BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mental hosptal doctor (con) vs anti-mental hospital criminal (pro) rap battle

Serve you booze in twos as you schmooze on this cruise what to lose? Bro, I shot and dozed you with a bag or two Saying that I'm nothing but your bitch But yet, bro, you took a nice giant sniff of the hardest, stimulant pack of drugs You got drugged by the hardest freaking thug My style is wicked, sneaky like a demon When you get through with me, your mind will be done So you think I'm madder than a Wiccan witch? At least I'm not the one who got drugged like a snitch talking all kinda incoherent crap You messed around, you were put on BLAST You Arabs camel jocks like to claim you're tough Come to Puerto Rico, I'll show what's truly rough Arabs and Africans like to show off and talk To that I just sneer, cause every Boricua has truly faught Cause a real Puerto Rican will beat you up, pendejo We're the most vicious pack of killers and druggers, bro I could care less that you love "Seinfeld" like me Bring your "bro"-hating antics, and get one in your teeth The "bro"-saying Rivera in the house Try to drug me up, you get trapped like a mouse I ain't no Guzman, or Lopez or Visigoth I'm so Rivera, I was given head by your ma
Mental hosptal doctor (con) vs anti-mental hospital criminal (pro) rap battle

Yo yo, let's get this started! [Beat starts] Serve my booze in twos as I schmooze on this cruise what to loseI'll ooze in his shoes and abuse his bruise with transfuseMy scrubs have more views than The View's interviews I'm prime-newsWhen I'll put him to his snooze you'll jump your seats like Tom CruiseI shoot loot up my snoot like a medical recruit from Beirut I'm astuteEyes dilute but no dispute his lines are moot and mute know the tree from the fruitMy shadows loom on his room I'm the doom and gloom of this you know whomThey presume they're like Hume or Messiahs out there tomb before we put them in costumeI admit as chief of staff this kid's riffraff make all of us laughOne day a Latino gangster second day a giraffeHis brain is a quitter gave up on his spark transmitterThere's no gas spitter or emitter, if you open his head it's crickets and glitterThis quack's duck meat easy to beat as he can't take the heatHe can't cheat us with deceit we know his mind's obsolete like a cul-de-sac streetThis b!tch no Einstein he's the offspring Charlie Manson and El Chapo would have hadNot every madman is a genius and Adam's proof of thatThis wacko pocho mojado tomato-picker sexican wet-back construction burritoIs so light-headed he fainted when he head-butted a mosquitoIf it's Sanchez or Chavez or Francaises who caresWhen you serve me my taco don't forget the mayonnaiseYou'll be the doctor's' kitchen b!tch and scratch our every itch when I tell you whichIt doesn't matter what you call us when you're madder than a Wiccan witch You call us "bros" and then call us "f@ggots" then you're nothing but our b!tchAnd I'm more psychopathic than you are but the difference is madness made me dominant and richI'll snatch your d!ck out and keep it stuffed in your mouth until it ejaculates spitI'll make animal balloons of your intestines and confetti with the stomach skin I have slitAnd kick you so hard with my iron-toe boots till your ribs start to splitThe kink in it is I'll be kickin your a55 and make you love me kickin it.
Mental hosptal doctor (con) vs anti-mental hospital criminal (pro) rap battle

Opening statement: Since stereotypically, most blacks and whites hate the word "bro" -- my opponent must pretend to hate the word "bro" :D. Check my style out, broses and sissesYou're listening to the one Latino bro rapping in the houseGiving a shoutout to all my bros and sisses out West, in CaliforniaCheck my style outTo hell with the mental hospital systemIt's about time for me to bust some headsTalking about how types that think differently are crazyYou get one in the teeth if you try to mess with meTrying to drug up a Latino, Latina, bro and sisTry to drug me and you'll end up with a fistto your face, all beaten and bruisedAnd better yet *gunshots* blasted by my twoSociety tries to oppress us "crazies" (the quote is what they call us)Trying to lock us "differentg thinkers" like meBeaten with a hard, stone poleAnd then dug up in a sufficating holeOr better yet I can drug you upDO to you what the hell you've done to usWanna talk crap about us while you work?Prepare to end up beaten and drugged like dirtSis (I insult the mental hospital male doctor's lack of masculinity), what are you'se fruitcakes and fagg#tsAlways talking all feminine and acting like you like some headIt's about time we bust war on these scumbagThese fruticakes, these homos and f#gs
Blacks are better than whites

Well then, I guess Ill explain why Whites are equal to or better than Blacks...ALL YOU MOTHER F*CKERS BETTER TAKE A SEAT,MY NAME IS IMABENCH, ILL BE DROPPING THE BEAT!!!!!IM HERE TO PUT BLACKS BACK INTO THEIR PLACE,AND EXPLAIN WHY WHITES ARE THE SUPERIOR RACE!!!!!Alright here we go,Whites run everything, from nations to banksBlacks are only good at making prison shanks,Whites work hard, our work ethic aint rotten, Last time blacks worked, they were picking my cotton! When it comes to scientists, Whites are really winnin'We got Einstein, Newton, Galileo and Darwin,The number of black scientists is close to nuthin'Only person they got is Neil DeGrasse Tyson!Blacks are athletic, Good to knowIve never seen a black guy beat anyone in snow.Blacks are good at basketball, in fact, they can wreck, But its still white people who sign their paychecksLets look at prisons, Ive mentioned this beforeBlacks dominate here, also at being poorProportionally blacks commit way more crimeWhile whites are on the outside NOT doing hard time. Income wise, Whites simply make moreBut dont blame me for why blacks are still poorMaybe its our work ethic, maybe its just greedBut Blacks only like to smoke tons of weedLets look at racism, whites have it better. We dont have people saying to us "HEY N**GER!!!"Now sure black people have come a long way But I still wouldnt want to be black for a dayLets look at politics, all I see is whiteIf it was Blacks vs Whites, wouldnt even be a fight. Even the one Black president theres ever beenStill has a white half that helped him winBlacks have bigger d*cks compared to anyoneBut they'll shove that thing into literally everyoneWhites on the other hand have a little more classWe dont go for chicks just for their huge a**Why do black people suffer more from Aids?Blacks have sex with slimy whores everydayWhites do that too, so why dont we suffer?Its because White people know how to use a rubber!Im running out of space on my character limit,But looking at this debate I still think Ive won itIll elaborate on my arguments in the final roundand give sources of why whites are the best pound for pound!!!
immigration

Not all people are good.. So we don't really know all the people in the world and their status on good or evil. The reason I'm on Trump's side is he will build a border, one that will keep ILLEGAL immigrants out. People from different continents should wear a legal badge so people know they aren't gonna bomb the area they located to. People wanna feel safe. The pro-immigration is like " Hey lets let in strange people into our country and risk more bombings!" That's just them in a nutshell. Why would we wanna even risk terrorizing our cities? This is OUR country. We are NOT gonna give it up to strange outsiders. I really just want them to enter legally. That is the best thing for our city.
Jose Mourinho is the best football coach

Ottmar Hitzfeld (who isn't even the best manager in my opinion) managed Dortmund through serious financial trouble, so winning the Champions league was massive for them at the time. He signed only German players because they were the best players available to him at the time. If he had the opportunity, he would of signed many good, foreign players.Also, Mourinho never signed Eden Hazard, Oscar or Balotelli, they were already at the club when he signed for them.
Jose Mourinho is the best football coach

okey, but look at the teams ,which he was maneging: Borusia Dortmund , Bayern munchen... Both these teams are from Bundesliga and these teams usually consist of the players who are germans .Let's see the variety of Jose Mourinho's players: englishs, italians, spanishes...Another argument would be ,that : he buys underratted and unfamous young players and made from them superstars.(Didier Drogba, Eden Hazard, Oscar,Baloteli,Di Maria, Ozil and etc.
Jose Mourinho is the best football coach

I'll just counter your first argument for now.This is the record of Ottmar Hitzfeld, who has won more than Mourinho.Swiss Cup - 1985, 1989, 1990Swiss Super League - 1990, 1991Swiss Super Cup - 1989Bundesliga - 1995, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2008DFB Supercup - 1995, 1996DFB Pokal - 2000, 2003, 2008DFB Ligapokal - 1998, 1999, 2000, 2007Champions League - 1997, 2001Intercontinental Cup (European and South American Cup) - 2001
Can marijuana be a gateway drug

Thanks for that Pro.I'm glad to see that Pro has no issues with the definitions provided in my round 1.I'm puzzled however, as to why Pro didn't bother to address the crux of this debate.*An Opening*Pro claims that chlorophyll can be extracted from the marijuana plant and that its variants chlorophyll A and B "with some caratenoids" would be able to dye *the gate* that occupies the gateway.What Pro egregiously neglects is that a gateway, as agreed by Pro to be, is an *opening* in a fence, not a gate.In fact, a gate would serve to eliminate this opening by virtue of the gate's presence in said opening.So Pro, has not done anything to show that an opening in a fence, not the fence itself, can be dyed by ANYTHING.Pro how do you dye empty space?*Chlorophyll as a Drug*Chlorophyll can be used as a drug, it's just not a very good one.Chlorophyll is only considered a fiber reactive dye.Fiber reactive dyes form a covalent bond with the fiber to which they are affixed.Well if Pro wishes to demonstrate that the iron in an iron fence's gate, which is still not an opening, can covalently bond to the chlorophyll specifically extracted from the marijuana plant, then Pro needs to show the covalent bond between the two.But more likely, Pro would claim that marijuana is a gateway drug assuming the fence and gate were made of wood.The problem is, that in order to bond extracted chlorophyll to plant fiber, in this case wood, one needs to use an alkali catalyst which allows for the bond to occur.Unfortunately for Pro, alkali substances, like soda ash, deplete the cellulose in wood."...increase in alkali solubility serves as an index of the extent of cellulose depletion in any given sample of decayedwood."https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...This is why marijuana isn't a gateway drug, because it doesn't even meet the qualifications of drug being that it is, rightly so, not used in dyeing operations, especially on wood.I request that people vote Con for these reasons:1. It's impossible to dye the empty space that composes an opening.2. Being a fiber reactive dye, chlorophyll must covalently bond to a fiber, requiring an alkali catalyst that would destroy wood and wouldn't allow for bonding with iron.
Can marijuana be a gateway drug

Even if you want to flip the discussion because you had no real defense of the issue we can do that. If you were to extract the pigment in the marijuana plant by placing it into a solvent that strips the pigment and then removed all of the solvent you would be left with green chloryphll a and b maybe with some caratenoids for some contrast. So the gate that occupies this gateway could be dyed with the pigments from a marijuana plant. How do you like dem apples?
Can marijuana be a gateway drug

I accept.I also wish to clarify my position, analyze the resolution, and provide some definitions.Thanks for the debate, Pro.*My Position*It is impossible for marijuana to be a gateway drug, and it's pretty obvious why.Whether or not you agree that an opening can even physically be colored, you at least have to accept that marijuana would make an awful outdoor colorant for a fence's opening.In fact, marijuana would make a lousy drug, because it doesn't really have an affinity to the substrate to which it is being applied.Try as one might, marijuana will not successfully dye material, especially an opening in a fence.I get it.Marijuana is the panecia for human ailments, it can likely reduce the size of glioma cells, and more and more states are legalizing it for its wonderful medicinal properties.But what about marijuana indicates that it could color an opening in a fence in such a useful and sustainable way that it earns the title of gateway drug? *The Resolution*The burden is certainly on Pro, given this particular resolution, but I fear Pro has made some bizarre claims about the properties of marijuana, while ignoring the core of this resolution.I mean, what do pills, heroin, or psychedelics have to do with gateway drugs?Seems wildly irrelevant, no?There were no definitions provided round 1, so I shall supply my own.Definitionsmarijuana - a tall plant with a stiff upright stem, divided serrated leaves, and glandular hairs especially as smoked in cigarettes.https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...gateway - an opening in a fence that can be closed by a gate.http://www.merriam-webster.com...drug - a substance used in dyeing operations.http://www.merriam-webster.com...I reject that marijuana can be a substance used in the operation of dyeing an opening in a fence.
Income inequality is bad.

ARGUMENTS:#1. Income Inequality is Not BadIncome inequality is the result of the people becoming wealthier in society. How does this happen? In a free market leaning society, people become wealthier as a result of selling goods and services which others want[1]. The most notable example is Bill Gates who offers Microsoft products globally. The consumers receive the products they want while the producers, their employees, and their share holders make profits. Income inequality is the result of consumers spending their money where they wish. I would state there is nothing "bad" about this. [1]http://www.forbes.com...
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

Actually, I don't know. How was I supposed to? Say what you mean.Rhetorical means a question that is put for effect, not for an answer. Information is something, and therefore is not something.I can have 0 bananas in my hand. I have 0 bananas in my hand right now. This is one of the key principles of math. That 0 exists. Therefore by definition 0 exists.Reason is not nothing. Belief does inform action. However believers do think. They move on their own in an attempt to follow their beliefs, but they still use reason to figure out what they should do. Knowledge is not "truth" because knowledge is not absolute. Know and Knowledge are not opposites.There is cause and effect in imagination. It is based upon what is processed by the brain. Your imagination truly creates nothing, it merely compliles information gathered by the rest of the brain.Information is not the opposite of matter. Information is a method of learning about matter. Matter is not space and time, it is merely space. Information exists in both space and time. Your last sentence makes no sense.
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

i was talking about the self claim, i dont claim others are not aware, you know i dont know what retorical Means, to me a question is a question nothing=information=0 like you cant have 0 bananas in your hand but you can understand that you cant even thou 0 bananas can never exist in reality reason is nothing, and beliefs inform actions, so basicly a believer dosnt think emote and move on their own given its not a tiny Little belif like where is the spoon i was looking for knowledge is truth, and know is true, opposites belief is the opposite of knowledge, and know is the opposite of belief and knowledge there is no cause and effect relation in my imaginaton beyond mental emotion, i cant grab what i imagine as it dosnt exist in reality information is the opposite of matter, matter is Space and time and information exist beyond Space and time, information is 0 percent of the light in my personal physical experience
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

I don't know to which conclusion you are refering to...I again don't know what question is didn't answer. If you are referring to "how are you more certain that i am, given the claim is totaly imaginary?" I had thought it was a rhetorical question. That you for accetping my point.Belief is not nothing. Look to the Crusades. Those wars, although not solely cause by, were heavily influenced by belief. How can nothing have an effect? Knowledge is not life, as a bacterium has no knowledge, yet is alive, and a computer has knowledge, yet is not alive.Your point about Superman is again something that we have already agreed upon. Belief and imagination do not affect the reality of the object or ideal, however that does not make them false. Having and effect and being false are two very different things.
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

no its your conclusion, and its false, you can believe it if you wish, i would have to beleive you are not alive for that claim to be true you dont answer my questions.. other is necessary but not yourself, i get your point and accept it as right for you belief IS false, it dosnt make anything false, as its nothing know=life so superman is true then? i am imagining him flying around right now
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

My opponent says that he never claimed that only self is true. However, this is the conclusion that he attempted to achieve when he compared self to "an imaginary claim"My opponent agrees with me when he says,"if you disbelieve the claim that i am wearing a hat right now(believe that i am Not wearing a hat), how are you more certain that i am, given the claim is totaly imaginary?". As I also pointed out, "belief does not affect the distinction. "He then goes on to restate his claims without even attempting to negate my rebuttals of them. He says that "self is neccasary" however this is not true. The only things that philosophically must exist are existence and consciousness. Existence because you cannot disprove it without accepting it, and conciousness because to disprove it you must use it. His next claim is that "belief is false". We agreed that belief doesn't make something true. However, he fails to see that the inverse is also true. Belief doesn't make something flase either. He states that "belief is negated by measure of absolute". However, as it is impossible to truly prove anything without premises, which are believed, in save existence and consciousness this logically falls apart.His next claim is that religion is false because "I dont know is true". However, as I said earlier what you believe. or think you know, does not affect the reality of it.He states that imagination is false, however imagination is not false because it exists as signals in the brain.
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

religion is a "Position" on an imaginary claim i have never said only the self is true.. disbelief is belief, and belief is faith if you disbelieve the claim that i am wearing a hat right now(believe that i am Not wearing a hat), how are you more certain that i am, given the claim is totaly imaginary? religion is, a position in an imaginary claim, how can a theist be a thesit without it? not to mention an atheist.. i dont have to rely on my self, as self is necessary belief is false, reality is unbelieved, can not be belived, as know is something, and belief is nothing, these Words i am typing on my keyboard that is something is something i can see with my eyes, i know i am reading these Words, i dont have to imagine it, therfore belief is negated by measure of absolute religion is false, as i dont know is true, and i dont know is a position that i know, and only know is true imagination is false, eat imaginary food for a month to prove me wrong, corpsi
belief=(is)be lie, as i have to imagine it=religion=false

My opponent has attempted to claim that atheism, disbelief, belief and theism are all in fact the same. He has also claimed that religion is an imaginary claim, whereas only the self is true.However, he is wrong in a few major ways. Disbelief is not truly atheism desbelief is lack of faith in something wheras athism is the belief that there is/are no god/s. An atheist can have faith and therefore disbelief does not equal atheism. The same holds true in inverse for belief and theism. His point that religion is a position on an imaginary claim is simply false. If religion is considered to be a position as he stated then the claim is existence. As one cannot attempt to disprove existence without simultaeneously accepting it, logically this point falls. His point on self reliance is non-topical as it questions the relevance of religion not its reality.For my own points we must look back at the resolution. Belief is not a lie, as belief is faith in something. I can believe in something that is true or false, however the belief does not affect the distinction. We must also remember that neither imagination nor religion are inherently false. Both are culminations of the material world and contemplation by the consiouness. To label either "false" is a gross musunderstanding.
The bible (OT + NT) is a horrific piece of work and should not be used as moral guidance

===Opponent's definition of morality===My opponent has done a very good job of showing that many of the actions prescribed in the Bible do go against his own definition of what is moral and what is not. However, my opponent has completely failed to actually defend this conception of right and wrong. What reasoning does he bring to support his contention that morality is "a concept held by people on whether certain actions are good or bad, by the way they affect society"? Nothing. My opponent simply defines morality to make what is beneficial to society fit in without actually supporting his contention. Therefore we have no reason to accept this definition and all of the arguments based off of this faulty definition (its relation to women, children, homosexuals, etc.) should not be accepted. I apologize for the relative shortness of this round. My opponent has spent the majority of his R2 arguing the implications of his definition of morality without actually defending the definition itself. In his entire case my opponent never so much as attempts to defend this definition. Therefore there is nothing for me as the contender to refute, accept to point out that the definition of morality lacks warrant. Seeing as this is the case, my opponent has failed to uphold his burden of proof as instigator and Pro. He has given no reason for us to accept his standard under which he measures what makes an action right or wrong and thus P2 lacks warrant. Therefore I urge a Con vote.