BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Rap Battle Ocho!

So typical, an Atheist on Debate.org It's critical that I make sure and slay this whore Get physical and invade his dorm You're pitiful, I advise that you hit the escape door This day you're gonna die, I aint afraid of kikiki Disdain this guy, it's gonna be hard defeating me In vain you'll try, I'll lock you up and won't be keeping keys Even in rain you'll dry, You aint nothin' but TP, G ill-Legally is how I'll kick your @ss, you political undecided Even we conservatives hate you more than liberals, open wide bjtch Evenly is not an option, you know the right is best, don't deny it see, you'll pee when you battle me, "Oh, don't cry, prjck!" so, you're mine, bjtch, don't think you're even a ninja You'll just die quick, no recon, this role just don't fit ya You're no surprise, it's easy to spot you, I'll take a pictcha You shouldn't even fight it, you know I'm gonna win, duh I'll put you in a head lock, you're no smarter than a dead cop I'll bury you down to the bed rock, You're rhymes are wet slop You keep goin' but instead stop, or I'll call police, the feds knock "We're lookin' for kikiki let us on," "He's with his sister in wedlock!" You'll be just a red dot when I'm finished with you, animal abuser pay for those dead dogs, I'll abuse you with lyrics that confuse you But I'll give some cred...NOT, everything you do is weaker than voodoo Still you need magic, get job, I hear your mom wants a blow from you, too But screw you, and everything you stand for Just two is few? mom and sister are not the only answer? Include who? You're dad? That's a weird foursome, hope yall get cancer I'll feud you any day, you're a slave deer like Prancer Your aunt's a whore, she's in the bedroom waiting Your got rants galore, but I got chants of the Lord saying: "Your pants are torn because of the savage you're debating." Your plan is forlorn, because you went up against Jim Shady P.s. you're mom's a big lady.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

I feel I already proved my points in round 1 and 2,thats why I didnt bother going over every single topic you put up in that page-long response.You yourself asked them to go to sites and look at the info,so why cant I ask them the same? Even if they dont read anything,its logic that a minority shouldnt have the upperhand in votes.If everybody has the same value and rights under our system then we have to respect that majority.We cant just pick the minority because you(personally) like it more.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

My opponent has clearly lost this debate. Not only were his arguments inherently flawed and fallacious, as I proved already- he constantly tried to avoid the main subject of the debate by attacking my argument as simply wrong without giving an explanation, and suggesting (twice, even) that people should simply research this issues for themselves. That is not the point of a debate, it is his job to prove his point, not your job to 'research it yourself'. By all standards I have won this debate.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

True, you have made your points- but all of your points have been throughly refuted by me. It's your job to give them the information, and it's your job to convince them of the conclusion you wish to support- not theirs. Regardless of whether or not people would accept it I suggest it should be implemented. You are again using the argument from popularity fallacy. Just because people support something doesn't mean it's good, and just because people don't support something doesn't mean that it is bad. You start to use circular reasoning later on, saying that Since I am the minority I am incorrect, therefore you are correct- when the subject is on democracy or 'majority rule' itself, It becomes illogically circular. While you might find my arguments incoherent I suspect those who have the intellect to understand them do not find them to be so. If either of us have any incoherent arguments it would be yours, the ones you continue to bring up however fallacious they become.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

Well like I said in the previous round.I dont see the need for 5 rounds for I already feel I made my point and im sure that if the people reading this debate look up information on their own,they can make their own conclusions on the subject.The fact of the matter is,that your 'system' is flawed and ontop of that people just wouldnt accept it.I believe that people with your state of mind on this subject are a MINORITY and that the MAJORITY of the nation would agree that the MAJORITY winning in votes is the CORRECT way to go and thats why it is the way we DO it this day.So feel free to continue answering with page-long rambles that are incoherent while I wait for the votes of the people who have seen this debate.They dont even have to look up information if they dont want to.I mean its logical to see that a minority just cant have the upperhand in votes,thats like saying a basketball team that scores 100 points loses to a team that only scored 50 points,it doesnt make sense.Cya at the vote ^_^.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

Well its an exaggeration to say that people would argue that 1 + 1 = 5 lol because the math system has already been developed and 1 + 1 = 2 for your information but okay btw..that math system had to be reviewed and people VOTED to decide if it was correct,majority won.I don't think I need to say much other than an exaggerative view of a system to make it look bad wont be something people will fall for.The simple matter is that you cant force your views on a whole nation if you dont have the support of the majority of people who live in that country.You live in our nation,you go by its law..and the law of our nation states that voting and the majority winning is the correct way to go and I cant see how you would disagree.While it may be true that not everyone would agree on a certain topic and the voting might end up close like you stated,saying that the minority should win just because you supported the view the minority had,is wrong.Everybody has the same right to express their opinion as you do.We have to respect that.In the end of it all we all try to be educated individuals who strive to pick whats best for our country.To avoid further conflict,people vote,and it goes the way the majority of the nation picked because like I said,its dictatorship if you force something the majority of the nation doesnt want.I dont see why we need 5 rounds for this,I have made my point and my opponent is just giving exaggerated views of the arguement to try and make the system look bad.Lol but its cool,just try to not take 2 days and a half to come up with your next response XD.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

I agree that without a democracy there is the possibility of a dictatorship. Dictatorships are not necessarily bad things, there can be totalitarian dictatorships and benevolent dictatorships. Theoretically, a benevolent dictatorship can maximize liberty without taking into account the prejudices of the citizens. If the entire nation, minus one person, disagrees with Liberty Liberty is STILL correct. To argue otherwise would be an appeal to popularity. If the entire world claims that 1+1=5, yet you believe it is two you are the correct one! Tyranny of the majority is not fair, it is simple oppression. In order to avoid oppression, government must not follow by a system in which 51% of the population can oppress 49% of the population.
Majority should decide whether or not a political policy is implemented.

I believe that whether the majority is correct or not on an issue is based on your views or opinion.You might believe something is correct but the rest of a nation might believe it is incorrect.To decide these matters in a way that is fair to everyone would be by voting and the action taken would be the one the majority chose,for if only one person is supporting a proposal and the rest isn't,it would be dictatorship to impose that on the nation if they disagree.^_^
I will create worse essays than you (Troll debate)

COMUNISM DOESN'T WURK I beleeve comunism doesn't wurk because comunism beleeves in equality. Imajine a world where every one is treeted as de same. Boring isn't it? It sure is four mee! I find it boring because rich peeple won't bee abel too look down on de poor and I don't like it! Comunism just takes out de fun of poor peepel being laughed at because if it wurks, de poor peepel will become normal peepel and dats unfair! Not just dat! Comunism takes away sexism. Dats not fare! Peepel shud hav de rite too sea others how eva dei wanna! If I wanna look down on a gurl, dats my bisness! Y shud I judge some one four how dei look at other peepel?! Comunism is just judge mental and I don't like it! Bee sides dat, comunism does not aproove racism but comunism itself is racist! De peeple who started comunism were Russian and only Russians were de ones who spread comunism around de wurld! I also think comunism is judgemental in dis case because dei are judging udders for being racist. Hey, if I can't see you in de snow because your white den isn't it too bad four yoo? Duh, of course it ees! Simplee put, comunism doesn't work because comunism, dats y. If my techer does not give me a good mark on dis essay, den she ees obviously a racist and sexist asian woman. NOTE Thanks Benshapiro for this amusing troll debate. I apologize if these essays have offended anyone despite my previous warnings. Note once again that these essays were never meant to offend anyone and are not from personal experience in any way.
I will create worse essays than you (Troll debate)

We all deserve a million dollars for free If we don't give everyone a million dollars, eventually no one will ever earn any kind of money. Would you really want no one to earn any kind of money? Without money, we would all starve and not be able to breathe. I've seen so much money being printed in this dream I had last week I can just imagine how easy it would be to give everyone in the USA a million dollars for free by dumping it out of a large air balloon. They say that money is the root of all evil, but they forget that money can buy drugs and booze. Everyone deserves to be given a million dollars for free because money is cash! The simple fact is, we either give everyone a million dollars or we're all gonna be broke and homeless. That's all there is to it. Everyone deserves a million dollars for free because money printers are greedy adulterers that don't want everyone to have a million dollars. Let's face it: if you were a true human being you would support giving everyone a million dollars for free. Haters might say that everyone getting a million dollars might cause inflation, but then how would everyone go hunt for firewood when they want to go camping? Everyone who doesn't support giving everyone a million dollars really just hates the poor. Truthfully, those people who oppose giving everyone this free money are just as bad as Hitler. Everyone is starting to support the idea so it must be true anyway. A baseball player hitting a home run is just the same as giving everyone free money and really drives my points home. I've given every reason for why we all deserve a million dollars for free.
I will create worse essays than you (Troll debate)

Cookies: The Life Partner Everyone NeedsCookies are the life partner everyone needs. When I was 4, I stumbled on a flattened chocolate ball. As I looked at it closely wondering what it was, I noticed it looking back at me. It was love at first sight. I accidentally ate it though for it came too close to my face. If that day never came, I would be empty today.Cookies are the life partner of my life because they make me feel like nothing else can, loved. When I am sad and lonely, there it is in a jar in my pantree. A cookie. When bitten, it just melts in my mouth like my heart melts when loved. An example is when I failed my first exam in the first semester and sulked in my dorm room. I felt like there was nothing left to live for. Howevar, once I stepped into the kitchen, I remembered why I lived in the first place. To eat cookies. It was there, on the table, the jar of cookies. I took a bite. It tasted so good. From that day on, I passed my exams with flying colours all through the motivation of my life partner...cookies.This experience is undenyabel as if a cookie can be the cause of all this in my life, I am certain people will soon come to realize what I see as well. Even my dear professor will soon realize this as well. I am sure that once my professor takes a bite, my A is certain for doing him a great favour.
I will create worse essays than you (Troll debate)

Magic is everywhere Anyone who doesn't think magic is real is a moron. Magishuns are actually proven by me to be aliens that got ancient magical powers to do stuff like pull a rabbit out of a hat or saw somebody in half. My friend also told me that I am right and he is never wrong when he says that I'm right. ever sense I was 3 I've believed magic is real and haven't been wrong ever sense. How do you think they fit tiny talking people in your TV? That's why anyone who doesn't think its magic is like totally a morron. Plus why would they be magic tricks if they weren't magic. I never ever ever never ever heard anyone say that magic isnt real so it must be real any ways. magic causes many other things such as lightning too. I've come to the conclusion that magic clouds are the ones that shoot lightning because they get angry. rainbows are the opposite of magic clouds because they are gay as can be for those like me who know that magic is real. magic is also real becau magic is used in movies all the time when people come back to life after dying and falling from too high up. In this one movie, I saw a guy get shot when he should've died and he didn't so I witnessed magic. After reading some notes I wrote down about where I think magic comes From, I've learned that anyone who eats a four leave clover can be magical as well. thats why I ate one from my lucky charms breastfast this morning and now I can do just about anything. When I blow on my finger I can shrink to the size of an ant but I can only do it when no one is looking because thats just how magic works. I'm gonna. use my magic powers to make my teacher smarter because she never gives me good grades for no reason. Magic is real and anyone who says it doesn't is a moron.
I will create worse essays than you (Troll debate)

I accept the rules. Note that my essays are my own and if any of them are related to existing essays they are mere coincidences. Also, none of these essays are based on personal experience and are not intended to offend anybody. All misspellings are intentional. Jail Cells : De Saviour off Menkind There should be more jail cells than there are today. Ah, the sweet smell of a rotting cell. The worst of the worst being your cellmate. You want out but there is no one to save you. You poor little soul...HA! IN YOUR DREAMS! The whole reason you are in jail is because you committed the whole crime! As we all know, jail cells are for bad people and since this is true according to a source way more credible than Wikipedia, me, then there should be more jail cells. This logic is simple and undenyable. One May ask, "How do YOU know these people are sentenced rightfully?" Simple. Those who ask this question are obviously those who also belong in a cell. Since they who ask dis also belong in a cell, then wouldn't anyone agree that there should be more jail cells? Of course they would! For the sake of those who disagree with me, I will answer the very question of knowing whether these people are not wrongfully sentenced itself. The answer is obvious. One is found guilty by the evidence that is presented. If one fails to present enough evidence to prove his or her innocence, then it is their fault they couldn't prove their innocence so this also means that they are then guilty and should be thrown into a cell. Simple. With all this said, there should be more jail cells. Everyone that is thrown into one obviously deserves to be there. With my point being proven, anyone who disagrees with me, even you, dear professor, deserve to be in a cell. So be a good citizen to your country and give me my A plus. Thank you.
I will create worse essays than you (Troll debate)

Short note on rules: The only rule is to not use semantics to try to win this debate on any technicality. Given that there are 3 rounds, whoever has the 2 or more essays considered worse by the voters will win. A worse essay is one that others regard to be more humorously illogical and convey a false intention of coherence. Misspellings are acceptable to convey poor form. We shall assume these essays (3,000 char limit) are submitted as part of a college level english final to your teacher. Each Essay should have a title. Sexiness: not limited to human beings Sexiness is not limited to human beings. Picture a healthy, burlap elderly man wearing an American flag speedo. He's smiling fiercely. What about this is sexy? Everything. Now, onto yet another real example. Imagine you wake up and smell bacon. Your mouth waters. You rush around the house lusting after this bacon. Two words for this: sexy. Now, what about the grease on the bacon? That is not sexy but babyphat is sexy so it actually can be. Now my first example of the old man wearing the flag speedo makes perfect sense. In the 1600's womens rights first came on the scene in america. Luckily, they didn't have rights yet because they weren't sexy enough. With the invention of the speedo in 1612, women gradually got rights and became sexy. Another example is my dog Phillip. He eats two cans of potato chicken daily and is totally incontinent. We have to put a diaper on him because he likes to run around and poop on little neighborhood kids. Phillip, women's rights, bacon, and the patriotic old man all prove that sexiness is only possible iin humans. Each example that I've have had hadn't had not given has been researched on the internet and reviewed by myself for erors. All in all, we've witnessed here today in my essay that sexiness is limited to human beings. You can't find anything sexy if it isn't human. My essay set out to prove that and I have. In conclusion, this essay proves that my abilities are above my teachers pay grade and that I should complain to admin. that she isn't smart enough to grade my masterpeace essays.
Death Penalty should be abolished

Abolished: Taken away, removed, something that has been disposed of. Death Penalty: The decision of another human being(s) for another human being to die. I thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate and I hope that he will enjoy this debate. This is debate is on whether death penalty should be abolished or not. My position states that I am "for Death Penalty being abolished. " My opponent is "against Death Penalty being Abolished. "Rules1. No unruly words or any offensive words2. No sources from wikipedia3. The arguments may not contain anything about trials that might have been tied.
WWI was an not an inevitable conflict, and the US should not have been involved.

WW1 was avoidable, and the U.S. did not have to become involved. Unfortunately, you only posted one round, thus, I will post my entire argument here. First, the Lusitania, which was the so called "reason" we entered WW1, was NOT an American ship. It was a British ship that, unbeknownst to most, was carrying munitions. Britain claimed that it was a passenger ship, however, recent wreckage and documents support the German claim 100 years ago. The entire purpose of this sinking, which, again, was the reason the U.S entered the war, was to garner anti-German sentiment and rouse the American government to war. Due to the fact that America was never officially attacked, and neither was Britain (unjustifiably), the U.S had no reason to enter into this war. As for the war itself, it was avoidable. The war began over the assassination of Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary. Like any other politician's assassination, a war could have been avoided- if it were not for alliances.
Homosexual Marriage should be considered illegal in the United States.

As pro I will move to affirm the resolution that "Homosexual Marriage should be considered illegal in the United States. " I would like to begin by laying out a few definitions: United States - North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776. [1] Marriage - A social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. [2] --------------------------------------------- Arguments: 1) The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law on September 21, 1996, having passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342–67,[3] and in the Senate by a vote of 85 - 14. [4] The law established that the federal government would not recognize the union between two gay individuals as a marriage. This also meant that gay couples who are recognized as being married in there respective states would not receive the same federal benefits that heterosexual couples do. 2) The Deference of Marriage Act also established that no state, territory or Indian tribe would be required to give effect to gay relationships that may be considered a marriage in another state, territory or Indian tribe. As it stands today there are only 5 states that recognize and perform gay marriages, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. This would mean that gay marriage in considered illegal in 90% of the states. --------------------------------------------- Conclusion: Seeing as gay marriage is illegal on the Federal level and illegal in 90% of the states it is only rational to consider homosexual marriage illegal in the United States. Thank you, --------------------------------------------- Sources: [1] . http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://clerk.house.gov... [4] . http://www.senate.gov...
Pay gap

The pay gap is just an imaginary concept developed by feminists in order to get attention. When adding up to see what the pay gap actually is, no one puts in the amount of hours one works and what job they do. Counting hours do make a difference in pay and if people cannot come to that agreement then they are ignorant and just biased to confirming their belief. Petroleum engineers, right? They make a good amount of money yearly. Have you ever heard of a women saying that they want to be a petroleum engineer? No of course not. Women have maternity leave and do not have the willpower to work as much as others do. No one takes in account of certain jobs men and women have and how many hours they work, therefore creating this concept of an imaginary pay gap. However, people will just have belief perseverance and continue to believe in this made up concept.Your entire argument is unsubstantiated personal opinion. "Women... do not have the willpower to work as much as others"? There is nothing in this argument for me to rebut, just rhetoric.The numbers are clear. The gap exists. Casus and resolutions can be discussed, but not the existance. I have proven the gap exists without being rebutted. There is NO doubt it exists, the debate question "I believe the pay gap is imaginary." is false.