BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
rap battle

not my best rhyme - I'm still sleepy time to get ya flow to flow - by learnin from a pro spit ya sh!t - kritikd me for tha nowledge i already no ima bout to sho - - why to slo ya flo till ya grasp tha basics you can build on az you grow See ya copped my technique - glad to help ya write ya rhyme hypens help descibe the beat - hope ya give me props next time we can dis but better yet - rather would collaborate I just wanna stop the hate - also why I aspirate talkin sh!t about my age - turn the page - you'll be there in a decade but I break free from the cage - nevva let em steal my wage earned it for the dues I paid - even shine within the shade thats why I'm a renagade - overworked but underpaid just woke up my mindz still sleep - writing this without my wit spitin sh!t I'll nevva quit - cuz Im real not counterfit even meters bore me - but you can't ignore me I'm still just a shawty - tho I'm over forty
rap battle

Damn son, that was wack as fu--, i dont know where to begin, You like a lost cause, God cursed Cane, I'm the favorite kin, So ur religion is a lie, -- ur raps is a lie, -- Has anyone ever seen a 46 year old rapper alive? After tonight,-- neither will I, -- Take this fuckin bar i spit - right In yo eye Wait this is still a part the - previous rhyme Hate to use hyphens, but just kill me some time, Space bar space bar space bar , im still fixing to find This mark busta hiding , whether he likes it or not!
rap battle

italics are comments to pro not part of rhyme (higher pitch is what I mean by stresses) freestyle written - so bars are not metered but flowed in my head to a beat also please don't take my raunchiness literally - I have to qualify myself as a badd a$$ BH >(sound it out) actually this rap's not intended for you - I'm pissed at my man and need to vent. I'll rebutt your rap in round 3 bold words are stressed - hyphens are rests - to get the flo and to also carry breath intro I'm ready to run this with puns and stop ya dumb sh!t - my rhymez r my religon and and my mouth iz why you'll come quick Im 46 - yeah I talk sh!t - the only way to beat me'z with ya hand on ya d!ck - - my fix - my rhymez are so sick - only way to save us iz to - vote 4 kasich I gotta pu$$y but I got ballz 2 - my ballz inside me tho right next 2 my womb not inna nut sac that could be kicked off - minez so deep ya d!ck might get lost - then get tossed - to the curb cuz I spit this frost -so cold'll make ya lips gloss - lick ya lips before ya spit coffs. Your lost - I'm boss - tongues my trigger b-cuz I'm pissed off wishing I was younger and ya type but you can kiss off Age ain't nuthin but a number I'm getting wiser while ya just gettin dumber - - i always stay hot like the middle of the summer - bummer - I had to step into ya game - now i'm gonna make it rain pain - - when I knock on your brain, I staying for my claim not the fame - but your content is so lame, mine is so hot like a flame - that stays lit in the morning noon and night - - ya may say I'm old but I still gotta lotta fight.
The world needs Trump

Donald Trump's willingness to speak out against the Islamic invasion of the West has given the rest of the Free world hope that this cancer can be eliminated. If Mr Trump is able to change his words into action's there will be a wave of support around the globe even from within Islam itself via the forced converts. Love him or hate him, the fact remains that Donald Trump's attitude and position along with the might of the American armed forces is what this world needs to be saved from this evil.
Gay men should pay higher car insurance premiums than straight men

Thanks for taking the debate, Panda - Happy St. Paddy's day! Right then, pleasantries over with, let's get down to business! My opponent claimed that because gay men share the same traits as women, and women get cheaper car insurance, homosexual gentlemen should get cheaper deals than straight men as well. I agree with my opponent in so much as gay men share a dangerous lack of driving skills with women, that's undeniably true. To illustrate this, ask yourself this: how many Formula 1 drivers have there ever been that are either women or gay? The answer is: none. Not one, not a single one, ever in the entire history of the sport. Is that because the world governing body of motorsport, The Fï¿½dï¿½ration Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) is institutionally sexist and homophobic? No, as part of their sporting code, they do not have a clause that stipulates: "Racing Licences are issued to any applicant whose conduct and competence is adjudged by the FIA to be satisfactory, provided they are over 18 years of age, a man (not a woman) and not one of those filthy, depraved uphill-gardeners like Freddy Mercury out of Queen, Hollywood's Tom Cruise, or Cristiano Ronaldo - the cheating pretty-boy from Manchester United." http://www.fia.com... No, the fact is that straight men are the most skillful drivers and, therefore, the most able to control their vehicle safely in the event of a emergency. My opponent went on to suggest that while gay men risk AIDS every time they have unprotected, er...shenanigans with another man, straight men risk conceiving a child every time they have sex with a woman without taking proper precautions. The difference is, of course, a straight man can get the fetus aborted but the gay man is stuck with AIDS for the rest of his (drastically curtailed) life. Never mind that though, the point is that all men, gay and straight, are naturally risk takers so any discount that may be offered to women in recognition of their cautious nature should not be (and is not) extended to men of a homosexual persuasion. With regard to Saudi Arabia, I only mentioned this as an example of a regime that has recognised the shortcomings of women drivers and have legislated accordingly. I wouldn't like to see the same policies introduced here in Europe though, as I often rely on a lift home from the pub from girls (it's scary, but when you are drunk, you don't care so much). Now to the million dollar question about bi-sexual men. I have thought long and hard about this and concluded that there is no such thing as bi-sexual men. I mean, once a bloke has had his first go on a proper fit bird, why would he consider another man sexually attractive? No, it doesn't make sense. When was the last time you had dinner with a vegetarian who ordered watercress soup for starters but had fillet steak (rare) for the main course? No, "bi-sexual" men might not be as camp as openly gay men, but they are still gay and insurers should charge them extra accordingly. Thank you.
Gay men should pay higher car insurance premiums than straight men

Why should gay men pay more for insurance? Because they are the most dangerous drivers on the road, that's why. Like women, they lack spatial awareness which means they are unable to navigate properly, judge speeds and distances accurately or perform manoeuvres such as parallel parking effectively. http://www.thaindian.com... Also, like women, they are typically preoccupied with thoughts of things like shopping and flowers which means they do not concentrate their minds on their driving, which leads to accidents. However, unlike women, who are naturally cautious, gay men are still male and, as such, are risk-takers - that's why so many of them contract AIDS as the result of having exchanged bodily fluids with other homosexuals. In Saudi Arabia, women are banned from driving and all gays are, well, banned altogether. That's probably going too far, but certainly, the insurance companies should price gay men off the roads for the sake of their profits and also for the safety of all other road users. Thank you.
Paper(con) vs typing (pro)

Well its the same with typing/using a computer. If you run out of battery you can't use your computer anymore unless you charge it. While when you write you can erase you wrote and continue writing on the same paper. ( In this case, im reffering to using a pencil or erasable ink) You also said that, "if you run out of paper, you are doomed. But no such problem on laptop or phone, surely a 50 kb file won't hurt your storage. Gel pen ink smears a lot as well. Someone can use a pen as a weapon to poke your eye, but no one is mad enough to break a laptop." Firstly, if you're computer breaks, you can't type too. Secondaly, not all people use ink. Some people use pencils or mechanical pencils. Thirdly, some people will use their laptops as a weapon. They just have to buy a new one. "And trees my friend, trees! Can't you endure a little bit eye-damage to make sure global warming is stopped? Think of yourself as a war hero, and the eye damage as a battle scar." Sadly, i have to agree on this one. But using a computer also contributes to global warming. Do you know how electricity is made?
Paper(con) vs typing (pro)

As for the civilized argument, you mean to say the human race couldn't be considered civilized before the invention of paper? You want to say that we aren't debating in a civilized manner at the moment? "Also while you are writing an essay, you could get a message from a friend and get distracted. " Exactly, while typing you could open multi-windows and be multi-tasking if you are up to the challenge. Or you could simply disable the wifi. While writing, your phone would beep as well. Spelling mistake correction- Yes, I agree that typing sometimes can ruin spelling. But then if we convert fully to typing, then we would never have to "write" essays, and therefore spelling wouldn't matter so much. Also, the synonyms button really helps increase my vocabulary, otherwise my clumsy memory wouldn't be able to remember many words. I learnt new words through the synonyms button. Hurting your eyes- Dude, what is wrong with you? The light only starts if you work continuously for 4-5 hours. Otherwise it is tolerable. Plus, paper requires an additional source of light, which ain't good. Suppose if you are somewhere where you don't have an additional light source (say, camping/forests) and you have to take notes about a new species you found, what will you do? You left your torch back at camp, and your pen is out of ink. But having a laptop is good enough. The battery can run out, but then it has a good lifetime. (I know, not a plausible scenario, but still) Plus, if you run out of paper, you are doomed. But no such problem on laptop or phone, surely a 50 kb file won't hurt your storage. Gel pen ink smears a lot as well. Someone can use a pen as a weapon to poke your eye, but no one is mad enough to break a laptop. Also, paper can be easily damaged by water, but laptops with waterproof cover won't. And a drop of water will make your writing illegible but laptop won't crash so fast. And trees my friend, trees! Can't you endure a little bit eye-damage to make sure global warming is stopped? Think of yourself as a war hero, and the eye damage as a battle scar.
Paper(con) vs typing (pro)

http://learningenglish.voanews.com... http://www.medicaldaily.com... Just at these articles says, writing is more effective for remembering than typing. Also while you are writing an essay, you could get a message from a friend and get distracted. Getting distracted when you are focused on something is irritating. When you make spelling mistakes while typing, the computer will underline it or automatically corrects it. But is this really good? When you write you make spelling mistakes. But you review what you wrote and correct you're mistakes. I think this is very important because it help you to know how words are spelled correctly. If you have been typing for a lot and don't realize your mistakes, you will remember those words in an incorrect spelling. What happens if you don't have an electronic device or dictionary next to you and you have to write something? You probably would make a lot of mistakes and get a bad score on it. Sometimes you have to have to study or write an essay until late at night. But the computer's light starts hurting your eyes. But when you write on a paper, you can continue until you get sleepy! In human race, being civilized is important. Writing is one of the reasons that explain why humans are considered civilized.
Paper(con) vs typing (pro)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Blink rate while reading paper - 4.5 mean avergae https://www.uihealthcare.org... Blink rate while working on computer (typing)- 5.1 to 6.6 As you can see reading paper does more damage, although my sources as they claim that research into blink rate and computer vision syndrome isn't complete. But I am sure that reading does almost as much damage as typing. For the money issue, calculate the amount of pen and paper you bought in your lifetime, versus cost of laptop and glasses. They should come up to be roughly equal, or at least close to each other. Plus, writing consumes ink and uses up paper, which is against the environment. And my handwriting is terrible. In typing font remains constant unless you change it, but while writing sometimes font can change depending upon speed of writing. Plus this debate is typed. Transferring paper across countries would be far too difficult. Another point to add is that pen can not be undone, but typed material can be. Once, I chose a wrong essay topic and had to rewrite my whole essay, wasting ink and paper as erasing would consume far too much time. But while typing, I could have easily selected the text and erased it. And I could bring it back if I wanted with control z. Typing helps avoid major grammatical errors through automated spelling and grammar checks. Save paper, start typing!
Children shows are violent and children are exposed to sexuality (Pro-Yes) (Con-No)

Also you confuse me by saying, "Only an average of 98,000 Households have Cable Television according to the Nielsen U. S. cable channel (includes satellite & telco providers too) coverage estimates. " It sounds like to me its saying that only an average of 98,000 people with television have cable and the rest of households have broadcast? I know that not every American has TV in their household, but lets keep in mind that the American population is about 316,148,990 people. Who knows how many people have broadcast then, but that is irrelevent because either way the major networks like Cartoon Network, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon (For children) will still be there. This argument is about television for children and those children networks only, not HBO and TNT. . http://www.census.gov... -- population of the word, countries, etc. Lets all be mature about this but children know what sex is, they see it from TV, movies, maybe their friends know about it from school who knows. "Good Morning America brought a group of boys and a group of girls, ages 7 to 10, to the Children's Museum of Manhattan. While their parents observed from another room, the children watched clips from their favorite TV shows, movies and music videos. One young boy, Teddy, said he thought singer Britney Spears dressed the way she did "so she looks cool on TV. "Another boy, Nigel, said "she wants to look all sexy, that's it! " He further explained that acting sexy means, "to wear tight clothing and expose your body. Although many parents assume that PG-13 rated movies are comedies without a lot of sex and nudity, they should be aware that the movies contain adult jokes and situations. And kids pay attention to it, even if they don't understand it, Murphy says. "Kids know what sex means, they know what sexuality is and they are exposed to it at such a young age. Children should be kept safe and not learn about sex untill their teenage years, but if it keeps going on like this what effect can it have on the next generation?
Children shows are violent and children are exposed to sexuality (Pro-Yes) (Con-No)

Only an average of 98,000 Households have Cable Television according to the Nielsen U.S. cable channel (includes satellite & telco providers too) coverage estimates. Most of the violence that we see on Television comes from Cable according to a article on LA Times.( I will post the Link in the Comments.) Broadcast Networks are basically more behaved in their shows. By the way Broadcast Networks reach way more people then Cable. Of course some Violence and sexuality pop up in Network Shows. But what do the Parents do? They switch to another channel. As with the case with cable, if Parents see Violence, they switch it to another channel. Here is my point. Why should we ignore The Bill of rights to promote the well being of a child? Why do Parents buy Cable when they know that Cable has way more violence then network shows? Because it is their choice! Not my choice. Not your choice. But theirs. If we censor the shows, we say that we can do what ever we want with your show. Leave it up to the Networks to decide which shows to censor. Leave it up to the Parents to decide what shows to watch.
Children shows are violent and children are exposed to sexuality (Pro-Yes) (Con-No)

I want to apologize again, I had this topic up before but I never replied because the end of the semester was going on so I had to focus on school. But I really want to debate on this topic & I hope you accept Con. Thank you. 1st round is acceptance. 1st round we state why or why not children shows are violent or not, 2nd round we point each others statements out and say why or why not its not a good point. 3rd and 4th round we make new statements and counter attack. I believe children are exposed to a lot of violence and sexuality on television, those shows should be censored a little more to keep children from viewing these things and it should be shown to parents more as a rising problem that parents may not be aware of.
Children shows are violent and children are exposed to sexuality (Pro-Yes) (Con-No)

Excuse my last forfeit, sorry. But Con says, "Let the networks decide the censorship. Parents have a choice Either buy cable programming which may have Violent and sexual things in them or block TV shows using Parental controls,", I mean that's the thing, this problem with children shows that they are sexual and violent is an unaware problem. It deserves to be lectured to parents because these shows can contain adult jokes and very violent scenarios covered by cartoon animation that makes the child unaware of the problem. The American government is for the people and we should be much more aware about this then make a final vote about children shows. Something should be done about this, also, please watch this video as it is very entertaining and contains a huge example of the violence in one particular show out of many many shows. http://www.youtube.com... One main argument is "Well parents can just block channels", no its not that easy unfortunately, parents should be shown about this and lectured about it and maybe parents can talk to their kids about the show. Are most people familiar with Cartoon Network? The famous network for cartoons right, well did you know when night comes Cartoon Network turns into a very bizarre, sexual, taboo-ish type of show named Adult Swim? Remember everyone can do their own research how I did but what I am trying to say is that how are parents going to block Cartoon Network when it has children shows in the day then later turns into an adult show? This is very easy access and I don't think parents want to block and unblock the show everyday for them, that would get tiring. I don't think Networks are going to censor this, we are all adults here, they and we understand the adult jokes and violence that we see so they know what they are doing. So please parents, sit down with your child, watch TV with them a few times and you can see what I am talking about here. Happy New Years everyone, hope you all have a great year.
If Texas were to threaten to secede from the Union...

If Texas, as a majority, were to threaten to secede from the Union if its demands were not met, basic freedom would, on balance, be violated more than granted. Texas - http://en.wikipedia.org... As a majority - this assumes that a majority of Texans support the threatening Threaten to secede - establish itself as a separate country upon certain conditions being met The Union - http://en.wikipedia.org... If its demands are not met - if the United States Federal Government does not do as Texas demands the United States Federal Government must do Basic freedom - the freedom to do what one wants with their property that does not violate another's right to their own property On balance - for the most part, in general Be violated - be suppressed from being expressed Be granted - be given as opposed to being violated These definitions are directly representing the resolution, and may not be changed without changing the resolution itself, which may not be changed at all. Burden of proof is to be shared equally. The basic scenario: The Democrat-run White House attempts to pass some drastic measure such as Cap 'n' Trade or a Public Option, with the intent of having nationwide effects. Texas demands that these bills have no direct legislation within Texas borders (something like the Ordinance of Nullification http://en.wikipedia.org...), and if the bill were still passed to have effect in Texas without Texas being allowed to nullify it within its own borders, Texas would secede completely from the United States. My position is that Texas seceding would bring great freedom to Texans who expressed a lack of content with United States law. My opponent has expressed concern that this would violate freedom. I would like him to express those concerns here. Volkov, good luck.
There are good reasons to believe that God did not order the genocide of the Canaanites.

Unfortunately, Pro did not respond. Extend my arguments.I'll end with what I think is a relevant quote C.S. Lewis on this subject (Joshua and his orchestration of the slaughter of Canaanites):"Dear Mr. Beversluis,Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to, say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the dangers of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him "good" and worshiping Him, is still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scriptures is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed, only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.To this some will reply "ah, but we are fallen and don"t recognize good when we see it." But God Himself does not say that we are as fallen as all that. He constantly, in Scripture, appeals to our conscience: "Why do ye not of yourselves judge what is right?" " "What fault hath my people found in me?" And so on. Socrates" answer to Euthyphro is used in Christian form by Hooker. Things are not good because God commands them; God commands certain things because he sees them to be good. (In other words, the Divine Will is the obedient servant to the Divine Reason.) The opposite view (Ockham"s, Paley"s) leads to an absurdity. If "good" means "what God wills" then to say "God is good" can mean only "God wills what he wills." Which is equally true of you or me or Judas or Satan.But of course having said all this, we must apply it with fear and trembling. Some things which seem to us bad may be good. But we must not insult our consciences by trying to feel a thing good when it seems to us totally evil. We can only pray that if there is an invisible goodness hidden in such things, God, in His own good time will enable us to see it. If we need to. For perhaps sometimes God"s answer might be "What is that to thee?" The passage may not be "addressed to our (your or my) condition" at all.I think we are v. much in agreement, aren"t we?" [1] Sources[1] http://www.davidbergan.com...