BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Papa Perussi vs. NDECD1441 -- Scale Rap Battle #2 Torney Quarterfinals

*sighs and chuckles Welcome to class where you learn how to rap I get an A you get a C, C is for crap Bars 7 and 8 you think these actually rhyme? If my bars were a dollar yours would be a dime I don't mean I'm rapping fast I mean that you are rapping slow I tried to rap yours to a 90bpm didn't fit with the flow I would stomp you flat and you'd watch me grow But this is too much fun for me bet you didn't know You try to rip my balls, because you ain't got any I slaughtered a ton of people, starting with your nanny If you were armed with a knife, I would have a gun You wanna fight? Sure! Let's have some fun You killed your teacher? Meh I blew up the principal You try to shoot me down but I don't fall I am invincible So if you try to consume me you would instantly die Because you can't handle me the least impact is you would cry Beging for mercy, this isn't my full power Win a battle eat my dinner take a shower You thought my past rap battles were trash? The feeling is mutual To you would win the second round is the second refutal
Papa Perussi vs. NDECD1441 -- Scale Rap Battle #2 Torney Quarterfinals

If by "style" you mean rapping so fast people can't understand you then i get it In one ear out the other, you're disses are s#it You're all quantity, i always bring the quality It doesn't matter who i face, i rip the balls from ye I also relish how there's nothing to you One look at one of you battles, and boy, i already knew [0] I actually have things to be proud of Things people can actually love I know you know you've already lost but you're just trying to keep some dignity When i see this kind of weak a*s resistance i shout in my head with glee Perussi means consumer and that's what i do B*tch, YESTERDAY [1] you were slew I know nothing but strategy and power And given i feel like it i'll go any at hour I don't even try hard My mind effortlessly spills your guts like a dashed [2] can of lard B* tch, the consistancy is real When i saw the likes of you i told Mharman deal [0] - I'd destroy him, duh, i shouldn't even have to clarify this. [1] - Not the day before this when i sumbitted my last rap, like when someone would say "i want the dishes washed yesterday" or "i want those -blank- -blanked- yesterday". It could mean you want someone to do something so urgently that you don't say you want it done right now but you would want it already done. I mean use it meaning i beat him, my win was inevitable, before this battle even started. [2] - Strike, fling, hurl. Got this definition variation from the Odyssey, culture b*tches. (didn't willingly read, it had a grade to it)
Papa Perussi vs. NDECD1441 -- Scale Rap Battle #2 Torney Quarterfinals

You keep your mouth clean? Yeah we all believe you Even with two sh*ts in your rap we are all decieved too Are you rapping to a one bar per second? You are going too slow Lines 3 to 4 think we didn't know? You don't even need to frown, all I see is your agony You could never beat me, that is your destiny You rap slow as a sloth, I rap with style One punch one blow the crowd goes wild Seen your past rap battles, what on earth were you thinking? You rap with a slur, as though you were drinking I feel happy for you too. It helps you meet your end Throw you off a cliff, land your @$$ in the sand You get something with attitude? You're a spoiled kid then Your end is today, Perussi says "when?" Grab a gun have some fun say a pun day is done Go up to Perussi smack em in the pvssy whisper "little wussy" bear me son Oh wait you are the papa. Sorry didn't see right You had to beg Mharman to give you the green light You are trapped in a box, it's getting tight Your name is like you, not worth my sight
Papa Perussi vs. NDECD1441 -- Scale Rap Battle #2 Torney Quarterfinals

Besides my lyrics i keep my mouth clean I tell my butcher i like my beef lean No s#it ever goes down Bitch, i never gotta frown If something needs doing I get attitude glueing I don't give a s#it where the wind blows I always have a good time and don't need to f*ck with no hoes Like you, my problems are absolutely nothing to me Although i live a blessed life i'm a heartless bastard when need be I put the moron in oxymoron, git I'm calculated and anything but cool, you better believe it Nobody matches my attitude If i want something i get it systematic and crude In this world i'm just passing through But along the way i share the gospel with you I may be christian but that is the furthest thing from p*ssy And son, that's me, Perussi
Danielle should remain friends with Sadie.

Because DDO prides itself on being a platform to debate subjects of all varieties, I decided to bring a somewhat personal (though not touchy) scenario to a public forum for civil discussion. In other words, this challenge is for fun and simply for the sake of a friendly debate over an issue we've had differing views on. == Auxiliary Issues == Danielle = theLwerd Vi = Danielle's girlfriend Sadie = Pseudonym for privacy BACKGROUND: Sadie is a friend of Danielle's. One day while fairly intoxicated, Sadie very inappropriately tried to make out with Danielle persistently in the bathroom of a bar despite Danielle's girlfriend (Vi) being right outside, and despite Sadie knowing that Danielle and Vi were in a committed and monogamous relationship. Though furious, Vi respected Danielle's plea to not start a scene or fight (even if it was only verbal and fairly quiet) at the bar. Her reasoning, in short, was that it wasn't a big deal based on the nature of her and Sadie's relationship; that she would talk to Sadie herself at another time; etc. Taking a deeper look, there are additional reasons Danielle feels she should still be able to remain friends and friendly with Sadie despite the fact that Sadie has made a mistake in the past. If my opponent accepts this debate, we shall discuss whether or not Danielle should be able to remain friends/friendly with Sadie in the future or whether loyalty to her girlfriend should override any chance of her and Sadie continuing their relationship. This discussion will operate under the basis that other friendships and relationships in each other's lives as they stand in the current day are relevant, and that interactions with our ex's - past or present - is irrelevant. == Closing == If my opponent would like to ask any questions, make any additional confirmations, etc, she should ask me about them first in the comments section of this debate. Once we agree upon what any additional information might be, Con should accept the debate, and agree to the terms and conditions as described here in R1 as well as any mutual additions we might have made in the comments section. Then I will begin discussion in R2. :)
Should AR-15's be banned

" One being to many younger people are becoming more and more able to get their hands on dangerous weapons such as rifles like the AR-15." - Will a lot of teens can get hands on small fire arms such as Glock's for much cheaper and easier. So why not ban all guns if you have that point of view " Another reason being that many mentally unstable people get their hands on these types of weapons and begin endangering themselves and people around them. " But, Again, Unstable people can get Small Fires much much easier than any other weapon on the market, And should be better laws to stop the unstable from even trying to get one. "Also more and more gang related violence occurs with these types of weapons which can endanger a whole community and not just themselves." - Where is the source. " AR-15's also show, peoples kids, our younger generation that guns like these are OK to have around and are a normal thing." - Because they are, Unless they are trying to use them to kill random people. Also, Many schools that say guns are bad never us AR-15's but Small fire arms, Because they are easier to hide. " They are specifically made for killing people not animals or any other remotely justified gun sport. " - Yet they are one of the must used hunting rifle's in the US. " AR-15's are just a danger to society and a danger to our younger generation of kids. " - But the point of guns, Is not to have to protect our self's from other people. It's to fight against our government if it try's to destory's our freedom. " Its showing our kids how to resolve issues with guns and violence rather than peace and tranquility. " - Kids use guns because they do not care about the law. Telling society to break, Is wrong. How can you have a good society with out good people. http://www.nssf.org... http://www.bjs.gov... http://www.nij.gov...
Should AR-15's be banned

AR-15's should be banned for many reasons. One being to many younger people are becoming more and more able to get their hands on dangerous weapons such as rifles like the AR-15. Another reason being that many mentally unstable people get their hands on these types of weapons and begin endangering themselves and people around them. Also more and more gang related violence occurs with these types of weapons which can endanger a whole community and not just themselves. AR-15's also show, peoples kids, our younger generation that guns like these are OK to have around and are a normal thing. However they are made for a more sinister purpose and aren't necessary in an ideal society with no firearms. AR-15's are also unnecessary for the sole purpose you cant even hunt with them they are more for military purposes. They are specifically made for killing people not animals or any other remotely justified gun sport. AR-15's are just a danger to society and a danger to our younger generation of kids. Its showing our kids how to resolve issues with guns and violence rather than peace and tranquility.
God does not exist

My opponnet objects and says that an all-Good God wouldn't make me Superman. Yes, he would. Why? Because being superman would be awesome. Being morally perfect would be awesome. Being strong would be awesome. A really good God would do really good things. SO he would make ME really good.. aka superman. Otherwise he wouldn't be a good God. At least by my definition.No, there's no need for God. Evolution explains life. The big bang explains the physical world. Why add God int here? It's just pointless.In addition to this, we can see that if God existed, there wouldn't be gratuious suffering. But any guy who's gotten kicked in the balls knows that gratuious suffering exists.So if God were all good, and made the world and us as my opponent claims, we would have a built in steel cup. Men would I mean. But we don't. So I ask my opponent: Whats the point of getting kicked int he balls? Why does God have to allow this to happen? Wasn't abortion and people who eat animals enough? Why do we also have to get kicked in the balls?My opponent doesn't have the burden. I do. I've shown God doen't exist.Furthermore, if God exists and created everyone, why did he make so many sexy women? The only answer could be that because God is horny. But if he were horny, he wouldn't be all-good.QED
God does not exist

My opponent has defined God as "an all good, all powerful, and all knowing being". I don't disagree with this, however his main argument is invalid, which will be explained in my refutation. Refutations to Arguments: 1. My esteemed colleague stated that if there was a God, he would care enough to make him fly like Superman, to make him handsome and strong, and to be able to wear a cup. I disagree. First of all, let me state that my opponent already has the ability to wear a cup, so this part should be discounted. Secondly, he provides three illogical reasons that there is a god inside of this argument, that an omniscient God would know this, which I agree with. If He is omniscient, he would know this, however I do not agree with the next part"an all good God would do this for him. Because, why would God care about my opponent? Why would he turn him into Superman? This proves nothing on the matter of there being or not being a God Also, an all good God might not want to turn him into Superman, because it could have negative effects, making his all good be littered with bad. Thirdly, he says that an all powerful God could do this for him, and yes, if He is all powerful, He possesses the power to do this, but as I have explained, there are plenty of reasons why God will not turn my opponent into Superman. Therefore, my opponent's argument proves nothing about the existence of God. 2. Secondly, my opponent states that there is no need for a God, but there is a need for an all good, all powerful, all knowing God. Some needs for him are creation of the universe, creation of animals that in turn involve into human beings (us), and creation of the Earth that is the home we live on. Also, billions of people who believe in God need that belief to be good people and to not be worried about death, because they are sure they shall have an eternal life. Therefore, I disagree. I don't have time right now to make new arguments, so the refutations should be enough for now. Arguments will be presented by myself in the next round if possible.
God does not exist

By God, I mean an all good, all powerful, and all knowing being.First of all, I would like to fly. If I could fly like superman, I could do lots of good to save the world. Imagine if this was me: Now as you can see, I'd be very hand some and strong and would be able to fly and wear a cup.However, an all-knowing God would know this.And an all good-God would want to do this for me.And an all powerful God could do this for me.So if God exists, I am superman. But I'm not. So God doesn't exist.I will also point out that since there is no need for a God, we shouldn't believe a God exists. Which means there is no God. Which is the end of the story.All that exists is physical matter. No superman. No fairies. Nothing. Just physical matter. The sooner everyone realizes this, the better, because otherwise everyone will make me wish I was superman and that God did exist.QED
Tattoos being viewed negatively.

I interpret your argument as a stance against people who would normally wear casual clothes or business suits. I will just say that tattoos are viewed negatively, because of the people that wear them. Your argument can be applied to many things. I could easily say that if I wear a business suit. People view be as a professional, but I am actually a really fun guy, and people should stop judging me. I could say I wear a shirt and a short, but people keep thinking I am casual. I am actually a really unique guy. I could say I wear a leather jacket and blue jeans, but people keep thinking I ride a motorcycle. I don't. It is just my fashion. I could say I wear makeup around my eyes, and wear dark clothes, and people think I am an emo, but I am actually just a normal casual guy. What you wear is what defines you. We live in a society like that. Now, going back to tattoos. Sociologists have actually studied people with tattoos, and have surveyed them. http://www.riverfronttimes.com... The studies conclude that they are more prone to socially unacceptable behavior. They express themselves like that. It is a sign. I do not blame people for looking at tattoos negatively. I know that every individual is different, but I know that a great majority of people that have tattoos have a different kind of personality. Personalities that people will view negatively. I think you are different though. I don't think the people that this study refers to also implies you. But, I think you should represent yourself in a different way. If one wears a business suit, and says yeah I am fun guy that loves to play video games. Let's talk about random pop culture facts. One would understand that what happened was weird. Thanks for starting this debate, and I hope for a challenging reply.
Tattoos being viewed negatively.

I believe that tattoos are currently viewed negatively, but here are some reasons why I believe that should not be so. Viewing a tattoo negatively says more about the person viewing, than it does about the person with the tattoo. If you look at a tattoo from the perspective of "tattoos are trashy" then you will be accompanied by corresponding negative thoughts. I believe that judging a person based upon their physical appearance is a poor way to approach life. Personally, I have many tattoos.. On my hands I have the words "try again" and "let it be". On my chest it says "rise above", and on my back it says "salvation lies within". These are things that I have learned throughout my life and things that I believe to be important. If somebody were to not hire me because I have positive and encouraging messages on my body, then that is not somebody whom I would want to work for in the first place. The thought of "tattoos look unprofessional" should not even be an argument. Because if you really care about what you are doing, physical appearance is not of any importance. It is what you have done with your life and who you are and WHAT YOU DO that is of real importance. If "professionalism" is the result of wearing a suit and tie and fitting a certain persona.. then you are being subjected to the same kind of existential criteria. What you look like is not of importance. People change. Circumstances change. Lets us recognize external expressions, but not be defined by them. Let us recognize the common union between people and shirk off the trivial physical aspects.
Ban alcohol

Laws change attitudes. Many times laws are the first step towards more approval of a certain new societal value and even lead the step to a quicker mentality change. This was seen with the legalizing of gay marriages in many countries, among them also in some states in the US. In 2010 the approval among US citizens reached more than half of the population, which is a drastic improve from the past. In the beginning there was very little approval of the policy and same-sex marriages in general, an open discussion about the law, the first actual practical implications of the law and consequences have over time gained more acceptances in most Western countries towards gay marriage. The same principle will apply to an alcohol ban. While in the beginning there will probably be a lot of protest, there will probably also be a change of mentality later on. Cars serve a good purpose they have a true meaning. People need to travel and they need to get place, whereas they don't need alcohol.
Ban alcohol

How many incidents have you heard on the news that have to do with alcohol? Barely any, you hear more car accidents than alcohol events. This shows if we ban alcohol we should also ban cars because they can cause much more danger than a drink. How stupid would that be? Then people would also have to start cycling or another way of transport to get anywhere. Some alcohols are not even that strong so if you ban alcohol then they wouldn't even be allowed any of it such as beers like Smirnoff and Alcohol Pops. It is up to them what they drink and how it may affect their health. It is their lives and if they enjoy it and they aren't affecting anyone else; let them be. http://www.createdebate.com...
Ban alcohol

Alcohol is a mind altering drug, which can cause individuals to take actions they would have not done otherwise. This does not refer to loosened inhibitions, but also extends to harmful acts against themselves and others. By consuming alcohol people are affecting their heath as well as putting others at risk. When drinking alcohol they cannot control their actions meaning things can get out of control and in some cases this could lead to injuries and in extreme cases, murder and other crime. . http://www.debate.org...
Immigrants should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States

I thank Double_R for agreeing to accept this challenge. Resolution: Immigrants to the United States should be eligible to run for office of the President of the United States as long as they have continuously lived in the United States for more than 20 years. DefinitionsImmigrants: Naturalized U. S. citizens born outside the US to non US citizen parents. Natural-born citizens: Anyone born on US soil. Burden of Proof: To win Pro must show why it is justified for Naturalized US citizens henceforth referred to as "immigrants" to be eligible to run for president. To win, Con must show why it is justified for immigrants to not be eligible to run for president. RoundsRound 1 is for acceptance only.
Gay Marriage

Thank you for instigating this debate. First off, not allowing gay couples to be married is not discrimination by any means. In order to say what discrimination is and what isn’t we must first analyze how marriage is defined and why. Marriage is government regulated because the government recognizes that marriage has external benefits to it rather than marriage simply being about the relationship of a couple. The government also recognizes that these benefits marriage can bring when marriage is defined in a certain way can also be inherently good for the society. The government has absolutely no interest in the personal lives of people, the only interest they have in marriage is the direct benefits marriage brings. Allowing gay marriage degrades the government’s interest in marriage only to the personal relationships of two people, but as explained earlier the government could care less about what people do with their private lives. The government recognizes marriage between man and woman because despite the private relationship they have, their relationship still has a natural link to children to be loved by their mother and father. The government wants to promote these good family environments because these family units are good for the survival of a society. After all, it’s a given fact that only a society that produces children and raises them properly will survive and the government wants to promote this. The government promotes these relationships by dispensing benefits to married couples; this is not only a “thank you” for the couples who did get married, but it is also a way to get other heterosexual couples to get married. Now that we’ve analyzed the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no discrimination against those who cannot fulfill the role in marriage that the government calls for. In addition, homosexuals can still be married, just like heterosexuals, regardless of sexual orientation. To say homosexuals are discriminated against would be nearly the same as saying any couple that is currently excluded from marriage is being discriminated against. Now that we understand the government’s role in marriage we can understand that there is no unjust discrimination going against any couple who cannot be married. I will await any contentions you have to these arguments.
Gay Marriage

When discussing the topic of same sex marriage, the majority of those who oppose the legalization of allowing gay couples to marry do so based on religious grounds without any logical consensus as to why it should not be legalized. This led me to conclude that there are no real arguments against gay marriage. Using religion to dictate legislation is a violation of every American's constitutional rights and in this case should be considered discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender. I want my opponent to present a logical, clear argument against gay marriage. If necessary provide evidence from a credible source to support your claims