BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle Semis

So I can't drink, but why swallow when I can spit You say I cannot think, how can you ignore my wit?! sharp like the sword of Link, you're Zelda, a lame bjtch I'll give your neck a kink, and then give it a slit... Your lyrical "bombs" don't really get you that far You just self-implode like ISIS, "ALLAHU ACKBAR!!!!" You think you're OG like Obie, a low key rap star? Well, you might by LOKI, but I'm Thor from Asgard So hard as hell, I'll crush you with my hammer! to stop your stammer and stop your damn clamor... Then like Bruce Banner, I'll smash all your crude yammer cause your rap is true cancer, your insults are cute banter For you this was show n' tell that didn't go well As for me, I feel so swell like I won the Nobel! Sure, you were noble, you took this blow down your throat well, Suck on that, bjtch! Aint nobody gotta fear Jonelle...
Rap Battle Semis

You're actin' like you go hard, but you're not even old enough to drinkAnd your rap is so wacked I doubt you're mentally old enough to think.Let me ask you, do you really need a simile in every line?And another, did you write your last round while you were high?There's too much talking, but not enough said.If this fight were real, you would already be dead.I'd say you talk a good game, but then I'd be lying.In a minute let me know how it feels as you're dying.But first I just gotta roast that last little lie.BOI, you couldn't begin to attack me if you tried.I know three ways to kill, you would painfully die.I have training to break your chest in the blink of an eye.I don't bullsh!t around, but that's your native language.You bring the threats of a child, and I bring the anguish!Give up, Jim Shady, this is the end of your streak,Because deep down you know, your bars are weak.Don't try to challenge me, you just look like a clown.When I shoot my bars they put the building on lockdown.They call me the hazard, b!tch, just try not to drown.I bet you're lookin' up, but this sh!t just went down.
Rap Battle Semis

You think cause you're a girl I will not hit you? Not hit you like kiss you, hit you like DISS you The things you say to me seem to break me in two But I'm pulling myself together, I don't need a tissue I see you're in the Pirate Party, are you really Anne Bonny? You think you're a bad @ss pirate, but you are a mere copy Rhymes so sloppy, a disgrace so I'll hang your body promptly Jonelle bonny, Pirate Party girl will swing in the air so floppy Fvck your friend Mikal, his rap put me to sleep like NyQuil And yours is worse, it strips my body of any sign of life, hoe Humiliatated my this bjtch with black hexagons on her chest? I'll give you a remodel with a gun, make blood ooze out your flesh I doubt your sex gives you an edge, cause feminism is cancer I'm a man so I'm stronger, so quit with your cunt banter You ask me "Aw, did that hurt?" Well here is my answer I'm the amazing, unstoppable JimShady, So me you CAN'T hurt.
Rap Battle Semis

Aw, did that hurt? I can tell you're upset. But it's kind of hard to hear you up here in my jet. You use too many words, it makes your bars look silly. And you complain a bit too much of my opinion on your willy. And really? You think it's hot to say you go fast? Listen up, cuz I'm about to put your willy on blast. Any boy can pump his gun, but it takes a man to take it slow. And hubby can take care of me, and trust me, he knows. I bet you even like being humiliated by a lady. You don't stand for sh!t, so sit down, Jim Shady. I'm still dragging you through my block here in lyric nation. Your ability to rap is blocked by your indignation. Your slant rhymes aren't cute, and your bars are lame. You can't even hope to acclimate up to my game. I'm a Queen on this site, and you're a sewer kid. Join me for round three where I'll destroy this grid.
Rap Battle Semis

Hey, I'm Jimmy, and I'm happy to attend your university. I'm universally known to cause my opponents cruel adversity You think you can get to me, you think you be hurting me? Jonelle, know well that don't float well, you'll be wishing You averted me I gotta a shrimpy djck? What? Bjth, that's some skimpy shjt My meat is thick and will spit cum into your mum lickety split Forget your husband, I push in you so fast they say "Isn't he quick?!" ...Okay, enough of this talk, it's getting creepy even if it is wickedly lit... Your giving them shjt, I give them fish and loaves of bread. like Jesus, To people on DDO I give them hope, not dread And after I feed the masses and it's your turn to go ahead With shjt lyrics you drown them, till everyone is your ocean's dead! But I dove and fled, escaped from your gross rap clutches... I don't hold back grudges, I know that sucks, bjtch I hit you with amazing rhymes and you throw back nothing, So just go back sulking, cause you're nothin' but a low, fat, dull thing.
Rap Battle Semis

Hello, I'm Jonelle, it's nice to meet ya Welcome to my university, it's time to teach ya Stand up one time before I knock you back down When this battle is over, I might be quaking the ground Remember, this is the semi Like your shrimpy d!ck If you can't think smart You'd better think quick You like your win ratio? It's the grade equivalent of a C And after this loss I bet you'll drop for a D Did I take you off guard? This is just the start of the class Join me for round two And remember: watch your @ss
The United States and her allies would defeat Russia and her allies in a total war.

Combined land area of Russia and her allies is 30,461,000 square km. Please note that I actually rounded up. Combined NATO land area is 26,837,355.93 square km. I didn't round up and I still would need to add the allies from the Rio pact which I don't feel like doing cause my opponent isn't involved anymore. Doing so would make the number very close to their land area or even surpass it. I extend all other points.
The United States and her allies would defeat Russia and her allies in a total war.

In most cases in terms of population and numbers on the ground the United States and her allies rival and or surpasses Russian and her allies numbers. Total Population: 1,669,449,961 Available Manpower: 781,078,501 Fit for Service: 632,293,219 Reaching Military Age Annually: 24,345,595 Active Front line Personnel: 6,241,160 Active Reserve Personnel: 11,532,070 Tanks: 25,668 Armored Fighting Vehicles (AFVs): 118,494 Self-Propelled Guns (SPGs): 8,463 Towed-Artillery: 13,821 Multiple-Launch Rocket Systems (MLRSs): 3,838 You mention the outcome of the last total war where the Soviet Union sacrificed 20 million people. The Soviet Union was forced to fight or face extermination. The Soviet Union lost over 20 million people fighting only a few nations while having the United States and all of her allies on their side. Now Russia is against those very same nations + all the nations that the Soviets had as allies in World War 2. In World War 1, the total war before the last one, the Russian Empire lost and the United States and her allies won. Same thing can be said for China, the most populous nation in World War 2 was being conquered by a much smaller and less populous nation. You also mentioned allies in the Middle East, Russia doesn't have any formal allies in the Middle East. Russia's allies all reside in Asia. Now, speaking of the past recent history of war, the United States decimated Middle Eastern armies and left those nations in ruin. America's battle experience is most definitely more than that of Russia's and her allies. The United States' resolve to commit regretful actions should be self evident. Unfortunately has its own list of atrocities that she has committed both on her own and definitely against those from other nations. It is very unlikely that this total war would take place on American soil. The United States with her allies overwhelmingly has the upper hand in navy and a navy is what is needed to pose any risk of invasion against the United States or her allies in the Americas, in the Pacific, and the United kingdom. The United States and her allies also has the overwhelming advantage in the air as well. Even if the war did somehow ended up on American soil there is an estimated 14 million hunters in the United States, 150 million gun owners, more guns in the United States than there are people. The resistance here would make any insurgency in the Middle East look like Heaven on Earth. Total Aircraft: 43,051 Fighters/Interceptors: 5,182 Fixed-Wing Attack Aircraft: 6,131 Transport Aircraft: 11,652 Trainer Aircraft: 6,174 Helicopters: 12,243 Attack Helicopters: 1,669 Aircraft Carriers: 34 Frigates: 221 Destroyers: 147 Corvettes: 86 Submarines: 225 I will finish up the rest of these numbers in our 3rd round.
The United States and her allies would defeat Russia and her allies in a total war.

Sources can easily be provided if need be. Russia and her allies would win in the event of a total war against the U.S. and her allies based on three main points. A.) Population Russia and, one of her main allies, China have a significantly larger population size than the United States and any of its allies. We saw during WWII, Russia threw its full weight against Germany, and suffered 20 million casualties. The mass of bodies that piled up on the Russian side shows the might of Russia. in 2013, Russia's population was at 143.5 million people, China at 1.357 billion, and the United States at a mere 318.9 million. Those numbers don't include the allies that Russia has currently in the middle east nor does it take into account the current populations of the Russia and China. The volume of people that Russia was willing to sacrifice during WWII against its enemies is a mighty power, and shows the lack of concern for individuals which leads to the next subpoint. B.) Lack of morality or ethics. Both Russia and China have committed heinous acts of human rights violations within their own countries. Russia assisted in perpetrating a genocide during the Chenen War. It willingly sacrificed its own citizens countless times, but most notably while Stalin was in power. China is one of the largest aggressors against human rights. Russian allies in the Middle East have used chemical weapons against their own people despite U.S. warning to do otherwise. This complete disregard for any sense of morality during times of relative peace and war gives Russia an advantage over the United States which is supposed to be seen as a model for other countries. The U.S. would not morally meet Russia during times of war which would grant Russia the upper hand in using tactics that have proven successful in stopping aggression from its enemies. C.) The land advantage. If this "total war" were to occur on U.S. soil, then there would be countless civilian casualties which would result in a rapid disapproval rating of the war by Americans which would either force the American government to cease its aggression or risk political upheaval at home. As seen during WWII and when Napoleon, arguably one of the greatest military minds in history, attempted an invasion, the Russian frontier proved to be itself a weapon. It has stopped formidable enemies as it would stop Americans before they reached any civilians that Russia would ultimately see as collateral damage as explained in A.) and B.). The Middle East has also proven to be a nearly impossible terrain for the U.S. to gain ground in. For the reasons listed above, the United States and its allies would not win in the event of a total war against Russia and its own allies.
The United States and her allies would defeat Russia and her allies in a total war.

Allies meaning nations with which formal alliances exist. Defeat meaning lose. Total war meaning all nations' people and economies are mobilized for absolute war, minus weapons of mass destruction. Assume those kinds of weapons don't exist. I believe the United States and her allies would defeat Russia and her allies. The United States and her allies are simply to much for Russia and her allies. It would kind of be a one sided fight.
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

Assumption 1: All natural things had a starting point within time. Proof of Assumption 1: The only rebuttal to this assumption would be to prove that all natural things did not have a starting point within time. If all natural things did not have a starting point within time, then time does not have a starting point, because time constrains all natural things, hence "starting point within time." If time has no starting point, then there has been an infinite amount of moments that have occurred before this current moment. Since an infinite amount of moments can never reach an end, any moment after will never occur, namely, this current moment. Since our moment is occurring, there is an implausibility in the counter-assumption. Therefore, "all natural things have a starting point within time." Assumption 2: There exists a creator that brought all natural things into existence. Proof of Assumption 2: Since, from our last proven assumption, "all natural things have a starting point within time," then there was a moment when all natural things were brought into existence. Since the definition of the word "create" means "to bring into existence," there was a moment when all natural things were created. Since any creation requires a creator to do the creating, "there exists a creator that brought all natural things into existence." Assumption 3: The creator is not the creation itself. Proof of Assumption 3: Since all natural things are constrained within time, all natural things could not create itself, because within the constraint of time, a creator precedes its creation. Since all natural things cannot existence prior to all natural things existing, "the creator is not the creation itself." Assumption 4: The creator is supernatural. Proof of Assumption 4: Since the creation was all natural things, and since the creation was not the creator, then the creator could not be a natural thing. If something is not a natural thing, by definition, it is a supernatural thing, which means existing outside of the natural world. Thus, "the creator is supernatural." Assumption 5: The creator is not constrained within time. Proof of Assumption 5: Since the creator is supernatural, he is not governed by the laws of this natural world. Since time constrains the natural world, the "creator is not constrained within time." Since all five of its critical assumptions are verified, The Cosmological Claim can now be accepted as true.
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

I will finish my argument with these points: Supernatural simply means something we don't understand, this does not mean that we will not understand it. Of course something outside of time would be 'supernatural' to us now, as we don't yet understand why that could be possible. Your idea of a creator appears to have no actual boundaries when you state that it is a person or a thing. If that is the case, then everything that ever will exist had a creator, by your definition, just because something happened to make it. If that is the case, the entire debate is completely pointless and irrelevant, and is the equivalent of stating that the sky is blue. I now find myself questioning as to what it is you mean by creator and why you think that this question is worth of debate, when you will accept a creator as any person or cause/effect relationship. I no longer understand what this debate is attempting to achieve if the idea of a creator means anyone and anything. Then this is just stating that that something made the universe, which is a pointless thing to state. I will close by arguing that a supernatural creator, who is not constrained by time, is ultimately stating the obvious if, by your definitions, creator can include anyone and anything at all, and if supernatural means anything we don't yet understand. That is essentially the whole question about the big bang, why did it happen and what caused it. This debate title essentially serves nothing to provide a solution to that.
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

"Essentially, that creator is eternal, yet somehow not confined by a beginning." That's exactly what he/she/it was. The term creator is often used, in many contexts, as a more personified term. However, by definition (just like what we previously agreed upon), it is not. Once again, it is "a person or thing" that creates. (emphasis on 'thing'). When have we debunked the meaning of supernatural? Supernatural, by definition, thus, is: "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." Therefore, it is "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding" OR "attributed to some force beyond the laws of nature. In most common human conversation, the first definition is used. In a scientific sense, the latter is used. Therefore a creator existing outside of time would be supernatural by definition. In closing, let me restate that (in your own words) "a creator is a personification of something that chooses to create something" is entirely false. Once again, by definition, it is "a person OR thing". Clearly a creator is not necessarily a personification, because personification means attributing to a person; A creator can still be a thing, making it un-personified, and not requiring intelligence. My definition of creation is not too loose, you simply assumed incorrectly.
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

It appears that you have undermined your own argument with your last statement. By stating that the creator had to "just be", you're acknowledging that they had to have been in existence beyond a beginning, which you argue must have happened. How could a creator just be in existence, without the need to be created themselves by a beginning. Essentially, that creator is eternal, yet somehow not confined by a beginning. Secondly, I must rebutte your definition of creator. You outlined what cause and effect is, but you attach this meaning to that of a creator. In human definition, a creator or something or something that made a creation. What you're doing is attaching a different definition to it than the one that is given to it by human language, in order to give your argument evidence. Creator is more of a personified term. Your example of air and temperature causing weather effects is a natural example, not a supernatural one, as these are identifiable and measurable. We have already debunked what the meaning of supernatural is, rendering this word moot for the purpose of the argument. That only leaves us with the meaning of creator. Intervention by a being to create a universe outside of their own would be a deliberate action, thereby substantiating my argument that it would be a personified creator rather than a cause-and-effect one that you claim (which is not a 'creator'). This would be unnatural, for one to deliberately affect things in a wy to produce a specific outcome. Supernatural or not is irrelevant. The fundamental flaw in your argument is that your definition of creator is far too loose. You change the definition to suit your own argument, the parameters of which are not necessarily correct. Changing the definition to suit your argument, again, undermines the integrity of your argument. Put simply, a creator is a personification of something that chooses to create something. Cause and effect are natural causes. Even if physics conditions within a seperate universe caused the creation of this one, that would be considered natural, not supernatural. You need to clearly define what you mean by creator, as your definitions are not agreed with by the English dictionary.
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

The judges can decide if I've proved time has a starting point. Regarding your second paragraph, I entirely agree that there must be a "separate universe", or as I have called it in my Cosmological Claim, a supernatural realm (meaning outside of our natural known universe) where the creator existed/exists. Now on to the term "creator". As you have mentioned, a creator is defined as "a person or thing that brings something into existence". You proceed by listing that this is synonymous with terms such as writer, author, designer, and inventor. While those are all true, you have only mentioned half the definition (a person who brings something into existence). According to the definition, "a thing" can also be a creator. Therefore, hot and warm air, for example, "brings into existence a tornado." By definition, then, hot and warm air was the "creator" of the tornado. It is important to realize that the definition of creator includes "things" as a potential creator, and therefore does not need the existence of intelligent creation- simply creation. Thus, my argument hasn't changed. Lastly, you talk about a logical paradox with a creator. This paradox is true under your current assumptions, however you are missing one piece of information. This creator that created the universe is supernatural, and thus by that definition, exists outside of time. Therefore, he/she/it could never be created because that would imply an existence of time prior to. This creator had to just "be", (which I agree is impossible to fully comprehend as a limited human but not too difficult to imagine).
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

I shall let my cast rest on assumption 1, as truly neither of us can prove or disprove whether or not time had a starting point. That is simply beyond human understanding at this point. However, as we have established that time is linear, in order for a "creator" to exist there must be either a separately running parallel of time that can be observed and interacted out of, or there must be a 'intersection' within this time. This is essentially, as discussed before, a multiverse theory. This, again, is beyond our current understanding and brings back the argument of how many multiverses exist and where other "creators" would even fit into this. I think what is being lost sight of in your overall argument is what is defined by "creator". You stated that if I did not want to use the word creation, then cause-and-effect could be substituted in its place. This means that what you are now arguing is a completely different standpoint. Cause and effect is the basis of the transition of energy and matter, with or without deliberate interference. A creator is defined as "a person or thing that brings something into existence", synonymous with writers, authors, designers and inventors. The entire debate subject is about whether or not a "supernatural creator" is responsible. Changing your stand point to cause and effect is essentially adhering against your side of the debate. Therefore, it would not have been the result of a creator. The beginning point of time could well be the result of cause and effect, and since the laws of the conservation of matter state that it can neither be created nor destroyed, it had to have been there prior to its "beginning" state. That would be cause and effect, not a creation. The entire idea of a creator implies that there was a thought out design behind the creation. Otherwise it would simply be cause and effect, random chaos. I will end this round by stating the logical paradox of a creator. If all was created by a supernatural creator, who put all of matter in place and set it in motion, then the question must be asked as to how the creator came about. That in itself is a logical fallacy which can not be explained. Then again, the entire question of how did the beginning begin is a question that can not ultimately be answered today. As you state that nothing can not be the cause of something, then how did the creator, a something, come about in the first place? There is simply no evidence or rationale to back up this claim.