BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Battle

Title: Valley of Dry Bones If this was just a trick It must've happened real quick. No-one thought it could actually be But it's true, the Spirit of the Lord did come upon me. The Mysterious Hand set me down in a valley, With bones and more bones, where nothing seemed happy Because everything was sad, plain, dead; And we walked around awhile (though it was mostly He who led). He asked, "Son of Man, can these bones come alive?" I replied, "O Lord God, I cannot answer with my own eyes." He began walking, in between shouts, "I will give skin, breath, and the bones will live. Then everyone will know--everyone will believe. Prophesy, Ezekiel, tell them to breathe." So I did, so it happened - there was a rumble and a shake - Can you imagine? the bones formed together, up from the dry lake. I looked into the Lord's face, saw a sign of desperation And an expression that told me that this was quite an operation. He probably wanted this to be world-wide famous, His goal was to keep evil from getting blamed on me (us). The next things that happened were this: The fog from sudden breath made it feel like bliss And there was skin that came upon them The whole house of Israel was what it resembled. God said, "I will open your graves and rise you up And once in Israel, you'll hold your hands like a cup And I will fill you with the Holy Spirit of Life." alas, I so wanted to say: "Hooray! We"ll live with the power of God at our sides like a knife."
Poetry Battle

Cry of the righteous "Why are my people grieving as if they are stuck in a strange land, as with no Temple? Why are my people waiting in isolation where these magnificent buildings proudly stand? Where are the consecrated Temple walls and halls of sacred beauty? We are being struck down, as the grip of Hellenization grows ever stronger Our brothers and sisters suffer under the weight of carrying the name of our God in their hearts in the face of a superior civilization We fight to preserve the Word of the Lord, wage a war as we ride against tyranny where the idols of self-ambitious men strongly stand to consume the world in Greek philosophy But, our will to fight for our God is ever stronger for it is empowered by his Spirit How much more must our prophets be put in shackles? How much more shall we allow ourselves to be mocked as our pastors are bribed by silver and gold? I will lift up my eyes to the hills of Zion, where my king of kings dwells among the nations In the face of adversity and blasphemy, i will raise my sword in battle to wage war just as Israel did in the ancient of days against those who seek to devour my soul in an all-consuming darkness The Temple of Jerusalem lays in ruins as mockers say "Where is your God?" "Where is the greatness, the monuments of your people?" The heathen turn and forget God, their ears become deaf and dumb, their mouths become void of fruitfulness and full of deceit, agony, arrogance, slandering the name of the almighty I long to see Babylon, the treacherous, the abominable, and detestable, the harlot who had defiled the world in her iniquities and crimes against humanity I am ever so more eager to once more dwell in the heavenly realms where Jerusalem is restored Where my soul finally lays down in rest beneath the glory of the holy one of Israel "
Poetry Battle

Title: "Motherly Love" Gives you a hug when you need it most Lets you talk with sadness or a boast A shoulder to cry on with tears, happy or sad Alas, there are many ways to cry but with Mother not one is bad When you have someone to rely on and are cared for too Life isn't so hard, depressing, or blue Where does this beautiful emotion come from Nothing is more welcoming than a home with guest beds and then some Like pastures of green and color, where the wind abides and clouds give shelter Take in a delicious and free breath of love mixed with protection from a mother Yet know that earthly things pass away; they will dry out and wither quickly That includes any family members who's love is unending, seemingly Because everything dies except emotion, memory, and legend This is where you depend on God to be your mother and best friend! Loving, caring, hardworking and sin-bearing Helpful and kind, that's who my Mother is in my mind Mother or Father - either one works for me God's traits are the same so in my life God will be!
Quote Debates are actual debates

I am afraid to say real life has caught up with my debating here, and I do not have much time to post. ==PRO:== The quotes function in the same way as arguments, backing up pro or con to the resolution (Nickoboy1992 has better quotes than I-am-panda). Thus, this is the second place quote debates function as debates. ==REBUTTAL:== The comparison you showed of: "Actual debate: Resolution ---> Argument" Quote debate Resolution ----> Quotes Actually backs up my claim. As long as I can prove: Quotes =/= Argument of Actual Debate My opponents argument is void. ==PRO:== first i would say look to the one round debates on debate.org, there is no rebuttal in those and they are debates, all a debate is is a set of conflicting claims used to convince an audience of one side or another. Secondly i would say the rubuttal is the next round of quotes to prove why one sides quotes ARE better than another. Finally i would say that this is not true as all i have to do is provide a larger impact. For example the argument earlier about the snow storm would have been a debate even though the impacts were not weighed. Sure it would be a nightmare for the judges but it is still a debate. Finally i would tell you such explicit weighing is only the mark of a good debater, not a necessary function in a debate. Ask any debate coach - there are debates in which one side completely disregards the other and asserts an impact without weighing. ==REBUTTAL:== 1) There are one round debates with rebuttal. Some are used purely to test someone's argument for an upcoming debate. 2) You are basically saying: Quotes without explanation= Rebuttal However, if I say blue is better than green because blue looks like the sea, and you respond with geen is like a leaf, it is not refuting my claim about blue being like the sea. Rebuttal requires the debater to attack their opponents claim. ==PRO:== Can functionally means this argument is not nesisary for a debate. They dont have to be there meaning we dont have to look at this argument when determining if quote debates are actual debates. ==REBUTTAL:== Debates don't necessarily have contradictions, but they are actively involved (especially in online debates). The lack of contradictions distances quote debates from actual debates. ==CONCLUSION:== I only have 5 minutes left, so I will conclude that: - A resolution is not an assumed argument, therefore quote debates have no argument. - A quote debate lacks rebuttal through the lack of explanation in regards to why one quote is better than the other. - A quote debate cannot facilitate a contradiction. I urge a CON vote.
Quote Debates are actual debates

To start, we must define each debate that is mentioned. Quote Debate: A debate where the participants post the best quotes they can find, sometimes regarding a theme (E. G. War, humour) Regular Debate: A debate where the participants try to win using an argument that is logical and makes more sense than their opponents. =========== CON ARGUMENT =========== ==#1. QUOTE DEBATES LACK CHARACTERISTICS OF REGULAR DEBATES== A) Quote debates lack an argument: - A regular debate requires the participants to find an argument that is logically superior to their opponents. A quote debate lacks such a characteristic, as all that is required is for the participants is to find the best quote they can. An argument can require looking at many sources, and stringing them together to make a strong case. On the other hand, you merely have to post a quote you found from a book or website. B) Quote debates lack rebuttal & contradictions - A regular debates often require the participants to find holes in their opponents logic, and use it to weaken their opponents case. This is called a rebuttal. They can also find a statement which goes against something else they mention. This is called a contradiction. They make debates more interesting and logical. A quote debate has neither of these. This is all I will post for now, and I await my opponents response.
Social media is the main cause of decadence in today's society

I accept this challenge and will demonstrate in step by step fashion the immediate moral decay that the use of social media has caused, and that its influence is so severe as to easily be found to be the primary cause of our current state. I also understand that Con has a typo in their opening remark, that being: "My equally demanding burden will be to prove that social media has played a bigger role than all the other factors." This is a duplicate of my burden, however hold harmless such a typo, and expected it to read: "My equally demanding burden will be to prove that social media hasn't played a bigger role than all the other factors."With that, I look forward to Con's opening series of arguments.
Social media is the main cause of decadence in today's society

This debate is primarily based on the role social media has played in leading to a decrease in moral and ethical standards.My argument is that social media has played a part in decadence but it is not necessarily the main factor.My opponent,whoever chooses to accept this debate, will have to prove that social media has played a bigger role than all other factors.My equally demanding burden will be to prove that social media has played a bigger role than all the other factors. Allow me to provide a deeper insight into my argument. It is quite obvious that moral standards have suffered a significant decline. There are numerous factors that can account for this and social media is one of them. The question I strive to answer in this debate is "To what extent has social media led to decadence and can we fairly lay more blame on it than on other factors?" My answer to that is a resounding no! I will accentuate as well as shed more light on that as the debate progresses.
Social media is the main cause of decadence in today's society

-- I entreat the reading audience to look no further than "the Like". Or "The ReTweet" or "The Subscribe". And lastly. .. "The Selfie". Social media is by far one of the best ways to reach a wide audience for a function, to deliver simple instruction to mass recipients, and, more to the point, culture ever selfish interest in our nature. The prevalence of social media has enabled us to culture our vanity into validation through the almighty "Like". We have even developed products to enable ourselves to take pictures of ourselves with a greater ease. More over, what started out as simple narcissism soon blossomed into full fledged detriment to humanity: we wanted all our exploits filmed and broadcast while masquerading it around as "social experiments". I am sure, you in the reading audience knows what an "Arms Race" is. In the social media forum, we have a "Validation Race". That being some one will go to great lengths of depravity in which to publicize then receive validation for their immorality. The prevalence (no matter how small) of the Knock Out Game is demonstration of this. How many times in the news have we seen criminals in the act of filming their crime AS THEY COMMIT THEM in order to later post their acts on line for some one to get them that good Ole Thumbs Up? This variety of phenomenon can be summed up in a few simple questions:Does anyone care what your food looks like? Then progress to. .. Why should anyone (aside from a husband or boyfriend) care about a woman twerking? With the exception of validation from your peers, why would you assault passerby and film it? This is the subtle escalation that social media has taken us on. In our desire to be pat on the back for shocking exploits, those taken in by social media will then do more shocking things with the hopes of achieving more likes. Because of this desensitization, the shocking, absurd, and immoral have become more and more common place. The permeation of the explicit has become the norm, thus decaying now all of society, not just the media aspects of it. It was hoping by now that my opponent would have revealed their side of the argument, however in light of last man standing, and an uncontested point of view, please, vote me. Oh, and in celebration of my victory. ..
Whether or not high school should be required education

First off, I stand corrected. My apologies. But to stay on topic my opponent states that you can learn valuable lessons in high school. Such as health and other career classes. As you can see these classes are not really necessary. As an example, Health class lessons can be simply learned at home, or in from fellow citizens. The point is why spend more money on things that can be taught at home? And to come back to my arguement, High school should be optional. If students were to choose if they didnt want an education, then students who do want an education will have classes with out disruptions or be influenced by those students. This would also improve high schools education and standards.
Whether or not high school should be required education

High school should not be required for education because most information taught to a student is from grades Kindergarden to 8th grade. That is 14 years of education. Especially since some students from high school dont even graduate, so what is the point of going an extra 4 yrs? High school should be an option for students who want to continue their education. Forcing students isnt a solution. But Instead, the solution is for the students to make life decisions that they will learn from as they mature. Therefore, high school should not be required.
The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality).part 2!

It may appear to the voter that thapeople has intentionally forfieted, but I think that we should keep in mind, that according to his profile, as of this post, he has not been online for 6 days. Therefore, I do not think this is the result of a lack of rebuttal. So I say to the voter to not vote based on the fact that he forfieted, but to vote on what has been presented in the rounds. Thank you for the debate, and if you want we can re-start this debate.
The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality).part 2!

Thank you, sir, for accepting my challenge, now on to your points… "I would have to 1st deny my existence" Could you please elaborate? I fail to see the correlation between morality and existence in of itself. Of course you EXIST, but you do not exist in the form of good nor bad; you just exist. "2nd I would have to deny society." Deny society…What? What are you denying society? I am afraid I do not understand. Deny society's existence? If I understand your argument right, then let me clarify something: This debate is not about the results of acting upon this belief; it is about whether it is true. "So "good" and "bad" are way more that illusions its part of our conscience and ability to reason that separates us from the rest of the world's inhabitants" Here is how that statement contradicts your side of this debate… You state that morality is a part of our conscience. The conscience is in our mind. If it ONLY exists in our mind, then it is, therefore, an illusion. It is true that fully embracing this belief in your way of life and living would perilize the continuation of blood running through your veins. However, I will repeat, it does not matter. There is no grand cause to anything. WE may not freely embrace this idea, however, because we have a mental block. WE do not have free will. And once more, this debate is not about the outcome of acting on these beliefs, it is about the validity of them. I challenge you, thapeople, to give a short, simple formula for whether something is good or bad. It must be universal, and it can't be full of exceptions to the rules and what not. A short universal formula to whether something is good or bad. It must apply to the whole world, to different extra terrestrials. A brain; a human; is just a physical object, a collection of particles. It can not sin, any more than a boulder can sin. The existence or occurrence of particles or movements of, can not be good or bad.
The categorizations of "Good" and "bad" are illusions and nothing more. (and so is morality).part 2!

To agree with you, I would have to 1st deny my existence. 2nd I would have to deny society. Both are every relevant aspects to day to day survival for humans. With out either my life is in danger. So "good" and "bad" are way more that illusions it's part of our conscience and ability to reason that separates us from the rest of the worlds inhabitants.
Women don't poop.

In 1859, Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers discovered a serum in human females' bodies that prevented them from producing fecal matter. This serum is today colloquially known as "cooties", but then it was known as "Serum No. 109". Now, of course, this produced a major backlash from the scientific community, who claimed that the experiment was flawed based on the fact that the experiment only tested a small test group of individuals. Scientists maintained this flawed mindset until the invention of the radio. When the radio was invented in the late 19th century, Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers was proven to be correct. You see, the frequency of the waves that females who used the device emitted actually decreased after two seconds after they started speaking, and by 5 seconds the frequency was so low that a man speaking would be practically inaudible. It was an extremely uncommon phenomenon, and it was barely recorded. This is why it is not known by many. Now, if the frequency was so low after 5 seconds, why were the women who used the device just as loud as men? The answer was discovered to be Serum No. 109 in 1987. This is the formula of Serum No. 109: g7*7^(r65)Hydrogen|x|+ 924Carbon g7*7 is a compound that is completely unknown to scientists. The only thing they know is that the unknown elements in the compound do two things: Prevent the production of fecal matter, and produce sound without increasing frequency. Further investigation is required by scientists, but they are almost ready to determine the identity of g7*7. Until then, all we can do is wait.
Women don't poop.

You have said that Anita Pea's was not reliable because she was one of Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers worst apprentices and was always asking for sexual favors. This I cannot disprove. But what I can prove is that a later very renowned scientist named Harry Nutt reviewed her findings and said, and this is quoting his exact words,"Anita Pea was not a very good scientist and one of Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers' worst subjects because she was a young woman and Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers was very attractive, so she, of course, was attracted to him. But as I looked through her papers of her experiments, I found out that even though she wasn't the sanest person in the world, her experiments were lucid and very hard to controvert. I, with the power granted in me as the most congratulated scientist of the late 20th century and winner of a Nobel Prize, say that Anita Pea's experiments are perfectly true. I even have conducted her experiments personally on my wife and find these all true" Now that is a very good argument right there. One of the greatest scientists of all time, Harry Nutt, says Anita's standings are true. I, of course, being a follower of Harry Nutt, have decided that women actually do poop in very microscopic strands that are as thin as hair through their tiny rectum. That is all that is needed because this fulfills the purpose that women do actually poop. It's just that it all comes out in small strands and the rest are distributed out throughout the body. Even though Pro said that "sweat and saliva are classified as fecal free substances by the agency of Fecal Study and Control", there are other ways of disposing of the fecal matter. Vote Con. I would also like to thank the reader, voters, and my opponent for reading this outrageously stupid topic. I also can say this debate has been a pleasure to participate in.
Women don't poop.

The first part of my rebuttal will consist of facts about the scientists pertaining to this debate. Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers: We both agree that this man was a renowned scientist. This alone is evidence to support my claim, and I will explain why later in my rebuttal. Until then, - What's this? Well, voters, it appears that Con has just sent me twenty pounds of his mothers pubic hair to my house. This is an outrageous conduct violation! Anyways, onto Anita Pea. The experiment you speak of has been proven to be flawed. First of all, Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers had many apprentices, and Anita Pea was one of his worst ones. In fact, he could barely teach her anything because she spent the majority of the time asking for sexual favors from him. She was far from a renowned scientist, and thus her work is not reliable. Now, as for the ovaries of women being responsible for the decrease in sound. This has been proven to be false, because ovaries are surrounded by Serum No. 110, also discovered by Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers. This serum has been proven to prevent ovaries from influencing frequency, so we are left to assume it is indeed Serum No. 109 that is doing this. Also, sweat and saliva are classified as fecal free substances by the agency of Fecal Study and Control. Vote Pro. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to thank the readers of this debate, the voters, and my opponent for putting up with my absolute lunacy. This debate has certainly been a pleasure to participate in.
Women don't poop.

I agree that Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers was a renowned scientist throughout the scientific world. He is most known for what you have stated, which is finding that human females are prevented by what is called cooties from producing fecal matter. But this fact has been proved wrong by only several billion females throughout the face of the earth. I myself have seen this female fecal matter inside of a toilet when my mother forgot to flush. But the fecal matter did not look anything like our fecal matter. This phenomenon I have seen was sort of brown and black and may just have been clumps of pubic hair that she had shaved recently. After all, I did try to open my parents door that night and noticed that it was uncommonly locked. This radio frequency that was shown to be Serum No. 109 may not have been cooties. It may just have been the ovaries inside of women. This theory is even less known that Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers'. This was a theory created by a disciple of Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers, and her name was Anita Pea. Anita Pea decided to test one day Sir ProstheticMcDickFingers' theory while using her own body as a specimen. She found out that this Serum No. 109 known today as cooties were actually not preventing women from producing fecal matter. It was actually their tiny rectum that prevented them from producing fecal matter. Once enlargened, Anita Pea noticed that for the first time in her life, fecal matter was produced out of her body. This is why people commonly think of women can't produce fecal matter. They can, but their rectum is too small for it to properly come out. Well, you may ask, where did the matter go before she enlarged her rectum? Well, Anita Pea researched that too, and found out that the fecal matter was distributed out among her body and disposed of other ways, like through sweat and saliva. Vote Con. I apologize to those who might have been offended by what is written in this joke debate, but I am a growing immature teenage boy, so please understand.