BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Patriotism should be taught and encouraged

My thanks to my opponent for initiating this debate. Contrary to my opponent, I assert that patriotism should be encouraged but not taught. This is not merely a matter of semantics. Encouraging citizens to understand, support and respect their country by displaying national pride and the benefits of civic involvement could do much to improve the activity of our citizenry within the process of our nation's governance. Teaching patriotism, on the other hand, can only lead to divisiveness because people will differ on what activities show proper deference to exhibit true love for or devotion to one's country. We need only examine the modern political environment to see the effects of such an approach, as liberals may claim that exercising their right to free speech to criticize their country is an act of patriotism, while conservatives may claim that the criticism itself is unpatriotic. [1][2] Creating an pedagogical approach to patriotism would only lead to societal fragmentation or fascism. Therefore patriotism should be encouraged but not taught. [1] http://www.democraticunderground.com... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

Last Argument: Let me give you an example. Let's say we are teaching a military man that lacks intelligence on how to place a circle-shaped object into a circle-shaped hole, and he takes the circle-shaped object and tries to put it into the square-shaped hole. There are two types of circumstances that can surface here: 1) The military man will explain to themselves on how to make sense out of this very difficult puzzle game. 2) The military man will rage and complain to themselves on how this game stinks and starts slamming the piece into the wrong hole, eventually causing the light-weight product to collapse under pressure which allows the monkey man to think he managed to solve the puzzle, when in fact what he did was equivalent to knocking over the pieces during chess. When you "complicate" the word "pain", you get "complain". I still say that one cannot contemplate and complain at the same time. You either use your brain, or use your rage. There's nothing else to it. Complaining just complicates everything. When I complain during a game, I end up losing a lot more - when I explain to myself on what to do during a game, I do things I normally could not do. Wise men do not complain - they explain, and do not complain to reach the stage of explaining.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

As the wildfire of pain beings, our best option is to run away, instead of being engulfed by flames.The wide spectrum view given when we delay facing our problems (through complaining) can give us a clear mind.Evaluating each reason we feel this pain before we choose to face it. These reasons come from our pain.If we leave our fire in the woods unattended, and come back and begin to see it spread, we choose to run away (complain of our pain). We MAY have been able to stop the fire before it spread too far engulfing the forest, but we chose to leave the forest preventing our consumption by flame.We learned from putting off our pain temporarily, by saving us from disaster.IF we realize we could have prevented this from occuring, we know have LEARNED complaint was not the best choice. We would not have learned this lesson without complaining.We could have saved the forest from a fire. Complaining will not solve ANY problems, EVER. But it can make it easier to help us figure out what the cause of the problem is, and help us figure out how to handle future problems of similar nature.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

This is a philosophical discussion; there's no claims, only explanations that are agreed upon or disagreed upon. Fourth Argument: Think of people like opals and diamonds. Think of how the diamond is formed compared to an opal. Why does something so shiny, cold and beautiful; which also serves as a prism, exist because of it making it through so much years of pressure and tension? Let me ask you another question: Why is it that when people complain, they resort to noise; when people explain, they resort to sense? How about this question: Before I give into masturbating, I feel strong and mighty; after giving into masturbating, I feel mushy and weak. When we give into things; when we complain to not face this tension, our lives are equivalent to fat, which is why people that do not face pain are easily burned by this passion. Complaining does not reduce tension in the sense that you are able to then re-evaluate yourself - it reduces in the sense that a person runs away from a wild fire that they created themselves, in turn the wild fire grows smaller as they widen their distance, but in actuality, the fire roars at the same size while ending the lives of innocent people. You say complaining allows us to make better decisions, yet people can't make decisions while complaining - they have to stop complaining to start explaining to themselves. Pain is knowledge of what we are feeling - to complain is eluding that knowledge of what we are feeling, hence why we complain and play the blame game.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

In a storm this bad, having your wipers on full speed can be very similiar to flailing your arms about. But there is still a purpose to try to reduce your tension and seeing things clearly.This is the most important aspect of the debate. You are claiming: nothing is learned through complaints about pain.I am arguing that complaining does not solve the problem, nor is complaining facing the problem. However, complaining, as you said, reduces tension. This allows a tension-free (or just less tension) to be weighing on our decision making process.If the storm is so bad that your wipers do you know good, you now know better for NEXT time, whn something gets this bad, it is better to not complain in that point. Everything is a learning experience. Our complaints can help us make decisions for the current problem, or can help us know what to do the next time this problem comes around.If you leave your wipers on during monsoon0like weather conditions, your visiblity is still minimal and could cause you to get into an accident. Your trial and error is a lesson for the next time you are driving in this type of incliment weather to pull over and let the storm pass.By pulling over, this does not mean we should turn our wipers off either. Because stoping your doesn't mean someone else's car will be stopped during their storm as well.Literally speaking:Complaining allows us to make better decisions. These decisions can either be made in that moment of pain, or be a lesson on how to handle future pain. Regardless of when this lesson is learned, complaints give us knowledge of what we are feeling, how we are feeling, and what do to when we feel like this again.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

The wind shield wipers serving as a way to express the nature of complaining is brilliant, however I do not believe, again, that you understand that this is not "facing"; this is "reducing" still. The wind shield wipers tend to smudge your window at times, which can create more problems than before. Using your analogy as to further my argument, this is to say that to "face" something, is to stop the car so you your life's journey does not end up in a wreck. Third Argument: You are pertaining "complaining" to false associations like wind-shield wipers as to say that this is a proper analogy for complaining, when complaining is everything that a child does when they are deflecting pain. The wind-shield wipers are like flailing your arms in tension, which causes your form of vision to be less visible, as you cannot see through the wind-shield wipers or your flailing arms as well as when the vision is clear from obstruction. This is arguing semantics. The proper terms are "facing" and "understanding" the pain - reducing and complaining about the pain does not accurately fit your analogy.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

As my opponent has seemingly enjoyed my analogy of a thunderstorm as a basis for pain, I will try to continue down the road of thunderstorms... Second Argument: Complaining is not at all a way to face tension - it's to reduce tension; reducing it causes the issue to linger, while facing it causes it to disappear.This storm is seemingly getting out of hand with no end in sight. Hail is falling as we try to reach our destination by car. Our complaints are the windshield wipers trying to increase our visibility down this winding road. Uncertain of when this storm will pass. By discerning the road ahead of us by reducing the rain on our window (through the complaints of windshield wipers), we are able to safely navigate through the storm.There is not much more analogy to place on this, so I know will give a literal response to the "Second Argument"By reducing the tension in our life, or this moment/episode of pain, it is easier to face the problem. Decisions are best made during the least amount of tension. Clear thinking and rationality are the cornerstones of good and firm decisions.Will we reach our destination before the storm ends? Will be be able to face the pain cause before the pain subsides?The best thing we can do is lessen our tension/troubles/pain and using that as a learning tool of how to cope for future storms.As I previously mentioned, immediate gratification is not possible through complaints alone, but can help us learn what is causing the issue and better help ourselves in the future.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

That is the wisest piece of literature you've ever written; my brain was resonating with the analogies throughout the whole thing. This may end up being semantics in the end, as you understand the relationship between how thunderstorms and tensions occur in this Universe - I am baffled by this surprise, as beforehand I was worried you were going to ruin my philosophical debate. How you interpret it as "complaining", rather than "understanding" is going to perhaps be the heart of this discussion. Second Argument: Complaining is not at all a way to face tension - it's to reduce tension; reducing it causes the issue to linger, while facing it causes it to disappear.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

Thank you for making this debate. Per your rules, I will not need to define anything, use any sources, or ask you to do any of these. I assume we will be making large amounts of similies and analogies to describe our points on a "grander level" to invoke a more 'meaningful' revelation at the debates end.Now, Let's get down to business:Pain is like a thunderstorm. The darkness of the clouds represents your emotions through this tumultuous time. The rain is constantly falling, feeling it radiating from your body as a constant reminder of whatever someone (or yourself) has done to cause this pain.Lightning strikes...This is the sharp pains we feel; Emotional or physical.The loud thunder is the agony of our sorrow. Coming after the immense pain of the "lightning"Many people thoroughly enjoy thunderstorms, they may even find them calming. There are also people who are scared of the thunderstorms.There are a number of people who's day this thunderstorm may ruin.The complaints of this storm (the pain) is a reminder to us of how we are constantly evaluating everything in our lives. This evaluation, while mal-productive, is still a learning experience.Complaining rarely gives us immediate-gratification. But in the long run, that complaint-invoking feeling will remind us of how to cope, or make things easier to bear through the difficult time. This is us learning through our complaints for the next storm.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a more philosophical approach, rather than a political approach, (by using these terms, or their synonymous forms, you have thus forfeited this discussion), as this debate still can go ways in, but will not do well in answering itself. It deals with something that is on a grand level, which can only be figured out so much before you start realizing that you have to look for more pieces before you continue on locating the correlations between the universal paradigms (e.g bees behaving like electrons), therefore it would be best to discuss this on a powerful level of analysis, instead of a petty level of answer-ability. Argument: Complaining is a form of deflecting and rationalizing what is otherwise the inevitability of your existential calamity.
If You Complain About Pain; You Will Not Learn From Pain

Rage and complain are not synonymous.If a bee stings me, I swat at it out of rage, and try to kill it out of rage for what it did to me.Itching, stating the feeling the bee sting gives me is a complaint.If the itching begins to spread, and the pain becomes more immense, my complaints can save my life. An inflammatory action is occuring my body. My body is rushing everything possible to the sting site, like animals herding across the plains. If my body cannot do enough to subside my pain, my complaints can raise red flags to those I am complaining to.Why does it hurt this bad? Why is he still complaining? It's just a bee sting right?.....!!! Is he allergic? Has his itching and pain spread?My complaints can help me realize what pain is catastrophic vs. nonsensical.A minor bee sting is nothing to complain about for too long. But an allergic reaction can be deadly. You are learning, by your complaints, on how to assess certain situations by your pain levels.A man struggling with fitting the right pieces into the correct shape is showing animalistic rage when smashing the piece through. This leaves the pieces visibly mangled. Like putting a nail in a post. His rage overtook his pain and caused a physical outburst, his emotions bursting aside him.If he were to complain and show his disdain to such a task he cannot complete, is more like a walking into a brisk wind. It is something you feel, and may take a few leaves off of a tree, but the damage is miniscule.Complaints are merely words in the wind voicing displeasure. This displeasure can amount to something more serious in this same instance, or teach us that the pain we are currently feeling is nothing to be ashamed of, and despite complaining, or not complaining the pain will subside.Complaints are a gauge of our personal feelings. Pain is a stressor in our life. Complaints and pain can go hand in hand as a learning experience for now and the future.
i determine where cause and effect ends and begins

Matter under no condition can be timeless. All matter at some point did not exist. Matter can be destroyed, and there is no scientific reason to believe it cannot, that is a 100% theoretical claim. However it is not a theoretical claim to state that all things before they were, were not. Hence, "Before they were," and factually one can measure to the beginning of time. In order for the universe to have a law of physics it must play out these laws. These laws exist int he unmanifest. and of the unmanifest the purpose to arise occurs where as prior there was nothing at all.
Ash Kethum should be over the age of 10

Firstly: Pokemon is a children's TV show. Ash's being 10 attracts a younger audience. Therefore, the writers clearly decided to keep him young so that it would continue to attract that audience. Parents most likely wouldn't let their young kids watch an anime show in which the main character was 16 or something because of what it possibly could turn into. Ash's age allows the intended audience to connect to the protagonist. Secondly, there is no way for you to prove that time works exactly the same way in this anime as in the real world. Just because certain things happen and change and day and night occur means nothing. Even though it may have taken Ash a year, that doesn't mean he has to become older if the writers don't want it to because this is not reality we're talking about-- it's a children's television show. The anime writers are perfectly allowed to have time work however they want. Brock hasn't gotten older. Misty never got older. In fact, I don't know any characters that got older. That includes Ash. Therefore, perhaps no one grows older. Your argument is invalid, and you cannot prove in any way that you are correct because it's up to the writer.
Ash Kethum should be over the age of 10

I hope he doesn't forfeit, because that would be a bore. Anyway,to start my refutations. REFUTATIONS"I would like to point out that Pokemon is a kid's TV show. Not everything has to follow the same rules as the real world. If we were debating a real world problem, this would be a more valid debate. However, the makers of the show Pokemon seem to think that Ash's being 10 years old is important. Therefore, they kept him 10 years old. Who is to say how the rules of time work in this fictional TV show world? Only the writers. Therefore, if they think he should still be 10 years old, they are correct. " I would like to point out that in the anime, time is the same as it is in our world, but for some reason, Ash doesn't age. There are many instances to which time is used in the anime. There is a video which will be on this argument explaining why Ash should be older than 10. I will refer to it many times in this debate. Anyway, in the episode "The battle of the badge" Ash claims it took him a whol year to travel Kanto. This already proves time works the same way it does in the normal world. Because of such, Ash should already be older than 10, since it took him a whole year to travel through Kanto. This would imply time passed, thus making Ash older than 10. ARGUMENTS In the anime, you may also notice that there is day and night. Furthermore, there is christmas. This implies time is passing, thus he must be getting older. This proves though the creators keep him at the age of 10, he should be older, considering time passes. Also, it would be good for the anime to age him. In doing so, all ages would be attracted to the subject, since it can relate to a wider audience. This would bring in viewers, and money for the franchise. As you may not know, pokemon was actually originally for teenagers. You can notice such in the manga. So if we brought this back, it would attract all ages. I have proven that even with the franchise keeping him at 10, the notes to implant prove otherwise. Ash should be over the age of 10.
Ash Kethum should be over the age of 10

I accept Pro's challenge and the rules that correlate. My opening statement follows: I would like to point out that Pokemon is a kid's TV show. Not everything has to follow the same rules as the real world. If we were debating a real world problem, this would be a more valid debate. However, the makers of the show Pokemon seem to think that Ash's being 10 years old is important. Therefore, they kept him 10 years old. Who is to say how the rules of time work in this fictional TV show world? Only the writers. Therefore, if they think he should still be 10 years old, they are correct.
Ash Kethum should be over the age of 10

After challenging a person to this debate, and realising he was rationalmadman, I was dissapointed I couldn't debate this. So now, here is a debate to prove once and for all that Ash kethum should be older than 10. Accepting this debate, you are accepting these rules.1. First round you post your opening statements, last round your write "No argument as agreed upon."2. No plagiarism3. No semantics/ play with words4. No arguing about the rules, except for in the comments.5. No making your own definitions.Definitions 1.the length of time during which a being or thing has existed http://dictionary.reference.com... Breaking any rules above will result in a 7 point loss.
Gary Johnson is a better presidential candidate than Trump or Hilary.

Good luck to whoever my opponent will be in this debate. Please no trolls and use links to back up your evidence when needed. Rounds 2 through 4 will be rebuttals and making new points. Round 5 will be final rebuttal and closing statement. I am for this topic that Gary Johnson a better candidate for president than the other two major party candidates. Johnson is a former governor of New Mexico for two terms. He ran as a republican in a very domacrat state. The domocrat ratio was 2 to 1 while he was a republican governor. When asked a question he answers them directly and doesn't change his story each time. Gary Johnson has vetoed 750 bills to cut spending on programs that have no improvement in our lives. He has not been accused of any sexual acts or in any scandals. He has not been investigated by the FBI for any reason. He is fiscally conservative and socially doesn't care what you do as long as you cause no harm to others.
Technology Is Not As Good As We Might Think

I stick to my argument that technology IS GOOD, while the problems you show are just the consequences of how we are using it. People know how to rely on their brain too, it's just that google is making work easier, else they would have to go,search in a library. It just takes some time for people to get adjusted to life without phones or Internet. On the contrary,through advances in science we can build machines that fly, that allow us to see objects too small or far away to be detected by the naked eye. We can transport water to great distances to fertilize crops and make certain areas liveable that weren't before. We can cure diseases that once we couldn't. We can explore under the sea and upon the surface of the moon. (1) Finally, my closing statement is that "TECHNOLOGY IS GOOD FOR MANKIND,IT JUST DEPENDS ON HOW WE USE IT TO OUR BENEFITS".Thanks for the debate. Vote for "CON" if you agree with my views. References: http://wiki.answers.com...
Technology Is Not As Good As We Might Think

I disagree with your point that US relies A LOT on satellites. Accurate intelligence about the enemy is always on the military"s wish list, and we require technologies that can perform surveillance to help identify enemies and friendly forces. I agree that US relies on satellites but it is only to maintain a track of its friendly forces and enemies and I don't think someone can easily take down all of US satellites because they are continuously spying and reporting as to what is going on everywhere in the world. But even if that happens US army has many other advanced weapons which do not make use of satellites. Technology is information on anything that man makes for his benefit out of resources available, in order to make tasks simpler to perform. YES, we rely on our phones when we are lost but even without our phones we can ask people for the route and get home safely except that the task becomes tiring. Technology isn't destroying the world. In contrast it's IMPROVING our lives.
Technology Is Not As Good As We Might Think

If you think about it technology is not the best, especially when used by the military. I do not mean this negatively, but the military relies to heavily on technology. If an enemy of the US wanted to disable the military, all they would have to do is take down US satellites. Our economy is also run on satellites and tech alone and our youth spends all of their time playing games, texting, and posting on social media. We rely on our phones to get us home when we are lost, but with out our phones we are as good as dead. If the US lost control of the satellites, America would be screwed. Technology is destroying the world. Without power or satellites the world would be thrown into the stone ages and into anarchy with no way back.