BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap battle round one

Fakerman do you really think you can take me man Please stop or I'll lyrically slap you silly dumb hillbilly Lyrically you think you can kill me, I doubt it so don't be mouthin off to me because you see I'm the best in this tourney but for you the journey will be cut short so please child go build a fort Cuz to put it mildly I'm the best you'll ever see and no that's not hyperbole so just stop and you can keep a little bit of dignity This diss is scathing and you better not be hating and you'll never be mating and after this short lived battle you will be cremated and my desire or victory will finally be sated and your stupid raps will be slated and universally hated and they'll be burned and it will be a lesson learned not to mess with me Hope you learned a lesson and next time we meet you better be confessin that I'm the best in this game and tell your non existent friends do the same
Prostitution should be legal

-I'm not trying to say that prostitution will get rid of rapists and pimps. I'm saying that it will INCREASE the statistics. -The truth is that there will always be pimps. Sadly. -I'm pretty sure most prostitutes are forced to practice their jobs. LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION = INCREASE OF ABUSE, VIOLENCE, RAPE, KIDNAPPINGS, DISEASE, AIDS, ETC.
Prostitution should be legal

We must accept the fact that even if prostitution remains illegal, there still would be rapists and pimps. The question is to make it beneficial since some women would like to practice this job. In another way, if there would be no pimps at all, prostitutes will be happy doing their job since they are not forced to. Legalizing it will only be beneficial for those who want to do it increasing police searches will find the criminals, not be making it illegal.
Prostitution should be legal

It is the right way to see prostitution because these women mostly live in broken homes or are drug addicts and are forced to work in a profession they find dirty and disgusting for a quick buck. No you don't get it, prostitution IS human trafficking. Most of these young women are often forced by pimps and gang members to offer their services to random men on the street. See any documentary on gang members and you will often see that most of their money is off prostitutes and hookers. There is no evidence that suggests prostitution lowers the rate of kidnappers, crime, traffic, etc. In fact it just increases it. I'm going to end this round with a song that features a prostitute and former drug addict and tell me if prostitutes are enjoying their job or not.
Prostitution should be legal

Abuse is a wrong way of seeing prostitution. Human trafficking is the precise thing that should be illegal, not prostitution. Since women will have the choice of doing it, less kidnappers will want to commit crimes and traffic. When something is legal, more people will do it and awareness will be raised. Since a lot of men are single and desire love, women will feel better by offering them a kind service: the gift of a women body, the only consequences are beneficial, economically and from a society's point of view.
(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con)

(Pro) Atheistic evolution vs creationism (con) Atheist evolution vs Creationism. I will take the atheist evolution point of view, my opponent the creationism side. Definition of Creationism via wikipedia. "Creationism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "Creationism" can also refer to creation myths, or to a concept about the origin of the soul. Creation science refers to the pseudoscientific movement in the United States.[1] Creationism is the religious belief that the universe and life originated "from specific acts of divine creation,"[2][3] as opposed to the scientific conclusion that they came about through natural processes.[4] The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the emerging science of evolution.[5] Creationists base their beliefs on a literal reading of religious texts, including the biblical Genesis creation myth and Islamic mythology from the Quran.[6][7][8] For young Earth creationists, this includes a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and the rejection of the scientific theory of evolution.[9] Literalist creationists believe that evolution cannot adequately account for the history, diversity, and complexity of life on Earth.[8] Pseudoscientific branches of creationism include creation science,[10] flood geology,[11] and intelligent design,[12][13] as well as subsets of pseudoarchaeology,[14][15] pseudohistory, and even pseudolinguistics.[16]" Structure R1 Acceptance & definitions R2 Arguments R3 Rebuttals R4 Defense Burden of proof Burden of proof will be shared equally. This is because I am the instigator, yet am arguing for what is normally accepted in the scientific community. Therefore, the burdens of proof cancel each other out resulting in neutral 50/50 burden of proof. Further explanation of r1 setup. First round is just for acceptance and definitions if need be. Common definitions are assumed, unless otherwise stated and agreed upon. Round two each person will make their argument, but no direct responses to the other person' argument. Focus on making a convincing argument that if not for your opponent's rebuttal would sell your audience. This is the only round to make new arguments for your case. Round three each person will respond directly to their opponent's round two argument pointing out any logical fallacies and attempt to find flaws. Round four each person defends their round argument against their opponent's round three argument. For example if I say that is a cherry picking fallacy in round three in response to my opponents round two, my opponent would explain why me calling their argument a cherry picking fallacy is incorrect. Thank you in advance for accepting the debate. Sources 0. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarchism is unfeasible

I had a debate about this with Yarely, and I've seen it discussed in the forums, and I honestly can't see how it could be possible. So I hope that someone will accept this debate and explain it to me.Burden of proof is shared.I also ask that Con skip the acceptance round and go first and then, in exchange, limit her/his round 4 to a sentence or two. I've put a filter on this debate because I've put up three debates in a row that were forfeited. But I'm happy to debate anyone who won't forfeit, so please put a comment on if you'd like to debate this and are filtered out.
MassiveDump is imabench

Pro has dropped all his arguments in the previous round, and he has neglected to respond to any of my defenses of my earlier arguments. By dropping all attempt to refute my arguments, Pro has essentially conceded the debate. He admits this the one argument he makes in this round is weak and that if I succeed in refuting it, then I should win the debate.Pro's argument essentially is this:1. If MassiveDump knows something about Imabench, then MassiveDump IS Imabench.2. MassiveDump knows something about Imabench.3. Therefore, MassiveDump IS Imabench.The first premise is false, and the second premise has not really been demonstrated.Let's look at the first premise first. There are many ways one person could know something about another person. Perhaps Imabench told MassiveDump what his intentions were. Or perhaps MassiveDump has interacted with Imabench enough to be able to make accurate predictions about him.Now, let's look at the second premise. MassiveDump's statement does not indicate that he knows exactly what Imabench is going to do. In fact, it indicates just the opposite. He says, "Bench will be back Wednesday if not tomorrow." If MassiveDump is Imabench, there would be no "if" about it because he would know exactly when he's going to be back according to his own intentions.Moreover, Wednesday has passed, and Thursday is almost over, and Bench has not returned, which proves that MassiveDump did not know what Imabench was going to do. His statement about Imabench was false.But even if MassiveDump had been correct, that would show no more than that MassiveDump made an accurate prediction. If the weatherman accurately predicts the rain, that doesn't mean the weatherman IS the rain. It would be no surprise to anybody if Imabench returned because he's been here a long time and obviously liked it here. Anybody could've predicted the same thing. One doesn't need to have private access to Imabench's mind to make such a prediction. So if Imabench happens to show up before the day is over, that will still not prove Pro's point.It should be noted that Pro provided no sources for his quotes. In previous rounds, he indicated that lack of sources equates to lack of evidence. By his own standard, his final argument can be dismissed.There ye have it. Thank you for coming to tonight's debate.
MassiveDump is imabench

Man this is a hard debate to win! Time to take out the final ultra evidence...http://www.debate.org...The last straw of evidence I have in my possesion. I'm sorry if you all expected a better argument, but if you read my debates, you'll all see I'm barely prepared for any of them. So unless con forfeits the third round, there is a narrow to no possibility of me winning."Has everyone lost their minds? And calendars? This is an April Fool's Day joke. Bench will be back Wednesday if not tomorrow." MassiveDump says. But how could he possibly know? Bench's account was closed, so there is no way they can PM each other by Debate.org means. Even if they knew each other personally and had email accounts, this comment is very suspicious.You know the game Epic Mafia, where villagers have to find out who's mafia and lynch them before mafia can kill them all off? Well, this game has a lot of "Counter-Claiming", "False-claiming", and finally... "Third-person claiming". Although I don't think one person can play as two different people at the same time, let us assume they can. A smart person would not reveal himself as mafia, if they were mafia on both two character roles, and thus, if this smart person accidentally made a mistake and hinted that he knew something of the other character he was playing as, this brings some suspicion to him. This is a similar case. Imabench is "mafia", possibly the "godfather", the leader of the mafia and super important. As the "cop" (moderators) find out about him, he quits the game, suiciding at the same time.But let us assume some more--what if the mafia could return as revenge? So MassiveDump accidentally reveals "Bench will be back Wednesday", hinting he has something to do with the other user, possibly the same person! You might argue I have a weak point. Yes, I do, I acknowledge that. But what's mind-blowing is his reply to this peticular quote, which is "*cough* still here." HMMMMMM....What could that possibly mean? Another user named ESocialBookworm replies "lol.. acknowledged", as if he knows about this secret--the secret that MassiveDump is "still here" as imabench. There couldn't possibly be no one knowing this secret, of course, so it makes sense that some people know, and this person, ESocialBookworm, accidentally spoiled it.Unless you have some other weird explanation for the "*cough* still here.", then I still have evidence that imabench is living on, in a different identity--MassiveDump.But again, it's the final straw--destroy it and you destroy all fans' hope that MD is bench. Well, at least my evidence. I can't think of any more.Very well-done debate, incredible counter-examples. If you win, I bow to you.
MassiveDump is imabench

Thank you for coming to tonight's debate. Tonight, we are debating a very serious topic. It's a topic that affects us all. So please, if you would, furrow your eyebrow as you read this, scratch your head, put your hand on your chin, or take whatever necessary steps are necessary to ensure your greatest degree of concentration.It is impossible that MassiveDump is the same person as Imabench because there are things that are true about one that are not true about the other.According to the indiscernibility of identicals (which is just an elaboration of the most fundamental law of logic--the law of identity) if two entities are actually the same entitiy, then whatever is true of one must be true of the other. They must share every property in common.Consider Superman and Clark Kent. Although Lois Lane mistakenly thinks that Superman can fly and Clark Kent cannot, Superman and Clark Kent are nevertheless the same person. If it happened that Lois Lane was correct that Superman could fly but Clark Kent couldn't, then it would be impossible that they could be the same person.Consider also the morning star and the evening star. As we all know, they are both the same entity, namely, the planet Venus. But people haven't always known that. The reason we know they are the same entity is because everything true about one is true about the other. If there were just one thing true about one that was not true about the other, then it would be impossible that they could be the same entity.My opponent will try to establish that MassiveDump and Imabench are the same person by pointing out many things that are true about one that are also true about the other. That's all he'll be able to do. But that is insufficient to carry his burden of proof. The reason is because all it takes is just one thing that is true about one but not true about the other to render it impossible that they could be the same person. They could have the same name, same mother, same address, some opinions, same looks, same smell, same girlfriend, same IP address and still not be the same person as long as there's one thing that is true about one but not the other.So my burden of proof is pretty light. All I've got to do is name one thing that is true about one but is not true about the other. But I'll go beyond that and name three:1. MassiveDump has bright orange hair, but Imabench does NOT have bright orange hair.2. Imabench had a show called "The Weekly Stupid," but MassiveDump did not.3. MassiveDump is a Christian, but Imabench is not.4. Imabench has deactivated his account, but MassiveDump has not.There ye have it.
Gay Rights

Since the beginning of American History, large groups of people have been discriminated seriously. We saw posters in hardware stores ands restaurants saying No Negro's. We saw signs posted in early 1900's saying no Irish or No Italian. These people came to America for a better life but were forced into slums and into poverty. They did not have the same rights as white Anglo Saxon Americans. These were the times were people were TRUELY discriminated. What we have in today's society is a discrimination, but not like what we had in our past. They have all the same legal rights as anyone else. They can serve on a jury, they can own a gun, they have free speech etc. We are all the same when it comes to legal rights. If the topic is the rights of gay Americans then we already have a solution. Gay Americans have the same legal rights as straight Americans. However, if the topic is the right to get married, then their is some sort of debate. The voter has to realize what marriage is. The definition of marriage according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary is : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. The definition of marriage actually states that marriage is something between a man and a women. From the dawn of human existence it has been categorized as a union between a man and a women. Marriage is a sacred union culturally and religiously. The voter has to decipher between marriage and civil unions. The definition of civil union in regards to Merriam-Webster dictionary is : the legal status that ensures to same-sex couples specified rights and responsibilities of married couples. It is up to the voter to chose what he or she believes in, but for my argument I am standing strong against gay marriage. it is different then civil unions. We are living in a country that is slowly leaving traditions that we hold dear. The gay community is not receiving any discrimination in regards to the law. Yes, their might be people who strongly dislike homosexuals, but we can change the law, but we cannot change peoples mindsets. They dislike these people because of lake of experience with them. It is a learning thing that they will experience when the topic comes up. We need to stay true to our countries origins and respond in appropriate ways, not jump to drastic conclusions. I will like to thank anyone and everyone who will take the time to read all three rounds and take everything into consideration. Read both arguments thoroughly and make a educated decision. I will also like to thank my competitor. You have made me think on my toes, and this was very interesting.
Gay Rights

so basically you gave me the debate by saying I was 100% correct, with factual evidence. I used factual evidence and you, as my opponent agreed with me. Thats never a good sign for my opponent. I agree with you that all Americans deserve the same rights. We are a country who has had their fair share of descrimination. We understand the trials and tribulations Americans had to go through to recieve rights. You are talking as if gay Americans are going through the same troubles the Black Americans had to go through in the mid 20th century. Gay americans are the same as straight Americans. they have all the same rights as us.
Gay Rights

I myself am a Independent voter, so my bias cannot go in either direction because I decided on the topic when the subject is brought up. First off, I do not think your agrument is made any stronger because you are a republican. It is not a question on what party are you, but its a question about the morality of the human race. Since the dawn of time man has been married to women. Yes i will agree that men and women have been gay before the 21st century but never have they been held to the boundries of holy matramony. Gay people have every right constitutionally in America that a straight person does. However, until it becomes legal in all 50 states, they do not have federal rights when it comes to spouses and marrige though. They do in some states; the ones that have legalized it, but all across the board, no. I want everyone to think to themselves, if your married or not, what would you do if your neighboors were gay? You probably wouldnt think to much of it, but what if they had three kids? would you be curious if two men can raise three babies?
Limit of amount of children per couple

There is not much that needs to be said, seeing that I have already made my point, and you have still failed to answer the big question. You are contradicting yourself, in round two you said: "I'm sure if we sit down and realize that overpopulation is harming both (US) and future generations we will take this into consideration. " Then you go on and say: "We may not have issues right now but I am talking about future generations ahead." Please stick to what you say. It is not fair to go back on what you say because then I have nothing to argue against. Cost, cost, cost, you keep talking only about cost. If we take away freedom from our families so we don't have to spend money, what makes us different than computers? Most true Americans who still want freedom would rather pay for water and electricity then limit there families. Like I said before, the more people, the more businesses, the more wealth. There is still plenty of space in America. Again you have failed to answer my question about rights. Do you think that we should go against the Bill of Rights? It is a simple question. I have another question to ask you, What do you think should be the penalty? Will they take the child away from the family? Will the parents go to jail? In no way did I say, or even hint that I would like to drop out of this debate. I was simply using my story as an example. Even though there is another argument, I believe that I have already won spelling, reliable sources, and conduct. Who has the most convincing argument is up to the audience. Sources: (1). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Limit of amount of children per couple

We may not have issues right now but I am talking about future generations ahead. I believe you do not understand what exactly I am trying to say. I know that the government can do whatever the wish, but they don't. I don't mean that this limit should be enforced as harshly as in China, but overpopulation is slowly becoming a large issue for us all. Lets first take into consideration the fresh water crisis. The world as it is is VERY low on fresh water. Desalination systems are too costly yet fresh water is on a minimum. Just imagine what will happen by 2050 if the world continues to grow. In America alone, the government has predicted that the population will rise to at least 500 Million people by 2050 in America. Now imagine what our water supply will look like then. Now, lets talk about energy. Considering that non-renewable energy is being harshly drained by the second, what do you think will happen when the country is overpopulated? Renewable energy is too costly in order to be used, and even if we begin deploying renewable energy we will be too late. I think that taking away a minor freedom is better than going back to the dark ages. Lastly, take a look at the money that is being drained from the government. A majority of illegal immigrants and other people have over 5 children, and request welfare for all of them. Not only does this create overpopulation, but it drains loads of money from our government. You say that programs are available to people with starving children, but these programs exactly are the ones which are increasing our debt. It all adds up, and the final number is breathtaking. I completely understand that there is no problem now, but if you run the numbers you will see what will happen in the future if this continues. I have more to say but I will first wait for your reply. Also as a side note, you shouldn't be taking this debate personally. It's a debate so if your not up for it nobody is forcing you to continue. Every person has their own opinion and I am willing to share mine with the public. Also, I am the 2nd out of 6 children in my family, so I know how you feel.