BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Epic Rap Battles of History Personas : (pro)Ajab vs (con)Progressive Dem

Eyy yo This battles gonna end faster than your relationship with GCL.As I give you a Pakistani b!tchslap and send you straight to Hell.Oh Lord! What have you gotten yourself into Progdem? Do you have any idea who I am? My rhymes are rhetorical gems, My IQ is off the charts, my philosophy is sound, my politics intact. And you? You're nothing but a common Keynesian hack!Seriously, just go back to sucking Keynes's d!ck you little shite.But if you do, I'll attack you for adding sexual content to this site.I'm so badasss I break the law of noncontradiction, a Muslim crusader, an idiots threat, A sexual asexual, asexualizing the site with my sensual steamy sexual threads.Don't make me destroy you like I destroyed Liz when she gave me sass,Unlike her, Pots isn't here to defend your sorry democratic asss Ajabi-- I Jab A Keynesian, send him down the Road To Serfdom, And the funny thing is, I'm only beating your asss out of boredom.I've got way better things to do, like discuss with my philosophy master. That's right Prog, unlike you there are intellectuals to whom I actually matter.Not just intellectuals either, but DDO members too boo. Dennis, Kitty, Sargon all have my back. What about you? I spit lines so cold they make the ice bucket challenge look like a fire.Fuccking Progdem so hard that even JMK will view me as an object of desire.Just like my position in this battle, I'm number one and I'm a Pro.If this was a mafia game, I'm so powerful I would be a Godfather JOAT. Cockblock you with my roleblock, only to find out that you visited no one.What was I thinking? You have as much value to the town as you do sex appeal: none.Of course you visited no one, just sat there crying. Are we talking about mafia or your social life?I do not know anymore, but what I know is that they may as well be the same--does that cut like a knife?The truth hurts sometimes, and I know how to deliver. Ontologically doing to you what alcohol does to your liver,Destroying your value faster than the fed destroys the value of the DollarRhetoriclally tackling and pummeling you until you holler.God exists, and do you know how I know you atheist sod?Because I am Ajab. I am a genius. I am perfect. I...am...God! So Choos Mera Lora my strange, sad little friend, Until then I'll be waiting for you to deactivate once again.
Epic Rap Battles of History Personas : (pro)Ajab vs (con)Progressive Dem

You right jabi, I am asexual, i'm a sexual beast I'm a fuking economic bully, ima take your lunch money and feast You greasy headed paki you think your an islamic priest This battle is a bomb that is strapped to you chest and your about to be deceased I would destroy you in economics and philosophy alike You don't even understand ontology so you should just a hite "haters guna hate" is what you told yourself when roy put your head on a pike Now these bars that im spitting are hitting you like a missile strike I've spit two economic bars this entire battle and of course you sound like you are broken and on repeat i think you have a hard on for keynes because hes been in your mouth so much that he has took the place of dennys meat I mean eating pork is a sin but you will swallow dick like a pro I guess that explains why you can't spit bars, cus your spitting cum like a hoe you admitted yourself that test scores are irrelevant and not even valid But just like your arguments against roy, everything that you say is invalid This is a sonnet of your lose that they are going to make into a ballad When you see a pair of tits, why do you tend to toss up your salad angel - of -death that was such an ironic name when compared to the situation At least she didn't flash you because you would have died from lack of respiration penetration, masturbation, ejaculation are all common sensations but you consider it a mutation to use lubrication Your life is an aggravation and complication to everyone around you , so you should have a comendation Your eyebrows look like pubic hair, and your IQ is these size of an asian cock rose are red , violets are pink, allah kicked you out of his flock You retarted looking, tan looking, Muslim sucking son of a fake God The second you decided to leave the site, everyone began to applaud This battle is over, just like your chance at an erection You enjoy talking about fuking donkeys more than actually giving a woman affection I have an objection to your complexion, because it needs an inspection your so gay that your life dream is to be like one direction
"Justice is blind"

Thanks for the quick response! I really appreciate it :). 1 The comment was made with the suggestion that justice is subjective, like you yourself mentioned 'allowing lawyers to make independent determinations of justice would undermine the system, not strengthen it'. To say that what the state defines or rather the 'democratic process' as justice is if taken to extremes raises positively Orwellian thinking to emerge. Maybe that is extreme, but your point rests on the condition that the democratic process can successfully carry out this function and that people would not exploit the system..? 2 Granted. What is queried however is that in the original "Burmese path to socialism" drawn up by the original revolutionary council (http://tinyurl.com...) in the opening sentence states "does not believe man will be set free from social evils until .. and lives on the fat of such appropriation". If con would entertain it, the original coup d'etat was under the premise of justice in that the council deemed the statement as "just cause" in usurping the then existing government. If the text is read you see foundations for the military dictatorship, however justice in this instance was the apparent pursuit of the coup. 3 I would posit that the social concept of justice is only held when it is deemed utilitarian if that. Given the human ability to contemplate meaning, the insistence of justice is subjective and the definition likewise. Contemporary thinkers like Foucault have commented on this liberty on their works of authorship, if no author exists.. no authority but your own (http://tinyurl.com...), this is Nietzsche's will to power, Sartre's acts of authentication etc. 4 The founders were all enlightenment thinkers and as such held the ideals of rationalism. Post-rationalistic thinkers as mentioned offer counters. 5 Justice is a opinion 'just' justice implies authority. Meaning is subjective. If not transcendent it is defined by whatever is popular or
"Justice is blind"

Welcome to the site. You have picked an interesting philosophical topic for a first debate. 1. Lawyers are not allowed to independently determine what is just. In the legal system, justice is determined by the democratic passage of laws and by the judiciary that determines compliance with the laws. Allowing lawyers to make independent determinations of justice would undermine the system, not strengthen it. 2. Pro cites Burma. The example fails because the stated goal is not "justice," discipline and democracy are given precedence over justice. Even declaring that justice is a goal does not mean that it is really the goal; quite obviously dissidents are suppressed in the interests of maintaining power, not in having democracy flourish. 3. The transcendental origin of justice lies in the nature of mankind. People are genetically predisposed to have needs, and they are disposed to belong to tribes that facilitate the meeting and securing of those needs. Individual needs inevitably conflict with tribal needs. A system of justice reconciles those conflicts. For example, theft diminishes the security of one person to benefit of another without a compelling interest of the society being served. Society is better served by punishing theft. Virtually every society comes to the conclusion that theft is unjust. The few societies that declare theft just have dreamed up an imagined compelling need of society. 4. The Founders of the United States attested that rights derive from the nature of man, and are therefore "self-evident." They thought they were put in man by a Creator, but that they could only be known by observation of what they called "natural law." 5. Systems of injustice certainly occur, by they are not "inadvertent." They derive from seeking goals other than justice or from varying reconciliation of the rights and needs of individuals with the rights and needs of society. Nonetheless, there is substantial agreement on many, many issues.
"Justice is blind"

Ok, this is my first debate but I'm wanting to put forward the notion for consideration that justice is in fact blind. By this I am saying that I believe that the effort to create systems of justice can lead to inadvertantly the opposite instance occuring, in short: creating organised systems of injustice. Many lawyers or those who study law are taught that public law seeks to administer justice but that they should uphold the law and not justice in their profession. I would like to take this further and insist that outside of transcendent notions of justice and judgement (ie; the final judgement) that justice is a subjective notion which as far as people are concerned is actually a figment of the mind without such trascendent notions. To support this case I would like to introduce as an example the national union of Myanmar (or Burma). In which after the 1962 coup d'etat the ruling military government has since gone on to persecute all forms of dissidence to what the Burmese military defines as a pursuit of a "disciplined and flourishing democracy". The arguement is that human logic is subjective in it's "anchoring" and largely absurd. Irrespective of trascendental notions this then highlights that the justice of the state is subject to the notions of the rulers. I'm not in for anything snide but I'd appreciate going in with anyone who's game..? Thanks :) Keith
"Justice is blind"

I challenged Pro to explain why, if justice was arbitrary, so many democratic societies converged in agreement on many concepts of justice. I claim it is because concepts of justice arise from the nature of man. Pro provided no response. Pro claimed that authoritarian regimes cite justice to justify their authoritarian rule, and that doing so proved justice was subjective and arbitrary. I rebutted that authoritarian regimes commonly say they are honoring the democratic concepts of justice, and that currently most subscribe to the Declaration of Human Rights. This shows that they know what real justice is while putting their interests ahead of justice. Pro provided no response. Pro claims that certain authors point to authoritarian regimes that use claims of justice to perpetrate injustice. I rebutted that these authors clearly know what justice is. They never suppose that the authoritarian concepts of justice are valid. Therefore, they believe in a transcendental concept of justice while formally denying it. Pro provided no response to this argument. Justice derives from the nature of man. Man is is a complex creature with instincts to preserve his society (tribe), his family, and himself. Justice derives from the resolution of these human instincts. Because the resolution is complex, there are many wrong avenues. However, democratic societies have over time arrived at many similar resolutions that reflect human nature. The Founders expressed it as truths that are "self-evident." That is the origin of non-subjective justice.
"Justice is blind"

1. As Pro invokes Orwell, and in his own arguments, the notion is repeated that authoritarian regimes use claims of justice to perpetrate injustice. Pro and Orwell are right about the authoritarian regimes, but the argument also implies that Pro and Orwell know what justice is. Moreover, the long list of authoritarian regimes subscribing, on paper, to the Declaration of Human Rights, shows that they know what it means, too. They rationalize their violation of rights for a "greater good." 2. Issues like the Patriot Act deal with conflicts of rights. Conflicts among rights are inevitable, e.g. free speech and liable. However, having conflicts and borderline cases does not mean that there are no transcendental rights or concepts of justice. An unresolved legal dispute over the exact legal definition of "shoreline" does not mean there is nothing that is ocean or land. As with justice, most of it is clearly defined. 3. Yes, I am drawing on natural law, and I do believe in a concept of social Darwinism. However, social Darwinism does not necessarily imply that the strong crush the weak. That is because mankind is tribal, so there is an instinct for looking after the tribe that competes with the individual survival instinct. The "divine right of kings" has been diminishing for several hundred years. Slavery began to be abolished about 200 years ago; democracy ascended about a hundred years ago. That is social Darwinism at work. These all represent a common evolution of society reflecting what is just. Pro's argument implies no such thing could happen. Pro cannot explain why it has. 4. I do not take Sartre to be a nihilist, but if it is true that authenticity means nothing, then he is offering us nothing. Nihilists try to work from pure logic, supposing that humans are like unprogrammed computers that exist without values. That is manifestly false. Pro should make nihilist arguments, not reference them.
"Justice is blind"

Dystopian authors notably George Orwell comment on the fact that it is through the mechanisms of state administered justice that organised injustice emerges, and although he was a modernist his work critiques the notion that justice is an external absolute.. apparently obvious. The work of Plato's 'Republic' Karl Popper claimed was guilty of leading to things like Hitler's Germany and Soviet Russia and his work on 'forms' all leads into that thinking. You could even claim acts like the American Patriot Act whilst promising 'justice' has the ability to create the opposite. You say Burma is 'pretending' to give justice.. which implies they know what justice is? I think they do know what justice is.. because they are defining it how they wish, it's not a 'gut instinct' it's what you make it. Going on your comment about dictatorial regime's whilst they might identify or classify particular acts.. the state is often allowed to commit what someone might call murder, or theft, or bribery in a different society. In Iran a thief will have a hand cut off and a Christian executed where I come from a thief would do community service and theirs no crime in being a Christian. In Indian society it was tradition to organise marriages and the existence of the caste system meant that things such as rape, murder, theft etc. across caste lines could effect the 'judgement' of the action. If the Con argument is leaning on a sort of natural law I do not see how Con avoids the subject of social Darwinism in that instance not only is justice null, but null and void. If it's in our 'nature' to seek justice how would the oppression of strong nation over a weak one be unjust? It's survival of the fittest? You're last point is a subjective statement of faith, how would we reveal justice to ourselves? Would you or someone of your choosing tell me? Your comment on Sartre is misleading.. to Sartre there was no inauthentic behaviour, life is absurd it didn't matter. That's existentialism.
"Justice is blind"

1. I did not assert that whatever the state defines as justice is just. I only asserted that lawyers are not allowed to define it subjectively. Nor did I assert that democracy always provides justice (per slavery approved democratically). I assert that justice is defined by the nature of man, and for that reason democratic societies tend to arrive over time at very similar concepts of justice. Theft, murder, bribery, and so forth are widely recognized as unjust. Even dictatorial regimes give lip service to the common principles, showing that they understand what the principles are, even if they put their own interests ahead of them. 2. The Burma example is never more than authoritarian rule pretending to care about justice. This is common. Nearly every despotic regime on earth subscribes officially to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. They know what justice is, they just put the despot's interests ahead of it. 3. If the concept of justice is entirely subjective, why are same concepts of justice recognized so widely? In free societies they are recognized almost universally. It's true the definition is arbitrary if there is no "authorship." If man did not have a nature, then justice would be arbitrary. But man in fact has a nature, so justice is not arbitrary. In the language of Sartre, it is always inauthentic for a human not to behave according to human nature. 4. The Founders were right, and the post-rationalists wrong. The wide agreement on the principles of justice proves that. Pro should state explicitly what counter-arguments he believes, not just say they exist. 5. Compare justice to mathematics. The rules and logic of math are transcendental. People nonetheless get the wrong answers to math problems, and some problems appear insoluble. Neither occurrence proves that math is subjective. Human knowledge of human nature is imperfect and there are difficult cases of application. Nonetheless, much of human nature and corresponding justice are clear.
The concept of Libertarianism

Drugs: Less people will commit crimes with drugs because the drug gang will become extinct. Remember when alcohol prohibition ended, alcohol gangs and crimes stopped immediately. Also, crime would be significantly reduced with the legalisation of drugs for other reasons. The police could pay attention to other crimes wioth victims. Imagine if the police were searching for theives and stopping murderers instead of stopping drug deals. The court system would be less clogged. And most importantly, our prisons would be less crowded, therefore violent criminals would not be parolled back onto the street. Alcohol: People over the age of 18 should have the right to consume alcohol. At the age of 18, your brain is just as developed as the age of 21. Under the age of 18 will not have the right to choose but people over the age of 18 will. America has the highest drinking age in the world with the exception of nations who ban alcohol altogether. 18 year olds can vote, sign and die for their nation, they should have the liberty to drink. Pornography: 80 year olds will have the right to look at pornography and anyone over the age of 18. People who don't want to see that can use television contriks like the v-chip and block it from their televisions. Seat belts: I agree. Seat belts are the best but if a person disasgrees, they should be able to do so. They should be able to unbuckle if it's their desire. Rehab: Libertarians are huge on crime. We are stricter on crime than Republicans and Democrats. Rehab is a punishment for drunk drivers and things. When rehab is used as a punishment it is justifiable. Under the Libertarianism concept, 1) are drugs legal? Yes. Some drugs are medically beneficial; drug legalisation would unclog the court system and prisons; bring tax revenue; give police more time and save money. 2) is pornography legal for all ages? No. Only people over the age of 18 will have these liberties. 3) are there any seat belt laws? No. Each person has the Constitution's liberties granted to them. Drinking Age: We have the highest drinking age in the world with the exception of nations that ban alcohol altogether. 18 year olds vote and die for this county, they should be able to drink as well. Every person has the right to do what they want as long as it does not hurt anybody else. This is the concept of Libertarianism. Thank you.
The concept of Libertarianism

You're right, the topic is quite vague... but I'm here to debate that Libertarianism isn't great... Libertarianism has its harms and the CONCEPT, has inherent problems that must be viewed. I. Laws that protect people from them self. Libertarianism seems to be severely flawed in the view that the laws that protect people from them self seize to exist (at least under the concept of it). Such laws include drugs, alcohol (even for people at the age of 2), pornography, seat belts, speed limit, rehab (and who has to go), and any law that keeps people from getting into trouble (with them self). These laws are so necessary in today's society that using Libertarianism would simply be a bad concept. If any one of these had a looser chain on the law, people could ruin their lives much sooner... funny... my opponent is trying to NOT hurt any one else but when people's lives are changed so significantly without these laws, they DO hurt other people. II. Allowing "Libertarianism" will lead to spreading of bad behavior. I would assume that my opponent would agree that some of what I have named does lead to bad behavior and a bad life. If a child would see his father get into any of these bad behaviors (such as drugs, speeding, and alcohol abuse), they too will inevitably follow the wrong road. There is a reason that the drinking age is set at 21. It's because people's brains are not yet developed before then. If we were to follow the concept of Libertarianism, the drinking age would be gone and kid's brains would be at risk. But back to the spreading of bad behavior... With the government not caring about such laws, it would be easier to get into this bad behavior which would mean that this theory of "not effecting" the wrong people simply non-existent. III. Libertarianism is a bad concept. Bad behavior must be stopped. Following this concept spreads it significantly. That is not good. Thus, the concept of Libertarianism is not a good concept. Following laws that protect people from them self are essential to a well run society. My opponent's last speech was really meant for clarification. I used his clarification to make arguments against Libertarianism. So I won't specifically rebuttal against his "points" since he really didn't have any. Thank You!
The concept of Libertarianism

I understand that the topic is very vague. I will be definding Libertarianism. Libertarianism is the concept that every person has the right to do as they wish as long as they are not infringing on anyone else's happiness or freedom. An example would be drug legalisation. Each person has the right to f*ck themselves up but the second that they steal from someone to get more drugs, they are wrong. It is better than liberalism. Liberals tolerate all lifestyles and actions that do not hurt others. However, they are also very liberal with money. They raise taxes and spending constantly. This is negative and something that libertarians would never intentionally do unless absolutely necessary. Conservatism is good with money. However, they are intolerant of abortions, gay rights and the poor. This is unacceptable. Moderation can hardly be considred a substantial concept because it is completely unpredictable and can be anywhere on the political spectrum. Thank you.