BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Challenge I - Nouns Volume I

Topic - The Army : Words used, slave, waive, unailienable, Marines, enemy, squadron, sniper, homies, pope, spy, general Why are you telling me to rant and rave, man, I"m not your slave I can promise and assure you that I will not waive In the army there"s no backing down, yes, I will fight For all of my bars contain unalienable rights I"m in the Marines, dude, we signal the charge Taking down the enemy, you know that we"re at large I"m always ready when I hear the orders from my sarge You"ll hear my squadron roaring and jumping off of the barge I can fire a gun so well that you got no hope Shooting a man in the face with a sniper . . no scope! On the battlefield you know that I won"t ever grope Ask all my homies, they know that I"m fricking dope When I take a shower, I don"t need to use the soap Cause I"m so clean, I would even impress the pope When I bellow a line, you know I won"t lie If I did against orders, I would imminently die But you"ll see that I"m truthfully a top notch spy Recording you with Catwoman while you two are getting high With that I reluctantly bid the rap from my fry Let"s hope your comeback won"t spark a general sigh.
Rap Challenge I - Nouns Volume I

NO HEADER NEEDED->See Amendment in Comment Section. In a scarlet-canary Flash I took a big blast back to the past Too fast at this lyrical, empirical game so my foes I always outlastIris be my Valentine, but moms is who I visited one last timeWhen I did the rewind I brought Flashpoint changing the timelineNo longer am I white: I’m an African-American Barry AllenEatin’ chicken by the gallon to recuperate my stamina, manLike a Dragon my Z-Plan is to conquer Japanese Anime fansKeepin’ the palm of my hands lit up like a billion-dollar Iron ManSuperman ain’t got sh!t on me, dude, I see through silky panties tooI flew the Trans-Atlantic path too just to screw Lois in the nude tooBut I prefer a Cat Woman / that’ll scratch my back for sex attackDressed down in leathery black with French braids to her butt-crackClicky-clack-clack in 9-inch steel stilleto heels like a 90s throwbackSo I "click-click" the Kodak to capture her Virgo to my Leo Zodiac Kitty got my lips on smack with them polished nails not on retractHer American purrs blitz attack my cerebral cortex like Prozac While those lilac-contact feline eyes sack me like a quarterbackHer articulated words harmonize better than a John Williams soundtrack Sharp as a tack / Baby blessed up top with a Comic Book-size rack She’s a hungry little brat lickin’ me all over like a chocolate midnight snackDon’t call me the Batman / I don’t live in a cave / I’m clean shaveA little well-behaved / Call me Bruce / now Con, you can rant & rave
Rap Challenge I - Nouns Volume I

I've been reading these so-called "rap battles". Some people display great lyricism, others spew pure banality. This challenge is to test aptitude of creativity. Anyone can come up with insults to sling. But how many people can craft lyrical gems with words handed to them?! Rules for Opponents. -Round 1 is acceptance -Round 2 is Rap Presentation -Round 3 is Rap Presentation -Each opponent MUST cite their contributed words as a "HEADER" in each round, i.e. Apple / orange / cherry / grapes / plum -OR- Hands Feet Arms Legs Head -Each opponent is restricted to no less than 12 contributed words in their raps -Each rap is restricted to 16-22 lines -Opponents may add superscripts, Footer: word definitions, and/or dictionary links Rules for Contributors. -You contribute the words we are to use--NOUNS. -One contribution per comment per DDO member. -5 words per Opponent i.e. Pro: Apple, orange, cherry, grapes, plum; Con: Hands, feet, arms, legs, head [any English dictionary-based NOUN is applicable]. -OR- [You may contribute the same set of words to both opponents.] -No anything else to comment; any additional commentary please apply to a separate comment to avoid confusing those who simply don't understand basic discernment. Voting Rules for Judges. Spelling & Grammar Vote is for "clarity of contextual presentation" Convincing Argument Vote is for "overall best presentation of high-caliber lyricism" Reliable Source Vote is for "best use/most creative usage of contributed words" *In the event of a forfeit from one opponent, Judges must award CA vote to the active opponent. If a forfeit appears with either opponent, Judges are prohibited from voting with the S&G, CA, and RS vote, but may render decisions how they see fit with first 3 official voting criterias. Let's see if we can get a true Hip Hop storytelling series going. Any lyrical beast out there want some of this? Pro accepts the challenge.
The governments should regulate the fast food industries

My apologizes on forfetting the round, school has been very demanding. I cannot deny any of those facts. My argument is that McDonald's had over 440,000 employees in 2012 which I'm sure has drastically increased. Most of the people working for them have no college education due to the fact that they couldn't afford college. I believe that if we regulate fast food industries it will affect the economy in a bad way, and it will also lead to all other businesses being regulated. What happens when they regulate car industries, and other big corporations. IN my opinion government interference is never good. Thank you for debating this with me. My apologizes again on forgetting.. Gotta love school haha.
The governments should regulate the fast food industries

Ops, you forfeited, your biggest worry. Well nevermind, this can happen to the best of us. Well, since you didn't state your argument, I cant deny any of your statements, so we might continue in comments. Well, relying on the food industry monopolies is bad. Some say that the worst monopoly is the government. But what would you like more a democratic government or a money thirsty industry. The problem is in capitalism itself, in the search for profit there are no real limits,or? Yes, its the public, but if you mislead your public, use propaganda and buy your enemy you rule your territory. Its the control, when the society gets relied on you. If someone like me denies it, then He's automatically a communist. Just like people call obama a socialist (I don't support him or hate). But this isn't the only thing. The government is subsidising large corporations, like the programme of Romney. But the government is supposed not to be connected with corporations. Well like Michele Obama's lets move, and companies actually connected with the idea, but nothing was done, except saying that there was some progress. The food industry hurts the Society,Environment,misuse the Science and Small companies. The WHO (World health organisation) is trying to ban fast food adverts. But why is there no progress, because of money. This is dangerous. Monopolisation is bad, since every food gets controlled by a company. I have similar problems with Google play store, since I disagree with them, but there is no other store and I am not able to download. Influence on society. Since the low and middle class are getting poorer, people buy only cheap junk. The societies world-wide are dieing, but the few are living great. For the first time people will die younger then their parents. We can stop the food industry, just like the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry denied scientists and doctors, but today we know that smoking is bad. So the same way we could do with the food giants. Industry of fast food has to be regulated. And just like in Austria, the world should support small, local and organic farms. The amazing ability of our nature is that it can adapt to its chemistry, so chemicals in food cant last long, this is visible as bacteria are slowly evolving to get immune against antibiotics. Nice link:http://theconversation.com... Nice movie: Fed Up Good'y luck for the last argument of yours.
Let's make 16 years of age, the legal age of "adulthood"

Like I said before, MOST 16 years ALREADY drink and smoke and take drugs and commit crimes and get CHARGED as an ADULT, so IF you're going to TREAT them as an adult on the CRIMINAL side of things, you might as well let them have the POSITIVE side of being an adult like VOTING and DRINKING and SMOKING, again MOST 16 years are SMARTER that MANY adults
Let's make 16 years of age, the legal age of "adulthood"

Seeing how small my opponent's initial arguments are, I wonder why my opponent gave me 10k characters to work with.I will present opening arguments for this round. They will be two simple arguments.1. The brain is not fully developed at 16.There is lots of science to back up that the brain is done developing around the mid 20s, but I won't bring that evidence in unless my opponent thinks it necessary. It is nearly a commonly known fact at this point.This fact means that 16 year olds are not as mature as 18 year olds. 18 year olds have a huge two year gap of brain development that goes far beyond what 16 year olds are at. This is because some people can be done developing their brains by 18. But no one is done by 16.WHY IT MATTERS: Driving does not require much brain power once you get used to it so it doesn't automatically translate into letting 16 year olds do activities. Also 16 year olds may be in school, but my opponent fails to admit that 18 year olds are also in school. Not only that but 16 year olds can be dropped out of school along with 18 year olds. So in the long run, brain development is a good scientific reason to not trust 16 year olds with legal adulthood.2. The 16 may be more educated, but is also more influenced heavily.What I mean by this is that since 16 year olds are still developing their opinions, their school teachers heavily influence those opinions. If all their school teachers are democrats then guess what, they have been politically brainwashed. That means that if you let them vote, you are introducing another non-critical thinker to the political vote. That is immature and dumb in my opinion. It's hard enough now to get some adults to think critically.Also 16 year olds can be educated to use guns to kill normal people. Or they can be educated to have lots of sex and possibly rape people later on. The list of bad things they can be influenced to do goes on a boils down to this.If you make a 16 year old a legal adult, giving them that large list of liberties (did I mention credit card debt?) Will only lead to large abuses of those liberties and increased young adult crime. So you will have more people in our prisons who are lets face it, still immature.With that I await my opponent's arguments.-42
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

== Overview ==Aff *drops* the K entirely, without any justification as to *why* the K fails to negate. The link section demonstrated that for the onus to be fulfilled, the assumption that an objective criterion as to what is "better" has to be established. The K negates by failure to establish criterion, thus even if an AFF case were presented, the K would still be sufficient to negate *sans refutation*. == Aff Case ==AFF fails to present a case; thus, the primary impact analysis on the debate must be conducted based on the NEG case kritik presented, that succeeds in negating the resolution due to failure in establishing criterions. Ultimately, the onus is upon the AFF, and AFF commits fallacy of negative proof by asking me to "present statistics", while AFF has not done so themselves. Negative proof and burden of proof fallacy is committed, and shifting BOP is *not* an argument. [1-2]One could K assumption of the BOP, but that's irrelevant since AFF hasn't presented a constructive case to defend their position; thus, the entire judging should be based on: (1) links of K, (2) impacts of K, and (3) burden of proof. == Underview ==Pro fails to affirm the Resolved soundly since the K negates the resolution sans constructive; thus, even if a constructive case were presented, it would still fail to uphold an objective criterion for the term "better", since it's inherently subjective. As mentioned, presume NEG since the K negates on its own. == Sources ==[1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://rationalwiki.org...
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

== Intro ==I accept. Since there seems to be no restriction on the round structure, and since Pro has presented an R1 argument, I shall as well. To clarify, my argument shall be a "kritik" of the resolution, i.e. an argument that challenges an assumption in the topic. == The Kritik ==First, I must clarify *what* a kritik actually means. The term "kritik" is derived from the German word Kritik, and literally means a critique. But in standard debate resolutions, it means challenging an assumption held by the affirmative or negative side in the resolution, e.g. an undefinable term. [1](1) LinkThe kritikal link of the kritik I am presenting demonstrates how it relates to the resolution. The kritik I am presenting suggests that there is no objective criterion for the term "better". To claim that Steve Young is a "better" quarterback than Joe Montana, one has to *objectively* determine that Steve Young is "better", but the term "better" is inherently subjective. Pro *concedes* this by saying: "[T]his is what I think." The Aff's *own* perception is that Steve Young is a better quarterback, but that does not imply that an objective criterion can be determined as to who is *definitively* better. The offense on an objective criterion for "better" can also be portrayed via. epistemic nihilism, i.e. the idea that *nothing* can be known with certainty, and epistemic justification is impossible. [2]If there is (a) no objective criterion for "better", and (b) knowledge is impossible, it would result in an implication that directly relates to the resolution. (2) ImpactThe impact here is that, if there is *no* objective criterion for the term "better", then it is *impossible* to affirm the resolved, since one cannot justify that Young is indeed a better quarterback than Montana. Since the burden of proof lies entirely on the Affirmative, it lies entirely upon the affirmative to objectively justify the resolution. Since (a) the possibility of epistemic justification must be demonstrated by showing a problem with the Munchaussen trilemma [3], and (b) there lacks an objective criterion as to what is "better", and that must be established by the Aff, voters *must* presume negation, and if the resolution fails to affirm with a positive case, you automatically vote Con. The resolution is resoundingly negated.== Sources ==[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

== Rebuttal =="However, the NEG case fails to rebut since it shifts BOP and fails to respond. "I'm not the one shifting BOP -- the BOP lies upon the affirmative; thus, once more, AFF commits fallacy of negative proof. == Summary ==The kritik successfully negates the resolved, and Pro *drops* the K and fails to fulfill BOP. Thus, I negate in that AFF fails to establish an objective criterion for what is "better". The resolution is negated.
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

== Rebuttal ==R1) RelevanceI *clearly* presented the relevance of the K to the resolution in the "Link" section. I shall present it again. If the term "better" is incoherent, then x cannot be better than y, so Steve Young can't be better than Joe Montana, or vice versa. Thus, the K succeeds in negating the resolved in showing that an objective criterion for the term "better" doesn't exist. AFF fails to present an objective criterion for what is "better", thus I forward this contention and it still negates. R2) Burden of ProofPro still commits fallacy of negative proof. [1-2]"[G]ive reasons you think Steve Young is not a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana, and also, I still hold onto my side: Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana."(1) I am *not* obliged to give reasons if you don't. You're making the positive assertion, thus YOU have to justify it, not me. Quoting Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" [3], via. Hitchens' razor. [4] (2) I have *already* provided the reason via. K -- I showed that nothing can be "better" than another, so Steve Young *cannot* coherently be "better" than Joe Montana. == Underview ==The AFF case fails to affirm since it shifts BOP and fails to respond to the K. The resolution remains resoundingly negated.== Sources ==[1] http://www.nizkor.org...[2] http://rationalwiki.org...[3] Christopher Hitchens. God Is Not Great, p. 150. [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor
Steve Young is a Better Quarterback than Joe Montana

== Case ==Pro *fails* to respond to the kritik, and still fails to fulfill BOP. Since the BOP is on *you*, you have to *defend* your view. I have presented an argument on the term "better" being inherently subjective, and, as such, one cannnot claim something is better than the other, since "betterness" cannot be decided on or justified. The kritik negates the resolution, and AFF drops the kritik. Extend all arguments.
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

I hardly see your argumeent for LWOP. LWOP does nothing but keep useless people alive and take money and yes, our tax money does go to pay for these people. Keeping them alive does nothing but spend billions of dollars a year of tax payer money. This is why LWOP is a bad idea. I feel my opponentss argument that the Death Penalty would result in more innocent people being executed was explained in my first entry when I said they would be executed upon bullet-proof evidence which means there is no way that there is reasonable doubt. My opponent attempts to use the race card in this matter but doing so shows ignorance and immaturity. I think we could all agree that a criminal is a criminal whatever race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or anything else is a criminal. They either did or did not do the crime which should be determined by a jury of their peers. I do, however, agree that there should be strict guidelines to insure the trial stays fair and non biased which is possible under strict guidlines. As far as the cost goes I hardly see a plausible argument. I don't see ho common knoledge tells you that keeping people alive all of their life is cheaper then a hangng (which is how I believe the death penalty should be carried out) I feel that I have shown that my opponents arguments hae holes and that there are other factors come into play when taling about LWOP versus the DP
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

Someone who has commited a crime deserves to be punished. I think the controversy comes when talking about the extent of the punishment. I believe that the crimes of rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder with inevitble evidence such as multiple eye witnesses, camera footage, DNA, or any other bulletproof types of evidence should end immedient death after trial. The death penalty is by no means degrading of human life, or demeaning dignity but simply showing the crime is unjust and will not be tolerated. According to a study conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 67% (or two-thirds) of offenders who were released in the year 1994 were arrested again within three years. Prison obviously dosn't stop crime which is what the ultimate goal is. The death penalty does not only punish people for their crimes but prevent further crimes from them in the future. It also sends a message to others that they will not get away with it. The death penalty is by all means constructive and hopefully at the conclusion of this debate you will begin to see my side.
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

>Racism< My opponent uses basic statistics showing whites are more on the death row. But fails to see the real deal. Blacks, although 1% less, are only about 13% of the population. [1] So even using basic statistics, we can see that Blacks although the percent on death row is slightly lower, their low portion of the US population hints overall a larger percent of the sub sect are on death row, in comparison to whites. Let me shrink it.10 people are black, 20 are white. 2 of the blacks are on death row, 3 of the whites are. 20% of blacks are on death row, and 10% of whites are on death row. So obviously these numbers are smaller and 10% of whites are not on death row, it was done to prove basic statistics. Even if these basic statistics show whites on death row more, the smaller group will have a higher % of their subset on death row, hence your basic comparison fails. "black defendants were 1.7 times more likely to receive the death penalty than white defendants and that murderers of white victims were 4.3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks. " [2]So even though whites are more on death row, basic statistics (like my simple 10-20 analogy) prove the DP is racist. And:"Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims.More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries." [3]>Eye for an eye<As stated, LWOP still accomplishes the same goal. Many inmates fear jail more then death! They claim if they go to jail they around bigger, meaner people, that abuse them, and well they are stuck there forever, and its worse then death. [4]My opponent fails in her argument as she does not justify the DP is worse then LWOP, a LWOP is worse under her logic LWOP is a better option. Refuted. DP people do not get out unless they are pardoned on rare occasions. New arguments last round = conduct to me. CONCLUSION:MY opponent fails to provide her BOP, I said he had most of it above and she did not deny it, hence she had 70% of the BOP, she did not fulfill it, so I win.--Dropped arguments 1. COST2. INNOCENTS3. DETERRENCE (I had the last words here) Hence off of this I still eserve victory. ***Args - She did not fulfill BOP, dropped arguments, I refuted the premise. Conduct - She had a new argument last roundS/G - You chooseSources - She had one, I had many all from credible back rounds. VOTE CON____________________[1] https://www.cia.gov...[2] http://www.nytimes.com...[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...[4] http://wncdpr.wordpress.com...
The Death Penalty should NOT be abolished but instead used more frequently

I felt that I should give further information on your weakest defense of abolishing the death penalty. Earlier in the debate you claimed the death penalty was "racist". According to a recent study of the percentage of races on death row 43% are white 42% are black 12% are Hispanic and 3% are other You stated the death penalty is racist against African Americans but according to this recent study. The percentage of whites on death row is a whole percent higher. Society is justly ordered when each person receives what he deserves. Crime disturbs this just order, for the criminal takes from people their lives, peace, liberties, and worldly goods in order to give himself undeserved benefits. When given a deserved punishment it protects society morally by restoring this just order, making the criminal pay a price equivalent to the harm he has done. This is retribution, not to be confused with revenge, which is guided by a different motive. (Professor of Government and Philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin "Capital Punishment: The Case for Justice," OrthodoxyToday. org Aug. /Sep. 2004) My opponent fails to justify some of his arguments with accurate recent information and data. The death penalty is not only political but moral. Review the facts and determine who's side you are on and in the mean time VOTE PRO To my opponent: I had a fantastic time debating the death penalty with you. I learned a lot through the research I have done as well as the research you have done shown through your arguments. Whatever the outcome I look forward to debating another topic sometime soon on a matter we disagree on.