BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mimes ought to have a voice in Congress.

Something ought to be done. There ought to be a law. No taxation without representation. Or, something like that. There is a group of dedicated selfless people in our country who sadly, are entirely without a voice in our public affairs. Shamefully, while almost all other minorities, miners, and minors have their own lobbyists and Congressmen bought and paid for, there is a small group of law-abiding Americans who have absolutely no say in what gets done in politics. I am speaking, ladies and gentlemen, of the American Mime. These inoffensive and mild-mannered people have been the subjects of the most grievous discrimination possible. While all manner of racist jokes are prohibited from our halls of higher learning, and the sexist joke has been shunned for years, every philosophy class in our nation still uses the old saw: "If a tree falls on a mime in a forest, does he make a noise?" Mimes are even prevented from teaching these classes because of this soundist discrimination. Apparently, body language isn't good enough for the old-boy bigots running our country. This social discrimination is only the background for this debate, however. I address today the soundist discrimination that prevents our friends and brothers, the Mimes, from having an equal voice in Congress. ========== Definitions: Mime: http://dictionary.reference.com... also, for a concrete example, see video: http://www.youtube.com... Soundist: Discrimination based on speech Congress: corrupt; also, this: http://dictionary.reference.com... ======= I will introduce my opening arguments briefly, and then turn the debate over to my opponent. 1. Mimes are human. Self evident. If you doubt this, find a passing mime and check. Then, run before they an get you with the invisible ropes. 2. Humans have equal rights. I would hope this could be safely assumed. If not, we will have a lot of fun with this debate. I refer you first to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 3. Mimes have no voice in Congress. ...or anywhere else, for that matter. 4. Some humans have greater representation in Congress than Mimes. Follows from 3, assuming some humans do have a voice in Congress. I think I can establish that. Conclusion: Mimes should be given representation in Congress. With that, I (once again) turn this debate over to my worthy opponent, whomever he might be. I look forward to tangling wits with you. C.
Anarchy is the only way to true freedom

True Freedom does not mean "you can do anything you want in favor of your will". You have to choose which side would you want, either side A or side B. A>B or A Limitations on the other hand does not suppress us from Freedom. To give a clear example, I will tour you in my house, then, my house has an area of 150km2 (That includes the open lot). But, I told that you are allowed only up to 75km2. I LIMIT you, but, it does not mean, I remove your freedom. You have the freedom to do what you want to do in the said limit. In that 75km2, you can do what you want to do, but going beyond, by rules, is a trespass or violation. Going back to side A and B, to avoid confusion. It represents "territories", if you are with side A, its up to you what you will do there, as long as you don't go over the fence. Another analogy is we our neighbors. You can do what you want to do in your house, you all have the freewill, but, if you go to my fence and do your stuffs, me, as the owner, would be mad at you. The same thing, I go to your house without permission and do my noisy stuffs and all the like, of course, you would be bothered. In case of Government, the Government here is to protect by promoting Justice and Order. Let Justice and Order be A while Disorder and Chaos be B. The government is promoting side A (Justice and Order), so, the government's position is A>B As long as you abide, you have the freedom. Dictatorship and strict laws is another topic to be discussed which I won't dwell in, for, we are talking about the usual government types like Democracy and other things that promotes Freedom. Back to Pro.
Anarchy is the only way to true freedom

I believe the first step to prove something is to determine the question being asked. The definition of anarchy according to www. thefreedictonary. com/anarchy is: 1. Absence of any form of political authority 2. political disorder and confusion 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as common standard or purpose. This debate is based on number 1 and its principles. The definition of freedom according to www. thefreedictionary. com/freedoms is: 1. the condition of being free of restraints. I could continue but the definition used in this debate will be on number 1. So in basic terms the question is: "wether or not government restricts the condition of being free". Government does restrict freedoms in the sense you are not completely "free". The government restricts freedom in many ways. For example anything that is possible can be considered freedom, so if i were to try and assassinate the president the government would restrict or stop me from doing that action. With anarchy that action would be much easier and simpler. My argument is as simple as that the only possible way to true freedoms is through anarchy. Governments job in society is to defend, bring justice, and in most cases even more. All three of those restrict freedoms but of course bring justice violates the most. If my opponent can prove that there is another way to true freedoms or there is not way then he wins. SOURCES [1] eternian. wordpress. com/tag/why-anarchy-is-good [2] www. englishforums. com
Anarchy is the only way to true freedom

As you should already know I as pro will try to prove that anarchy is the only way to true freedom. My opponent as con will try to prove how anarchy is not the only way to true freedom. Here are some rules 1. no cursing or spamming 2. Must have a decent knowing of the term anarchy 3. You must prove anarchy is not the only way to true freedom as well as I must prove the opposite. If neither side as able to prove anything then it is a draw.
Poetry Battle! (Read Carefully)

"Below I have posted links to three poems from various authors, these poems will be used in battle, along with the three others whose links you will post in the acceptance round... We will take various lines from each poem to create our debate." I said clearly that you were to post links another three poems in your acceptance round, which you failed to do. Therefore, by breaking the rule of the acceptance round you have proved your debates invalid. I conclude my case here.
Poetry Battle! (Read Carefully)

To be, or not to be, that is the question" Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune, Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles, And by opposing, end them? To die, to sleep" No more; and by a sleep, to say we end The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks That Flesh is heir to? 'Tis a consummation Devoutly to be wished. To die, to sleep, To sleep, perchance to Dream; Aye, there's the rub, For in that sleep of death, what dreams may come, When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, Must give us pause. There's the respect That makes Calamity of so long life: For who would bear the Whips and Scorns of time, The Oppressor's wrong, the proud man's Contumely, The pangs of despised Love, the Law"s delay, The insolence of Office, and the Spurns That patient merit of the unworthy takes, When he himself might his Quietus make With a bare Bodkin? Who would these Fardels bear, To grunt and sweat under a weary life, But that the dread of something after death, The undiscovered Country, from whose bourn No Traveler returns, Puzzles the will, And makes us rather bear those ills we have, Than fly to others that we know not of. Thus Conscience does make Cowards of us all, And thus the Native hue of Resolution Is sicklied o'er, with the pale cast of Thought, And enterprises of great pitch and moment, With this regard their Currents turn awry, And lose the name of Action. Soft you now, The fair Ophelia. Nymph, in all thy Orisons Be thou all my sins remembered.
Poetry Battle! (Read Carefully)

This is going to be similar to a rap-battle. Below I have posted links to three poems from various authors, these poems will be used in battle, along with the three others whose links you will post in the acceptance round. BATTLE RULES: We will take various lines from each poem to create our debate. Debates will be in stanza form. Opponents can add some of their own lines ONLY when necessary. These must be marked with an asterisk (*) at the end of the lines. Voters will determine if the personal additions are unnecessary. Only MINOR alterations can be made to the lines to assist with the flow. ROUNDS: R1- Links of the three additional poems + personal comments R2- Introductions (First poem battle) R3 - 4 - Rebuttals R5- Conclusions POEMS: http://allpoetry.com... http://allpoetry.com... http://allpoetry.com...
In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages

Sorry about the delay Well, not the debate I intended to have, but I can try to develop a response. First, why would it be `good` if the creation was not capable of surviving. Yes, plants can survive a day without the light of the sun, but assuming that the sun and moon didnt exist for that period of time, the earths temperture would be far below that required to sustain life without other significant sources (other star's radiation does fall on the earth, but ont enough to keep the temperature at a livable temperature. The moon is responsible for the tidal levels that are seen today. Without the moon, current water levels in equatorial regions would be notably lower. This would imply that the bioms of different areas would be significantly altered if a moon was to suddenly appear, possibly killing many low (in altitude) plants around the equator. To deal with the problem of the lack of light, that can be settled with the idea that God is perfect in every sense. In him is no darkness (1 John 1:5). Since God is light, it is very reasonable that he emits this light in such a way that he can sustain his creation without the necessity of an external source. God could have replaced his staining presence with a sun to shield is creation from his physical presence (wen they fell). Take it or leave it, we are made in Gods image, and so everyone of our characteristics are a lesser version of his. Recently is was determined that humans emitted light in a small quantity (http://www.livescience.com...). If we emit a small amount of light, how much more likely is it that God would then emit light. Additionally, going along with the old earth view, the plants that were initially created do not necessarily need to be every plant that did come to rise. Additionally, there are 3rd options that call Genesis a story, replacing it with either evolution or one spontaneous event, but these can have theological implications.
In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages

My argument is based on, it is neither day = 24 hours, nor day = ages. And it is simple to do. I am aware of the word "yom" it is similar to Arabic "yawm". The word "yom" is also means long period of time, as Arabic word "yawm".Now, let's assume "day" in Genesis means long period of time. GEN1:11-12 - Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. God created plant life on second day. GEN1:14-16 - And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God created Sun on third day. Now arises very rational and logical question: How did plants survived for a long period of time without Sun?So, it is obvious that, "day" in the Genesis cannot mean long period of time. Then it means 24-hour-period. Then it contradicts the basic Knowledge about Universe.So, it is neither long period of time nor 24 hours. May be there is third option, but I am unaware of that. If there is please share with us.Thank you for reading.
In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages

This is my first debate, so bare with me... "In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages" I will be arguing for the day age approach. Where the days are not 24 hour days, but rather long period of time, potentially millions of years. I will draw from both science and scripture, where applicable. To define terms: "Genesis" The first book of the Christian Bible, and Torah "Genesis 1 (the creation story)" You must accept this as the outline for how God created the universe. This will imply that you are religious, particularly Christian. "days" referring to the Hebrew word y"m that has been translated into day. (apparently they don't enjoy funny letters, the " is supposed to be an o with a circumflex on it) "24 hour time period" the day that we observe on the earth due to the rotation of the earth on its axis. "ages" long periods of time, potentially accounting for the scientific estimation of the age of the universe (estimated at 13.7 billion years old) Your job will be to defend the idea that the world is young, an estimated 5-10 thousand years old.
In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages

We are not debating Quran, but Bible. If you are so sure about contradictions in Quran, let's debate. Show me that contradictions. I am not just saying there is contradictions in Bible, also showing them, and explaining them. God created earth before sun, there was day, night, morning and evening before creation of sun and stars. These are straight sentences. You cannot interprete them otherwise.And I did not use any web-site or reference except Bible for my argument(s).I am smart.
In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages

So, yes, i didn't put much thought into my earlier post. I will give you that. I intended on having this debate with an individual with a similar view. Clearly you have had more experience in this topic, and anticipated this debate. In Genesis 1:1, it states that God was hovering over the water. He then created light. There is nothing else besides 'water.' The light requires a source or cause, which i asserted to be God, the 'uncaused-cause.' That is where things get convoluted, as you have a different 'story' to follow. (I will assume this is it or similar, http://evantunstall.weebly.com...) So from the start you had redefined the debate. This debate was to be over the interpretation of Genesis, not the validity. As you nicely point out, there is much to be wanted in the sense that it may not appear to say everything. A quick google search shows that there are 'numerous' contradictions within the Quran, that with a different point of view would not actually contradictions. To state that because one passage of the Bible doesn't make sense from your point of view, therefor the whole Bible must be wrong is making a straw man of the Bible. If we had more rounds, it would be interesting to hear your point of view. You accept neither the young or old earth, making it impossible to counter against your view. In a debate sense, you won as far as I have nothing to counter you that you would not initially reject. You reject the Genesis account, and so since I don't know what your view is, I don't see where I can proceed from here. Feel free to explain your view, even though there is no more rounds to continue.
In Genesis 1 (the creation story) do days represent 24 hour time periods or ages

Answer to first point: I do not know if you read the Bible, Bible says stars also created after creation of plants in the same day with Sun and Moon. So, star radiation does not work here. And read paper on star radiation. The nearest star to our Solar System is Proxima Centauri and there is no way for this star to sustain any life on earth. Now without moon life on Earth is possible, but not without Sun. So that does not work also.Answer to second point: QUOTE - "God could have replaced his staining presence with a sun to shield his (I assume you mistyped here, so I corrected it) creation from his physical presence". Few questions here:Does God emit photons? What does "his physical presence" mean? And this statement is assumption, the Bible does not say anything like it or similar to it. We are dealing here with facts vs. Bible, not your assumptions.Answer to third point: Humans emitting light, what God's nature has to do with it. Is God human, answer is NO. Humans emit many thing, mostly in restrooms. QUOTE - "Additionally, going along with the old earth view, the plants that were initially created do not necessarily need to be every plant that did come to rise." Again this is an assumption, not a fact.Lastly, QUOTE - "Additionally, there are 3rd options that call Genesis a story, replacing it with either evolution or one spontaneous event, but these can have theological implications," - so what? Does it prove anything.At the end none of your points proved your argument, and also did not disprove my point.At least when you debate have a strong and cogent argument.
Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

Here is the proposed situation (True story) A random McDonalds, a mentally handicapped man is with his state appointed helper, a small child enters the scene no more than five years old, the mentally handicapped man for some reason is enraged by the child and kicks it, not hard enough for the child to be knocked down but still the gesture of a threat is there, the parent of the child, punches the man in the face and knocks him to the ground. Is this an example of good parenting or should the man go to jail? My Stance: The Parent is definitely in the right, if I were a parent in that situation and someone touched my child without my permission, yes that person mentally handicapped or not would be hurt.
Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

"I will simply sum up my entire argument in one final sentence. I believe that the mentally handicapped should be punished like the rest of society for criminal behavior, and if there are laws like the case of raping the mentally handicapped having a more harsh punishment than a regular person, they need to be repealed to be fair to the rest of us." To recap : The resolution was a vague statement - "Rights For the Mentally Handicapped", the position of Con was clarified in the opening : "My Stance: The Parent is definitely in the right, if I were a parent in that situation and someone touched my child without my permission, yes that person mentally handicapped or not would be hurt." When this opening position was soundly defeated Con attempted to revise the resolution as they could offer no response to the rebuttal to the actual resolution and opening statement. If Con wishes to debate the different resolution made in the closing then this is welcomed but that is a different debate.
Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

"So, Pro, let me ask you this, how does one protect somthing by not eleminating the problem?" This has been dealt with in detail many times in the above, extend all arguments as to why a violent and direct confrontation with the mentally handicapped person is not right for all aspects noted in the above and is not in the best interest of the child - none of the arguments were even touched upon, let alone refuted by Con. "So, if they are just as raped, then why does the rape of a mentally handicapped person offer a harsher punishment?" There is no extra punishment if a rapist assaults a mentally handicapped person. However again as noted in the above, the law recognizes that a mentally handicapped person may be so handicapped as to be unable to give meaningful consent. Con has :refuted none of the arguments presented, extend all arguments made :made numerous assertions and when asked for reference/support, dropped all arguments :attempted to change the resolution when it was refuted :has now switched to personal commentary as the argument is without substance The resolution is negated.
Rights For the Mentally Handicapped

"In such a situation, the first act of a responsible parent, who acts out of rational thought to protect the child is not to attack the mentally retarded individual - it is to protect the child, it is ALWAYS to protect the child." Pro wants me to counter him instead of plead my own case, I can stoop to his level, no problem. In this quote you see above, Pro actually agrees with me but does not seem to realize it. "...and as a culture we have long past the point where we would adopt primal instincts to defend what is right. As a trivial example, could I justify the kidnap and rape of a woman because a claim of a primal need to procreate - obviously not a valid reason." So, Pro, let me ask you this, how does one protect somthing by not eleminating the problem? To me it soounds like you are being a hypocrite. But then I am just looking at your own words to back up my argument. Am I here to say that mentally handicapped people do not deserve rights at all? " Am I saying that all mentally handicapped people deserve to be treated like this? No" As stated in round 2. I do not condone the mistreatment of any handicapped person mental or otherwise. As Pro states in round 3, " (Con argues) rape is less of an assault if the individual is mentally handicapped" I do not make this claim, rape is rape, however the mental process one goes over after going through rape would affect a person with a sound mind more than a person that was mentally handicapped. But with the mentally handicapped person giving the rapist a more harsh punishment. As Pro stated "they are just as raped". So, if they are just as raped, then why does the rape of a mentally handicapped person offer a harsher punishment? In short, Pro has: - contradicted himself - contradicted himself again - tried to point out faults in my argument when he has not paid enough attention to his own.