BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God vs. Satan Rap Battle (not vocal, text)

That's cute, toot-toot, Red-tailed foxyloxy going SHOOP-DA-WHOOP! My horns are beeping so severely, Imma need to puke! 'Cause I'm ill as I kill all these bars before me, As I feel so real unlike yo' phony story, I feel like Marlin, you acting like Dory, But you control sharks, things get gory, They try to bite my tail and fail, Oops, I'm sorry! As I use my tail as a weapon and a whip, they worry, We break-up, make-up hunky dory, next thing they've embraced the naughty... As a psychopath, it's hard to comprehend, The feelings between a human being and friend, But what's harder for a hot fiend like me is to pretend, That I give two damns about who controls who, in the end... 'Cause if you made me, then baby you maybe un poco LOCO!... En Inglés crazy, None of your punchlines phase me, yo' ego massive bar-sting small. Trust me wannabe Rap-God Shady, you aint got talent at all! Your omnipotence granted me to be your adversary, You allow me to turn your people evil, aint that kind scary? Do you enjoy the way I handcuff your son behind hell's closed gates? The way my tail, leaves a cum-trail of souls I've bargained for as he waits, for me to permit him to leave, he is a masochist beyond the grave, Your embodiment in human form craves to be my slave, He says "NAIL ME MASTER, NOW!" I say "shh, behave." I make more sins and Jesus keeps having to relive dying for them, This is the hidden secret he won't tell in case you extort him, He's scared of you, you're repetitive and the boredom, And he cries to me as I try to be the father you weren't for him. So tell me why I'm here God, why is it you hate me? Why did your omniscient b*tch-A** happen to want to create me, Lately I've been waiting to have my own virgin baby. You want me, you need me, you burn with desire, Your omnirod throbs hard 'cause I'm hot just like fire, Burning with passion, you closet homo, you liar...
God vs. Satan Rap Battle (not vocal, text)

Malignant fiend arising from the bottom of the abysmal filth That is non-existent, holds no substance, you a dismal myth The evil that you believe has power is absence of substance You do everything i please, your own actions of lusting The natural inclinations of this carnal crafty serpent are slithering to seduce the youth but actual foundations of my own three-fold divinity is absolute, the universal Truth Your calculations of malicious intentions, ambitious affections'll disintegrate n' won't heal Petty accusations of pernicious pretensions, fictitious projections' why you only bit my heel Sweaty lacerations are propitious suspensions, judicious corrections are why your not real The animal that always crawls on it's belly always desires to elevate himself above the Supreme You targeted the woman knowing that the man is stronger in the command, so i didn't intervene Because my glorious plan shall never exterminated as long as i live, from her, i birth the Messiah You mimic everything that i do, moldin' your own counterfeit beings because it's i whom you desire Your evil schemes to rid the world of my bloodline failed, the destruction of good is what you crave You are inevitably my slave as you bend to my will, you are like the worm eating the godless grave You are systematically asymmetrically, sporadically n' aggressively trying hard to keep beating one's self While i'm selectively esthetically, spiritually n' erratically continue to obliterate you slave, seating my self I am a schematically brutality, specially in bilaterally splitting you apart as you in a state of unceasing poor health While your sensuality, criminality, severally n' critically ends thinking you are God, when you are deceiving yourself
God vs. Satan Rap Battle (not vocal, text)

There are two types of people, The ones with power are evil, All the goody-two-shoes you abuse are feeble, I'm used to the boos from crews beneath a steeple, They say I'm losing sanity, eternal Evel Knievel. Flame on, game on, Are you up for some gay fun? Na you homophobic strobe amongst the epileptic Pagans, Feeling so alone so you control those how throw stones, You make them target women who found a new way to moan, And then when you grow bored of it, you mask in cryptic tones, You make it a nice story, aint you sorry for the bones? Cause those hoes are broken inside out, they live in broken homes, But you blame it all on me as I scream out in shrieks and groans. You are powerful all you do's create, My power is devouring everything that you make, I am the embodiment of badassery and hate, You make a world of good and throw me in, I decimate, Al Qaeda go boom for you, mate, But we all know their dream of heaven's fake, They come thinking their Muhammad-rate, And end up begging me for one more chance to cut a nice clean slate, How I laugh as I whip, as I rape and dominate, As I place chains upon fellow slaves to the controller of fate... You make me punish for you, man, I don't have much of a clue how much more you plan, To make me suffer for something you simply let happen, You knew I'd rebel like the devil when you made the angel clan, And you named me Lucifer, I was your star, Highest IQ of all angels, I was the smartest by far, IQ 666, me and Jesus were on par, So tell me what exactly is it that you punished me for? I did something that your omniscient a** knew I'd do before, You're just a slut in denial, I'm a million-dollar whore! You tried to burden me with fire, Frame me as a liar, But I would laugh manically as you trolled hard to conspire, And every time I'd laugh I'd choke on my own smoke as it rose higher, 'Cause you tried to curse me forever but I'll laugh until I die, sir.
Facebook is likely to decrease in popularity due to its increasing limitations

The central question: “how likely are you to continue using Facebook considering all its limitations?”.Here are the arguments:Facebook has undergone a number of transitions and transformations since their launch in 2004. From a change in business operations, revenue models, terms of service, layouts (such as timeline) and more recently their decision for an initial public stock offering; all factors which have affected public opinion of Facebook in some way or another.Example 1: the switch to the ‘timeline’ layout instantaneously revealed all a user's past interactions to everyone which many found quite an astounding and arrogant move. Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...Example 2: The move for an initial public stock offering has people wondering now even more why Facebook needs so much money to remain operating. It makes them feel they are simply being used as tools and being capitalized on. Source: http://www.mobiledia.com...Limitations include:- too centralized- commercial- no option to be anonymous- too addictive and distractive, almost like heroin- automatic photo and location tagging- impose orders to reveal identity- promote privacy to conceal fact that there really is no privacy- safety against access by third parties not guaranteed- claim no responsibility for unforced third-party access- much too large organization by revenue figures alone- capital growth has gone suspiciously fast- restricted only to adding people you know, no connecting to random strangers- want to know everything about you, who you’ve ever known- you’re profile is a mere tool to make FB sick amounts of money- once you’re dead, you’re profile is removed to save hard drive space and keep it sustainable- Follow your whereabout through your smartphone- too much linked to your actual identity- ‘like’ button is old fashioned, simple and annoying- affects functioning in real life and true personal growth and development as opposed to virtual- limits human talent and growth potential- affects student grades- makes one stupidThese factors are necessary to take into account for Facebook to be able to recognize where their flaws are if they want to retain user-base in the future and remain growing.Please begin directly with your arguments and then we will go on to round 2.
Is Islam the truth

Islam postulates the existence of a personal God, and the existence of such a being is unsupported by any reasonable evidence. The idea that the omnipotent creator of the Universe would have a vested interest in the activities of man is aburd; equally absurd is the notion that an omnibenevolent God would suffer the existence of this world. Furthermore, the idea of morality as simply being the wishes of an omnipotent being is intensely disagreeable to me, as this is a case of 'might is right', or the logical fallacy of appealing to power. I would be wiling to disavow my disbelief were sound defences to be made of Islam, yet I have not encountered any such defence. I put forward this argument because it is perhaps unfair to expect voters to vote for a debater who does not debate.
Is Islam the truth

The Instigator is being completely dishonest: he initially stated that he would "challenge anyone", where has that confident sentiment vanished to? Now he says that he is "not interested" in debating an atheist. I believe the most appropriate course of action would be to cancel the debate. Failing that, I assume all further rounds will be forfeit and - due to the dishonesty of the Instigator - I believe I should be awarded the conduct points.
Is Islam the truth

In the name of Allah. Thank you for accepting my Challenge. The reason I want to hold this debate is because I want to streghten my Faith in Islam. I just converted to Islam so I want to sort of Challenge anyone to streghten my Faith in Allah and His messengers. I belief in in the true Islam that is As Salafiyah. As some of you may interpret this as wahabism but this is far from wahabism. So,if my opponent wants to tackle me through an atheist's point of view,then you are wasting your time. I am not interested. Thank you once again
Is Islam the truth

'Islam' can be interpreted differently; therefore, I would kindly ask my opponent being his defence of Islam before I start my assault, as otherwise I might waste my time refuting something that my opponent does not consider to be 'Islam'. I also fully accept that I am challenging the instigator's personal interpretation of Islam. It may be relevant that I will be arguing from the perspective of an atheist, and not the follower of another religion. I look forward to a stimulating debate.
Marine Mammals under human care

In this debate, I will argue in favor of keeping marine mammals under human care. To clarify, I will support the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) in their captivity methods and purposes. This does not include SeaWorld, as they are not part of the AZA and I do not have a direct association with them, thus I cannot speak for them. My opponent will argue against the AZA, and will argue in favor of marine mammal release. BOP is shared.
That filling out the big issues on one's DDO profile is beneficial

Vmpire and myself will be arguing the aforementioned resolution. Please note that I am arguing as con, while my opponent is arguing pro. Burden of proof is on pro, but I intend to bring out lots of substantive material of my own. I don't expect this to come down to definitions, but DDO refers to this website (for the acronymically-challenged) and the big issues are those things you see if you click "Edit Profile" and then "Issues" from this page. In terms of structure, this debate will follow the classic DDO format: first round acceptance, last round summaries. Voting will go for one week as per Phantom's rules. Please take voting seriously in this debate, and try not to vote based on your personal opinion, but simply on which of us argued more effectively. To my opponent I wish very good luck, and I look forward to a fun and exciting debate!
Billander Seige not Referenced in Yortyff's Journal

I have to admit, you make some pretty good points. Let me see if I can muster up a good response. About Feirpan being extinct on Cerphill. In the Billander Seige we know that there was outside help from rogue planets, any of these assisted could have brought Feirpan on one of their ships. Feirpan were known throughout the galaxy for their exquisite fighting skills and easy riding. Yortyff was an in experienced fighter a siege of a few days could constitute to him as long. I don't think his marks were mentioned, and you're right not sure what to say to that.
Billander Seige not Referenced in Yortyff's Journal

Earlier in our conversations you mentioned how the Billander Dragon Seige is what was referenced in Yortyff's journal halfway through Perilla in the Harbor. I'd like to challenge you on this. I believe that this can't be true due to the following facts. - Yortyff mentions in his journal that he was handling a Feirpan during the siege, a reptile that had gone extinct on Cerphill 6 years before. We know this because Yortyff's cousin was on the expedition to save their clan but had failed. - The siege was said to have been a long one, but Billander Siege had only lasted for a few days. - All who fought in the Billander Seige had been scorched by Queen Hajk creating special marks on their skin. Though it is never mentioned if Yortyff had these marks it seems something that would be notable, and would have been brought up earlier with the professor was checking his neck for worgal bites.
September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming

Full Resolution: Mankind is probably the main cause of global warming in current times. == Rules == 1. No forfeits 2. All arguments must be within the debate, while citations or end/footnotes can only be within the debate, in the comments section, or as a cancelled debate on DDO linked if the location is specified 3. No new arguments in the final round (except for defense of constructive cases) 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP is shared == Debate Structure == First round acceptance only. The second round is for constructive cases only (no rebuttals). The third round is for rebutting constructive cases, without defending one's own arguments. The fourth round is for defending one's own arguments and a summary, without rebuttals. No new arguments in the final round except for the defense of one's own arguments. == Definitions == Global warming is the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century, and its projected continuation. [1] Mankind is "the human race; human beings collectively without reference to sex; humankind." [2] "Probably" is defined as "very likely." [3] To clarify this, I will argue that there is a probability of more than 50% that mankind is the main cause of global warming. "Main" is "chief in size or importance." [4] "Cause" is defined as "a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition." [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com... [4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5] Google ("define cause")
September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming

Regardless, my opponent was *out of time* on the R2 argument. Extend Point 2 - it's only fair that it be considered a forfeit, since they took more time for their arguments. The time was reset, so my opponent did forfeit due to time. As such, one cannot circumvent the time limit by such means. Therefore, vote Pro. This is -- by default -- a forfeit, since my opponent ran out of time. Rule 1 says that forfeits will not and cannot be permitted.
September Beginners Tournament: Man and Global Warming

(1) Con presented an argument as a Google Doc in the comments. That Google Doc is *inaccessible,* since Con didn't make it a shareable link. Only Con can see that Google Doc, and I'm unable to see it. Therefore, it is equal to a forfeit. (2) Con ran out of time and forfeited, so it's only fair that it be considered a forfeit. Thus, I extend my arguments, since the Google Doc is a private one.
Everything is Math

Framing In the words of philosopher David Hume, “the wise man proportions his belief to the evidence,” and by extension, that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. As the affirmative, my opponent TototheToro is obligated to prove his claims. Positive claims require positive evidence, yet we have seen next to none from him. It’s my opponent’s burden of proof to show the truth of the proposition, and you should hold him to it. He says it is irrelevant whether or not I can I prove any 1 thing to be non mathematical, but I beg to differ. The resolution states: Everything is Math. Everything is all encompassing of everything, and if 1 thing isn’t mathematical, that means that not everything is. Affirmative The only real arguments my opponent has made in support of the proposition are (1) an mere assertion that “everything could be expressed using a mathematical formula or a mere number,” and (2) a fallacious argument from ignorance, stating that the plausibility of everything shown to be mathmatical in the future shows that everything is math. We don’t know the future (I lost my tarot cards), and by extension we can’t make statements about everything in the universe off of it. If my opponent can in fact tell the future and make predictions of it, may I suggest he submit an application to the CIA. He says we have made great developments in technology in the past century, yet he doesn’t prove that what we can possibly know has an upper limit. Potentially we could reach a point where we cease to be able to discover new sciences and make revolutionary technologies. Negation Again, most of my opponents arguments are predicated upon the idea that at some point in the future we may find a mathematical model for everything (sociology, love, insanity, psychology, morality. Simply cross apply above. We do not know the future, and can not make all encompassing statements based upon it. I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to write sociology (though it does apply as well), and mean’t psychology. My opponent got the point though, and simply speaks of the future. He completely ignores the mathematical representation of consciousness and the workings of our brains. My opponent speaks of qualities that could describe insanity, yet doesn’t provide any way to mathematically describe insanity itself. Same too goes for morality, psychology and mental illness and emotions. Glaring admission here too, he says that love is as abstract as mathmatics, saying there is no 1 conception of it. By extension, this means that there can be no real mathmatical representation of it
Everything is Math

The resolution is everything is mathematics, and when voting, you must hold him to the proposition that everything is math, from tacos to sociology to Jesus Christ, and everything in between. If I, as the negation, can prove even 1 mesley thing that isn't mathematical, then I've won, as not everything is mathematical. What can not be substantiated or described through numbers and mathematics? First being is sociology. and emotions, as the workings of our heads can't be numbered. Though we have criteria such as IQ for testing intelligence (quite faulty in all actuality), what makes us who we are can not. If you propose otherwise, may I ask, what is value of love? How do you measure hatred? What is the weight of insanity? Second, is morality. How are we supposed to quantitatively describe what is right and wrong, good and evil? For example, take the trolley problem, where 5 men are stuck to a train track with a runaway railcar going straight at them. However, if you pull a lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks, saving the 5 but killing the 1. Though all the variables are set in numerical terms, the moral decision is not quantifiable. Third, is spiritual experiences. Many billions have experiences they regard as spiritual, potentially being in contact with the divine. Does my opponent propose a spirit meter (like what the Scientologists have) to number and measure someone's experience? In short, the real point I'm getting at is that there is quantitative and qualitative experiences. Not everything can fit into one or the other. To do otherwise is simple intellectual dishonesty.
Rebeldixie01 and Iamaconfederate are terrible people.

None of those things makes me or my brother terrible. It's actually terrible for you to challenge me to a debate like this. All of those things you put were our opinions. Just because we would lead America to chaos (which is our goal) wouldn't make us terrible people, due to the fact that america is evil, well, at least the USA. If we are bigots, that doesn't make us terrible. Im not anti black. Racial diversity is so we can keep our cultures separate (a good thing) You make this gay (homosexual, sorry, didnt want to be offensive) debate and expect to prove we are terrible, but you just point out our opinions, yes, we're confederates, well, were pro south, yes, we hate the US, and yes, we're anti homosexual, but that makes us patriots for our culture, not terrible people.
Rebeldixie01 and Iamaconfederate are terrible people.

I will attempt to do 3 things in this debate. The stakes are high, as the loser has to leave DDO for 2 weeks. I will prove that...- America would be led to chaos if they ever came to power. - They are bigots, even if they don't realize it.- They are uneducated on politics, and how the world works.If the audience can think of anything else I should argue them on, I will most likely add it.My opponents goal is to disprove all three statements I made. If even one of these points is left standing, then my opponent, rebel or confederate, have to leave DDO for 2 weeks. So I remind them that by accepting this debate, they are aware of the consequences. Additional Items of Information--------------------------------------------------- I will have the BOP.- Debate.org can be used as a source.- Voters must have completed 6 debates to vote.Defintions that might come up--------------------------------------------------Neo confederates neo-confederate Web definitions Neo-Confederate is a term used by some academics and political activists to describe the views of various groups and individuals who have a positive belief system concerning the historical experience of the Confederate States of America, the Southern secession, and the Southern United States. Bigotbig·ot noun \G2;bi-gət\ : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) Politicspol·i·tics noun plural but singular or plural in construction \G2;pä-lə-G6;tiks\ : activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government : the work or job of people (such as elected officials) who are part of a government : the opinions that someone has about what should be done by governments : a person's political thoughts and opinions
Rebeldixie01 and Iamaconfederate are terrible people.

Extend all arguments. I am personally unimpressed with my opponents lack of will to debate this. He didn't respond to a single argument I made, and "I'm not anti-black" seems to be a rather weak rebuttal.Also, I would like to point out, that the rules state if one of the arguments is left standing, then I win the argument points. My opponent has admitted to being a bigot by stating he is anti-homosexual. Which means all points should be forfeited in the argument category.