BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle

I'm your #1 problem, you've got that right.You're just like your dog, all bark, no bite.You say you're "Imabench"? Are you kidding me?Instead of 'EN' you should have typed 'IT'.Yeah, I'm a jester. I'm sillydebater.I like to ham it up, so don't be a hater.But why are you Oreo? That's not hard riddle.It's 'cause you're black on the outside, but white in the middle.Prayin' to God? Yeah, I'll be your preacher.Sit down my student, and listen to teacher.I've read your rap and I'm givin' it a 'C','Cause 'C'-rap is all that you're showin' to me.So get off your throne, don't forget to wipe and flush.Run along now, your grandma needs her mush.I've shot my arrow and it's hit you in the chest.It's the final round. Let's see what you've got left.
Rap Battle

You call that rapping? My grandma could do it better. Now sit in the corner while she knits you a sweater. Your petty little arguments make me wanna laugh. Which is funny since you're a jester with his wits cut in half. Ooh! look at me! I'm sitting on my throne, While this itty-bitty jester juggles swords newly honed. Soon on his knees to God he'll be praying. I'd ask him which one but right now he's "Not Saying." I'm a master at this game. Just call me "Imabench." Whereas you're like my dog outside playing fetch. Speaking of dogs, could you take him outside? So you don't hide your face like Ariana's right side. Collab with Timberlake so you can "Cry Me a River." Shoot me with an arrow. I promise I won't quiver. You'll be crying in the corer after all of this is done. I got 99 problems and you're number 1.
Rap Battle

My name's sillydebater, and I'll fight for the Cup.You can call me your waiter, 'cause I'm ready to serve it up.So listen close, Oreo two-two-two,Now's your chance to show me what you can do.But it don't matter, 'cause when I'm through with you,You're going to be the one crying boo-hoo-hoo.Which is funny, since you say I'll be the one who needs a tissue.Well, you've got an issue if you think my attacks will miss you.But once you see just how hard I'm gonna diss you,You're gonna really wish you had your mommy here to kiss you.My intro's done, It's time for the fun.On your marks, get set, now shoot the gun.Show me how fast you really can run.On to round two, it's the end of round one.
Flag Desecration Act

Selective enforcement. So what if it is? As with many laws there are exceptions to rules. The act could state a clause that only the Boy Scouts could continue the tradition or the act could require that the Boy Scouts should no longer be able to burn the flag as well. BUT as with many laws and acts there are clauses of exceptions. Say you are speeding....if the cop stops you and sees that your pregnant wife is in labor in the back seat or your grandpa is having a heart attack he/she is not only likely to let you go but is probably going to escort you to the hospital himself. However, it's not likely that the same cop is going to let you off for speeding just cause you are in a hurry to get to work or just to see how fast your car will go. Once again it goes back to intent. When someone is tried for murder intent has to be determined before punishment is applied. Was it planned? Was it self defense? Is the person mentally competent? Yes, these too are extreme examples BUT the same sort of rules could be applied to the Flag Desecration Act...what is the person's intent? I know it sounds crazy but a case by case basis would be the best. A police officer doesn't arrest people based on what they "think" but on how they are acting. You can think whatever you want. One can express how much they hate certain people all they want but it's when they act out on this hate and physically harm or even kill that person that they are charged for a crime. Burning the flag is an Act...not just a thought..therefore they would not be punished for a state of mind but for what they did. I'm sure everyone realizes that it's not the symbol we fight for. Geez, I know I wouldn't fight for a mere piece of cloth. I fight for what it represents. That's the whole point of symbolism. Something visible to represent something not so tangible...like freedom, heritage, love. How can one determine whether or not burning the flag incites violence? Almost anything can incite violence if a person get offended enough. As far as fighting because of the level of freedoms we are giving...there are men and women in other countries who are just as passionate about fighting for their country and they don't have a fraction of the rights we do. And whatever do you mean when you state that America's symbol is not the American flag but instead someone burning the flag? American's symbol(s) have traditionally been the American Flag among a few other things like the Bald Eagle and the Liberty Bell. However, I do know what you are trying to say. That those burning the flag represent how free we really are. Amazingly those in uniform do continue to fight for freedom...even those freedoms that threaten to destroy the great nation we started out as. In order to debate the Act isn't it plausible to state why Americans should or should not burn the flag? I'm new at this so I'm not really sure how else to go about it. I probably didn't address all your arguments but I need to sign off now. It was a pleasure debating with you!
Flag Desecration Act

Desecration is the act of depriving something of its sacred character -- or the disrespectful or contemptuous treatment of that which is held to be sacred by a group or individual. (widipedia) Granted a pandora's box would be opened if laws were passed making desecration itself a crime. However, a country should have a law against the descration of it's flag or other symbol of nationalism. I am totally for freedom of speech, but must one desecrate a sacred symbol to make a point? It's quite childish actually. Not much different then the child who has no language to express his frustration so instead he bites another or destroys the other kid's toy merely because he didn't get his way. Those that burn the flag on the most part lack adequate language to express their hatred so they feel they must burn something that matters so much to the others. As far as the boy scouts burning the flag, you are correct, it is an act of respect. Burning someone alive is quite different than cremating a dead body. The boy scouts are merely "cremating" a flag that is retired, that can no longer be flown due to being worn or tore. It all comes down to intent. Protestors are burning the flag out of hatred. What about "hate" crimes? If someone hangs a noose it can be classified as a hate crime as it is portraying hatred toward a certain group. The intent is to scare or intimidate those represented by that noose. Should not burning the flag also be considered a threat? Are they trying to intimidate a whole country? I know the military displays the a flag on their uniforms...should they not feel threatened by these flag burners? I know this is an extreme example as the noose is actually more threatening as people in the past were actually killed with them. However, how do we know that some of these flag burners may not psych out and decide to set fire to those who wear them?
Flag Desecration Act

First, thank you for replying. Common sense and civility have a place in the law, but not that of personal insult or opinion. The flag is burned by boy scouts as a sign of respect. Who is the government to say that the respect boy scouts give, and protesters take away is for the law to decide, again this is selective enforcement? It is almost as bad as arresting some one because of their race or gender. You arrest someone for their state of mind and it is nothing but illegal. You go on to say that the flag is a symbol of our history and democracy. Here I will agree. The American flag is a symbol of democracy, liberty, history, and America, but the constitution IS all of these things. If you take away the right to burn the flag, you are just burning the constitution which, personally I think is more offensive. Allowing Americans to burn a flag, yes, insults millions. Racism also insults millions. Comments made in debates like these and across the nation insults millions, but it's what the constitution gives us: the right to speak freely, that allows this insult. Insulting the flag is the only thing that allows us to praise the flag. It's like saying "I want to rid the world of its wrong." If you do that, the right vanishes as well. You say "using flag-burning as protest should not be considered a legitimate form of expression because it doesn't invite any sort of debate" which is a good point, but I think the fact we are debating right now: me for the right, for the image of a burning American flag and you against it is fact enough this is a level of debate. A symbolic level, but still one you can reply to in the form of argument. Those who burn a flag in protest are not" burning their rights", they are exercising them. And as for the lose of freedom for the disrespect of it. I think protesters burning the flag are even more aware of their rights. They are even more aware of the America allowing them to do this. The simple fact is, though I wouldn't because I have the respect, right now I could write a long comment about how the military is ineffective and it would very much and I'm sure you would agree be within my rights. If I flat out say that, what is the difference between symbolic disrespect and speaking disrespect?
Flag Desecration Act

Just because we have freedom of speech does not mean that we should ignore common sense and civility. The flag deserves special legal protection because it is a symbol of our history and heritage. Our flag is an important symbol of democracy. Allowing Americans to burn it insults the millions of citizens who have fought and died for our freedom...ironically, even our freedom of speech. Using flag-burning as protest should not be considered a legitimate form of expression because it doesn't invite any sort of debate. All it does is announce one's hatred and rebellion towards our country. In a sense they are "burning their rights." Anyone disrespectful enough to burn this symbol of freedom shouldn't be to upset to lose some of theirs. All citizens will not respect this country but hopefully they will at least respect those who died to help give us that choice.
Flag Desecration Act

I find no reason for the flag desecration act. It violates the first amendment and with the use of the word desecration, the separation of church and state. More specifically the law bans the burning of flags, but I am open to arguing the right to by any means ruin flags as well. The act goes against the constitution and what America means. Flag desecration does not afflict violence more than television and it is selective enforcement to arrest someone. You would be arresting them for their state of mind which is completely illegal in itself.
Is Pro Footbal fixed by the league through the officiating to Protect the interest of making money

I appreciate the argument and the idea of one community against another through honest sportsmanship. But, the reality is that Pro football technically doesn't "fix" games but statistically prevents one team from beating another and with penalties WHICH CAN NOT BE REVIEWED put teams in unattainable and unwinable situations. The League is in the business of making money. The refs job is to protect the business of making money. Less than 5 flags in most game will cause the game to end the way the League wants. The Patriots are a great story. GOOD COP / BAD COP - People want to come and watch the Villain lose. This story line goes back to our childhoods. FAKE as FAKE can be. In Baseball Pete Rose is banned in Football their IMMORTALIZED. The question that should be asked is: what teams need to advance? Large Market teams, Larger revenue teams, Where are the largest fan based. BUFFALO MAKES THE PLAYOFFS 10-6. WHY 1) the amount of season tickets sold - the most ever in the franchise history. Watch 7 and2 over the next 9 games. The refs will help. Case in point: Pick any game they are all the same, but I will pick the Bills against the Jaguars. 1st half if you want the Jags to win the refs just have to sit back and watch the Bills self destruct. 2nd half the refs through field position and playing the statistics, Buffalo defeats the odds and came back. Then with Buffalo ahead the MYSTERY INTERFERENCE flag is thrown. From an odds perspective, the Jags are going to at the least score 3 pts and maybe 7 odds are in favor of 3. The Jags score 7. Buffalo needs a TD what are the odds. We are talking a terrible QB buffalo loses. 1 timed call by the REFS - GAME OVER! Nothing illegal - The NFL is all about statistics - Put teams in bad field position and no matter the team the game is goes in favor of the Bookies and the League. If the game is not in the direction for the League the refs can control the rest. POINT 2) Last Winter under a Traffic ban throughout Western New York which is buried in 7 ft of snow, the NFL wanted People to drive and over to the stadium and shovel out the parking lots. It took the Local News and the County Executive embarrassed the NFL before the game was rescheduled to be played in Detroit.
Is Pro Footbal fixed by the league through the officiating to Protect the interest of making money

The NFL is a filthy-rich corporation that no one can get enough of. They have their own day! There is much discussion that the NFL is fixing games. These accusations are both true and untrue. The NFL has obvious favorites. I have obvious evidence that the NFL has favorites. As a Oakland Raider fan, I have seen moments where penalties are called, but they would not be called on lets say... the Packers or the Patriots. Some teams are favorites, but there is no evidence that the games are fixed. They referees may like to make a few "questionable calls" to make the games closer, but it seems that usually, the teams with the better players win. I don't think the NFL is all about business. They definitely like it, though. They definitely spend more on some teams, but the NFL is an amazing organization that I believe is a genuine corporation that has teams winning or losing thorough the season on their own.
Is Pro Footbal fixed by the league through the officiating to Protect the interest of making money

The purpose of any Business is to make money. All businesses protect the "business of making" by knowing the answers to all questions asked or in this case knowing who is going to win and lose. Officiating swings momentum and increases or decreases the odds in favor of the team the league wants win. The league acknowledged the officials call more penalties earlier in the season than later in the season. They are admitting their guilty. Logically speaking, if bad teams lose early in the season then the league is leaving money on the table through loss of income. BUT if bad teams win a few games early in the season then their are more dollars for the league to make plus the fans will still support their team Then think of the communities when it comes to building a new stadium. Does anyone believe communities would support paying 1 Billion Dollars through increased taxes to pay for a new stadium? Why aren't the owners building their own stadiums? Other businesses have to pay for their buildings.
Conor Maynard or Zayn Malik's Pillowtalk

I'm saying that Conor Maynard's version of the song Pillowtalk which was originally done by Zayn Malik. In this debate I will be stating how and why Conors' version is better and my Opponent will state why Zayn is better... If you haven't heard Conor's version it is in the link below Conor Maynards' version Zayn Malik's Version
giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship

This is an interesting resolution; one which I'm sure many Americans have though about at one time or another. When we begin to look at illegal immigration we can see and weight several things; and at the finish we realize this. It is by no means right to give something to those who would steal it. Now my opponent brings up something in his constructive that really frames the debate, that the United States was indeed founded on immigration, and those policies are still things we value today. We still hold true to the idea that any-one of any background can come to this country. Now that includes the citizens who choose to come illegally. If they truly desired a better life for themselves, there are proper means by which they can obtain this better life. That is though naturalization and legal immigration. However every single day, many people simple show grave disrespect for Our country's laws. Instead of looking to the proper means, instead of working hard for their citizenship (as many people do) They steal it for themselves. And while doing so take Jobs, away from those who need them; Cause a drain on social funds that could be used elsewhere; they don't pay taxes but reap the befits of Public education for their children, and the rest of society. They are criminals, just the same as one who would work hard to rob a bank, or steal jewelery. So I conclude with this, why in any scope of the word; by any definition is it ever right to reward those who break the law? it is through this question we conclude that it is wrong to give citizenship to those ho do not deserve it. For all these reasons, I urge a Con vote.
giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship

First, the law is not morally wrong in the current system. It is put in place to help the citizens of the U. S. and the citizens of other countries as well. As I already said there are means to undergo Legal immigration, these illegal immigrants completely ignore them for their own personal gain. and second this is not the same as the Black Slaves in our earlier history; the slaves where oppressed, Illegal immigrants are impatient. Secondly no it was not. There where no laws in place regarding the matter at the time, and even if you choose to accept this fallacious claim that is no reason to continue something that is wrong. That's same as saying, "this website was founded on Murder, so we should keep killing people" Extend my prior arguments on Black Slaves Rosa Parks has nothing to do with illegal immigration. you are completely off base, and off topic. Instead of arguing the issue at hand, you are arguing moral subjectivity. Extend my prior argument on Black Slaves Now my opponent says he believes these illegal immigrants should be given their citizenship because they work hard. If that's the case, should we reward bank-robbers and other criminals if they put effort into it? No. We need to continue to deport these law-breakers and uphold protection of Legal U. S. Citizens I don't understand you claim here. Besides if a child is born in the U. S. they are a U. S. citizen. They can simply go back with their parent's to their country until they grow up, and then come back to the U. S. My opponent also claims that becoming an american citizen is "almost impossible" Well then if this is true, the solution is not to break the law for selfish personal gain. But to study hard and over-come! Also please ignore my opponent's "common sence [sense]" arguments. In any fair debate we can have no givens, nor look to something generically called "common sence [sense]" the fact is that since there is opposition, it is not common sense. Again extend my black slaves argument. also the "overseas fighting" part makes no sense. You cannot join the U. S. Military unless you are a U. S. citizen. In closing, my opponent gives nothing in the way of any manner of intelligent fodder to gauge this debate. They rely entirely on pathos claims, and attacks at me. Which has no kind warrant or impact.
giving hard working illegal immigrants american citizenship

If the law is morally wrong then their is a right to break it, it was against the law to help a black slave escape. If someone had helped a black slave escape and broke the law in doing so is that person a criminal and should they have bin punished?? America was founded on illegal immigration american immigrants took this land from the aboriginals, so arn't we all criminals, then this country was built on breaking rules and laws, first immigrants to america came in took what they wanted from the aboriginols and shot them If a law is morally wrong then it is ok to break it, their use to be laws no dogs and blacks allowed into white schools white library's white stores, now if a african american during the 20's had entered a white school or library or store would that make the african american criminal hence should of bin punished?? WAS ROSA PARK A CRIMINAL FOR BREAKING THE LAW? I think she was a hero for standing up for black rights in that bus if the law is morally wrong then it is ok to break it I believe not giving good hard working illegal immigrants citizenships is morally wrong and hence it is ok for them to break the law being in the united states, cause many of them are modern day slaves an live like this to feed their family's, let them have citizenships so they can have proper worker rights and can contribute in taxes If their child is fighting for the united states do you still believe the family of the child should be deported? third argument im going to talk about america's immigration system that makes it almost impossible for the poor in third world country's to come to america, being indian american and having the privilidge of going to india and visiting and learning what is required to come to america I will point out why most legal immigrants have far more advantages over illegal immigrants when it comes to getting into the united states legally Common sence question to ask is why do so many of these illegals risk their lives knowing many have died trying to cross the border when they could come here legally?? common sence would say its much better to be patient go through the proper paper work to come legally into the united states and have your equal rights, then risk your life to live like a slave fearing deportation If you say it was right for rosa park to stand up for black rights and she wasn't a criminal for it then you would be a hypocrite to vote against letting illegal immigrants become citizens because they broke the law by crossing the border and living like slaves so they can feed their kids, especially if they have members who are over seas fighting If you see this fight to let illegals get their citizenships are era of the civil rights movement then you vote pro on citizenship if you are against this era's civil rights movement then you would vote for con
School should start later

I don't think school should start later. I am assuming this is for high school students, since you wrote teens. If the point is to have more sleep so teens aren't tired, then an a relevant debate topic could argue for shorter school days. Maybe instead of feeling tired in class, teens could just go to bed a couple hours earlier. School usually gets out in the late afternoon, which should leave plenty of time to get a good night's sleep and finish homework.