BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Battle

Clever Poem This poem will not disappoint It is a humorous point But if you last and I'll try to be fast this poem is going to kill but if you will I'll tell just a tale that will make BangBang's seem stale. I was at home with my cup O' noodles when I saw all alone a little toaster stroodle so quiet and sweet it was something I had to eat But alas, a rat took it in and said with a grin "Haha..I win" I took up a knife and into my strife I slashed my wrists wide open And then with a gun I was sad he had won and blew out my brains and with blood my floor is soakin
Poetry Battle

=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=...= Ze Epic Poem of Doom and Despair =......= Part 1 =...Oh pepperoni, tiny slice of meat.I take a big bite, oh my you taste neat.But oh no Alas! you fall to my feet.and now my pizza, does not have this treat.And up comes my pet, so big and so fat.And eats up this mess, on top of all that.He is not a dog, he is not a cat;my big fat pet is, what else but a rat.Stop hey wait a tick, This thing is not mine.It's ugly and mean, and covered in grime.Where did it come from? And during what time?It broke in my house! Oh my what a crimeTerrified am I, I fear for my life!I must save my kids, I must save my wife!What trouble he's caused, such fear and such strife.I'll cut of his tail, with this butcher knife.slicing and dicing, I aim for this thing.A screech for his life, goes out in a ring.On top of the world; right now I am king!A beautiful song, the children will sing.Now back to my meal... the Pizza is gone!At a loss for words, my day turns to dawn.What will I eat now? I blame it on Sean!I bet they stole it, to take it to pawn.I shall depart now, to regain my slice.I shall take on fate, I shall roll the dice.And into what's real, Ideals I shall splice.Before warm pizza, turns as cold as ice.To be continued...=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
Poetry Battle

""I do however make one request, the all poems are clean!" Can do. ------ Midnight Reverie The stars twinkle like sand at night just as Moon dust billows out the door of an over-dramatic poem. Blood encrusted dandruff sprinkles the floor at the DMV Get a life Get a car Get a girl Screams the TV at the DMV Get a license registration moans the foam cushion seats that have held a million arse I dont hate them I only hate the idea of them I dont like me I only like the idea of me We're all living in Amerika. Right?
Chuck Norris Facts

Chuck Norris can build a house from the roof downWhen Alexander Bell invented the telephone he had 3 missed calls from Chuck NorrisFear of spiders is aracnaphobia, fear of tight spaces is chlaustraphobia, fear of Chuck Norris is called LogicChuck Norris doesn"t call the wrong number. You answer the wrong phone.There used to be a street named after Chuck Norris, but it was changed because nobody crosses Chuck Norris and lives
Chuck Norris Facts

Seems this round has been forfeited. Not entirely sure of the protocol, but I'll continue with this round. If my opponent would like to post ten Chuck Norris jokes in the coming round, they may do so. 1) Chuck Norris can kill two birds with one stone. 2) Chuck Norris once went to Mars. Which is why there are no signs of life there. 3) Chuck Norris can speak Italian... In French 4) There used to be a street named after Chuck Norris. They changed it because no one crosses Chuck Norris and lives. 5) Chuck Norris has a grizzly bear carpet in his living room. The bear isn't dead, it's just afraid to move.
Chuck Norris Facts

1. If you spell Chuck Norris in scrabble, you win. Forever. 2. Death once had a near-Chuck Norris experience. 3. Chuck Norris once kicked a horse in its chin. That horse's descendants today are known as giraffes. 4. The fear of spiders is known as arachnophobia, the fear of tight spaces is known as claustrophobia, and the fear of Chuck Norris is known as logic. 5. Superman and Chuck Norris once made a bet. The loser had to wear underwear outside of his pants.
Chuck Norris Facts

1. Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door. 2. Q: What came first? The chicken or the egg? A: Chuck Norris 3. Rosa parks refused to give up her seat on the bus because she was saving it for Chuck Norris. 4. Chuck Norris can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass. At night. 5. Chuck Norris can win a game of Connect Four in three turns.
Taxes on the Rich should be Increased

ehh boi, et me start off by shakin me wopper n' sayin' i ain't yur teepicul drek irushmun. now we irush ain't got nuttin" genst rich and nuttin' for, but aint' these the ladeehs who need supportien? en iruland me bois love a good brawl and thee reech fol always pey for oor beer n' milk. yu simpley dont understaund me countree and yu try tu slap ur ideas in ma face like i slap me giant whoppper in ya wifes feace.
Batman would not defeat Goku in a battle

Okay, free reign to pick a scenario. I choose a space station between Planet Namek and Earth. Batman had time to prepare for the encounter and Goku is unaware of Batmans intentions. Gokus only true exploitable weakness for Batman would be that he can't breath in space. Batman invites Goku into an eating competition on the space station and when Goku is sitting there enjoying his food he blows up the station from his "space Bat Cruiser" (patent pending). Goku CAN teleport, but only with incredible concentration which he wouldn't have after so much food and suffocating in the vacuum of space. Batman wins.
Batman would not defeat Goku in a battle

Would Batman lose to Goku? Possibly. It depends on the circumstances I suppose. What point of Gokus life are we going to go with? What part of Batmans life? Are we going with both in their prime here? Are we assuming they just met up randomly and started fighting or would there be time for preparation on Batmans part? Are you laying down any ground rules here at all or are you basically saying in any scenario possible that Batman would lose to Goku no matter what?
School raise fee to students and maintain qualify.

I personally think schools can raise fee as long as they maintain and also upgrade the facilities. For instance, in Australia, tuition fee increase by 7% each year. Owing to a variety of factors, such as inflation or governments' cuts and whims, schools need to raise fees to sustain their businesses. Besides, it seems to me that this action is less painful than seeing your favorite teaching staffs get sacked, which also an attempt to stay alive. Therefore, I'm convinced that this is a justifiable decision that everyone should comply with it
Laws Should Never Limit Personal Choices that have Little Impact on other Individuals

Generally speaking, governments are contracts between a group of people who seek to give up certain freedoms for the betterment of the whole group. Governments provide protection (military, police, fire, etc.), social services (welfare, Medicare), law and order (justice systems, police), and a unified foreign policy. In exchange for these things, governments collect taxes and limits some individual freedoms (with laws). Governments have a right to set certain laws for the good of all. Murder and theft clearly damage the society as a whole, both in terms of life and overall stability of the governed area. However, actions such as responsible marijuana usage, same-sex marriage, and assisted suicide don't significantly affect individuals in the surrounding community. They are personal choices with personal benefits and consequences, and should therefore not be prohibited by law. Any negative effects they do have on other members of society are small compared to the positive effects they have on the individuals making the choices.
The complexity of the human eye proves intelligent design

Since my opponent is in hibernation, my points go un-refuted. With this opportunity I will negate the other, ranting arguments offered up by my opponent. || >>> The only reason that it [evolution] is still accepted by people is because the scientists that try to prove it are telling things to be fact that are just guesses or what they assume to be true without any proof of it and they justify this by saying well there cant be a God so "so and so" must be true. <<< || This is complete nonsense but I must first point out to my opponent that religion is based on assumptions and beliefs by its very definition. Religion- a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (dictionary.com) || >>> Also Evolution is so contorted and twisted from what it used to be, that Charles Darwin himself would not even recognize it <<< || It is still based on the same idea; just more evidence has come available. I think Darwin would be happy at how far we have come but frustrated that people refuse to accept it without trying to get a basic understanding first. || >>> many extremely intelligent professors have been and still are kicked out of Universities for questioning some of its teachings <<< || What the hell are you talking about?
The complexity of the human eye proves intelligent design

The complexity of the human eye doesn't alone prove Intelligent Design but it does shows how impossible it is for its creation to be from the result of evolution. The chance that evolution lead to the creation of the complex world we live in is impossible. The only reason that it is still accepted by people is because the scientists that try to prove it are telling things to be fact that are just guesses or what they assume to be true without any proof of it and they justify this by saying well there cant be a God so "so and so" must be true. Evolution presupposes that there is no God before they have even proven it, this greatly hinders the whole theory of being reliable and true. Evolution at its core is just the ignorance of man trying to play God. Also Evolution is so contorted and twisted from what it used to be, that Charles Darwin himself would not even recognize it. This is because all of Darwin's natural selection theories were disproved and Evolution is just making wild jumps and leaps of faith (it is a little ironic that evolutionists have faith) that are again guesses of what happened. Charles Darwin is no longer the father of evolution because modern day evolution can not include the beliefs of its earlier theories. many extremely intelligent professors have been and still are kicked out of Universities for questioning some of its teachings. Evolution is in an extremely delicate state right now because its falsities are being exposed little by little and events such as kicking out professors are all defense mechanisms for protecting a giant lie, itself. Evolution in a way is just a conspiracy.
It is possible that we are in the matrix right now

I really don't see how man not having a "god's eye view" has anything to do with that argument, it seems to prove my point more than yours. Since we don't have a "god's eye view" there is no way we can know that we are in a computer program(or "brains in a vat" as they call it), therefore, even if we are in a simulation, we would come to the conclusion that we are not, thus rendering the whole chain purposeless.
It is possible that we are in the matrix right now

Ok.... So my opponent completely missunderstood the idea of the Causal Theory of Reference - the whole point of my argument was to disprove what he thought was a loophole in "round 2." There's not much more I can say to his complete throw away. Pro's solipsist argument has a problem with content: that is, how - if at all - can the brain's thoughts be about a person or place with whom it has never interacted and which perhaps does not exist. I must say, to understand the argument, one must look at it as the Verification principle - http://en.wikipedia.org... Maybe that might help my opponent understand why his round 2 made no sense after my round 1. Regards, Vi Veri
Shakespeare's works should be abridged and enhanced to make them more enjoyable

Shakespeare's works are already enjoyable. Shakespeare's works are, indeed, enjoyable but they are mainly enjoyed by a privileged few - those people whose parents were able to provide them with a classical education at a private school and who will be familiar with the great writers, composers and artists, and their major works and will, therefore, be in a position to appreciate them. This will also stand them in very good stead at business functions and upper-middle class social gatherings when the topic of conversation turns to cultural matters, by the way: places where someone is unfamiliar with one of Shakespeare's most celebrated plays might be regarded as an ignorant philistine with no appreciation of the arts. It seems to me that it is unfair that people who did not benefit from an expensive education should be socially and professionally disadvantaged by their lack of familiarity with, for example, William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet and it is, therefore, the moral responsibility of those fortunate enough to be acquainted with the play to adapt it to broaden its appeal. 2. Revisions of Shakespeare's works are not enjoyable, and in comparison to the original, are completely and utterly useless. This, from the point of view of a purist, is correct – any revision to the work of the Bard is likely to impoverish it from a strictly literary perspective. However, you might make similar arguments about many things in life. For example, Wagyu beef is perhaps the finest beef in the world and, with this being the case, you should expect to pay upwards of $300 for a Kobe fillet steak in a Japanese restaurant. I don't know, but I suspect that McDonald's do not source their beef from Wagyu cattle farmers and that the meat they use for their hamburgers is of an inferior quality. Perhaps if all McDonald's customers were in a position to pay $300 for a Big Mac the restaurant chain would use Wagyu beef but, the reality is, very few customers have that sort of money to spend on a meal, so have to make their products more widely accessible. Similarly, the works of Shakespeare need to be made more widely accessible and the vast majority of ordinary people don't have the time, inclination or the education to wade through dusty old books containing dull stories written in antiquated English – what they want to read are books that are not too intellectually taxing and that have plenty of steamy action in them. Finally, I agree that to call the film that my opponent linked to "Othello" was an unmitigated and outrageous travesty but, I'm sure that most of the people who watched the film would not have had the opportunity to watch the play performed live by the likes of The Royal Shakespeare Company and at least now they know the story. For these reasons, I reaffirm that Shakespeare's works should be abridged and enhanced to make them more enjoyable. Thank you.
Shakespeare's works should be abridged and enhanced to make them more enjoyable

I would like to start by saying that a scene involving a sloppy minge and the smashing of the back door would be highly un-enjoyable. However, as this was more of an example by my opponent rather than an argument for the debate issue at hand, I will focus on other matters for the remainder of the debate. In this round of the debate, I will attempt to show two things: 1. Shakespeare's works are already enjoyable. 2. Revisions of Shakespeare's works are not enjoyable, and in comparison to the original, are completely and utterly useless. Shakespeare's works have stood the test of time for a multitude of reasons; the main one being that they are enjoyable. Elequent prose, subtle foreshadowing, and character ambiguity all add to the appeal of the artists' intended vision. Abridging (shortening) and enhancing (altering) of the dialouge is simply taking away some of the more enjoyable aspects of Shakespeare's works. You cannot have effective foreshadowing and charachter building with a shortened story. Even people who have not read his works can be influenced by them in an enjoyable way. Shakespeare has a plethora of one-liners that are famous, merely because of the joy-inducing excellence of his skillful writing. "To Be or not to be; that is the question""This above all: to thine own self be true""The Lady doth protest too much""What's in a name? That which we call a rose" [1]The craftsmanship of these words simply cannot be altered to be made any more enjoyable. The subtle and philisophical nature of the writing is irreplacable. Shakespeare's works have been enchanced and abridged and they are not more enjoyable. Case In Point: O, a remake of Shakespeare's affluential Othello. Not only does this movie include some of the cheesiest actors of our time, (Julia Stiles, Mekhi Phipher, & Josh Harntnett) but the movie is horrid. The writting is more akin to verbal diarreah than well written prose. The characters are one-dimensional and obvious. There is no sense of the emotional engagement that is often felt upon indulging in Shakespeare's original works. I urge the reader to attempt to watch the trailer I provided [2] without cringing. If this movie is enjoyable to anyone, I question their sanity. 1. . http://www.enotes.com...2. . http://www.imdb.com...
Shakespeare's works should be abridged and enhanced to make them more enjoyable

Shakespeare may have written some quite good plays, but few would disagree that most of them are far too long and boring. That’s why they should be edited and spiced up a bit at the same time. Here is an example of what I have in mind: Romeo & Juliet SCENE: Int. Night. Juliet’s bedchamber JULIET: How camest thou hither, tell me, and wherefore? The wall is high and hard to climb. ROMEO: With love's light wings did I o'er-perch that wall, now get thy fvcking nightgown off, darling. JULIET: Although I joy in thee, I have no joy of this contract to-night: It is too rash, too unadvised, too sudden. ROMEO: O, wilt thou leave me so unsatisfied? JULIET: What satisfaction canst thou have to-night? ROMEO: The exchange of thy bodily fluids for mine. JULIET: If that thy bent of love be honourable, I will perform the rite. ROMEO: Great, I’ve been looking forward to this all night. But wait, what is this between thy legs? It looks like something out of a butcher’s shop window. Wherefore is thy minge so untidy? Art thou not still a maiden? JULIET: Er, yes. ROMEO: Really? Whereas I yearned for a nice tight little chuff I am presented with a gash like a wizard’s sleeve. Never mind, I am here now. Bend over, Juliet, so that I may smash thy back doors in. You see? The play becomes easier to read and more interesting, doesn’t it? That’s why I affirm that Shakespeare’s works should be abridged and enhanced. Thank you.
Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

Thanks, Con. I will present a (very) brief constructive case, this round. Please note that I am only arguing for euthanasia *with* the consent of the patient-- if legalized, it would not be the decision of the patient's family members or the attending physician. The first thing that must be done in order to show that euthanasia should be legalized is to demonstrate that with the right to life comes the right to death. I think my opponent would agree that all citizens have a right to life, though I can certainly support that notion further if he wishes to contest it. Like is the case with any right, we have the right to abstain from exercising it; after all, if we cannot do that, it is no longer a right-- it is an obligation. The right to life does not require us to continue living any more than the right to free speech requires us to speak our minds. The government simply does not have the power to *force* someone to continue living when they do not wish to do so, as that would be a clear rights violation. So it has been established that people do, indeed, have the right to death. Now, why does this lead to the conclusion that euthanasia should be legalized? It is simply a matter of practicality. Having euthanasia administered in a clinical setting is by far the safest and least painful way for one to exercise their right to death (my opponent would have to provide some sort of counter-example to successfully contest this); by criminalizing euthanasia, the government is doing nothing more than unnecessarily causing suffering to citizens, which is clearly contradictory to the role of the state (i.e. promoting general welfare). Hence, euthanasia should be legalized. The resolution is affirmed.
Euthanasia Should be Legal in Medical Practice

As the title of the debate would imply, the purpose of this argument is to discuss whether or not euthanasia should be legal in medical practices. I am against this (attacking it), and thus I would expect my opponent to argue in favor of it. The first round of five is solely for acceptance, and each person will have three whole days to respond before forfeiture of the round. May the smartest man win!
Abortion

First off, that wasn't poor grammer. I was reffering to my previous statement where I said I agree... and then in that particlar part I said I dont.. I meant I dont agree. I guess thats just the negativty of text debates haha. Secondly, I never said the constitution is flawless.. you put those words in my mouth.. It is a manmade document and man is known to fall. When it comes to government yes, we need to abide by it because that is what our country was founded on, but not because its an flawless document, because it isnt. Now to the issue.. you argue about domestic tranquility. Yes I agree that if a mother is dying and you have to choose one or the other, then it should be legal. But how often does that happen? My dad's a doctor for 40 years and he has never seen that happen. Its a very rare occurence. Your argument is that the fetus is unicellular organism at conception so by definition it is not a human. Well if it were to grow and develop it would be a human wouldn't it? Since when does the level of development determine whether you are human or not. A 20 year old man is no more human than a 2 year old child. They are both humans! FOr your last argument, Again, I believe that that should be the only exception to abortion... But like I said, how often does that happen? Its very rare. And I agree with you on that because it is no different than having two people drowning in a lake and you can only save one of them. Its not like your killling one by saving the other. SO thats the only circumstance abortion should be allowed. Besides that, ABortion should be outlawed because it is murder and murder is not right nor is it unconstitutional. THank you