BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Can this work be considered existentialist

Thanks, Pro. --Pro’s Case--This debate centres over whether the 32 page work provided by Pro can be reasonably counted as being “existentialist”. Pro, by default, is tasked with demonstrating that the work can indeed be reasonably counted as being “existentialist”. Conversely, Con – myself - is tasked with demonstrating that it can be reasonably doubted that such a work is “existentialist”. Pro, in his opening round, states that it is an existentialist work because it gives “a vivid account of the existential angst of old age.” However, such a statement is problematic, because he has already jumped the gun! He has not provided a framework, for the purpose of the debate, that is to be used in order to judge whether a work is “existentialist”. Due to the lack of a framework provided by Pro, it can’t be said that because a work explores the “existential angst of old age”, it ought to count as an “existentialist” work. Unless Pro is able to provide a framework, that can be used in order to judge whether a work can be reasonably considered to be “existentialist”, we ought to reject any claim provided by him that the work is “existentialist”, for the sole reason that we do not know what an “existentialist” work entails, or discusses. But Pro not only has to provide a framework; he also needs to be able to justify such a framework, which in effect, is to provide reasons why one ought to accept it, over any other possible others.In addition, Pro also has not sufficiently provided any reasoning for a rational person to believe that such a work does discuss the “existential angst of old age”. Angst, as defined in Wikipedia, within the context of existentialism, refers to ”a negative feeling arising from the experience of human freedom and responsibility”. (1) Has Pro shown that the work provided discusses “existential angst of old age”? Has he shown that the work provided is relevant at all to “human freedom and responsibility”? As of this stage, he obviously has not. Thus, already reeling from the lack of framework provided to discern the characteristics that a work requires to be considered “existentialist”, it is unclear that Pro has sufficiently justified his statement that his work explores the “existential angst of old age”. The resolution is negated. --Sources-- (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Can this work be considered existentialist

con says "Can it? I have stated the preface "Preface In the cage of old age still burns the flame of youth "neath the shroud of old age still burns hot the desires of youth youths fires hid in the aged flesh torment into frenzies of frustrations the flesh does send like a flickering flame that in the nights breeze about to be snuffed out the fires of youth torment the aged flesh to the very last breath the aged flesh longs desires full of youthful passions till like the flickering flame in the nights breeze life is snuffed out" if con cant see the existentialist ideas in this then just tell us why I have given a vivid account of the existential angst of old age if con cant tell u why this poem is not about existential angst then I must win the debate
Can this work be considered existentialist

Can this work be considered existentialist https://www.scribd.com... Preface In the cage of old age still burns the flame of youth "neath the shroud of old age still burns hot the desires of youth youths fires hid in the aged flesh torment into frenzies of frustrations the flesh does send like a flickering flame that in the nights breeze about to be snuffed out the fires of youth torment the aged flesh to the very last breath the aged flesh longs desires full of youthful passions till like the flickering flame in the nights breeze life is snuffed out
capitol punishment

A person seriously offended of their rights to govern themselves and their property is not compensated by a death penalty. Depriving the offender of his life only removes the person who must be held liable for his damages. Because of this, it is preferable to deprive the offender of their rights until just amends have been made. In the case of murder, as mentioned by my opponent, one cannot expect to resurrect the victim by such means, but adding another death doesn't accomplish this either. The friends or relatives, however, can be at least compensated, by an amount equal to the total expected income of the victim for the full duration of his life, plus other arbitrary damages for lost safety, happiness, utility, etc. The offender shall be subjected to slavery until compensation is made in full. Surely, this is more just than capital punishment, for the victims receive amends equal to the damage taken and the offender receives just punishment equal to the damage done. Thank you
The Supreme Court Ruling of playing the national anthem in cinemas is divisive and forced patriotism

Patriotism is the vigorous and enthusiastic support and love for one's country, it births out naturally and is not taught. It is not subjective at any point. The nation is nothing but a group of people coming under the same ideology by accepting the differences and denouncing hate. It is however dangerous and unmistakably disastrous if patriotism is fed through 'nationalism'. In the present day India ruled by a government that highly favors one particular religion, it is necessary to understand that India is a secular country is a republic democratic. People vote, people rule. Forced patriotism is when an institution makes it a compulsion to follow their given set of practices which they feel is correct for as nation. National anthem for any citizen is an important source of deriving inspiration. But why is the cinemas being made a soft corner to take out all the punches for this forced patriotism? There are the 'creators' of laws who themselves do not bother to stand in decorum for the national anthem, they are involved in incidents where they are on the phone or sleepy during the time it is played. I end my beginning note by saying that patriotism is from the heart and must not be force fed.
Most homophobes are gay themselves.

I do not quite see how quoting the Bible helps your argument. I am perfectly aware of what the Bible says. This does make it the entire truth, set in stone. My argument was also that most homophobes are gay themselves, which does not include everyone, so you are one exception. Unless of course you happen to be closeted, therefore you would deny it. I'm not calling you gay, I'm pointing out that you cannot really use yourself as an example when you perhaps are the example that I am trying to prove, if that makes sense to you. "If a thief steals something, and I think that stealing is wrong, doesn't mean that I think that I am better than that thief. It only means that I do not agree with what they do." I found it to be rather ignoble of you to acquit the issues of homosexuality to stealing. Homosexuals do not harm anyone, such as a thief does. The point of my argument that you used the above quote to rebuttal to is entirely true. White people had to believe that they were better than black people ("Christian" groups such as the KKK claimed that black people were immoral and undeveloped as a people, which is a very similar argument that the Christians of today use against gays and lesbians). Being black is not behavior, homosexuality is behavior, I know. Homosexuality is feared and scorned by close to half of the American population. Obviously, half of the population is not homosexual. However, because boys are taught to be "manly men" from a young age, they recoil and act viciously, quite frequently, out of fear for what they realize themselves to be. They display a great amount of hatred towards those who are open about their own homosexuality, as an attempt to "prove" their own masculinity. I feel very sorry for those who feel hatred for being who they are, but even more sorrow for the people who so openly, so readily hate in order to deny themselves who they are, just because it was written in some many thousands of years old book.
Most homophobes are gay themselves.

Well, Christ never directly said anything about rape or domestic violence, so does that mean that these things are acceptable? '[a] 7 'So a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife,[b] 8 and the two will become one body.'[c] So there are not two, but one. 9 God has joined the two together, so no one should separate them." -Mark 10:6-9 Jesus did say this though. He said "a man will leave his parents and join his wife... God has joined them together, so no one should seperate them." Also, where do you suppose that His followers learned that homosexuality is wrong? Even if Jesus did not directly state that homosexuality is wrong, it does say it throughout the Bible and since the Bible is the word of God, then God has said that homosexuality is wrong. "You have to believe that you are "better" than gays in order to say that you are against them getting married" This is not true. If a thief steals something, and I think that stealing is wrong, doesn't mean that I think that I am better than that thief. It only means that I do not agree with what they do. The arguement is that homophobes are secreatly homosexual themselves. I do not believe that it is right for gays to marry, so does that mean that I am homosexual? Well, i'm not so whats wrong with your theory? If you are correct, then why am I not gay? Does your theory apply to me, if so then why have I managed to escape homosexuality?
Most homophobes are gay themselves.

When you expressed that your tennis team has a higher gay percentage than the football or baseball team because it is "girlier," you said that what I said is reverse. On the contrary, those who are open about their natural feelings are more likely to express themselves, sometimes be it through different "un-manly" (I do not think one thing is any less manly than another, personally) things, since they have much less fear of being seen as being homosexual. This is actually exactly what my opening argument backs. Just because there is a baseball team, this does not mean that there are no gay players. There are just no open players. The estimated percent of the population that is homosexual is about 10%. To say that there are no gay players on the baseball team is simply uninformed. However, this is not the case for everyone, but most people on such a team very often feel as if they have to meet some "manly" standard, which leads to a lot of rampant homophobia and therefore some denying of their natural feelings. My definition of a homophobe is broader, to include those against equal gay rights, since there is still a lot of social imperialism involved. You have to believe that you are "better" than gays in order to say that you are against them getting married, which I really cannot see how it is of any concern to you. You say you are not of "family values," however, you say you follow Christ's model, (he didn't actually ever say anything about homosexuality, just his arrogant followers), which is really what "values" people say that they base their judgments off of.
Most homophobes are gay themselves.

Hello chob, I first want to say,(not that I am in any position to make any judgements or criticisms on the tpic) that your topic of debate was very well chosen, it's very origional and it's not just he same old topics. Well now to get to the subject at hand. So what I am getting from your arguement is that, most people who are homophobes are secreatly gay themselves and feel the need to hide it with a macho-man act. "...these homosexual homophobes feel as if they have to act more macho (with the use of anti-gay attitudes) in order to put up a disguise of their own homosexuality." I am on the tennis team at my school, and as we all know, tennis has a reputation (stereotypical usually) of being a "gayish" sport because of the uniform that was worn, and the attitude of the sport and some of the players. I can tell you that there are people on tennis teams that are gay, and I am sure that tennis has a higher gay percentage than most other sports because of the sport's reputation. However, according to you arguemet here, the tennis team should have an extremely low percentage because it is not considered a very strenuous or let's say "manly" sport. If people who are afriad of revealing their homosexuality were to try to put on a "manly" facade, they would be more likely to join a football or basketball team rather that tennis. Except this doesn't happen because, football and basketball have a higher tendency to have a very low gay percentage. The situation is the opposite of what you stated. The reality is this: Although some homophobic people may in fact be homosexual themselves, most of them are not. Also chob, can you tell me what kind of person you would call a homophobe. The very-most basic definition of a homophobe would be someone that is afraid of homosexuals and aviods them at all cost. I know that I am not homosexual, I am against gay marriage, and I really do not think that homosexuality as a whole is morally right, but I also know that I am not a hompphobe because I spend the end of every day with my friends (some of who are gay) at the tennis courts, and I am completely comfortable around them. I'm not saying that they are bad people of course, I just believe differently than they do, they're still my friends. (I don't base these beliefs on "family values" because I think that it has been used as a cop-out lately for "I don't know why I believe this way" I base it on the words of my Lord Jesus Christ, and I stand firm on His word). I believe this way because God says that this is the way that it should be in the Bible, and I believe that 1,000%.
Most homophobes are gay themselves.

In a study conducted by Professor Adams of the University of Georgia, it has been concluded that a majority of "homophobes" have secret homosexual feelings themselves. Therefore, these homosexual homophobes feel as if they have to act more macho (with the use of anti-gay attitudes) in order to put up a disguise of their own homosexuality. To be specific, the study found that approximately four out of every five men who described themselves as being "homophobic" were aroused by watching homo-erotic videos, as they were wearing a "penile circumference measuring device" (also known as a plethysmograph). Adams's research was published in the U.S. Journal of Abnormal Psychology in 1996, and is backed by the APA (American Psychological Association). Personally, I find this whole situation to be quite a pity. It is a shame that people are forced to repress their natural feelings, all in the name of some book like the Bible, or in the name of "family values." When, in fact, more families have been destroyed in the name of "family values" than anything homosexuals could possibly do. We can even see this ultra-macho attitude in our military with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" still in place. It is a shame what lies people get away with in order to justify their bigotry.
Motor Cycles Should Not Be So Loud

First of all, if you want to live in an apartment in a big city, the nit is your choice to hear motorcycles all night. And if you can hear motorcycles, then you can hear cars too. People have a right to get where they need to go. You know, you may not think about it over all of your complaints, but that may be all they can afford to get them somewhere on time. For all you know, they are on their way to the hospital. And if you really wanted to block out the sound, get a sound proof window. They sell them at most hardware stores. Just think about THAT next time you get oh so bothered by a fellow American citizen on a motorcycle.
Motor Cycles Should Not Be So Loud

Most people have their radio blasting while driving or have the news on and can't hear motor cyclists. Modern cars are also so well insulated for engine and road noise that they block out motorcycle's engine sounds unless the motor cyclists is right beside the car and by then there is a visual. The issue is one of noise pollution. Bikes are loud because they sell better being so. The bike entire industry is largely based on hyper macho nonsense that the rest of the community has to deal with. It isn't fair for a minority to impact on the quality of life of all others because of mere posturing. The bikes would perform pretty well the same with better mufflers. The cyclists are giving up very little by adhering to better noise standards.
Motor Cycles Should Not Be So Loud

It is too often that you hear of a motorcycle accident on the highway or busy road outside a city. And why, you might ask, would motorcycles be so prone to accidents? This because they are so small. The cars around them are much larger and more protected. If motorcycles were quiet, they would not be noticed by the abundant text-and-drive population and will be hit. If producers wanted the motorcycles to be quieter, then they could easily do that. It is a question of safety, not comfort.
Interp. the elusive statement

Oh, dear. My opponent is using logic to show that my use of logic is illogical because we cannot trust logic when dealing with an illogical person.I don't even know what to do anymore!!!Rebuttal 1Yeah but it's impossible to hate Ron Paul.[1]Rebuttal 3Ok, I condede. Movies exist in Chad. However, my opponent still has not shown that movies exist ONLY in Day. Because you can't say "movies are real all day" without limiting the realization to only within the context of Day. So yeah. Basically I'm right.ConclusionMy opponent has attempted to use logic to show how illogical interpretations are better than logical interpretations because we can't use logic when dealing with milkman who is illogical. So he's wrong. Also movies don't exist only within Day. So I have proved my pointReferences1. http://rlv.zcache.com...;
Interp. the elusive statement

My opponent has failed to realize several key things. (Thank you for this wonderful debate though) First, as my opponent says "we simply cannot trust logic when dealing with milkman" but, then my opponent's syllogism is logical. The conclusion clearly flows from the premises. My syllogism is completely illogical, as my opponent stated, it is a non sequitur. Therefore, you can vote Pro simply because my interpretation is illogical while my opponent's interpretation is logical. In terms of this debate, my defense of something illogical is completely logical because we cannot trust logic when dealing with milkman who is illogical. (Get it?) :P Pro wins as their syllogism is less logical. Even if Pro concedes their defense they still win because Con is logical when dealing with the illogical, and Pro is illogical when dealing with the illogical which is more logical. An illogical fallacy is better than a logical statement when it comes to milkman. Now for the sake of this debate I shall proceed to defend my illogical syllogism. Point 1. My opponent concedes that my argument is logical then goes on to say that milkman is not logical so why should we trust logic. But, why is milkman illogical? I mean he could just hate all of the Republican candidates so much that he supports Obama. Point 2. Conceded :D Point 3. Movies exist in Chad (http://www.imdb.com...). Movies exist in Southern Chad. Therefore, movies exist in the language Day. Conclusion My opponents argument is illogical because it is logical. Since we cannot deal with logic when dealing with milkman. An illogical interpretation is better than a logical interpretation when dealing with he who is illogical.
Interp. the elusive statement

I thank THEBOMB for his continuation of our most intellectual of all debates. However, his interpretation is false. He provides us a syllogism, but his conclusion is a non sequitur from his premises. In his syllogism, he never provides evidence that Atlantis is "real all day," but instead introduces this cinematic characteristic in his conclusion. The correct syllogism, if my opponent were correct, would be:1. You people don't watch movies2. There are movies which depict Atlantis3. Therefore, you people don't watch depictions of AtlantisNot only has my opponent already used a logical fallacy, but even if he didn't, his interpretation would still be way off. He then goes on to attempt and defend this logical abomination...Rebuttal 1: DDO>MoviesI'm gonna have to raise the bulls**t flag on this one. It goes something like this:1. DDO with pants > DDO without pants2. DDO > opera3. movie > opera4. DDO ≥ movie5. DDO without pants > movie6. Therefore, DDO with pants > movieMy opponent's argument here is perfectly logical. THE THING IS, we can't trust logic. Why? Because we are interpreting a statement made by a guy who is Republican but supports Obama: how is that possibly logical?! As you can see, we simply cannot trust logic when dealing with milkman. My opponent's argument thusly fails. DDO's relation to movies has been rendered indeterminate.Rebuttal 2: 10 movies depicting Atlantis or something like thatI concede. There are at least 10 movies depicting Atlantis.Rebuttal 3: ConclusionMy opponent has provided no evidence that movies exist all day. day: an Adamawa language of southern Chad[1]If my opponent can provide evidence that movies only exist within the context of the Moyen-Chari region of Southwestern Chad, his interpretation would be correct. However, this is obviously not so. My opponent has thus failed.ConclusionI have shown that my opponent's interpretation is incorrect because he attempts to use "logic" which obvi cant be used when dealing with a guy who's Republican and also voting for Obama. He also tries to convince us that movies only exist in southwestern Chad, which is incorrect again. Thus, my opponent is completely and totally wrong.My interpretation is obviously superior simply because my opponent's is so weak.References1. http://www.ethnologue.org...
Interp. the elusive statement

:D no problem. Should be extraordinarily interesting :D "u guys obvi dont watch mvoies... atlantis is real all day" You see the milkman (speaking of which I need milk...) believes a key thing: 1. "u [you] guys [people]" don't watch movies 2. There are movies which depict Atlantis 3. Conclusion: "Atlantis is real all day" in movies Now this conclusion makes much more sense. You see, I shall back up my reasoning. 1. Of course we don't watch movies, who here on DDO does? I mean DDO with pants > DDO without pants (http://www.debate.org...). DDO with pants or without pants > opera. DDO > opera. Movie > opera (I mean movie? or listening to people sing at the top of their lungs for 4 hours). DDO > (or equal) movie > opera. But, DDO without pants > movie without pants (Likely to get arrested...no one wants that). Therefore, DDO > movie. 2. http://heritage-key.com... There are at least 10 movies depicting Atlantis. 3. Therefore, since movies exist all day, Atlantis exists all day.
Interp. the elusive statement

I thank THEBOMB for his fantastic debate challenge.My interpretation of this elusive statement is that milkman1218 believes the following:1. Atlantis is represented cinematically as "real all day"2. We are unaware of this cinematic representation3. Therefore, we obvi dont watch mvoies I will now turn it over to THEBOMB for his interpretation of the statement. Hopefully he will have a better literary analysis of the statement.