BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
B-Rabbit vs. Lotto

Resolved: The result of the rap battle between B-Rabbit and Lotto, depicted in the film, "8 Mile," was correct. Clarification: B-Rabbit: Played by famous artist Eminem, the character's full name is Jimmy "B-Rabbit" Smith Junior. He is the white man rapping in the provided video. Lotto: Simply put, he is the black man rapping in the provided video. "8 Mile": a 2002 American hip-hop drama film, directed by Curtis Hanson and starring Eminem, Kim Basinger, Brittany Murphy, and Mekhi Phifer. The film is an account of a young rapper named Jimmy "B-Rabbit" Smith Jr. , thought to portray Eminem, growing up in poverty-stricken 1995 Detroit as he struggles for respect among his peers, mostly African-American. Although the movie stars Eminem, he says the movie is not a full portrayal of his early life and start of his rap career. More information regarding the movie: . http://en.wikipedia.org...(film) The result: In this case, the result of the rap battle is B-Rabbit's win and Lotto's loss. Essentially, after both rappers finish their performances, the audience screams for their favorite out of the two. Although the provided clip does not show the result, my opponent must accept that B-Rabbit won and Lotto lost. This is what truly happened in the film; simply, I could not find a clip where the audience judgment was included. My opponent must argue that Lotto should have won the battle, rather than B-Rabbit. I must argue that B-Rabbit did deserve to win the battle. My opponent and I will argue the following criteria: 1) Flow: Essentially, "flow" entails the ability of each rapper to connect past jokes with new ones. It involves transition from statement to statement and incorporates the musical style of each rapper. 2) Insults: Essentially, my opponent and I shall argue who had the better insults. Insults may be valued as personal, lyrical, etc. That is up for the debaters to refute. 3) Presence: Essentially, "presence" involves the ability of each rapper to take charge of the stage and interact with the audience. 4) Overall Quality: Essentially, "overall quality" is an incorporation of the previously mentioned terms and a general perception of how each rapper performed as a whole. 5) My opponent may decide one topic of the battle to argue in this instance, and I shall refute. I thank my opponent and the audience for a chance to debate. If anyone has questions regarding what I have typed, please post it on my profile or send me a message. I am unable to view the Comments section for this debate. Thank you. . http://www.youtube.com...
Epic Rap Battles of History. Theodore Roosevelt VS. Franklin Roosevelt.

Hello! Oh please, cousin, why must you mock? When I've got my face on a giant rock! And you don't, and you won't You won't ever, you're not that clever. They call me Bull-Moose, and your 'New Deal' was loose. I made many countries on our side While you just laid back and died. I got a Nobel Peace Prize, and you got nothing of the size. For you, I obviously am too wise So for now I'll sit back, eat some pies, and try to ignore your begging cries.
Epic Rap Battles of History. Theodore Roosevelt VS. Franklin Roosevelt.

Hello Theodore, I am glad to see you here today so I can put you on display. For what a great president I was and how you developed so many flaws. You see, I can in a time when my people needed me, yours was a time when nothing was a biggie. Oh, so you broke up a few monopolies and you made the toy-teddies. But you didn"t set up minimum wage for the workers of your age, and supported rebellion for the Colombian to build a canal for your own morale. I invented the public president with the fireside chat that prevented the country from going completely flat. You Left Taft in charge for your own craft. Went to a safari, but came back to find that the country was sorry and the people saw a leader with a voice of bad choice.
Legalization of Marjuana

To refute my opponents argument: My opponent says that marijuna is good but a source: http://www.dailytoreador.com... says that Marijuna has bad health costs and should remain illegal. It also says that: It is addictive, significantly impairs one"s bodily functions and mental capabilities and acts as a gateway drug, which can lead to even more dangerous narcotic usage. It is directly associated with increased violence and illegal activities. Also when she said about alcohol is same as marijuna but http://www.dailytoreador.com... also says that: Alcohol and marijuana are different from each other in many respects. For one, marijuana consumption is more likely to lead to an addiction to the drug. Unlike alcohol, marijuana is almost always consumed to the point of intoxication. Smoking marijuana is more toxic to one"s body than alcohol, and it offers absolutely no physical benefits outside of intoxicating an individual to the point of numbness. Also drugs are addictive and One study found that more than 30 percent of adults who used marijuana throughout the course of a year became dependent on the drug. These addictive properties have the same negative effects any addictive substance has on an individual, such as showing signs of withdrawal and compulsive behavior. When since my opponent said being tired of seeing a family being taken away for possession of plant but thats their choice for having the plant since they know its illegal they shouldn't even bother to even take possession and its their fault. Marijuana is grown in the ground but its hurtful and should remain illegal.
Legalization of Marjuana

Marijuana has health benefits and is illegal. If you read the warning labels on alcohol or cigarettes, you definitely won't be finding any health benefits. And of course alcohol and cigarettes are both very much legal. Of course you might behave ignorantly, but nobody is the most intelligent while under the influence of alcohol either. Marijuana is a plant, that grows in the ground... and to say that we can't have this plant is ridiculous. I'm not saying I choose to do this. But I'm saying that I'm tired of seeing family and friends being taken away, for possession of a plant.
what evidence

>>I believe that Christianity is a fairy tale, because Christianity is based on a book which contains talking animals, magic, unicorns, dragons, etc. (all of which were in the Harry Potter series).<< First of all the Bible doe snot mention unicorns. Serpents and dragons are used as metaphors to teach spiritual truth. Only one animal in the Bible talked. God gave it that ability to teach its master a lesson. For One who can speak the universe into being, causing an animal to speak would be a piece of cake. There is no mention of magic in the Bible. I assume you are speeking of miracles. Miracles are performed by the power of God, no magic involved. >>There is also no physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus ( if the stories of Jesus were based on a real person).<< Of course there is. You just don't accept the evidence. His resurrection has been reported in the Gospels by men who considered it a sin to lie. What is your basis for rejecting their accounts? My argument is very simple. If my opponent is saying that Christianity is true, then he/she has the burden of proof. so i only have a few questions ( a simple yes or no will do).<< If you say it is not true, the burden of proof also have the burden of proof. I accepet wht I beleive the same way you accept what you believe---by faith alone. >>1. Do you have any evidence (other than stories and hearsay) that the resurrection actually happened?<< No. Do you have any evidence the stories are not true? 2. Do you have any evidence (other than stories and hearsay) that any of the above (talking animals, magic, unicorns, dragons) where actual events, and not delusions, tricks, or stories?<< I have already addressed that question. >>3. Are you claiming that the Bible is a reliable source of information?<< Yes. I can prove more of what it says than you can prove that what is says is not reliable.
what evidence

I believe that Christianity is a fairy tale, because Christianity is based on a book which contains talking animals, magic, unicorns, dragons, etc. (all of which were in the Harry Potter series). There is also no physical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus ( if the stories of Jesus were based on a real person). My argument is very simple. If my opponent is saying that Christianity is true, then he/she has the burden of proof. so i only have a few questions ( a simple yes or no will do). 1. Do you have any evidence (other than stories and hearsay) that the resurrection actually happened? 2. Do you have any evidence (other than stories and hearsay) that any of the above (talking animals, magic, unicorns, dragons) where actual events, and not delusions, tricks, or stories? 3. Are you claiming that the Bible is a reliable source of information?
People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote

Why is it their duty to decide who runs the country? If they have no desire to choose their country's leaders, then they should not be forced to make that decision. Do you like being told you have to do something you don't want to? This law would just charge residents unnecessary amount of money or do some community service if they don't conform to vote for the leader of their country. Voting by mail is an option, but is flawed as votes could be lost in the mail.
People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote

People may not have interest in how the country is run however as long as they live in the country it should be their duty to help decide who runs it as they are citizens of the country and are part of the system. As for people not able to go to polling stations there is the option to vote via mail which is widely available for those who have limited mobility which means it is not inconvenient for the less able to vote due to the government schemes that money has been invested in so that everyone is able to vote
People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote

All of this may be true, but there are people out there that have no interest in how our country is run. These people aren't affected by the decisions that are made in far off places by unknown people. Their simple lives don't need to be interrupted in order for the leaders of our country to be elected. In addition, there are people, usually extremes in the age bracket, that cannot physically go to the polling stations to vote and the penalties for not voting if this was enacted by law would punish these people for simply being unavailable at a specific time.
People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote

Over the past hundreds of years our political system has evolved from a Monarchy into a Democracy and throughout this time, the right to vote has been long fought for, it took till 1918 till both men and women could vote and it was only in 1970 when it was made legal to vote from 18. However there has been little development on the matter in the 46 years since, so people have grown ignorant on how hard people fought for it and because of this people don't understand the importance of voting
The Holy Books Of All Religions Have Been Adulterated.

Hello Opponent, I believe that the holy books of all religions have NOT been a Adultured. Adultured: "to corrupt, debase, or make impure by the addition of a foreign or inferior substance or element" -Dictionary.org While the holy books of many religions have been changed to reflect new moral values or branches of religion, i believe the underlying message is still there and minor improvents that are good, not of "Poor or inferior quality" have been made. I await the next argument.
The Holy Books Of All Religions Have Been Adulterated.

Hello Contender. These are the rules of the debate. 1. No abusing. 2. No disrespect for any religion. 3. No childish arguments. 4. Use of any resource should be authentic. 5. The language should be polite. _______________________________________________________________ I will let my opponent make the first point. Please comment what you think. The debate will start from Round 2.
The Holy Books Of All Religions Have Been Adulterated.

Hello Contender, you presented a good point. But lets just think on this. Lets take Jesus Christ. Now millions of people respected and worshiped that man. If you read the Bible, there are some bad, sexist points. "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent." "Happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us / He who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks." Wives, submit to you husbands as to the Lord"; and similar advice for slaves in 1 Peter 2:18: "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel." Now, if millions of people followed that one man, then it means that he must have exceptional unique and good qualities. In this case, these points must have not existed. Millions believe that Jesus was a good man. Then, these bad things must not have existed when he made the Bible. It's logical. People of later generations changed the original good Bible for bad. Thank you for debating with me. I am eager to listen to your next counterargument.
minimum wage should exist

Sorry man I couldn't read a lot of your response due to bad spelling, but I think what you were trying to say is that the stock market hasn't crashed? Well, the stock market is dropping along with the minimum wage is staying. If you were smart enough to glance at the statistics before making such a argumentative debate you would have seen that Congress or no one likes the minimum wage. Only small town people like you want it. There is no possible way society could survive by having a constant minimum wage.
minimum wage should exist

look at minimum wage. it exists now. the stock market is not crumbles. inflation has not gone through the roof or caused bad problems. i thought that stock market statement wasn't worth dignifying with a response. i'm not even arguing everyone gets the same wages so why did you make that statement? also, as i said, we're not giving them an excessive minimum or the same as everyone else, but just an amount a single person could live off at the minimum without living on the streets, as i said. but, i suppose if i look beyond your words I might be able to salvage some reasoning, even though you did not state the reasoning. the argument of inflation. i'll simply refer you to my already stated argument on that matter. "also, i agree a wage increases inflation, but it does not nullify having the wage. peple often argue increasing wage increases price of goods so teh wage increase is canelled out and they are doomed to minimum living or run amok prices for everyone else. but this is not the case. true inflatino would be if everyone got their wages increased. if just the minimum gets it, inflation would increase, but not wholly, and so the incrase would be much less proportionally ot the increase in minimum." to explain more, mcdonald's for example would charge more, and their suppliers would charge more and everyone else would too. yes inflation would increase. but, this would not be true inflation where everyone's wages is increased, so the increase in the minimum would be more proporitonally to hte increase in inflation.
minimum wage should exist

Well you need to face the facts that the percentages would be higher if there was not a minimum wage. Also, you did not address what I said about the stock market because you know that it is true. Sooner or later if there is a bad minimum wage I guarantee there will be no more stock market. Why would you address about the Indians? They have nothing to do with this topic. Your argument is very weak and you need to do some research, but with some practice you could actually do O.K.
minimum wage should exist

"Why in the world would you be for this? I could go into to so MUCH detail to show you why you are wrong, but I am going to make it simple. Minimum wage is wrong because every owner of a store or shop or restaurant should be able to pay his employees whatever he wants. It is clear that then there would be a competition for who would be able to get employees because he or she would have the best salaries. If everyone had the same there would be no competition for business which would bring nothing to top which would destroy the stock market! Think about that." One argument I forgot to make. There's an abundance of unskilled labor out there. So much in fact, that empiracally, employers can and do pay employees beans without a minimum. That's exploitation. Imagine a giant owning everything... all he has to do is make the peons fight for peanuts, and that's what happens today effectively. You have no right to take advantage of people, because everyone deserves a minimum if they are working something substantial. Please respond to this by addressing the giant who exploits peons, and the analogies I posted above about equal access to the earth's resources. I could foresee you arguing that they can move up if they don't want to be paid that amount. As I've argued, some can, others can't. If the job is still worth it by paying a minimum wage that the employer is still willing to do it, it should be paid minimum. It's about fairness with the reasoning above that I asked you to respond to. Also, I addressed your point about competition. There's no competion amoung employers for people at the minimum wage. In fact, if your argument were true, there'd be no need for the minimum wage. This is empiracally proven false, because the minimum wage exists and is used. They only compete by giving minor increments above the wage as the person progresses in experience.... if they weren't giving minor increases at a mandated level as they are now, they'd be doing it at much lower as they did in the 80s as I showed. It's all minimum wage terrirory, so by setting the wage at a livable level, the terriroy itself would remain livibale. Otherwise you'd have many living perhaps not at minimum exactly, but in minimum territory of an unlivable level. I don't believe you really read my post, because I addressed all your points, and you ahve not responded to any of the reasoning specifically, but rather simply returned my points with blanket assertions that have already been addressed.
minimum wage should exist

Why in the world would you be for this? I could go into to so MUCH detail to show you why you are wrong, but I am going to make it simple. Minimum wage is wrong because every owner of a store or shop or restaurant should be able to pay his employees whatever he wants. It is clear that then there would be a competition for who would be able to get employees because he or she would have the best salaries. If everyone had the same there would be no competition for business which would bring nothing to top which would destroy the stock market! Think about that.
Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America

Sexual desire is an extremely healthy part of the growing adolescent and adult human being. To not feel this would be detrimental to one's overall well-being and would lead to a severe under-population, two generations down the line.(http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...)(https://www.princeton.edu...)If you are going to say that sexual tension is a distraction from study, then you might as well say that sexual desire in adults is a distraction from work. Some maniac bosses actually have fired workers for being too sexually appealing (http://abcnews.go.com...). This is not only ridiculous but down-ride offensive to the most natural of desires in human beings. The thing is you have to just get over it. Learning to get over these feelings from a young age and coping with them as a part of day-to-day life will help teenagers cope with 'horniness' at an adult age since they've already had experience at controlling these urges in a professional environment. boys will learn that impressing girls is not all that great if you're having to screw up your studies to do so, since women generally prefer guys with a decent job and education, and girls will soon learn that only a select few men are genuinely attracted sluts and whores in any emotional sense. Sexual maturity is a part of growing up, the sooner kids realise that the better they will cope with the flood of cleavage and suits that hit them in the work-place.Whilst it's true that boys and girls have slightly different learning methods, what is also true is that the benefits are outweighed by the loss of real-world application that a single-gendered school is cursing its students with. Co-ed male students grow up to deal far better with women and are far less likely to be divorced by age 40 than children in single-genders schools.(http://www.independent.co.uk...)(http://www.telegraph.co.uk...)I see no valid reason to separate the genders other than religous prejudice of women belonging in a certain role and men in another.
Single-gender Classrooms would improve the quality of education in America

Thank you for accepting my challenge. 1: This would get rid of many distractions caused by the opposite gender. Girls and boys often want to impress someone of the other gender. With single gender classrooms, this problem wouldn't exist and students would be able to focus more on their classes. 89% of teens have or want a boyfriend/girlfriend. This leads to many distractions in classes and with single-gender classrooms, the quality of education in these high schools will improve. Without the distractions that exist in classrooms with both girls and boys, our students will be able to learn more efficiently, not only leading to better education but also a better future. Also, girls and boys have different styles of learning.The two genders are extremely different--the thought processes are different, there are different expectations, etc--so because of this difference it will be more effective to have classrooms filled with either only girls or only boys. As a general observation, girls seem to excel more in languages, arts, and social science, while boys are more inclined towards mathematics and sciences (this is a GENERAL observation and most definitely does not apply to all people)Girls and boys will be veering off into their own paths as they embark on their journey of life. Because the destination of their paths are usually different, it is best to keep them separate so they can learn thoroughly and strictly what they will become.
Should children between the age 6 and 18 have rights.

Children Shouldn't have rights. Children like to get in trouble and stuff. They hardly even know what rights are. How can they use what they dont know. Say kids do have rights. That means they have rights like an adult. So that means the age of consent to have sex lowers since they have rights. And this kid that was entered in the army had the right to say "no" but his arents made him do it. It's like Wen parents ship their children to military school, or boarding school. We can sai "I don't want to go" but it's about Authority. They can make us do it because it in their power. If a teacher sends you to the principles office than you have to go. You have no rights for that.
Should children between the age 6 and 18 have rights.

children should have rights because they have great ideas and an natural right to justice. Children who have rights could choose if they wanted to do this or that. They could decide how they wanted there future to go and were they wanted to live even without parent guidelines. There is an news article about a young Tamolin boy who was interviewed in 2013 that told about one of his friends who had no rights and was forced into the army by his parents and ended up a week later dead. Children that had rights would be able to tell there parent that they only had to go into the army on there own account. the united states and one other country are the only countries to not legalize child rights.