BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle Truth_seeker vs. whoever

I was expecting to crush an emcee so through a straw air goes into but dog, I must beg the question, WHO THE FREAK EVEN HEARD OF YOU?! I swear,when I first saw this, thought my PC has a virus When we start rap, we bad, but you are worse than I was! you call yourself a rapper?! you must be bluffing! your trash is so weak, it's as if you said nothing! if Tupac saw this, he would go kill himself! Whoever made music would lose their health! if the music industry saw this, they'd lose all wealth! if Homer saw this, he would burn his bookshelf! this is the trashiest lyrics, I don't know how the heck you cope! none of my homies would lay hands on you, not even the Pope! I was expecting a real match, so I eagerly waited Instead, you the worst thing DDO regurgitated!
Rap battle Truth_seeker vs. whoever

Don't approach me if you not prepared spiritually Don't coach me if your not trained artfully n' lyrically I am in meditative tranquility with perfect stability You do not want for me to release swift agility Quantum fluctuations of supernatural emanations of divine manifestations Will require you to get restorations by my calculations from many stations I control my breaths my hits from the rights n' my hits from the lefts My harmonious dual natures connect like two people having sex Do not be deceived jus' cuz right now i'm a man of few words I formulate my vocalizations into weapons cuz i always spew swords I will unleash all kinds of paranormal winds then repent of my sins Crazy emotions within the self, but to you, i'm just breakin' grins
Rap battle Truth_seeker vs. whoever

If your talking about my girlfriend, you must mean your mother She came crying back to me because you depress her like no other You cant break my drunk-o-meter son I'm one thousand percent Irish! You on the other hand, you look rather doggish Don't even try to battle with me, you'll end up like a squirrel, hiding in a tree. go on then, shoo you pathetic little mutt! go down to the barber and get yourself a haircut.
Rap battle Truth_seeker vs. whoever

wow, it's been days, what took you so long to write that? This only proves that no matter what you do, you can't rap I'm a Cheetah demolishin you as i break your drunk-o-meter You cling to corny raps, but i could beat you with that like a cleaver When people look at you, they can't even see you But everyone sees that i rap n' you wanna do it too I got long hair n' don't care, but at least i got friends Your disconnected from society, call that split ends You say my hair is lice, i say your girl treats me right Cuz she's nice, unlike you, your raps are as light as rice Your raps aren't even raps, it's just trash you tried so hard, you suffered from a heat rash You just a baby takin' baby steps i'm crushin' reps Your bars aren't bars, it's just half of what you text Your stuff is weak and you need to get back to learnin' how to write Cuz as of now, your so uneducated, your not ready to get in this fight All you do is bark like a yappin' dog, you still suck and you don't bite
Pascal's Wager cannot be won.

I'm just saying that, as humans, we have doubt about the existence of god. Humans do not have perfect faith in god; if we did, original sin would never have been committed. This is simply a part of our nature, and something we cannot help. Pascal's wager is designed to convince those who have no faith in god why they ought to have some. I do not have doubts about the existence of god, I am simply pointing out that pascal's wager is aimed towards those who do. Furthermore, I would argue that, so long as someone worships god and obeys his word, it does not matter that they have doubts; they will still be saved.
Pascal's Wager cannot be won.

You have already failed to follow God's commandments. The point of this debate is not trying to keep God's law to stay on the safe side just in case God cares. The point is, death is all you can be sure of if you play Pascal's Wager. Death is an end or interruption of life, eternal life is unending and uninterrupted. Eternal life is denied from you now before you can ask God to take you up on Pascal's Wager. You can ask God to accept your wager, but God is not listening, death is the end of any possiblity of eternal life.......death is sure and unavoidable, therefore Pascal's Wager is hopeless, it cannot be won.
Pascal's Wager cannot be won.

Men do not follow the law because they love their government, they follow it out of the fear of punishment. In an age where tolerance of all people, even those who break god's laws is preached, the people must be reminded of the punishment they may receive. Pascal lived during such an age, and the people had to be reminded of the stakes at hand. Pascal is not saying that you have to genuinely believe in god to receive salvation, as no argument can force that, but that you ought to follow god's laws on the off chance he exists; whether you believe he does, or not. After all, the odds are stacked in such a way that it is absurd to bet against the existence of god, as doing so would equate to infinite loss if he were real. God does not expect every person to have complete faith in him, he simply expects us to follow his commandments. It does not matter why we do this, it only matters that we do. Thus, a non-believer who follows god's law as a wager can achieve salvation, thus winning.
Pascal's Wager cannot be won.

Pascal's Wager cannot be won. God is not allowing bets to be placed in order to win a place ih heaven or eternal life. You have fallen from eternal life because you already failed to do good enough to gain eternal life. You can't win by playing Pascal's Wager. The only thing you win by playing Pascal's Wager is death. Pascal's Wager is a bet made by man and there is nobody honoring the bet. It's a bet slip written on rotten paper and God won't buy it. You cannot make God owe you anything by anything you do. The ability for you to do anyting is a gift from God, You owe God always, you cannot do enough to make God owe you a place in heaven or eternal life.
there is a creator- even science proves this

RULES: this is about whether or not there is a creator therefore we are not allowed to narrow this debate to a particular religon. also to allow this debate to run more smoothly please number you arguments so that we and the veiwers can more easily identify the arguments. Now to start my argument i will state some reasons why you cannot disprove that there is a god/creator.1) If there was no God to create the universe, then the universe must have been an accident. If the universe is an accident, so is our thinking. If our thinking is an accident, we have no reason to believe it. This is absurd because we have already established the universe exists but cannot establish our existence as a subset of said universe. The only other two options left are nihilism and God.2) Any attempt to refute God that holds any weight relies on logic. Therefore the argument presupposes the existence of logic. Logical truths cannot be proven without reference to God. Therefore any argument against God presupposes the existence of God. Now i will state how exactly science proves that there is a god.1) Stephan Hawkins: "If the rate of expansion one seacond after the big bang had been swallowed by one part out of one hundred thousand million the universe would have recolapsed before it even reached its present size. " In other words there would be no universe, further more if the ratio of the electro magnetic force constant to the gravitational constant was more than one part over the electro magnitism would dominate gravity preventing the formation of stars and the galaxy. With this in mind it leads us to the ultimate question how did the big bang happen, was it nature? NO how could it be the Physics in eienstien agreed that time, space, and matter were all co-related meaning that they could not exist without each other wich means that there would be *no nature* how then could the sudden explosion into existance of time, space, and matter come out of nature, nature does not create nature it is impossible. Thus if it wasn't a natural phenomenon then there is only one answer it had to be a supernatural phenomenon!2) In the process of evolution the organisims strive to achieve better bodily perfection to adapt and change to the enviroment my question is why then would one organism be prey to another if they are constantly achieving higher organism state there should be no trees or plants for that matter and that means that there would be no herbavors only carnivors and yet with what appears to be inteligence organisms were created to help other organisms. fundamentally untill scientist can create sothing out f nothing then there is no valid argument to the fact that god doesnt exist.
Rawls veil of ignorance achieves justice better than Nozick.

1st contention; Application of a true veil of ignorance Applying a true veil of ignorance is not possible. We cannot make a pure objective decision. Even If it were possible it could not apply to justice. Contention 2: subjectivity vs. objectivity How is justice determined? Based on societies past experiences and/or court cases (subjective). So, society has subjective morality at its root. From the veil of ignorance, we would have to make a completely objective decision. Applying an objective suppot to a subjective value is flawed.
Whether public religous displays should be allowed.

Since my opponent has once again forfeit, I will restate my previous arguments. Here is the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If we are free to Exercise religion, than we can publicly exercise religion. We can freely exercise religion, so we can also publicly exercise religion. This is a valid form of a hypothetical syllogism, and the syllogism is sound, so the conclusion renders true. we can also publicly exercise religion. That means that we are free to set up religious decorations during the holidays as we please. Thank you for your time.
Whether public religous displays should be allowed.

Since my opponent has forfeit, I will restate my arguments. Here is the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that Congress can make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. If we are free to Exercise religion, than we can publicly exercise religion. We can freely exercise religion, so we can also publicly exercise religion. This is a valid form of a hypothetical syllogism, and the syllogism is sound, so the conclusion renders true. we can also publicly exercise religion. That means that we are free to set up religious decorations during the holidays as we please. I look forward to your arguments.
Public schools should teach about world religions

With any course being taught, the teacher would have to take a class to teach it. Many public schools already have rules about promoting one's own religion. If the teacher then after having a class and having read the rules, decided to do that, then yes, administrative action should take place. It may be better to find teachers who are indifferent to any certain religion to teach the class. Many people would understand to be careful, if they aren't then that's their fault.
Public schools should teach about world religions

I see how it may be confusing but that is why the teacher would be there to guide the student. Yes, parents may become angered but ultimately, it is the person's choice if they want to convert or not. If the parents stand against it that much, then they may teach their child otherwise. As well, making it an elective makes the student have the choice on whether or not to take it. The program is there to inform, what the student does with that information is completely different. You can show them what their options are but the choice is theirs. It is best to show students other religions so they can choose for themselves and become more understanding. You also don't want a student blindly converting without knowing the whole facts, which may be a deciding factor. Students should be able to know what they could be getting into, or staying away from. The purpose would not be to convince of an opinion but to inform to help them decide on their own.
Public schools should teach about world religions

World religions should be taught at public schools to widen students' knowledge about the world and other cultures. Teaching about religions worldwide would not be offensive as long as you include all of them and describe them accurately. The class could be offered as an elective and many students would be inclined to join as it may be interesting. Teaching about these religions would also foster a new understanding and appreciation. Take for example Islam. There are some people who think all Muslims are terrorists. If they were to learn more about the religion they would hopefully discover that Islam is a peaceful religion that does not believe in killing. Students may even learn more about their own religion. I know that my mother doesn't want me to convert to another religion without researching and knowing what would be the best choice and a class like that would give students the perfect opportunity to learn and make the decision on their own on what to believe. Religions should be mentioned in schools because the truth is, they're there and will effect a lot of your decisions. Many students actually don't care about any mentions of religion and if they do, most of the time it's a minor thing they can either get help with or get over.
The Best President of All Time

This is a tough argument and this is my first go at this but I will take a shot at it. Let's see, if I were to pick the best president of the United States of America I would first want to clarify what exactly are we examining. If we choose to look at character of a president then there are some pretty shady individuals, i.e. drunks, womanizers, etc. If you choose to look solely at the impact of their presidency then there are some presidents who stand out amongst others. Also, I would like to point out that the era of their presidency is a major factor in the way we see them today. A president from the late 18th century has had nearly 200 years to become a heroic icon from the past while other presidents of late are still fresh in our memories. Having said this, I would like to nominate George W. Bush as the greatest president of all time. This may seem like an odd choice and feel free to contest my decision but I feel like he has had and will continue to have a substantial impact on the development of modern America as it moves into the 21st century. We can discuss his political standing in America over his presidency as well as his foreign relations policies. Essentially all is fair game with the president, which is a major factor in the position itself. As the spokesman (possibly spokeswoman), of the United States, this person is seen by the entire world and thus their life (background, relations, etc.) is all picked scrutinized by people from every spectrum. Our job at finding the greatest president of all time pales in comparison to the duties that a president must attend to. Keep this in mind as we look further into the greatest president of all time....
whose better kobe or lebron? pro lebron

KOBE Strengths: 1. Kobe is the best offensive wing player in the history of the NBA. 1a. Best footwork. 1b. Best body control. 1c. Can shoot anywhere within 27 feet. 1d. Good post-up. 1e. Great dribble-penetrator. 1f. Can finish/pass/handle off the break. 1g. Good playmaker. 1h. Best clutch player. 1i. Can use both hands and feet (can shoot off-foot and off-hand) 1j. Pretty shooting form/stroke/follow-thru. 2. He has developed into a great team leader, on and off court. 3. He is great on-ball defender. 4. Very dedicated on the game. 5. Great drive on winning and proving negative people wrong time and time again. 6. Very little flaw in his game. Let me point something out to you. You used a sourse that has people picking Kobe over Lebron the whole time. With that please vote Con. (From your last soursce)
whose better kobe or lebron? pro lebron

He has thirty four triple doubles in his career and last season he averaged 28 points, seven assist, and seven rebounds per game, comparing to Kobe's average which is twenty five points, five rebounds, five assist, and two steals per game. How many triple doubles does Kobe have? He only has sixteen. Yes Kobe does have five rings to LeBron's zero but look at what James averages. I watch sport center almost every day they always compare LeBron to Michael Jordan when have they done that for Kobe maybe once or twice. He accomplished almost everything and more than Kobe Bryant has done and Kobe has been in the game longer. side by side stats from 2011 2012 Kobe Bryant, Los Angeles Lakers Games - 1060 PPG - 25.2 FG% - 0.454 3P% - 0.340 FT% - 0.838 APG - 4.7 RPG - 5.3 BPG - 0.5 TO - 2.92 LeBron James, Miami Heat Games - 587 PPG - 27.7 FG% - 0.475 3P% - 0.331 FT% - 0.744 APG - 7.0 RPG - 7.0 BPG - 0.8 TO -3.32 Winning Totals: PPG - LeBron FG% - LeBron 3P% - Kobe FT% - Kobe APG - LeBron RPG - LeBron BPG - LeBron TO - Kobe lebron wins 5 out of 8 so tell me whose better?
whose better kobe or lebron? pro lebron

1996National High School Player of the Year (USA Today and Parademagazine)1996Naismith Player of the Year1996Gatorade Circle of Champions High School Player of the Year1996McDonald's All-America Team member1996Youngest player (age 18) to debut in NBA league1997Nestle Crunch Slam Dunk competition winner at NBA All-Star Weekend1997Set new record with 31 points and 8 rebounds in Schick Rookie Game1998Youngest player to appear in an NBA All-Star game1998-99Only Lakers' player to start all 50 games1998-99All-NBA Third Team1999-2000All-NBA Second Team; NBA All-Defensive First Team; NBA All-Interview Second Team2001-02All-NBA First Team; All-Defensive Second Team2002MVP of 2002 All-Star GameRead more: Kobe Bryant - Awards And Accomplishments - Sports Star, Nba, and Team - JRank Articles http://sports.jrank.org... Kobe has won 5 titles and LeBron has won how many... Now say it with me none... you didn't say it with me http://wiki.answers.com......Kobe has gone over 30 points a game in 3 different seasons compared to LeBron's 1Kobe's a beter 3-point shooter .337 to LeBron's .331Kobe has less Turnovers 2.9 to LeBron's 3.4Kobe has more all-star games 13-7Kobe has more awards 14-10http://www.basketball-reference.com...http://www.basketball-reference.com...
whose better kobe or lebron? pro lebron

We all argue who is a better player Kobe Bryant or LeBron James. In my opinion it is LeBron James. If we look at both of these players' stats from high school to the NBA, accomplishments, and endorsements we can see who is better overall. LeBron started as a freshman at Saint Vincent Saint Mary High School averaging twenty one points and six rebounds per game. He led his team to the state title two years in a row and another one two years later. He was named Ohio's Mr. Basketball three times in a row and was the first sophomore ever to be picked for the All USA First Team. He got a spot on the All USA First Team three times, and named Gatorade National Player of the Year of 2001-2002. He appeared in many magazines SLAM, Sports Illustrated and ESPN. He played in the McDonald's All American, EA Sports Round Classics and Jordan Capital Classics game and also was awarded for the MVP for all of them. He wasn't only a star in basketball but also in football where he was named as a wide receiver, first team all-state and lead his team to state semis. So he could of signed to the NFL or the NBA it was his pick and he choose basketball of course. In high school Kobe Bryant played all five positions on the court and started varsity as a freshman. As a junior he averaged thirty one points, ten rebounds, and five assists. He was named player of the year in Pennsylvania. In his senior year he led his team their first state championship in fifty three years. He was awarded MVP at the Adidas ABCD camp, Naismith High School Player of the Year, McDonald's All American, Gatorade Men's National Basketball Player of the Year, and All USA First Team player for USA today. http://www.nzsportslife.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Firing Squad should be used in every country not only in US.

If you believe that a serial killer has no right to kill others, what then gives the state the right to become serial killers in their capacity? A bit hypocritical wouldn't you say? Retributive justice, perhaps reasonable in a personal capacity, fails as an idea when you would entrust the decisions of life and death to a corruptible system like the state. One need only look at the gun death statistics of armed and unarmed countries to over rule the idea that normal mammals(the police) should be awarded a monopoly on force and the right to perform summary executions. In countries where guns are banned, lo and behold, gun deaths are negligible to the point of non-discussion. Custodial sentences and the facilities that run them are quite ineffectual for rehabilitation but they do their job as it pertains to keeping harmful people away from the general population. I can sympathise with your countries non-committal attitude when it comes to life sentences. 30 years is inadequate.
Firing Squad should be used in every country not only in US.

I think serial killers aren't getting enough big punishment in EU. Simply bunch of years aren't enough. For 1 murder, sure 10 years of prison is okay, but 10 serial murders? In my country Slovenia they actually give up to 30 years only, no matter what. It's weird and I think not only US should use firing squad. I also think police needs to use guns more commonly and if firing squad is legal, a lot of police officers wouldn't just use guns at shooting range. I know people say that police already use guns at massive shootings, but in EU they are rare. So if firing squad would be legal in EU, police would use guns more commonly and serial killers would get proper penalty.
The US education system needs drastic reform.

It is absolutely true that NCLB is harmful, and that textbook based tests are not a good measure of utility. You seem to suggest that competition is most important on an individual level - pushing students to compete with their old records, and with those near them, but this is not enough, not only should students be encouraged to compete with each other, but teachers and administrators as well. The impact of our education system reaches far beyond each student's resumï¿½, at least it should(considering all the resources poured into education). The education system has a direct impact on the cost of labor(at all skill levels), and therefore on our trade deficit, the people in this country are already up to their eyeballs in debt, many of them because they suck at math, the country as a whole is up to it's eyeballs in debt, mainly because the citizens don't know history and critical thinking, not to mention the condition of science in the general population. Education is an investment in our future, and if conditions continue as they have, our children won't be making enough money to cover our debts. If there is a course of action available that does not have extreme consequences, I haven't heard it. As far as curriculum goes, the problem isn't that it is based on textbooks, but that it focuses on facts instead of utility.