BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
TV Rap Battle 2012 - I

[Occasionally you have to put breaks into my bars to make the syllables fit; I will put hyphens (-) in to annotate this. Also, I'll be assuming the information on my opponent's information page is accurate.] I'm apparently the declarant of my opponent's obviously illiteracy It's imminently inherent in my flows inappropriately superiority. Go. My words are my bullets, got a trigger for a tongue. I spit gunpower, yeah my mouth is a gun. By the time this battle's done, by the time the race is run. Your a5s will be cooked, like burnt Boston bun. My syllabolic structure is FRESHER, smart like BACON TITANIUM It will put you under-PRESSURE, leave you with a MISSHAPEN CRANIUM You, virginal maiden, disgrace to homo sapiens. Me, arsenal of satan, waken coma patients Face it. You haven't got a chance. Quit the rapping friend. Stick to interpretive dance. You're Gaga's Bad Romance I'm on the Highway to Hell, not Heaven High Voltage lyrics, couldn't you tell, Kevin? See if you study me for weakess, you'll surely never find any. I bring the weight of knowledge, like I dropped a fvcking library. I'm C plus plus, you're binary. Wait, that's a geeky reference. I might insert a joke here, about your freaky sexual preference. See it's not normal to fantasise about your own family, b!tches. Feltching your own Dad and eating Mum like ham sandwiches. But what goes on behind closed doors, is surely none of my business. You're done, overexposed on all fours, begging me for forgiveness
TV Rap Battle 2012 - I

I'm planning on doing quite a few of these this year, so anyone interested in battling me should either send me a message or post a message in the comments.This is a rap battle; themes are obviously self-hype and dissing.Voting should be judged as seen fit, but important elements to take into account:* Slant rhymes* Rhyme scheme* In-rhymes* Multis* Wordplay* Metaphors/Similes* Vocabulary* References.My opponent may take the advantage of going second and being able to respond to my first rhyme if they choose.If they choose to rap first, their first rap will be in round one and they will not post a rap round three.If they choose to rap second, they will simply accept the debate, post an acceptance round and my first rap will be in round two.Good luck and have fun.
What FDR Did in his first 2 Years compared to the Obama Administration & Why I am Voting for Governo

What FDR Did in his first 2 Years compared to the Obama Administration & Why I am Voting for Governor Romney I think it is time for a change in presidential leadership. This is a tough decision for me this time around, as I voted for President Obama in 2008 when he was clearly the best candidate. But I can not fail to mention how Mr. Obama missed an opportunity in 2009 and 2010 to initiate major job creation legislation (beyond the GM lifeline effort) when the Dems controlled the both branches of government. A look a history reveals what FDR did in his first 2 years (to create jobs and bring down the rate of unemployment dramatically) when faced with the same, if not worst situation. As an African-American voter, it is hard to describe the feeling (of pride, tears, and glee) I felt on inaugural day in 2009 when Mr. Obama was sworn in. My decision to vote Republican (my parents" traditional party) this time is a difficult but necessary one (and one I think which is best for our nation). My decision, however, is based on the obvious fact that America needs an economic reboot and although lacking in emotional intelligence (big time), former Gov. Romney (when focused) has a very good business head on his shoulders. I reckon a President Romney will figure a way out of these 3+ years of economic quagmire with his considerable business acumen gleaned from 25 years in the private sector. Consider this: an outgoing President leaves office and as Bill Clinton said leaves the incoming President "a total mess". Unemployment reaches double digits. The first year of the new President"s term is ranked as the worst of the Depression (1933-1934). The incoming President"s party captures the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate"complete control of government. The new President does not waste a minute of time with the complete control of government, he acts! Over the next 4 years, unemployment fell by ⅔ in Roosevelt"s first term (from 25% to 9%, 1933"1937). Admittedly, Roosevelt was fortunate to not only control Congress during his first 2 years in office but in the final 2 years of his first term as well. However, his major job flurry activities occurred during his first two years (1933 & 1934). Looking back now, Roosevelt"s response to the crisis was swift and decisive, especially in year one of his administration. As a corporate HR director, I have done and reviewed many employee annual performance appraisals. If Mr. Obama were a corporate employee, his performance appraisal would range from unsatisfactory to a performance improvement plan (PIP). Unlike FDR, President Obama missed opportunities to make substantial job program improvements to the sagging economy when his party controlled the executive and legislative branch of government in 2009 and 2010. Critical momentum and times was lost in those years when the Democrats could have rammed through big job-creating legislation. Rex Conte Oak Park, IL
Genji vs. Hanzo

You claim that Genji is better in gameplay. But again, in which aspects? Surely you don't mean all of them, right? Because Genji is not a rival to Hanzo in terms of gameplay. They do not fill the same role and should not be used interchangeably. You should be comparing Genji to other Attackers such as Tracer, McCree, etc. At the very least you've named a few things, so I will address them. "[...] Genji is used more often [...]" You have failed to provide a source for those statistics, so I will. http://masteroverwatch.com... However, how often people use a character is only a sign to how easy to use they are, and/or how effective they might be compared to other characters who fill that role. "[...]and is a good choice for clutch kills." Where's the evidence for that? And as for the design aspects, those are completely subjective and up to each person. I prefer a traditional Samurai who mastered the Yumi (Japanese Bow), so I like Hanzo better. This is a fruitless topic to debate.
Genji vs. Hanzo

Well Genji is better in many of those categories. Gameplay, Genji is used more often and is a good choice for clutch kills. Consideration Design, Hanzo clearly got the short end of the stick. Genji is a Cyborg-Ninja-Assasin. Hanzo is just a human assasin. Personality wise, I think that category goes to Hanzo because he has a better backstory. Voice wise i think that Hanzo's voice actor did a beautiful job, but Genji's voice actor just did a slight bit better. Factor of coolness, Genji is way better because he is again, a Cyborg-Ninja-Assasin, but also he has 2 twin Katanas, Shurikens, and was taught by an awesome mentor, being Zenyatta. Genji is better at close for killing, while Hanzo is more of a sniper. Genji is one of, if not THE best counter to annoying Bastions. Genji has more survivabliity than Hanzo does because he is faster, can deflect gun shots and even ULTIMATES!!! At close range, Genji can deflect ultimates such as Tracer's, McCree's, Bations, Pharah's, Mei's, even Hanzo's
Genji vs. Hanzo

Well, unfortunately you have not provided a basis for the debate to start from. " Who's better: Genji or Hanzo? " Comparative to what? In which aspect? I presume you're talking about gameplay, so not taking into consideration design, personality, voice, factor of coolness, etc. So what are they competing for? Killing? But from afar or close? Quantity of kills or how easy it is or how important the character they kill is? Better survivability? Well, on which map? And would we be talking about the match overall or each phase of Attack and/or Defense? Because right now you're comparing a hammer to a saw. They are completely different tools that should be applied in completely different situations. And not only that, you have not provided a case for why Genji is better (set to an unknown comparison), but you have only cited the abilities that he possesses, and not how they are better than Hanzo's for a specific purpose.
Genji vs. Hanzo

IF YOU ACCEPT YOU WILL BE DEFENDING HANZO NOT GENJI!!!!! I think that Genji is superior to Hanzo because of many reasons. First, Genji has a double jump, so he has WAY more air mobility then Hanzo. Next, Genji has his Japanese Shurikens, which travel a farther distance then Hanzo's arrows. Thirdly, Genji has his Blade Dash attack. This attack is very useful when fighting an enemy. If your enemy has low health, then you can just use his Blade Dash to finish him. Even better, if you kill an enemy, it automatically recharges.
People Should Be Allowed to Have Cell Phones in Public Movie Theaters

This is my first debate on debate. org, please teach me well! :)TOPIC:People should be allowed to have cell phones in public movie theaters. By "have", I mean have a cell phone in their possession that is turned on (i. e. can receive calls and/or texts), during the movie (from the time they ask you to turn off your cell phones until the credits of the movie). I will be arguing the Con side of this topic, that cell phones that are on should not be allowed in public movie theaters.
All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

Thank you Kozu. My position is that human beings have a vested interest in our species to protect ourselves and each other from things that harm those within our species. Anything that harms our individuals is something that we should act against. I think the value of the combination of life, happiness and survival is much more important than the value of freedom, and that we have a duty to promote these values to the fullest. The United States government should be allowed to promote the natural interests of our species, an overwhelming majority, over that of a masochistic minority. Our government is a Democracy after all. -The Victim and the Agent- One of the definitions of the word 'victim' is 'one that is acted on and usually adversely affected by a force or agent'. People shouldn't be allowed to harm themselves just because it is their wish to do so. I don't support criminalizing all victim-less crimes because that's impossible and sometimes very cruel to enforce (e.g. punishing families of suicide victims), but victim-less crimes like selling, owning and doing extreme drugs like meth or heroine should remain criminalized. The victims would be both the addicted unable-to-quit drug users and the perpetrators would be the drug dealers and the users themselves. Victim-less crimes do actually produce victims, so the terminology is actually pretty misleading. Since these crimes do produce victims, it is in our government's right to stop these crimes from happening. It is in our government's right to criminalize these crimes. -Kozu defends all victimless crimes- Note that Kozu's position forces him to abet all victim-less crimes, which means Kozu must defend the decriminalization of all victim-less crimes no matter how ridiculous some can be. I agree that there are a number of victim-less crimes that need not be considered crimes, but decriminalizing all victimless crimes would be terrible. Victimless crimes hurt our society more than violent crimes. Let me list some victimless crimes that I think should not be decriminalized. -Drinking and driving -child prostitution -tax evasion -any-and-all-drug use If Kozu cannot defend the decriminalization of every victim-less crime that I list from here and later, then I win the debate. So I think I'm not allowed to do rebuttals on anything yet? Let's see what Kozu has to say about what I just wrote.
All victim-less crimes should be decriminalized.

Full Resolution: The United States ought to decriminalize all victim-less crimes. Freedom to ones own autonomy is possibly the most commonly regarded right one ought to have. Any kind of law that infringes on ones autonomy must be justified. Examples. Laws against murder are justified because murder infringes on another's autonomy. Laws against marijuana are not justified because using marijuana does not infringe on another's autonomy. ==Definitions== Infringe: An act so as to limit or undermine. Autonomy: Independence or freedom, as of the will or one's actions. Victim-less crime: A legal offense to which all parties consented too. Decriminalize: The abolition of criminal penalties in relation to certain acts. ==Rules== 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling or semantics 6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions 7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss ==Structure== R1. Acceptance R2. Pro and Con present their case. No rebuttals R3. Rebuttals R4. Rebuttals R5. Rebuttals and conclusion.
It is more probable that humans created God, as opossed to God created humans.

Definitions:God =The Judeo-Christian God. The supernatural being that is believed to have created the universe and humans. Create = To make something, to bring something into existence whether it be a physical object or just an idea. Rounds: 1) Acceptance2) Arguments3) Arguments / rebuttals4) Conclusion / final comments Rules: 1) 1st round is for acceptance only.2) No circular reasoning.3) I trust this debate will be respectful. *Note: In this debate I do not intend disprove the existence of God. I merely intend to show that it is more probable that God is just an idea. I will be arguing for Pro. Thanks in advance to anyone who accepts, and goodluck!
It is more probable that humans created God, as opossed to God created humans.

Sigmund Freud According to Freud, religion was also an illusion. He believed that the human mind had created religion to help us deal with our inner psychological conflict, the conflict between our societies, and our helplessness and fear of nature. Religion was something that answered our inner needs, but was not necessarily a false belief. His work on religion centred on its role in the overcoming of inner fear and turmoil. This process was associated with the minds development into adulthood – which also dealt with how the mind reacted to traumatic experiences. If traumatic experiences were not resolved they could re-emerge in later life from the subconscious mind and lead to further trauma. He dealt with patients who had neurotic attitudes as regards to hygiene or tidiness, and felt that religion operated on a similar level, in that it was a collective neurosis stemming from repressed traumatic memories from the unconscious mind, and being of course sexual, religion was an illusion resulting from sexual difficulties. Fred was influenced by the work of early naturalists and anthropologists and he believed that primitive humans were divided into hordes. In these hordes were the dominant males, who were afforded first pick of breeding females, and headed the horde. Eventually, the younger males in the group became resentful of the dominant male and eventually plotted to kill him. After his death they began to experience a feeling of traumatic collective guilt, and they began to idolise the male as a father figure. This idol then became a way of controlling guilt, which Freud called animism, and then the dead male became almost divine, leading to the religious phase. Religion was also a method of us overcoming our fear of nature and the universe. Humans are unable to control the shifting and dynamic conditions of the world, and this induces dear and panic – we are defenceless against higher forces. Religion helps this by creating the belief that there is a higher power controlling nature that can protect us from the world Freud argued that religion was a method of dealing with inner guilt, and combined with a fear of natural forces, which led to the need for a belief in a father figure. http://www.alevelphilosophy.com... That's all I have. Handing it back to Con.
is=no, for it to exist

Before I begin I will list a few definitions since the pro did not. Definition(s) Is- 3rd person singular present indicative of be. [1] Be- to exist or live. [2] no- not in any degree or manner; not at all. [3] The pro stated "to say there is no, is to say there is". By looking above you will see that "be" means to exist or live, and "no" means not to exist at all. By definitions these words are opposites, therefore "is" cannot equal "no". I wish the pro the best of luck and await their response. Source(s) [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Evolution is unable to be proved

I would like to present two main points: A: Evolution is a theory B: Evolution, due to its own ideas, is unable to be proved Point A: A theory, according to dictionary. com, is "a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena". Notice that evolution in science is always prefaced by "theory". This is because it is one. Ex: Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor (from: . http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com...) Point B: Evolution states that all life forms came from one common ancestor. (The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, From: evolution. berkeley. edu) Due to the fact that we cannot look into the past, we can"t prove that evolution is true definitively. Good luck :)
Evolution is unable to be proved

In this Debate, I, Nidhogg, will attempt to prove that evolution, based on current data, is unable to be proved. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Definition of Evolution- change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I will not argue that evolution is totally untrue, simply prove that there is reasonable doubt of evolution's existence. The burden of proof thus lies on Con. Also, I would stress I am not going to argue for creationism in this debate (unless it is brought up by Con). I simply wish to prove that evolution is nothing more than a widely-held theory.
1 + 1 is 2

For all proofs, a set of axioms is required to draw justified conclusions. For natural numbers, this framework is called the Peano Axioms:1. 0 is a natural number.2. For every natural number x, x = x. 3. For all natural numbers x and y, if x = y, then y = x. 4. For all natural numbers x, y and z, if x = y and y = z, then x = z. 5. For all a and b, if a is a natural number and a = b, then b is also a natural number. 6. For every natural number n, S(n) is a natural number.7. For every natural number n, S(n) = 0 is false. 8. For all natural numbers m and n, if S(m) = S(n), then m = n.9. If K is a set such that: 0 is in K, and for every natural number n, if n is in K, then S(n) is in K, then K contains every natural number.In this system, the numbers 1 and 2 are symbols, whose arithmetic form is: S(0) and S(S(0)). Addition is defined inductively, that is:x + 0 = x + S(y) = S(x + y)Thus,1 + 1 = 1 + S(0) = S(1 + 0) = S(1)Substitute 1 with S(0),S(0) + S(0) = S(S(0) + 0) = S(S(0)) Hence, 1 + 1 = 2 Q.E.D.
1 + 1 is 2

I am arguing that 1+1 isn't 2. I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate 1+1 is not 2. This is proven by mathematics when written in binomial base where 1 + 1 is 10 because there is no such number as two in binomial terms. Another case for this is in base 1 formatting. where there is no number 1 so therefore the equation 1 + 1 = 2 doesn't even exist! Through these cases i would like you to vote aff
The Constitution is flawed...(full resolution below)

I apologize to my opponent and the audience, but I had to rush this round for lack of time. ==In response to my opponent's contention:== Flaws in interpretation and the "lack of accountability" are a direct result of the Constitution. My opponent has brought up how John Adams said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is quite a flaw in the Constitution. It cannot expect its officials or citizens to be omniscient. It ignores the flaws of man, and poorly defines its limits on power, allowing government to expand. This is how various clauses have come to be abused. This falls in line with my first three contentions. I also contend that there is no "lack of accountability" (although if there was, this would be the Constitution's fault), but that the accountability system in the Constitution doesn't work. It trusts all the Judicial Power to the Supreme Court, an oligarchy, that has historically abused its power. This falls in line with my fourth contention. ==Contention 1== It is clear that the way the Elastic Clause was written allows it to be abused. The necessary and proper clause allows the interstate commerce clause to be abused because it allows the USFG "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" the regulation of whatever the government sees to be interstate commerce. Everything indirectly affects interstate commerce, so the government has the power to regulate it. This is a flaw of the Constitution, not of interpretation. ==Contention 2== The question is posed of who determines if public safety is in danger. Public Safety is an abstract concept, and it can be threatened by practically anything, so the government has the right to regulate practically anything. This is a flaw of the Constitution, not of interpretation. ==Contention 3== General Welfare is also an abstract concept. The question is posed of who is to determine if the general welfare is promote by a policy. As a result, the government can do anything as long as it feels it is promoting the general welfare. ==Contention 4== The courts created by Congress are considered "inferior" to the Supreme Court [1]. Therefore, the Supreme Court, capable of overruling lesser judges, still effectively has all Judicial Power. ==Conclusion== The Constitution has abstract limits that allow its present loose interpretation. The Founding Fathers failed in their intentions by poorly defining limits in power. The accountability system set up, further, is flawed. This affirms the resolution. Thank you. ==Source== [1] http://www.usconstitution.net...
Concealed carry laws decrease crime

definitions: Conceal carry: Being allowed to carry a weapon hidden. "Concealed carry, or CCW (carrying a concealed weapon), refers to the practice of carrying a handgun or other weapon in public in a concealed manner, either on one's person or in proximity." http://en.wikipedia.org... Requirements for the permit: "is at least 21 years of age; ï¿½ is a resident of the state; ï¿½ provides fingerprints and submits to a criminal and mental health background check; ï¿½ has not been convicted of a felony or any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; ï¿½ is not a fugitive from justice; ï¿½ is not an illegal alien; ï¿½ is not an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance; ï¿½ has not been adjudicated mentally incompetent or been committed to a mental institution; ï¿½ has not been dishonorably discharged from the armed services; ï¿½ is not subject to a restraining or protection order; ï¿½ has not been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; ï¿½ is not awaiting trial for, and does not have any charges pending for, a crime punishable by more thanone year imprisonment; ï¿½ has completed a firearms safety or training course; and ï¿½ pays a licensing fee." [1] __________ Round 1 acceptance clarifications and definitions. Good luck [1] Snyder, Jeffery R. "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right ToCarry a Handgun." CATO, 22 Oct. 1997