BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

I would like to establish that the beast in the book is an entirely different element than the lord of the flies. The beast is a product of the boys young paranoia. My opponent even quotes Simon who is the only one who realizes that the beast is not real but rather a figment of their imagination that was created in part due to the hunters rise in savagery. But I digress... The conversation between the sows head and Simon is one of the most remarkable literary achievements by Golding. But let us exam what the sow head could possibly represent. While there are some who say the "vision" Simon has with the severed head of the pig is actually a conversation with the Lord of the Flies, meaning the pig is the lord of the flies. No doubt this head is something the boys begin to almost worship by the end of the novel, as seen by their "ritualistic" slaughter of Simon. But what I will state is that the sows head is a direct symbol of Jack's savagery. His violence and recklessness is what led Jack, after declaring himself the chief, to pin the sows head on the staff. It is his mark of leadership, so to speak. The choirboys in the beginning are seen walking along the beach, led by Jack, dressed in all black. The contrast of the light sand pinned against these small black figures gives the image of little flies. Hence these choirboys are flies. As we know the hunters are mainly structured with the choirboys, again their leader: Jack. The feast that the boys have before Simon's death also solidifies Jack's overt prominence over the tribe. Golding describes the celebration feast as follows: (note I'm typing these words from the book, forgive me if they are some what "altered") "Before the party had started a great log has been dragged to the center of the lawn, and Jack, painted and garlanded, sat there like an idol. There were piles of meat on green leaves near him, and fruit, and coconut shells filled with drink." Notice that he is sitting in the center of the party where he is closet to the food. The log is later described in the chapter as his "throne." When Jack says "Give me Drink!" Henry without pause hands him his drink. All of this symbolism is a motif of the demonic imagery of Beelzebub. Jack is supposed to represent the lord of the flies. To dismiss this symbolism and state that the Lord of the Flies is not applied to a tangible element is missing the character development of Jack. The Lord of the Flies could be many things, whether physical or metaphorical, but it all comes back to Jack. Thank you.
The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

To my understanding Con is saying Jack was the Lord of the flies. I'm going to attempt to proove that the Lord od the flies was an illusion. Illusion: Something that deceives by producing a false or misleading reality. Here's some quotes from the book. "Maybe there is a beast. .. maybe it's only us" Chapter 5, pg. 50. This is meant to imply that the beast is all in there heads not actually themselves. "[F]ear can't hurt you anymore than a dream. There aren't any beasts to be afraid of on this island. .. " pg. 75. The only time anyone encountered the L. OF. T. was when Simon was in the jungle alone. He imagines himself talking to the Lord of the flies. This was merely a hullicination. After the conversation Simon passes out which is reasonable evidence that he was already 'sick' and in a delusional state. Another reason that we can deduce that it was an illusion is because before Simon saw the pig's head Jack and his tribe were there and it was a regular dead pig's head. And even if the Lord of the flies is a representation of evil it is still an intangible concept and not physically real. I look forward to my opponents response on prooving Jack to be the Lord of the Flies and refuting my arguments. m. reference. com/d/search. htm? q=illusion
The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

Thank you for starting an intellectual debate here. This site needs more of these. I will contend that the Lord of the flies is a representation or reflection of what Jack becomes in the novel. I have several theories here, and I'm not sure if this will totally fit within the guide lines of the debate, but just let me know. The term "Lord of the flies" can mean so many things. Is it a title given to the actual atmosphere of the island? Is it a direct correlation to Beelzebub, the satanic demon who, according to Christian theology, was often referred to as the Lord of all Flies? I believe it is all of these things and more. All of these elements point to Jack, in my opinion. On one hand you have Ralph, the image of man. Ralph is a symbol of Mans desire to hold on to moral and ethical principles in order to lead the children in a structured manner. On the other hand you have Jack who aims to serve the more primitive and barbaric needs of human nature. The story then shows the battle of good and evil and which will prevail. With this in mind, all the characters evolve from page one to the end of the novel. What does Jack become. It is my contention that Jack becomes the "leader" of the children. Their Lord. The chief of the hunters. Their Lord of the Flies. I will use supporting evidence from the novel later in this debate. As of now, it is my opponents turn to prove his case. Thank you.
The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

I'm asking Con to present his argument first since [s]he has the burden of proof. I will go on to explain the resolution. To understand the reference I'm refering to you have to read or have read William Golding's "Lord of the Flies". I will be arguing that the lord of the flies in the book was not a concrete physical character. But rather an illusion or abstact concept so to speak. Con will be arguing that the lord of the flies was an actual physical creature. With that being said, Please add quotes from the book if needed, but put the page number where I can find the quote. Thank you for debating this topic with me. :)
The Lord of the flies in "Lord of the Flies" was most likely an illusion.

My opponent made a couple claims in this final round that I believe don't make sense in context to the debate. I would like to point these out to the voters (Notice his responses to what I have said)- 1.)"Con: "To dismiss this symbolism and state that the lord of the flies is not applied to a tangible element is missing the character development of Jack" This is may be relevant to the story but is not to the debate." 2.)Con: "The Lord of the Flies could be many things whether physical or metaphorical." You were suppose to proove that it was a physical entity not what it could be." 3.)Con: "But what I will state is that the sow's head is a direct symbol of Jack's savagery" Jack's savagery is not Jack. Prooving that Jack resembles the L.O.F.T. is not the same as prooving it a physical entity. I would also like to point out that by arguing that the L.OF.T. is s symbolic representation is actually implying that it is NOT a physical entity." My response. 1.) What is relevant to the story is in fact relevant to this debate by default. This is a debate on the book by William Golding "Lord of the Flies" 2.)My opponent attempts to quote me here, but he leaves out the last part of the sentence--"...it all leads back to Jack." My opponent quotes this statement with a period after "...physical or metaphorical...". All of the elements that describe the Lord of the flies are describing, in one way or another, Jack. 3.) I will simply just respond to my opponent by saying Jacks savagery is Jack. Conclusion: What I did in this debate was prove that the literary elements of this book that describe the violent nature of the children are as a direct result of the actions of Jack. Jack plays the role of the Lord of the Flies in this book and there is no refuting that. I did use compelling evidence from the book and personal interpretation to do this. In round two the basis for my opponent was talking about "the beast." As anyone will tell you the Lord of the Flies and the mythical beast are two different elements of the book all together. With all do respect, this shows me that my opponent does not have a strong understanding of the novel at hand. My opponent also goes on to say several times that I have not done my job stating that the Lord of the Flies is a physical entity. This is simply false, I proved Jack, a physical character of the book, was the Lord of the Flies on the island. Thank you.
This site for free poetry is great as theNational Library of Australia says it is of cultural value

my argument for "this site for free poetry is great" is "the National Library of Australia says it is of cultural value" how much more do you need for a free poetry site to be great than it is consider to be of cultural value by a National Library also 1) gamahucher press is being preserved is a great thing -because the work will be free -for download for ever 2) how many publisher press give all their works away for free and if some do this is great but I bet gamahucher press is only one of a few 3) ihttp://pandora.nla.gov.au... you will see that gamahucher press is considered by the National Library of Austral to be of cultural value note the guidelines says "In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection" "recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge" be on a subject of ..., cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia " "4.1 Australian content 4.1.1 To be selected for national preservation, a significant proportion of a work should be about Australia (7); or be on a subject of social, political, cultural, religious, scientific or economic significance and relevance to Australia and be written by an Australian author; or be written by an Australian (8) of recognised authority and constitute a contribution to international knowledge. 4.1.2 It may be located on either an Australian or an overseas server. Australian authorship or editorship alone is insufficient grounds for national preservation. In the case of online publications, content is the pre-eminent factor determining selection
Anime v Cartoon

By anime I mean Japanese created cartoons.This deate was supposed to be, which was better in terms of strength. But I'm sure anime would still win if we were talking about, intelligence or which one was more smarter. Anime characters are intelligent in their own ways and I'm sure the same thing goes for cartoons.There are smart and intelligent characters like, LELOUCH FROM CODE GEASSThe genius prince with the ability to change the world. Lelouch has insane tactical, military, scientific, analytical and deductive reasoning abilities. Lelouch was able to lead a large military organization, Black Knights, against the government and eventually lead the entire world. Lelouch is also extremely persuasive, he can convince people to follow him and he is also very deceptive able to hide his Geass from even his closest friends. Lelouch is also adept technically with his ability to pilot a Knightmare. Lelouch also changed the entire world into a greater place by executing his greatest plan, Zero Requiem. His only setback is Geass, he used a magic power to manipulate people instead of his sheer charisma and persuasive skillsGREAT TEACHER ONIZUKAThis girl is crazy, she is a prodigy child with an IQ of over 200! She is so intelligent that she doesn't even need to go to school, she speaks 5 different languages and to top it off is only 14. When Kanzaki is at school she can manipulate people with ease and carries out classroom terrorism without ever being suspected. Her reasoning, logic, problem solving, manipulation, charisma are off the charts and no one has ever made her mad and escape unharmed. Kanzaki continually shows she is smarter then everyone by effortlessly finding solutions to problems, cruel as those solutions may be they are effective. Kanzaki uses her insane genius to torment others mainly for her own enjoyment, she can do whatever she wants and no one can punish her because she is the prodigy of the school. Kanzaki is surprisingly the only girl on the list, though her terrifying genius is not one to mess with.I'm sure there are plenty of cartoon characters that are also smart and intelligent in their own ways, but not more intelligent than anime characters.[Sources]http://skyview.vansd.org...http://aminoapps.com...http://aminoapps.com...
Anime v Cartoon

Round 1 = Acceptance onlyRound 2 = Opening ArgumentsRound 3-4 = Rebuttals/Counter ArgumentsWho is better, anime or cartoon?If the two came together and had an all out war, who would win? I'll be fighting for anime, saying it'll definitely win against cartoons.Rules - Can throw in any cartoon/anime character dead or alive- Respect my opinion and Ill respect yours
Anime v Cartoon

Your character examples are ants compared to anime characters.Kaguya (from anime series, Naruto)Kaguya is an extraterrestrial being from from outer-space. Kaguya is able to travel trough dimensions, teleport, create portals, use the moon against everyone on planet earth, create beings. She also has the power to see what moves an opponent will do and sense when something evil is about to harm her. Kaguya is so powerful that, by herself, can make dimensions and travel through them in a split second. Kaguya is an actual Goddess, She's very very powerfulSasuke (Also from Naruto)Sasuke has the ability to put you in another world just by looking at his eyes. Sasuke is a fearless character that uses his sharingan (magical and infamous eyes), is able to summon demon skeletal spirits that protect and fight with him. Sasuke can also breath fire out of his mouth, form a dangerous electrical sphere that is used to kill enemies(chidori), teleport, summon black fire that burns people(cannot be extinguished), he also has perfect accuracy when throwing knives or ninja starsSaitama (from anime series, One Punch Man)Able to travel at extreme speed. Can make an enemy explode with one punch.Anime would beat cartoon in a war anytime, anywhere, any day.[Sources]https://www.quora.com...
Anime v Cartoon

Alright, I will admit, those characters are very powerful in their own rights. However, few compare to: [Superman] Superman at his most powerful can pretty much do anything. Superman Prime 1 Million is on an entirely different level. Superman's travels lasted from the 21st Century to the turn of the 700th Century. During this 679 century odyssey, he acquired vast abilities and skills from every being he met and gained perfection over all the abilities he received. He even broke through the Source Wall and studied under the Source itself, meaning he could have a portion of the Source's power or more. The true extent of abilities he received from the Source are unknown. When he returned to Earth, he forged a covenant with his descendants. In this conenant, he would bestow upon them a small fraction of his power as long as they served for truth and justice. He also gained the abilities of his lineage and magnified them with his own power (for example, the Superman of the 67th century married the queen of the 5th Dimension, GZNTPLZK, which in turn gave Superman Prime the abilities and powers of a 5th Dimension Imp). After the covenant he left and returned to his Fortress of Solitude in the center of the Super Sun. (DC One Million) Source: http://superman.wikia.com...(One_Million) For intelligence, though: [Stewie] Aside from legitimately creating the Universe in Family Guy, he also has done many, many other feats that are to this day; impossible. He has created a time machine, which, by reverse engineering it, he used to create the Universe. He has built the Holodeck from Star trek. Has a room that defies all space, being bigger than it should be on the inside (although that may be an oversight). Need him to eliminate someone? Snipe the weaker ones from far away. Needs to take out someone like Goku? Build a death ray to destroy him. He may not be the most physically powerful person there is. But since Stewie is a baby, of all things, when he grows up, he most likely will be much, much smarter. Source: Family Guy.
homeschooling

Con forfeits.I will post my arguments.1. Can't affordSome reasons are that we just can't do stuff and go into regular schools. You might not have money. You might hate everything except for math. You might hate interacting with other people. No one is forcing people to all go to homeschooling, but you can and it should not be banned. Homeschooling kids can be people who can't afford or be like an average kid. Maybe you are too smart.2. Better TeachingThe quality of teaching will probably be better. You can use tutors or go to academies also. Homeschooling's definition is to not learn at school. Many people believe that they don't know how to teach. However they will be better in these reasons. First of all, the teachers don't care of your progress. They only get you for one year. It is not really important if they have you in your class or not. They do not really care what they do because they are not the baby and son, and gets no credit if they do good things for that child. They will teach like nothing. However these parents want the son to be better at everything and get a better job, so they will do anything to afford him or her.Second of all, you have more time teaching. School is limited. However you can teach always at home. Third of all, you can go more places like to more field trips and learn.3. Hang outYou have more time to hang out with your family. It is important to be friends and be hanging out with your family.Thank you.
Kevin Bacom would make an excellent Muhammad

Ok, but check this out: Let's say you HAD to choose an actor. It would have to be Kevin Bacon, right? Or, at the very least, you've got to say that there's no one could do the role more justice. I totally understand your religious beliefs about not depicting him, but, seriously, if someone had to be Muhammad, it's got to be the Kevster. The comment section is totally on my side on this one, except for that guy who brought up Liam Neeson. I don't know where people get off saying Liam Neeson would be a better Muhammad than Kevin Bacon, but that sort of thing is really uncalled for and needs to stop. Be the change you want to see in the world is what I believe in. And that's why I got to go with Kevin Bacon. Also, Kevin Bacon would be a great Confucius, the famous Chinese sage and founder of Confucianism. Imagine my man, Kevin Baconator, saying lines like these: "With coarse rice to eat, with water to drink, and my bended arm for a pillow;-I have still joy in the midst of these things. Riches and honors acquired by unrighteousness, are to me as a floating cloud." CINEMA MAGIC!!!
Kevin Bacom would make an excellent Muhammad

Making a movie about a religious person is not bad but if it is about any prophet I should say that no one should be chosen to represent that prophet, specially if it is a movie about prophet Mohamed (PBUH). As for Kevin Bacon I should say that he is one of the best actors of all time but even he is not eligible to act as prophet Mohamed. My belief is that no one can ever act as any prophet. About the points you stated prophet Mohamed is not ruthless in handling his enemies, does not want to take women as captives and is not irresistible to women. First you should study about his lifetime so that you have appropriate knowledge about him and than think of making a movie about him.
Kevin Bacom would make an excellent Muhammad

Ok, here's my points: 1. Age = Kevin Bacon is, right now, aged to perfection to play the role of the Prophet Muhammad during Muhammad's pivotal years. 2. Complexion = He's got the right about of wrinkle texture which mimicks the skin corrosion of Arabian sand-winds and Sun, yet it is not so weathered as to make him seem too old or corroded. His skin strikes the right balance of outer chaos with inner glow, mirroring the martial/mystic/romantic aspects of Muhammad's life. The only other actor who comes close to this in terms of skin tone is Mark Wahlberg, but Mark is much too young and muscular to play Muhammad. 3. Nose = he has a sincere nose, with the nostrils turned outward rather than downward, as if to say, "Come to me, and hear this message I have to say. " Very few people have this nasal structure and, when considering actors to play Muhammad, we should keep this in mind. I know a lot of people don't think the direction that nostrils point in is all that important, but, seriously, when is the last time you saw a nose like Kevin Bacon's? The only one I can think of is that one Dixie Chick (the short one who looks like she bosses the other two around). 4. Eyes = his eyes are at once intimidating, soulful, heroic and sad. Need I say more? Didn't think so. Clearly my opponent must concede this point if he has any integrity. 5. Acting ability = This is where it gets tricky. I've distilled the different elements and aspects of Muhammad's prophetic career and broken them down into Kevin Bacon films. a. Speaking truth to power, fighting against the norm: Footloose (1984, staring Kevin Bacon) b. Stalwart military commander and general: Tremors (1990, staring Kevin Bacon) c. Desire to take women captive: Trapped (2002, staring Kevin Bacon) d. Transformation from mild-mannered carpet salesman to founder of world religion: Death Sentence (2007, staring Kevin Bacon) e. Basic kindliness and good-humor: The Air Up There (1994, staring Kevin Bacon) f. Ability to perceive supernatural realities: Stir of Echoes (1999, staring Kevin Bacon) g. Ability to hold up under pressure and trying circumstances: Apollo 13 (1995, staring Tom Hanks) h. Ruthless handling of enemies and dissidents: Hollow Man (2000, Staring Elisabeth Shue) i. Irresistability to all women: Crazy, Stupid, Love (2011, Staring Ryan Gosling) j. Total conman: Telling Lies in America (1997, 'Billy Magic' played by Kevin Bacon) There's some more movies I can bring up, but I think I made my point. Clearly, Kevin Bacon has all that it takes to play the part. He's good guy, bad guy, poet, warrior, ladies man, mystic, etc. all rolled into one, just like the Muhammad. Someone brought up Liam Neeson in the comment section, but there's no way in heck they could get into Neeson's filmography and pull out such versatility as I have here. Trust me, I've thought this through way harder than you folks realize. The Con certainly has their work cut out for them now. Not only must they overpower my Samurai-esque logical swordsmanship, but they've also got to present an actor who would do better than Kevin Bacon as Muhammad, as I stated in my opening arguments.
Kevin Bacom would make an excellent Muhammad

Ok, so here's the scoop: Sooner or later, Hollywood is going to make a Muhammad movie. It's going to happen. The question is who are they going to get to play Muhammad? I've thought long and hard over this issue, and here is my conclusion: Kevin Bacon. He, indisputably, would make the perfect Muhammad. Like, in every way, he's perfect for the job. I think this is obvious to most people, but I'm open to hear some criticisms of it. No other actor holds even a candle to him. Not even close. The burden of proof is on the Con to show that Kevin Bacon isn't up to the job. And not only that, but they've got to point to an actor who would do better. You can rebut in round one. Final round is for closing statements. If you think you lost, CONCEDE. Don't be a coward and forfeit.