BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rap Battle #3

Note: This is a rap battle, and disses will always be inappropriate, personal, and very offensive. Please don't take it seriously. Also, in the final verse, I tried an ABABABABABABABAB (you'll see) scheme, if that makes sense (did anyone ever try that? O_O It was really hard to write...). :P Also, if you count the syllables of each line, all of them end up in groups of 6-8-6-6 (minus filler words), so I'm pretty sure it's the most fluid verse I've written. LOL _________________________________________________________________ You say you can rap while you're just a crazy cat lady, sit back on your seat as I have skills of Tom Brady Think you can play, you're simply a wannabe, I spit verse speed of light so call me Slim Shady Each line is more smoother than a skater ten eighty,[1] toxoplasmosis; look it up on WebMD[2] I'll rock you even harder than the earthquake at Haiti, admire my flow and burn this on a CD Homeschooled cause you flunked out of arithmetic,[3] since your dad's a bus driver I guess it's genetic[4] Your bars so artificial they're considered synthetic, the thought you can beat me is insane and pathetic Humiliation, mutilation, your composure frenetic, but by now you should know my words are prophetic Because of your background I feel sympathetic so make the pain go away with a dose of anesthetic You're a queen I'm a god, see the difference in our skill, you're a fraud I'm the mod[5], and the king of the hill My verse is a SWAT squad and it's always a sure-kill, all you have is a facade so overdose a pill My audience is awed and the noise brought to a standstill, your entire flow is flawed like a US oil spill This battle's a maraud[6], donate your corpse to Goodwill, I'll tie you to a rod and storm you like the Bastille[7] [1]1080 is a skateboarding trick where the skater completes a rotation of three full turns midair. [2]Toxoplasmosis is a parasitic disease that can be contracted by cleaning a cat's litter box. http://www.webmd.com... [3]"Homeschooling is fun and challenging[...]I hate math[...]" http://www.debate.org... [4]"my dad is a city bus driver" http://www.debate.org... [5]Short for Moderator [6]Maraud - a sudden short attack [7]Double meaning; referring to the rock band Bastille (http://en.wikipedia.org...(band)) and the Storming of the Bastille (http://en.wikipedia.org...).
Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

1)False. Whilst it is difficult to measure exactly how intelligent characters are, it is made clear that both Stark and Banner are some of the greatest minds in the marvel universe, with Banner often being considered as having the edge.Counter False. Tony is by far the smartest, as said by businessweek [1]. My opponent said that he is the 4th smartest person, then Iron Man must be 3rd, with Proffesor X as #1 with batman as #2. No sources for that, though. He is the owner of Stark industries, which is full of the most andvanced weapons known to man. The hulk is a big green mass, and while he is smart, he isn't as smart in his hulk form, for he relies on his pure rage.2) I do agree now that the hulk has better armor. Whilst there is no argument that the defense go's to Hulk, the defense alone would not win the fight. He has withstood a 100 trillion ton attack from Skaar.As for strength, with his legs he broke a planet twice the size of earth in two and has lifted a 150 billion ton mountain range. Iron man's strength is limited to 100 tons.It was not 100 trillion. The hulk can withstand 100 tons [2] max. No more. Anway, Iron Man also has lazers, which could easily vaporize the Hulk. If the hulk is as durible as my opponent suggests, how come in his battle with the abominator (I think i'm saying that right) in the most recent hulk movie, he showed weakness? He almost lost! That means a bunch of lasers and missels would definately do the trick.3) Ironman can't fly high enough to get out of the Hulk's range as he can leap into lower orbit in a calm state.Iron Man can easily outrun/fly the Hulk. Ironman can go 1000 mph at least [3], whilst the hulk's said max speed is between 500 and 800 mph. Iron Man could easily outfly him, and then blow him up whilst keeping out of the range of the hulk.Thank you.Resources: [1] http://images.businessweek.com...[2]http://forums.comicbookresources.com...[3]http://wiki.answers.com...[4]http://wiki.answers.com...
Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

Whilst no arguments mentioned goes against canon, the parameters laid out did specifically state that the 616 universe should be used as the source. I shall begin by rebutting your arguments: 1) Ironman is smarter. False. Whilst it is difficult to measure exactly how intelligent characters are, it is made clear that both Stark and Banner are some of the greatest minds in the marvel universe, with Banner often being considered as having the edge. Certain incarnations, such as Professor Hulk, retain Banner's full intelligence [hulk.wikia.com/wiki/Hulk] Banner has also been described as possesing "a mind so brilliant it cannot be measured on any known intelligence test." Here he is described as 4th smartest person on the planet: http://i663.photobucket.com... Whilst Banner may fear his power, it is because it is truly something to be feared - arguably the most powerful being alive. 2) Ironman is more powerful Ironman may be able to take a missile, hulk can survive million degree nova blast and a direct nuclear explosion. In fact he is insanely durable: far more so than Ironman's armour. His durability increases the angrier he gets. He gets angrier the more punishment he is taking. Thus he gets tough enough to fight whatever is harming him. Ironman's repulser tech would barely register to an angry hulk. He has withstood a 100 trillion ton attack from Skaar [http://media.comicvine.com...] As for strength, with his legs he broke a planet twice the size of earth in two and has lifted a 150 billion ton mountain range. Iron man's strength is limited to 100 tons. [http://marvel.wikia.com...] 3) Resourcefulness As stated before the Hulk is not always a mindless beast. As he takes punishment, he would get stronger and be able to jump higher. Ironman can't fly high enough to get out of the Hulk's range as he can leap into lower orbit in a calm state. An assault from the Blackbolt barely registered to hulk, what chance would ironman have? [http://img.photobucket.com... http://img.photobucket.com...] Thankyou.
Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

Iron man is a boss. He would win against the Hulk I will explain how with these 3 reasons. 1) He is smarter. Tony Stark, Iron Man's alter ego, Is a billionaire. While in today's society, it doesn't take much to get lots of money (i.e. Jersey Shore), Tony got it off his brains alone. He created his superhero costume while being held in captivity with very limited resources [1]. He busted out, and was able to save the day numerous times (i.e. Iron Man 1&2 movies). The hulk, on the other hand, relies on his power and rage, not on his brains. In the Hulk movie (the most recent one) the Hulk spent most of his time running, trying not to use his powers, because of his fear that he can't control it. Iron Man has full control over his suit and knows how to use it. 2) He is far more powerful. Iron Man has weapons. In the 1st movie, when in the desert, a tank was trying to shoot him. It hit iron man, but Iron man came back with limited scratches. He then comically shoots a very tiny missile which destroys the entire tank. This could easily take down the hulk. Also, Iron Man can shoot pulse blasts from his hands that are very powerful. A couple of these could destroy the hulk completely. Iron man has lots of armor, the hulk has a pair of purple pants. The defense ratio shows that Iron Man is superior. 3) He is far more resourceful. Here is a scenario. My opponent said that it would take place in NYC and they are told to duke it out. Iron Man can fly. He has weapons. He can fly above the Hulks hitting range and shoot the crap out of the Hulk until he is nothing. For these 3 reasons, Iron Man is dominant. Thank you. resources: [1] Iron Man the Movie
Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

This debate pertains to whom would win in a fight. All sources should be from Earth 616 canon. The fight is to the death. The setting is a deserted new York city. Neither party have any prior knowledge of the other. Consideration should be given to examples of either party actually beating each other in canon, but in the end reasoning independent from plot devices should be the deciding factor. I give my opponent the floor. Thaddeus Smash Puny Dingo!
Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

Final Round.1)My opponent doubted my sources, but he himself provides no sources. coincidence? I think NOT! Banner has not made any great industries and while he shows inteligence that the comics, my opponent has not defended the fact that he is less inteligent in his hulk form. The hulk is not as smart in his hulk form, and Tony is smart the entire time, if not smarter due to the statistics and all the stuff that helps him from his visor and his digital butler. In hulk form, in the link for clapping hurricanes that my opponent provided, he spoke about himself in the 3rd person, showing uninteligence, further strengthening my argument.2)A - You provided a comic book page that didnt say in any way that it had to do with 100 trillion tons, so his source has less base than mine... And the pictures that my opponent provided showed the hulk with armor, and in this battle he has no armor. That is from previous battles, and if my opponent says he does have it, he will be contradicting himself from his own conditions in round 1. The armor helped him stop it.On that note, the abomination would also likely defeat Ironman, in a plot device free zoneMy opponent didn't refute this point, and only diverted our eyes with stuff from the comic. My opponent will accept links from the comics, but not the movie? How very hipocritical. Also, in the comics, (I havent read them and since there is only a 30 minute time limit I had no time to read them) I assume that the hulk had troubles right? Stan Lee made no comic where the character just ran over every enemy with absolutely no restraint. The Hulk absolutely had trials, and would definately lose against Iron Man.B - I guess I win this point.3)The hulk is not without ranged capabilities. Furthermore, if Ironman never engages the hulk, he cannot win, as he must kill him to win.First, Iron Man could probably destroy the hulk with a couple of the missles, as my opponent has yet to attack. Secondly, the Hulk can get tired. Everyone gets tired. The hulk is not a god. He can get tired. Thirdly, Iron Man's speed could avoid a hurricane. He would dodge all of the Hulk's attacks, and then blow him up.In close quarters the Hulk would utterly destroy Ironman, easily crushing his armour.As I have said repeatedly, Iron Man would stay out of the attack range of the Hulk with his speed. If there ever was the of chance that it would result in close quarters, Iron Man would shoot a critical hit pulst blast that would abliderate the Hulk.At a range, eventually Ironman would run out of power, if he chose to remain far away, or get destroyed by Hulk's claps if he tried to engage from a range.The Hulk has claps, whilst Iron Man has lasers, missles, and pulse cannons from his hand. The Hulk isn't fast enough to dodge those attacks, whilst Iron Man can dodge them.In conclusion, Iron Man is superior to the Hulk in all but defense. Still, the attack and speed factors would overwhelm the hulk and render him helpless. I thank my opponent Thaddeus for accepting this debate, and for all of the readers and voters for reading this.Thank you.VOTE FOR PRO!IRON MAN FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!!
Iron Man V.S. The Hulk THE LIMITED DEBATE

A disappointingly weak round from Pro 1) Businessweek is not a credible source regarding comics. As previously stated only the comic earth 616 canon is a viable source. Businessweek have nothing to do with marvel, so they have as much credibility on the matter as Joe Bloggs on the street. Proffessor X and Batman certainly would not be 1 and 2. Batman is not a marvel character, Proffessor X is not exceptionally intelligent and Reed Richards and Dr Doom would occupy the first two positions, with Hank Pym taking a probable third (maybe Zemo, the mad thinker or Beast) As my prior source stated, when Hulk is in his professor hulk incarnation, he retains Banner's brilliant mind. 2) a - Durability. Your source on the 100 tons is a link to a forum thread made by comics fans. Whereas I linked an encounter which describes the hulk surviving 100 trillion tons. Furthermore, I provided sufficient evidence to show that he can clearly withstand far more than 100 tons (nukes, a blast from black bolt, a blast from galactus) If the heat of the sun or a nuclear bomb can't harm the hulk, what good would lasers do? My opponent again references the movie. As I said in the opening round, consideration should be given to these examples, but as a movie and a comic must be dramatic, there will always be plot devices which ensure that the film remains exciting. On that note, the abomination would also likely defeat Ironman, in a plot device free zone. b - Strength - Dropped. 3) The Ironman can't fly forever, nor can he fly that fast and remain within New York. Just by clapping the hulk can create a force more powerful than a hurricane [http://www.incrediblehulkonline.com...] The hulk is not without ranged capabilities. Furthermore, if Ironman never engages the hulk, he cannot win, as he must kill him to win. Quite simply: Ironman lacks the capacity to kill the hulk due to Hulk's insane healing factor (much, much, much better than wolverines) and toughness, and the Hulk would get more powerful the more Ironman tried. In close quarters the Hulk would utterly destroy Ironman, easily crushing his armour. At a range, eventually Ironman would run out of power, if he chose to remain far away, or get destroyed by Hulk's claps if he tried to engage from a range. Ironman could not hide effectively either, as the Hulk would easily level New York. What is a city compared to tectonic plates, or planets?
Michael Jordan is better then Lebron James

I believe that Lebron James is better than Michael Jordan. First of all the Pro side gives nothing but Michael's Legacy, but Lebron James is still alive, and is still playing, so it is unfair to compare the two at the time. In fact, lets look at the time when they were both 31, as that is Lebron's current age. When they were both 31, Lebron has made it to the NBA finals 7 times, and Michael has only made it to the NBA finals 3 times. Not only that, but Lebron has won 4 MVPs, while Michael Jordan has only won 3. LeBron has also played on worse teams with worse coaches. LeBron also plays every position including center and defense incredibly well at all of them. LeBron also can’t hand check on defense. LeBron is taller and stronger and more powerful but also a better three-pointer shooter than Jordan. The Pro side also makes a statistical argument, but chooses to omit some statistics. Player Efficiency Rating Jordan: 27.9 (first all time) James: 27.7 (second all-time)You can see that there is only a .02 difference. Not only that, but Jordan had one of the 50 greatest players in NBA history, Scottie Pippen, on all six teams when he went to the NBA Finals. He also had Hall of Famer Dennis Rodman on two of them and likely Hall of Famer Toni Kukoc on three of them. He was coached by Phil Jackson for all six. Nobody can legitimately claim that James had anything close to that cast. When Jordan left to play baseball, the Bulls won 55 games and reached Game 7 of the Eastern Conference semifinal against the Knicks. When LeBron James left the Cavaliers, they went 19-63. When James left Miami, the Heat went 37-45. You can tell that Lebron James is a better leader, making him a better player.
Michael Jordan is better then Lebron James

I am (For) I believe Michael Jordan is a better player then Lebron James Michael Jordan played 15 NBA Seasons and won the NBA championship 6 times While Lebron has only played 13 NBA seasons, he has only won 3 championships, so if he wins it for the next 2 years in a row, Michael Jordan would still have more. Michael Jordan won 1 defensive player of the year, Lebron never has. Michael Jordan was the steals leader 3 times, Lebron has never been a steal leader. Jordan has 10 scoring leader titles, lebron only has 1 I can't wait to see what my opponent thinks! See you then!
if both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

you concede that if both can survive then it would 'seem' immoral to kill the baby. an issue you take is that the baby may grow into a bad home environment. why not extend your logic to newborns? the baby must be given rights at some point, why not viability, the point it can survive? you seem to think the birth canal is the magical point, but it's a lot more arbitrary cause for effective purposes the baby can survive and all you are providing is trivial location points. perhaps the mother can give it up for adoption. there are plenty willing to adopt. in any case, ask anyone if they'd rather be born into rough conditions or die, and you see it's clear we should give preference to letting it live. the mother's say in it is diminished greatly due to the viability of the baby. as for rape, the mother had plenty of time to abort earlier, if it's to the point of viability. she has no legitimate claims to abort the baby if it can just be removed, given her hindrance isn't really an issue. even with rape, a point must be made to give the fetus rights, and viability seems legit. you are basically advocating legalized murder.
if both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

The ethicality of abortion frankly depends on the situation. In your particular situation, it would at first seem unethical to abort the baby if both lives can be saved. However, what it the baby was born into a terrible home situation? What if the baby's dad was an alcoholic and the baby's mom was not much better? Sometimes life is just not worth living. Also, what if the baby was conceives under a tragic circumstance such as rape? Of course there are women who only abort out of convenience. However, it is unfair to only permit certain people to abort and not others. Everyone must obey the same law. If a mother were forced to give birth to her unwanted baby, she would clearly still not want the baby. The baby would probably be treated by his mother differently. He might grow up in an unloving environment and be ostracized from day one. In another scenario, the extra mouth to feed can cause the family to grow more impoverished. Overall, abortion should be legal, even if both mother and child can be saved.
if both mother and baby can be saved when mom's life is at risk... abortion should not be allowed

in cases where mother's life is at risk, but the healthy baby can be safely removed instead of aborted... and thus both mother and child saaved, this should be required. abortion should not be an option. after six months or so, abortion in the US is restricted to only cases involving health of the mother. (to be sure, this includes much abuse for 'mental health' etc) if even a healthy baby MUST be aborted to save the mother, msot including me would agree it's the right thing to do. to be sure, however.... healthy babies are too often aborted in the name of saving the mother, when labor could be induced or teh baby somehow otherwise simply removed, instead of abortion the mother shouldn't have the option to abort a healthy baby when it can jsut be removed.
Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

1. Women have equal rights to men. (but) 2. Women are not the same as men. When I say 'rights' I'm referring to 'Human rights'. [1] When I say 'not the same as' I mean biologically [2] and in behavioural neuroscience. [3] I will leave it at that for round one and let the contender introduce themselves. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

I don't see why I should bother to write long paragraphs in a debate where my opponent is dishonest. No I do not disagree that all people should have equal rights. The first round and the title made it obvious that you argued that women have equal rights not that women should have equal rights. You saw this mistake and now you are trying to run away "The rights I am debating for here are natural rights" that is not what the title says! I did enjoy this debate but ignoring this fatal mistake and hoping that I would forget about it is plain... I have nothing else to say because that's enough for me to win. Thank you, VAntras
Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

Equal rights: "Women have Equal right" is not the same as "When I say right to have I mean 'should be allowed to have'.". I already said that "I am expecting my opponent to run away from his impossible burden" however that ain't happening because "what has been established can't be". Indeed that is enough for me to win. If you wanted to debate "Should women and men be allowed to have equal rights" you should have said so. For this reason I urge a Con vote. Difference of women: I don't see how your arguments effects my points. Yes men and women are similar but by your definition a man is the same to another man. Obviously a man is technically very different from another man but by your definition they're the same. Wherefore there must be a great difference which would make them not the same. Lets forget what I just said: Furthermore you forgot about asexual's are they not to be neither women or men? Please be more clear in the next round because I'm starting not to understand myself ! :) That's it folks!
Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

So who is the winner? The one who's position is supported by more women, I showed that most women don't have equal rights hence I win. I am expecting my opponent to run away from his impossible burden, before you do, I'd like to remind you that what has been established can't be changed for example your title. =====Women are the same to men===== I don't have to refute this to win but I gave it a shot and so far my argument from round 1 is enduring.
Women have equal rights but are not the same as men.

Just to clarify on 'rights' I didn't mean implemented rights. I meant they are also human and have the same 'right' to have the basics humanity needs. This is demonstrated quite well by Maslow's hierarchy of needs. [1] And women are a lot more different to men than each man is to each other on average physically and mentally. [2] I'm in a rush so I'm sorry if I've only skimmed over on my point. I will go more in depth on this next round. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...