BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
DDO Official Tournament 2: That prostitution should be legalised

May the best man win. Now I'll summaries why I won. Prostitution will still happenProstitution will always happen, but what my opponent fails to see is that my side on this is that if legalized then Sex Trafficking will increase and prostitutes still won't be safe, so since my opponent has failed to see my points you can flow the debate over to Con. SafetyMy opponent is blind as a bat when it comes to seeing my points he comes out and says if legalized prostitutes will be safe however I stated that prostitutes are going to wipe out the world by spreading AIDs and by voting Pro you are voting for your own death just because you want some sex on the side. Actually my source is telling the truth, because it talks about both Pros and Cons of the private sector and one of the Pros state that they get better protection/ coverage so therefore this argument can be flowed to the Cons side of things. Role of state. He is his exact wording of his quote on this debate in the PM, "That way you don't tie it down to any given jurisdiction, but the resolution broadly implies that prostitution is illegal in that place in the status quo. I think what this debate shouldn't be about the role of government and the effects of prostitution, and this way of framing the topic ensures that. " on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 @ 10:29:20 PM. So by this he goes back on his promise and by just this you should vote Con for him breaking his promise and you can pretend this argument never happened. TraffickingMy opponent ignores my source from round 2 that states people are buying people and smuggling people to the U. S. and force them into Sex Trafficking. . http://www.wsfa.com...,I would just like to clear things up I didn't state that trafficees should be arrested I stated that they should be questioned and used as evidence in court then returned home with some cash in their pocket. STDsI believe this is the most important part of the debate and Pro is just kicking it to the curb. I brought up an impact and as the Pro it is his job to prove me worn and after one solo attempt to disprove me, but his source was outdated by mine so my argument here still stands. So In conclusion,Vote Pro and you may get sex at every corner, but you'll have AIDs and die and the world will become extintic, because of you. So Vote Con. Feed Lannan13 more. .. Feed Lannan13 more. .. Feed Lannan13 more. ..
DDO Official Tournament 2: That prostitution should be legalised

Rules are as for all the debates in this tournament (including the fact that this is an acceptance round). I doubt there will be serious definitional issues in this debate. The topic is not tied to any specific jurisdiction. Prostitution is exchanging some kind of sexual service for currency. Legalised means the government makes it legal to do it. It is presumed that prostitution is not currently legal. I will be affirming that prostitution ought to be legal.
Angels raped people's daughters.

Let me remind you,you did not post verse 8 on its entirety and also omitted the surrounding text, I think in order to support your claim. Also, please note that verses 1 through 7 are missing, the rest of verse 8 is missing, and 9 to 10 are missing. The ridiculous thing is that you have made accusations of "dishonest in your interpretations." As of yet I have not attempted to interpret the text. All I am askings is for you to post the ENTIRE text so the reader can at least read it and draw their own opinion regarding your claim.
Angels raped people's daughters.

The validity of your contextomy accusation does not move the validity of my claim one inch back. It just buys you time. Would you offer your virgin daughters as trade tools to ANYONE, in exchange of ANYTHING (especially the protection of men)? If the answer is NO, you disagree with this text. If the answer is YES, I rest my case regarding the extremes of delusion that the parties of god are willing to reach in order to not disrupt the sold script. I'm sure then you would kill your son for not offering the "right" sacrifice. Or ask a servant to kill his son as proof of loyalty. Bloodshed, money, violence, mass killings... is there NOT better language to sell love. Call me ignorant all you want, you represent a sect that diminishes in proportion of the general exposure to information. Coincidence? Nah.
Angels raped people's daughters.

I will show that the angel's raped peoples' daughters using the bible. Genesis 19:8 "Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please." If that doesn't imply an involuntary sexual exchange between angels and earthlings, get off the philosophical bandwagon and fall back in the ranks of the sheep. You are dishonest in your interpretations and more inclined to play a pretentious role than to arrive to any logical conclusion unless it sits well with your income generating theory.
Angels raped people's daughters.

None of this stuff does humanity any good, at any interpretation they're no more than children stories. Indeed, I understand that certain contemporary cultural pillars, be it religious rhetoric and/or a colossally flawed judicial system, can sustain a lifetime of academic formation and entire careers of studies that focus more on the maintenance of a perspective than any openness to real possibilities (thus the constant clash of religion vs science, which has brought YOU and I this far, to name a few). Not to mention that your personal trajectory, for which you have personal vested interest in, plays no role in identifying truth for humanity. god-sent angels that find themselves in such atrocious scenarios amongst primitive minded humans are polarized concepts.
Angels raped people's daughters.

Genesis 19:4-10 "4.Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. 5.They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." 6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him 7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. 8. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don't do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof. 9. "Get out of our way," they replied. "This fellow came here as a foreigner, and now he wants to play the judge! We'll treat you worse than them." They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. 10. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door." It looks like you are changing your original claim "Angels raped peoples daughters" and now have a new claim? The issue was never about the wording "angels vs men." The actual questions that I raised to you was "Who is Lot speaking to?" in order to get a clear understanding about your claim. But now you raise a new claim. Your new claim is irrelevant to the current conversation and what I can see, is that you are practicing the "Moving the Goal Posts Fallacy." Please note that what I mean by "irrelevant" is NOT that your new claim should NOT be addressed, but that it has nothing to do with the your current topic/original claim and has no place in this particular conversation, but, it could be addressed in a future one, separately.
Angels raped people's daughters.

How can you consider this statement to be true or even that it flow logically in regards your original claim? "Here's my interpretation, which differs from my original, yet my claim still stands…" Reminders: a) You opened by accusing whoever took you on of being "dishonest in … interpretations." Note there is still NO interpretation offered for the text by me. b) I did ask for the entire text to be posted so the reader can come to their own conclusion. But, we do find you offering an "interpretation," without posting the entire text, excluding the reader from having a chance to see if your "interpretation" is accurate. IF I was the reader, I would like to actually read the text before concluding that your claim is accurate. c) Your original claim: "Angels rapped people's daughters." How can you state the following: "…my interpretation, which differs from my original..., yet my claim still stands"? How can your original claim "still stand" when in the same sentence you say that your "interpretation" "differs from the original.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive..

You previously said, "students are basically powerless" which in some cases could prove true. However, this has nothing to do with the banking concept, instead, it has to do with the teacher and the way they choose to do their job. Without the banking concept of education, students will be subject to favoritism and special treatment which, in some cases could be beneficial. But, this will overall cause inequality in the classrooms and causes oppression to occur for the students who perhaps do not receive equal treatment from their teachers. Hirsch once stated, "It is the background information, stored in their minds, that enables them to take up a newspaper and read it with an adequate level of comprehension, getting the point, grasping the implications..."(1.3) This explains that the teachers simply provide a series of information that every person should know. The banking concept is the only way to achieve full equality in schools and is in fact not oppressive because the teachers are simply providing things that every person should know.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive..

Oppression can be defined as the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner. In the case of education, a teacher should not be looked upon as a tyrant or person of extreme power or authority. With the Banking Concept of Education, students are basically powerless and are faced with a teacher or in this case, emotionless character of knowledge who's responsible for forcing information into students brains for the purpose of regurgitating on command. By doing so, students are deprived of the chance to look and analyze information they are given in detail and are denied the opportunity to apply the information into real life situations and seeing how the information functions within society. A strong enemy of the Banking System of Education is Paolo Freire, who fights for the idea problem-posing education in order to ignite students critical thinking. Freire states, "Whereas banking education anesthetizes and inhibits creative power, problem-posing education involves a constant unveiling of reality. The former attempts to maintain the submersion of consciousness; the latter strives for the emergence of consciousness and critical intervention in reality."
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive..

You previously asked, "How is a student who does not understand something going to understand it if they are not able to ask questions and create a correlation between the classroom and the real world?" In the banking concept of education, they simply memorize common information that is used as "background" information. After they understand and memorize this info they are usually able to relate it to the real world situations they are in. Whether or not you agree with this concept of education, it is not oppressive. To label it as such is simply stubborn because we have not experienced it. How could the demonstration of equality in the classroom be called oppression, this is impossible. The point of the banking concept is not to oppress the student but to teach them. The only difference here is that they are being taught the same information at the same pace.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive..

You stated, "A huge portion of the school experience is relating to your peers and this could be lost without the banking concept of education." How can you relate to your peers who know the same things you do yet neither one of you understand them. When one things of social relations, it is not in the fact that you both know that 2+2=4 but yet why does 2+2=4, where does the 4 come from, how did you get from 2 to now having 4. The essential thing with information is not only knowing it, but knowing how to apply it. The Banking Concept of Education DOES teach students similar bits of information, but does not allow for students to understand what that information means and how they can use it. They are oppressed in the sense that they are not able to allow for appliance of the information and the ability to ask questions and express themselves and/or views on bits of information. Rather, they are told to sit down, listen and do not speak. How is a student who does not understand something going to understand it if they are not able to ask questions and create a correlation between the classroom and the real world. This type of educational system does not allow students to call upon the vast functions of their brain such as social communication, interpretation of material, application of material and comprehension of material, thus proving the Banking System of Education to be oppressive to the mind of the student.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive..

Although you say "The real focus here should be that students are not stimulated in the sense of comprehension and critical thinking of material." that is unfortunately, not the point of this debate. I am simply arguing that the banking concept of education is not oppressive to the students because of the equality it promotes. Hirsch goes on to say that, "Our children can learn this information only by being taught it. Shared literate information is deliberately sustained by national systems of education in many countries because they recognize the importance of giving their children a common basis for communication."(6.2) Each student needs common ground to learn from. If there is not common knowledge between the students, they will not be able to relate to each other and it will potentially have an effect on their social skills. It is best that they are taught the same things at the same time so that they are able to learn together. A huge portion of the school experience is relating to your peers and this could be lost without the banking concept of education.
The Banking Concept of Education is Oppressive..

"Without the banking concept of education, students will be subject to favoritism and special treatment" that was a brief excerpt from your last statement. Is it not true that not matter what the teaching style, teachers are bound to pick favorites? Human emotion is a factor in any subject area, especially teaching, allowing for favoritism, therefore your argument is invalid and favoritism and special treatment are a possibility in any educational system. The real focus here should be that students are not stimulated in the sense of comprehension and critical thinking of material. In the Banking Concept of Education as stated by Freire, "The teacher talks about reality as if it were motionless, static, compartmentalized, and predictable. Or else he expounds on a topic completely alien to the existential experience of the students. His task is to "fill" the students with the contents of his narration-contents which are detached from reality, disconnected from the totality that engendered them and could give them significance. Words are emptied of their concreteness and become a hollow, alienated, and alienating verbosity." Therefore, students learn information but do not know how to use it or apply it.
Poetry Debate

Great round!Just another Sometimes I wonder, If I’m just another gift to buy on my birthday and Christmas; Just another roguish student in an already full class; Just another person you have to say hello and be nice to; Just another person to get information through; Just another person to house and feed; Just another person to let breathe. Sometimes I think people think, Just another person to ask who, what and why; Just another person who wants to make a difference; Just another person who tries to see everyone’s significance; Just another person producing CO2; Just another person who wants to try; Just another one in a million, But just another one gallant enough to actually make the difference. -AnnieOnto you Brian!
Poetry Debate

Thanks again, Esocial. My next Poem is entitled: "Mrs. Tesoros's Things." Mrs. Tesoros lives next door. Every time I go inside her house, to check in on her, she smiles, and tells me her stories. Her house is a collection of stories. The teddy bear on the shelf her son's first toy. They were inseparable, following each other every where they went. The tin box on the mantelpiece-- she kept her photos in there. She got the box at a market in Vienna, the day she met her husband. The wedding ring on her finger. Her husband froze and couldn't get the words out when he gave her that. She said yes anyway. Love is love. The ceramic bowl on her coffee table. Her husband made that. His finger prints can be seen vaguely imprinted in the long-dried clay. He was dead now, but she remembered how proud he was of everything he made for her: the bowl, the house, and many other things. The yellow tassel in the picture frame on the wall. Her boy graduated Valedictorian from college many years ago now. Chemistry major, brilliant scientist. He did so well. Mrs. Tesoros's things were her stories. And I loved to hear them. She made her life come alive, and you just felt the happiness inside her. I came to see her today. No stories today. She sold her stories-- the tin box, the wedding ring, the ceramic bowl, the yellow tassel --she said that she had been left with all these stories, these treasures, but no money to live with. The bank didn't realize the stories were more valuable than money. I looked around Mrs. Tesoros's house. None of those precious things, those wonderful stories remained. It looked so empty. I looked at Mrs. Tesoros, and so did she.
Poetry Debate

Great round to bsh, (who almost made me concede the debate right there. xD) That said, my poem is entitled With Me, and deals with the finding of one’s identity and having faith in oneself, despite all the deceptive factors out there. It also deals with the conflict of grasping one’s religious perspective, and holding on to it- which ties into the theme of identity (religious identity.) The minor theme of isolation helps to build into the theme of identity and faith because the person is trying to find herself, when alone mentally and spiritually (but surrounded by people), and believe in herself and her capabilities. The poem ends with the persona finding consolation in her religious deity, and or herself- her conscience; however you would like to perceive it. With Me I have little space to me, Yet I wish for you to be closer. I feel all alone, Yet I am surrounded by all corners. I hear so many comments and consolations, Yet I thirst for a kind word. So many hands reach out to my assistance, Yet I can’t feel them in this world. So many smiles and friends, Yet I wish for someone to talk to, to make me smile and to laugh with. So many different colours and trends, Yet I blend into every wall and carpet. So I open My Book and hug it to my chest, And I feel a spark, and a tear escapes. In these moments, I feel so blessed, For all that I have today. Sitting all alone, I feel the silence as my friend, Around me like a band. No one around with a shoulder, or to pretend Yet I feel a soothing weight on my hand. No one around for hugs, Yet I feel myself, with love smothered. No need for slicing or drugs* No need to anymore be bothered. When all those comments, get me down, You whisper in my ear and keep me on the ground. Because you are always in my mind when I zone-out, I know I’ll never be alone now. -Annie Hope you all enjoyed my poem, and good luck to you further Brian!
Poetry Debate

Thanks to Annie for this Debate! On to my first Poem. It's entitled: "Stairs." You fall and the ground comes flying up into you and you can't breath. Except you didn't fall. Two hands had come up behind you and pushed. You look up the stairway. Each step that had bruised you as you fell-- ramming into like a knife. The words they had called you: not much different from the stairs. No less cutting. No less painful. You try to reassemble, to find your self-esteem, your pride, your soul. Amidst the spilled blood around you at the bottom of the knife-like stairs. Those stairs, those words-- they chopped those things up beyond recognition-- what use were they to you anymore. You discard them-- keep them only if you want to watch as they get shredded more. You know you will never be safe there again. You are nothing. You are a ball to be kicked, tossed down stairs deflated, punctured; all grim hilarious, amusement. You know that if you ever look for your self-esteem, your pride, your soul, you will not find them. At least not here. They're lost. And, it doesn't bother you that they are because you lost your feeling too-- those stairs numbed you. And you thank those stairs for their perverse gift. You walk up those stairs: late for class, bloodied. You look at the ground, and forget to remember what you lost. You don't want to remember; you might not be numb if you do. Knives aren't so bad, if you don't feel them. Are they?
Poetry Debate

PrefaceSince I haven't been able to tie Annie down on doing a debate on the importance of love and romance, this'll have to do ;) It should fun and relaxing for both of us. I hope the readers (and the debaters) enjoy it!About the DebateThis debate will be a debate about poetry. Each of us will select a theme, and write or select poems (as dictated by the round-by-round rules) that is in keeping with this theme. By "theme" I mean I broad motif or central idea that pervades, characterizes, or defines a piece of literature; examples include "love," "nature," or "growing up."Judges should adjudicate the round on the quality of the pieces we wrote, the quality of our analysis of the pieces we didn't write, and our adherence to our stated theme throughout. We should both select different themes. If a judge feels that a given theme really isn't a "theme," they may factor that in as well.Annie cannot accept until 10:00pm, DDO time, on Nov. 8th. Acceptance before that time merits an automatic 7-point loss.StructureR1. Acceptance, Declare a ThemeR2. Both Debaters Write Original PiecesR3. Both Debaters Write Original PiecesR4. Both Debaters Write Original PiecesR5. Both Debaters post a poem by someone else and write a 1,500 character (or fewer) analysis of the poemRules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate (poems other than our own must be cited with outside links)3. All poems must be fully and completely typed out within the text of the debate; no attempts to obviate the character limit should be permitted4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. Violation of or noncompliance with any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a 7-point lossThanks......again to Esocial. It'll be a fun one :)[My Theme will be "Loss."]