jeremiah 19:7-9 " and I will make void the council of Judah and Jerusalem in this place; and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their lives: and their carcases will I give to be meat for the fowls of heaven and for the beasts of the earth. And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters and they shall eat every one the flesh of his friend in seige and straightness werewith their enemies and they seek their lives, shall straighten them" This verse is describing how god punishes a whole city that burnt the flesh of their son after they had already died, now I mind you that now everyone in the town was guilty but they still got punished, we dont send 20 people to prison when only 5 have commited a crime. Going to Exodus 21: 20-21 the bible describes the rules of slavery "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand ; he shall surley be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two , he shall not be punished: for he is money. " obviously we dont agree with slavery now. Now onto what the bible says about disobedient children from Deuteronomony 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, wich will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city,and unto the gate of his place: And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is glutton and a drunkard, and all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you and all israel shall hear, and fear. " Nowadays people chose to not stone unruly kids. I feel that it is an obvious fact that christianity does not follow these rules and has moved past things like this so the churches chose to hide these passages from their followers.
The bible is immoral.

I will argue that the Bible is an acceptable source of morality. I don't believe we can pick and choose what passages to believe out of the Bible. It's all or nothing. However, I would hope that Pro would not be an Atheist who pulls verses out of their context in order to try and prove his position. If he would like me to have an open mind, I would ask that he has an open mind in return. I look forward to a fruitful exchange of ideas.
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

I do hope that my opponent accepts this debate. He was chosen because he is an atheist and because his arguments against the existence of God in other debates are (in my opinion) flawed. God is defined as a conscious, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient creator of the universe. My opponent will present 1-4 separate arguments against the above God's existence, and they will be discussed in rounds 2-4. Existence- the state or fact of existing http://dictionary.reference.com... Valid- so constructed that if the premises are jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without contradiction. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

The point I was making is that it would be impossible for a god to not have a physical body, and to have a physical body. Because of that, the idea of a god is contradictory, and impossible. The only argument I dropped was the atom theory, which I replaced with the Law of Conservation disproving god. A god is not immune to this law, because it applies to anything and everything in the universe. Actually you don't even need scientific arguments to disprove god, all you need is logic.
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

I see what my opponent was referring to: "if something is a conscious creator, then it HAS to have a physical body" I merely have to again state that something that is omnipresent cannot have a physical body. In fact, because God is metaphysical, he by definition does not have a physical body. My opponent asserts that the Law of Conservation of Mass disproves God. While this is irrelevant to the debate (because my opponent has now dropped all five of his original arguments by saying "the Law of Conservation may disprove the atom idea"), I will still answer it. The Law of Conservation of mass states that "The mass of the reactants must always equal the mass of the products." http://www.iscid.org... It concerns reactions in the physical universe, as I have stated before. However, a metaphysical god could still create matter and energy because The Law of Conservation of Mass concerns interactions in the physical universe. My opponent then turns back to the second option entirely, which has already been refuted. "But because of the lack or proof or even evidence, the impossibility, and the sheer ridiculousness of the idea, there is no god." My opponent drops in a new argument again in the 3rd round. I will still answer it, though this argument does not pertain to the debate. -The existence of God is not disproven deductively due to lack of proof (and I am not required to provide proof in this debate). -My opponent has not shown how the existence of God is an impossibility. He has merely stated it over and over again. -I may think that the idea of gravity is ridiculous. That does not deduce nonexistence. So, my opponent's original 5 original arguments were refuted and ultimately dropped. His additional arguments (conjured in the 3rd round) are also invalid in attempting to disprove God. Therefore, the resolution is negated. I urge a CON vote.
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

First of all, I didn't drop my first 4 arguments, I proved them further with my second post. The Law of Conservation may disprove the atom idea, but it also disproves god. According to almost all religions, god created the universe. That would mean that a god created matter, which is disproved by the Law of Conservation. So maybe I was wrong about that part, maybe the matter in the universe was always there. But because of the lack or proof or even evidence, the impossibility, and the sheer ridiculousness of the idea, there is no god.
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

My opponent has dropped his first 4 arguments. 5. My opponent is basically arguing for the second option in the trilemma. Basic laws of science prove that if an atom had existed eternally, then nothing could cause any more to come into existence. This is because matter can never be created or destroyed by physical interactions. This is called the Law of Conservation of Mass. If a single atom had existed indefinitely, then it would have had to hold all of the mass that is currently in the universe. Such an atom would have a ridiculously small half life. So, this atom would only exist for 0.00000(etc)1 seconds. This is not eternity. My opponent's argument is invalid. Further, my opponent's claim that a conscious, omnipotent God would be complex is irrelevant, as complexity can exist in reality. So, my opponent has not refuted the existence of an omnipotent God.
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

My opponent's arguments are all logically invalid, as I will show. 1. My opponent claims that something with qualities that are not qualities of life is living. This is obviously false. One of the properties of life is having boundaries. http://findarticles.com... (Property Number 3) However, God is defined as omnipresent. Therefore, God is not considered to be a living thing. Therefore, it cannot die, as living things do. 2. My opponent's second claim, that God does not have a physical body (therefore it cannot function) is false, as an omnipotent God would not need a physical body to function. Further, "listening" to prayers is not a defined property of God, and judgement was not specified as something God does. 3. My opponent states (again) that God must have a physical body to function. An omniscient and omnipresent God would not exist in a particular location and would not need to be present in a particular location to percieve (as it is omniscient). 4. My opponent's third argument attacks specific religions. However, this is irrelevant to the debate. 5. My opponent's final argument is that God would need a cause. This seems the most justified argument yet, and so I will take some time to answer it. This question creates a trilemma: Either: 1. God existed eternally and the universe did not. 2. There is no God and the universe existed eternally. 3. There is no God and the universe did not exist eternally. When compared to the first possibility, the second is eliminated, as it would be foolish to assume that the physical could exist eternally yet the metaphysical could not. When compared to the first possibility, the third is eliminated as well, for it assumes that the universe exists definitely (so there would need to be a cause for its existence). However, nothing exists outside of the universe to cause the universe to exist. Therefore, the universe should not exist. However, it does, so the third option is eliminated. There exists a fourth case, though it was eliminated by logic: 4. God and the universe existed indefinitely. This seems even more unlikely than 2 or 3, as God has already been defined as the creator of the universe; therefore, if God exists, then the universe did not exist indefinitely. I await my opponent to reinstate his points.
The Following Arguments Against The Existence of God are Valid

1. If a god is conscious, all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful, then it must be a living thing. A law of science states that all living things die, therefor an immortal god is impossible. 2. A god would have to somehow have time to listen to prayers (which would requires ears, which only living things have), judge people, (which would require eyes which only living things have) and maintain order all at the same time. 3. A god would have to be on earth to hear prayers and see people sin, so that disproves the idea that a god might be far away or in another universe. 4. The bible and other religious books have many false claims such as the earth being young, creationism, homosexuality being unnatural, a heaven in the sky, a hell underground, and a global flood, among many things. A more logical explanation for these books is that they were ideas of the earth and universe's creation from the minds of primitive man. 5. A god could not exist on nothing before he supposedly created the universe, and a god would be far too complex to happen from nothing.
Animal Testing

My opponent is not talking about animal testing. She is talking about killing animals for clothes. Animal testing is testing cures of diseases on animals. Section 1: All animal testing shall be ended in the United States. Animal testing shall be defined as: Use of animals in experiments and development projects usually to determine toxicity, dosing, and efficacy of test drugs before proceeding to human clinical trials. She contradicts herself in her second speech when she talks about lipstick she defines animal testing in her first section. Section 2: All who don't abide by this law shall be punished by a a minimum of two years in a federal State Penitentiary. This is just a consequence for the first section. And now to my case. Cont. 1 Animal testing saves lives. We kill animals for meat every day. We eat meat. Should we ban this. It saves us. If we don't eat we die. Should we ban people eating meat. Cont. 2 We provide habitats for animals. We should be able to do wha
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

I'm confused. You don't seem to actually be opposing my motion that "governments need to take radical action to combat climate change". What I did in my opening statement was gave a few suggestions about how governments could combat climate change. Instead of actually disagreeing with me, And arguing that governments shouldn't take action, You merely stated that there are other ways of doing it. I agree. There are lots of options. Thank you for your suggestions. But since you have just provided other forms of action instead of challenging the principle of taking action, Is this really a debate? We don't seem to have any disagreements. You're proposal to combating global warming is patently radical government action - ending government subsidies of polluting industries. So, I'm glad to see that we disagree nowhere.
Governments need to take radical action to combat climate change

The governments of the world need to wake up to the reality of man made global warming which is leading to climate change. The planet is getting hotter every decade and this is leading to more radical and extreme weather patterns. This is and will continue to bring about more droughts, More flooding, More storms and more natural disasters. This will not only kill people but also severely impact economies and put our societies at grave risk. 97 percent of the scientific community and all scientific authorities support the theory of man-made climate change. Therefore we must trust our scientists and the overwhelming body of evidence and take action to reduce emissions. We can use more renweable energy, Ban certain exhaust fumes, Eventually ban diesel cars, Put into place taxes on carbon and have stricter environmental controls. This will help to reduce our cause of global warming and thus is a necessary and workable solution to this very grave threat. Good luck to my opponent.
Who shoudl rule the world

says the one who has never beat me in a race, scores lower on almost all of her tests than i do and is not a country girl. therefore, your argument is invalid, as i am clearly superior to you. if you want to test this, you know where i live, and you know that i can take you on any day. You must remember, nobody wants a weak ruler. :) hail Nevaeh, "cuz her name backwards is Heaven"
It is Morally Permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

Resolve; It is Morally Permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of other innocent people. For this resolution I offer Utilitarianism as my Value Premise and Egalitarianism as my Value Criterion. Also I offer a few definitions to clarify the resolution. Morally Permissible; conforming to a normative standard of right and wrong…..Kill; to end ones life……Save; to rescue from danger or loss. I will also define my Values, first my Value Premise, Utilitarianism; The Greatest good for the greatest amount of people….Next is my Value Criterion, Egalitarianism; This says that everybody is born equal. With this resolution once you are able to decide on your priorities such as saving the group of innocent people over the one innocent person then you are able to see how Egalitarianism is used, once Egalitarianism is used you are able to reach the main goal of Utilitarianism. Because Egalitarianism says that everybody is equal from birth, you are able to reach the conclusion that saving more than one life at the cost of only one life would be more humane and would reach the overall goal of Utilitarianism. Not only would this reach the overall goal of Utilitarianism it would also give a greater chance for people to benefit society as a whole, because since there is a larger number of people then there is a greater chance for one of those people to do something great that has a "revolutionary" change on our society.
It is Morally Permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

I hypothetically accept utilitarianism for this debate, but egalitarianism is clearly wrong. Everyone is not born equal. A severe retard is not equal to an Einstein. A monkey is not equal to a human. Clearly we are born different, and we are further differentiated throughout life. Thus, my first form of negation: Since people are not inherently equal, using utilitarianism it would often not be right to kill one Einstein to save two severe retards. This is because the one Einstein has much more utility than the two severe retards. Next, I will point out that preservation of human life is not always a utilitarian goal. Human life over a certain amount contributes to overpopulation. Human life contributes to pollution. Some human life contributes to crime and other related things, directly causing negative utility. Even at no cost, utilitarianism would have us not save these people. And lastly, I will point out that killing is not equal to failing to save. One is an explicit choice to destroy someone, the other is a mere lack of action. The very act of killing may very well have negative effects. It may cause others to follow suit. It may cause severe psychological problems in the killer and any witnesses, especially if said killing is brutal. The very effort one must put into the killing is a negative effect, however small. These negative effects could surely lead to a negative utility in killing one to save multiple. Also, consider that utilitarianism may not be a proper criterion on which one should base morals. In this light, another negation applies - common moral code dictates that only in certain situations is it permissible to kill - when the person you're killing is trying to kill you or someone else. This is rarely the case in scenarios for this resolution. The resolution is stated as a rule, however, it is something that only applies on a case-by-case basis, and therefore isn't a meaningful statement at all.
The bible is a moral book

RE: Methodological issues My opponent said "It assumes inerrantist and fundamentalist interpretation as the only viable interpretation." Well, I'm not sure I see any other way these verses can be interpreted. You are free to interpret them another way if you can find one. I just doubt there is another way to interpret these passages. My opponent said "The Bible was written by men and women. It is first and foremost literature. In Tolstoy's "War in Peace," there is rape. In "Moby Dick," there is cannibalism. In Weisel's "Night," there are all manners of tortures and horrors. Yet no one calls these beautiful works "immoral," for they encapsulate the human experience for these people." Well, yes, the book containing these things doesn't make that immoral, that wasn't my argument. My argument was, quote by quote, "but much of it is God, Himself doing the violence, encouraging violence, or doing nothing to condemn the violence. " When the moral authority on the matter is doing the violence, encouraging it, or doing nothing to condemn it, it gives the message that these things are perfectly alright to do. If it just had violence in it, without god encouraging it and commanding it, then that would be a different story and I wouldn't call it immoral. Re The story of the Bible I don't see anything to rebut here, other than that just because there are good things also in the bible, it doesn't outweigh the atrocities. Re: the culmination of the story of the Bible The culmination was lead by a lot of atrocious things though; even during Jesus' life, there are questionable morals as well, such as Jesus claiming in Mathew 10:34 that he wasn't here to bring peace to the world, "but a sword". There are other examples in this in the New Testament as well. Bottom Line: My opponent would need to offer a viable interpretation to the verses I pointed to in order to claim that the Bible is moral, otherwise it definitely seems like it is not.