BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Oh god another rap battle...

Matter of factly? It's a matter of opinion! I'mma be comin' at'cha sideways, so watch closely where I'm swingin' And singin' and spilling out my brains and my guts, But don't worry, yo, I got plenty more to back me up. You say you're ready for an attack, but I don't even see a shield up, You're swingin' crazily and angrily like a rabid dog throwin' up 'Cuz your lyrics are silly, your rhymes are from old times And your insults are givin' me a desire to play Metroid Prime (huh?) So take this in, to digest it, your words you will swallow, And then you will be crawlin' around, in embarrasment you'll wallow I'm the Harvester of Sorrow and I will come down on you like a ton of bricks So watch it, older punk, 'cuz my spittin's gonna be sick So sick! It's worse than a T-Virus infected undead dude, By the end of the battle, I think that all the readers will conclude That my rappin's the best, you're stupidly fumbling To keep up with my zest, and your song structure'll be crumbling You're an unwelcome guest in the house of crude humbling That's right; I'm the best...and I will send you tumbling Down the mountain of pain, The hills of shame, Better take your aim, 'Cuz I'm chargin' and your out of time, mane.
I will use something Developed to slow global warming when it is BETTER.

i see SOMEONE has been doing some research. however i know exactly your point and i say that you are off your original point. you said as your point at the beginning >>>"Global Warming is a big subject now days....if you actually believe it. People are inventing hundreds of items to slow global warming. I will not use one until its BETTER than what we already have, such as LCD lights."<<< what difference does it make if China is producing the most pollution (and people ARE trying to stop with negotiations) to our debate? because you have made no debate i cannot pose any argument.
I will use something Developed to slow global warming when it is BETTER.

You know if people really wanted to stop global warming they would try getting the big problems affecting it fixed! There is one major things affecting global warming that no liberal or enviromentalist has even tried fighting against: 1. China is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases. To equal the output of gases released we would have to drive around 3 billion ford expeditions. Obviously from this statistic it proves that vehicles are not the biggest thing affecting global warming. So why waste so much money on something that will barely help in the first place!
I will use something Developed to slow global warming when it is BETTER.

I would like to know exactly how much you know about global warming. you ask if the ozone layer is really worth saving for the price of a car. i would like to point out that the skin cancer rate is higher then it ever has been and the link to the ozone layer and skin cancer has been proven. i say that if you only want to drive around the city not only will you lessen your carbon foot print (Google it if you don't know what that is) a great way is to buy a hybrid. if you are so concerned about your every last bit of money do other things, like composting, using water efficient water nozzles, buy organic food, environmentally friendly paper that in the long run will save you money. in this way you can save money and lessen your carbon foot print (if you are really environmentally friendly like me then you will have a negative carbon foot print).
I will use something Developed to slow global warming when it is BETTER.

Sorry, in my before statement I had meant LED`s i got the two mixed up. Anyways. You have argued that the hybrid car is just like any other considering the build and the switch between uses of energy. Ill take myself at a wrong. But, is all of that worth the ridiculously high price compared to normal cars of its size? Is saving the Ozone layer really worth that much money on something very few people use? Lower the price of the car and make it so a cop can use it and I will use one. Because it will be better.
I will use something Developed to slow global warming when it is BETTER.

this debate to me seems like a question of morals. should we inconvenience our self's (namely by using objects that slow global warming) to help the good of man kind. i should think so seeing as the objects that would use are of little inconvenience to us. and about the hybrid car u mentioned... u make me laugh it is soooo funny. when you said that it is not pleasing to the eye, you pretend that you cant possibly change how the outside of you car look. further more the technology behind this car is meant for city life. do you need to get from 0 to 60 mph in 4 seconds? no. most people get these big cars like hummers and drive them around the city. there is no point in using a car with high torque to take your kids to school. and when you say that these cars are slow you seem to miss the whole point of the gas side of the hybrid. electric cars are way too slow so hybrids used gas to get to those highway speeds you might want to go at.
I will use something Developed to slow global warming when it is BETTER.

Over the last few years many inventions have been developed. Some are for our entertainment and others are for our Health, and others shouldnt have had time wasted on them in the first place! There have been two major things invented to (supposedly) help global warming. 1. Hybrid Cars These cars are small, have slow acceleration, and will not get you anywhere fast if you really need it(Ever wonder why you see no Hybrid Cop Cars?). O and they only get you about two more miles per gallon than a normal car of that ouny inconvenient size. In this vehicle you will also stay single probably for your entire life. They are not pleasing to the eye at all! These vehicles are inconvenient and all-together a total waste of the gigantic amount of money you have to pay for such a puny vehicle. 2. LCD Lights My tiny little cell phone that is about the size of a deck of cards has a light on the front, and finally (after two months of trying to figure out how to turn it on) i turned it on. This little light you would expect not to have any power at all is the brightest light in my house! I have also seen LCD lights decorating christmas trees and they looked awesome! LCD lights are exellent and have a resonable price. These little things are conveniant! Global Warming is a big subject now days....if you actually believe it. People are inventing hundreds of items to slow global warming. I will not use one untill its BETTER than what we already have, such as LCD lights.
People who wear jackets in the summer heat are not idiots.

[1] People who wear jackets in the Summer are idiots, and i will tell you why. Why would one wear a jacket in the summer in 110 degree weather? Isn't that a little unusual, because our bodies want 70 degree weather, because that is room tempurature, and that is what we are used to. If the tempurature is colder than 70 degrees, we would want to wear a jacket to get closer to 70 degrees. If the tempurature is hotter than 70 degrees, our bodies would want to cool down to get closer to 70, not heat up to even more. [2] If you are wearing a jacket in 110 degree weather, a jacket will certainly increase body heat by another 20 degrees, so your body will suffer 130 degrees, which is too much for the human body, according livescience.com, and will cause death over time, so people who wear jackets in the summer are semi-suicidal, and thus, they are idiots. [3] People who wear jackets in the summer are unusual. You don't see average people wearing jackets in 110 degree weather. The people who wear jackets in the summer are not confident about themselves, and thus, they are and they look like idiots. People who wear jackets in the summer tend to hide themselves from the public, and sometimes, jacket wearers just want to hide their fat butt. Sources: [1] Fat people who want to hide their fat butt. [2] http://www.livescience.com... [3] I know my opponent personally, and he wears a jacket in 110 degree heat [4] Science
People who wear jackets in the summer heat are not idiots.

People are different from each other. Some people think that 110 degrees is very hot. That is their own opinion. Someone else will think that 110 degrees is a little cool. That is also their own opinion. If someone decides to wear a jacket when it is 110 degrees, people should not criticize them. It is not right to assume the fact that someone is an idiot just for wearing a jacket, no matter how hot it is. People think differently from each other. You never know. Maybe the person that is wearing a jacket has a doctor's degree and is a genius. You can never judge a person by the clothes they're wearing.
Polls should not decide whether a President stays in office

I dearly apologize that I missed the deadline on the previous round… Your argument, to be summarized, is basically that the majority can be "wrong", and that they should not get their way because they will make bad decisions. The fallacy in your argument is that there is such a thing as right or wrong opinions, or that there is an absolute "good" and "bad". You have the delusion that your own opinion is the right, and contradicting popular opinions are wrong. But I ask: Did you ever stop to think of yourself as part of the masses? "Good" and "bad" are meaningless terms, but we are forced to act otherwise. Who better than the majority to decide what is good and bad? This is only but the concept of democracy. You tell us that the majority is not always right, but present no alternative method to determining what is right, exempt your own biased opinion. You misunderstand that I do not instigate that presidents should act completely on the whim of the public, I suggest that they make way for someone who agrees with the majority, when they have very low approval ratings. And here is something copied and pasted from my previous debate of this topic: "To not resign in this hypothetical does not arise from any sense of benignity, but from hunger for power, in most cases. To not resign is to openly defy the will of the majority of the United States; it is to oppose the nation to which they vowed to serve. These kinds of politicians to not believe in democracy, they see it as an obstacle that they must overcome to get power. Have these politicians no sense of honor, no sense of duty to the country? We live in the twenty first century; we can not tolerate power-hungry politicians continuing to stay in power even after it has been made clear that the citizens of the country to which they rule are opposed to their seat in government. This is not representative government, this is despotism." To sum up… -It is moot to say that the majority can be wrong, since opinions are relative. -For politicians to honorably resign does not mean they must make other policies based on this. -Emperor Harlan
Polls should not decide whether a President stays in office

I voted for you in the last debate with the same topic as your opponent's arguments were flawed. However, I think you are still wrong! The argument why polls should not decide on the presidents retention in office is based on politcal rationale. Politicians should have time to execute their political program. They should be able to do unpopular things which on the long run might prove to be good for the country. Otherwise we would have problems like the following: Presidents will have to be populist all the time and "please the masses" which is quite easy (e.g. with tax cuts)however this would run the country to the ground. Taxes are never popular, but they are needed. No long term plans and restructuring would be possibe (it is hard enough as it is). As transient periods of chaos or high costs are normal in restructuring. However, some of these policies prove to be good for the majority of people after a couple of years.
Android will come out on top of Apple

(1) Which company has the most sales? Well first off I would like to know that this was not the easiest to find, but I think that I gathered some rather un-biased facts. To start off with I will start with Apple. I looked this up and to the most recent stats that were found on Wikipedia(They had the most recent update of sales, due to Apple's quarterly statements). Their total sales of all Iphones that have been sold since the release of the Iphone totaling just around 225,135,000 devices. [1] But Android sales according to Wikipedia since its launch have hit over 300 million devices. [2] Also to add to this I would like to point out how many sales these companies are doing everyday Apple with selling around 402,000 [3] and Android devices running around 700,000 [4] which is around 43% more per day. Although these two articles are very amusing how there are more of both devices sold per day than babies born, which I find amusing. (2) Which company makes the better products? Well yes indeed this is a very opinion based question. So to answer you with my opinion to compare the OS because there are many different companies that produce an Android running device (HTC, Samsung, Etc. .. ). I would have to say that I think the Android OS is to a greater advantage on the terms of how its produced because while the iOS came out first the Android OS has stepped up, I truly think there are more options on an Android and Google has been coming out with greater upgrades compared to the iOS in the past year. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(operating_system) [3] . http://thenextweb.com... [4] . http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Stimulus spending should be done in current economic conditions

Principally Con's argument refers to monetary policy more than to fiscal policy. But nonetheless, I could agree that monetary policy provides cheap money to private banks, which therefore buys government bonds for higher yield and they profit quite tremendously, BUT even if the Fed cuts its loose monetary policy and raises interest rates on discount rate and overnight interest rates, the banks therefore would ask from the government higher yield on their bonds to even out the difference, because after all private banks is for profit, which leads us back to the very fiscal policy. From fiscal policy point of view, before mentioned activity of monetary policy would still make sense of loose monetary policy, because it lowers debt maintenance costs, so there are bigger buying power for government for fiscal stimulus to recover faster from recession, as it has happened these days. Returning to underlying question, then there is one more reason why stimulus spending should be done these days, and the answer is infrastructure. Infrastructure in the US and basically worldwide is in a grim situation, without external encouragement (read: fiscal stimulus), it would improve painfully slow. Additionally, good infrastructure really helps the economical activity as without it - the roads, railway, ports, electricity etc. - it is quite hard to conduct solid business, so fiscal stimulus not only would make short-term economical activity growth, but also would encourage long-term business activity, growth rate, which makes jobs, so there would be more tax payers, so the government budget would meet surpluses and could pay down the debt in the boom business cycle. https://www.ft.com...
Stimulus spending should be done in current economic conditions

The Federal Reserve Act does say that all of its profits go to the Treasury, but as we cannot audit the Federal Reserve there is no way to enforce this. This is like if you had a big pile of money, and thus I convinced you to let me steal money from your pile as long as I paid you all my stolen money, but you were not allowed to see how much I stole. Such an agreement is thoroughly absurd for obvious reasons. Now, our base money supply has been increased to 3 Trillion- 3.75 times the base currency as there was before the crisis. So the economy already has a massive surplus of currency, the problem is none of it is being invested or leaving bank vaults. No one is going to start investing until the economy is deregulated and taxes are cut. Actually stimulus spending hasn't made the economy recover, Professor Emeritus Richard Wolf from the University of Massachusetts explains: {1}"What we do is a very peculiar procedure, the Federal Reserve basically gives the money, under various conditions, to large banks. End of story..."[What] we had hoped for was that the banks would lend it out, to individuals and to businesses; and so the money would circulate. The banks decided to do otherwise. They said to the government, 'you know, you're running a big deficit. Here's your solution; you need to borrow the difference. This magic can be done if you borrow money from us.' And Here's [what is] very important for you to understand; the banks took the bulk of the money, made available to them by the Federal Reserve, and lent it to the government with the following arrangement: the interest paid by the banks to the Federal Reserve for fresh new money has hovered around half of one percent. The rate of return paid by the US Treasury for the money it borrowed from those same banks, two to three percent. If you understand that, you'll understand why the banks have recovered, and nobody else has." {1}. 1:37-1:50, 2:43-3:38,
Stimulus spending should be done in current economic conditions

Firstly, all the net earnings from The Federal Reserve goes to the Treasury, so it becomes like a vicious cycle - when government issues bonds, central bank buys a large chunk of it out, so money stays "home". (not a case in the US these times, but still The Federal Reserve is the one of the biggest holders of US bonds whatsoever) So when the government pays the interest on these loans, great part of it stays in the nation's central bank, as its profits rise, so rise the government revenue from the payments from The Federal Reserve as it pays directly in the Treasury accounts. https://www.federalreserve.gov... http://money.cnn.com... Secondly, I could agree on the Con's point that economic growth could be encouraged by deregulation, but still in the times of crisis, it is so much easier to pass stimulus package through the legislative bodies rather than specific industry deregulation or any kind of structural reforms. Thirdly, the stimulus have worked in the past, it has helped for the very necessary temporary relief for the economy very recently, as American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 did. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Stimulus spending should be done in current economic conditions

It is argued that most of the developed world central banks have already "shot" all their power in regards monetary policy and State should take more responsibility in regards fiscal policy to prop up their own nation's economy and world economy as a whole. So the debate is about that should governments make bigger deficits to ignite some "fire" for their economies and return to faster growth world or not? This is Pro's side debut debate, so inexperienced debaters are more welcomed to join, as experienced ones might not feel quite a challenge, but accepted is everyone nonetheless.
Stimulus spending should be done in current economic conditions

It was intended to debate the case that the government should or should not expand their expenses for the sake of economic growth, but you started to look at the Fed and private banks, well, the case is that government quite does not influence the money circulating in the economy and they should not be worried about the glut of money staying into private banks, at least, theoretically. But okay, I did not quite stated rules etc. quite strongly. Lets continue as it is.
Rap Battle

I'm from Amerca, cuz it's number 1, You're a Contra, don't make me beat yo a$$ son, The stake I planted in your body is the Star Spangled Bannor. Before you die, you give me a 21 gun salute. Imma burn you up, you gonna hit the floor. Your cooled off, prepare for a Cold War. Just face it, you can't beat a Marine. Now Imma light you up with an M16. I'm taking this like I look Iraq, You're just a sad soul that can't rap worth jack. I'm droppin' bombs like my name is Nixon. Your mental stability needs a fixin'. The sh*t's hitting the fan cuz, you've got Ebolla. Blowing you away like a Spuernova. Absorbing all this energy like a Black Hole. I'm a ginger and I'm stealing your soul. I'm going up just like a 90 degree vector. Just like a bee I'm taking the nector. You have no chance of coming to Earth, your Apothis. You have lost and that's not just a hypothesis. I'm the greatst mind since Tesla, My knowledge is forever like Nebula. Just so I clear up some of the confusion, I just comenced a rap atomic fusion.
Rap Battle

Oh i'm so scared I'm feeling like a king I'm counting stacks while your licking these boots your rhythm is garbage so lemme take out the trash I told i'm the king So hear me sing Just go back in the corner Where your called the big doof Stop yanking my tail I told i'm way past your league don't give me these sad tails Of the amount of fails you made my skills are crap well better than that flow ew! Top class? what? Didnt I take out the trash I told you i'm the king now hear this kid sing It's time for you to choose Run away or be my fool Its up to you to decide because I am the man of this site And you aint up to that.
Rap Battle

Woah, now, let's take a step back, Rockey over here doesn't now how to rap. If your a king then it's time for a revolutiones. You just ain't got the cojones. You don't understand your poor skill ramification, Has your lines lookin' like your in toxication. Rapin' against me is a joke, You're chance at winning just went up in smoke. I drop more bombs than a B29, Your chance at winning? Zero Zilch, Nein. I'm top of the class, Got black belt in MCMAP, Your skills are cr@p. I'm the king of DDO, I even schooled STALIN, I'm set for life with free schoolin', housing, and retirement, hell I'm ballin', Speakin' of schoolin' cuz your skills are lackin'. You better back out Cuz you know that I'm packin'. Got a 9mm, AR, and an AK 47. One false move and I'll blow your a$$ through the Stairway to Heaven. You ain't nobody, not skilled, just someone who works at 7-11. You shouldn't of faced me, because now it's Amraggedon.