BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Force: A Nerdy Star Wars Debate

PrefaceAfter participating in the Mace Windu vs. Yoda debate, I have come to realize how much I enjoy nerding out like this. Hence, I have instigated this debate. It should be impossible to accept, so please post a comment if you wish to accept. TopicThe Unifying Force theory more accurately describes the Force than the Living Force Theory.DefinitionsAccurate - correct; with few or no errorsDescribe - to explain something; to characterize somethingContextUnifying Force:http://starwars.wikia.com...Living Force: http://starwars.wikia.com...Rules 1. BOP is shared: Pro must argue for the accuracy of the Unifying Force; Con must argue for the accuracy of the Living Force2. No forfeits3. No trolling4. Wookieepedia, the official Star Wars Movies, the official Star Wars: The Clone Wars episodes, and Canon texts may be cited as evidence. Anything that is not canon is not a valid source.5. No new arguments may be presented in a debaters final speech6. Violation/non-acceptance of any of the R1 Set-up and Rules constitutes a 7-point lossStructureR1: Acceptance. Con may choose to present arguments in this round, but must then forgo posting arguments in R5.R2: ArgumentsR3: ArgumentsR4: ArgumentsR5: ArgumentsThanks...in advance to my opponent and to my judges. I look forward to a nerdtastic debate!
The Force: A Nerdy Star Wars Debate

I am spending June with some friends in Morocco, so that won't work. What'd ya say we take this topic into the forums? I can find the time to talk about it there, and I would really like to hammer this out with you. My perspective is that the whole underlying moral of the Skywalker legend ( the six films ) is the idea that the living force is more accurate than the unifying force. P.S. Your Yoda vs Mace Windu debate was totally kick@$$. I tip my hat.
These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times

con says "Pro has failed to demonstrate the following necessary, but very simple, things: -How an incompetent strand of insensible stanzas qualify as"variations on Shakespeare"s sonnets" the post is about the variations being the essence of the times not about them qualifying as sonnets Shakespeare wrote i have given a link showing the bawdy nature of his times-in the streets con has not refuted that so has not refuted my post at all con goes on about that the variations are not Shakespearean-but that is not what the post is about con says "In his rebuttal, Pro points out that people swore and had sex during Shakespeare"s lifetime. Now, if this were to defend his resolution, the practice of human sexuality and the use of profanity would need to be somehow "the real essence" of the Elizabethan era. It is decidedly not." again as my link shows the state and the church policed bawdiness because it was seen as a problem of the times and endemic to the times ie its essence i have thus have given a link in proof my claim con gives no supporting proof all he goes on about is the variations as not qualifying as sonnets Shakespeare wrote-but that is not what the post is about just read the heading These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times" and I have proved that con has not -no supporting evidence just his distaste at the variations- and all con arguments show basically is he does not like the variations so he just constructs some fallacious argument to justify his distaste and not even an argument on topic I
These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times

Pro has failed to demonstrate the following necessary, but very simple, things: -How an incompetent strand of insensible stanzas qualify as“variations on Shakespeare’s sonnets” -How anachronistic slang from 1990’s smut fiction serve to “capture the essence of his times”.In his rebuttal, Pro points out that people swore and had sex during Shakespeare’s lifetime. Now, if this were to defend his resolution, the practice of human sexuality and the use of profanity would need to be somehow "the real essence" of the Elizabethan era. It is decidedly not. In fact, that period was more strongly characterized by an enormous national interest in religious purification: the Protestant reformation had just established itself, and the Puritan movement was quickly gaining prominence. Virginity was considered so sacred at the time that cults were established in worship of it. The high appreciation of virginity and sexual purity was not a fringe movement: it was the national sentiment of England. Indeed, Queen Elizabeth (for whom the era is named and who stands at the very center of its definition) entitled herself “The Virgin Queen” before her court and her subjects. She defined the era as one whose “real essence” was concerned with sentiments of sexual purity. [1-3] Sure, there were scummy portions of the populace, who reveled in such unforgivable sins as “premarital sex”, but these things are not definitive of Shakespeare’s era or its "real essence". Thus, randomly tossing the same handful of curse words (some of which weren’t even in use until after Shakespeare’s death) into a tiresome roulette wheel of “thee’s, thou’s, and thy’s,” which is how Pro's sonnets seem to be written, fails to capture the “real essence” of Shakespeare’s time. The sonnets defended by Pro comprise, at best, a poorly done spoof of some generically archaic masturbation diary: not Shakespearean; not Elizabethan. They don’t capture the “real essence” of these things in any standing historical or literary sense, and neither can they be defensibly called a “variation on Shakespeare’s sonnets” to begin with.Pro's own source is the downfall of his resolution here. The sonnets do nothing to capture the "real essence" of the Elizabethan era. The fact that people had sex with each other and annoyed the church with swear words is not definitive of, or essential to, that era.------------------- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...
These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times

con says "For example, it"s true that Shakespeare used bawdy humor in his plays and sonnets, but an amplification of these elements to a level of overt hyperbole (for example) wouldn"t count as "capturing the real essence" of them" I am not talking about what Shakespeare wrote himself-published but about how These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times con says that they "wouldn"t count as "capturing the real essence" of them" I can prove you wrong very simply-Shakespeare times out in the real world was bawdy swearing, ribaldry so much so the state and church policed it with vigor http://hfriedberg.web.wesleyan.edu... POLICING SEX THE "BAWDY" COURTS quote "In Shakespeare's time, church and state struggled to control sexuality. Most parishes had Bishop's or consistory courts that dealt with moral offenses"adultery, whoredom, incest, drunkenness, SWEARING g, RIBALDRY, " further on a bit less bawdy History of Henry VI, Part II http://www.opensourceshakespeare.org... Jack Cade. Now is Mortimer lord of this city. And here, sitting upon London-stone, I charge and command that, of the city's cost, the PISSING-conduit run nothing but 2605 claret wine this first year of our reign" and http://nfs.sparknotes.com... Romeo and Juliet > Act 2, Scene 4, MERCUTIO 'Tis no less, I tell you, for the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the PRICK of noon. THESE VARIATIONS CAPTURE THE BAWDY ESSENCE OF HIS TIMES EXACTLY
These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times

Not for Duncan-if Duncan reads these poems knowing the type I put here then it is because he wants to so then dont disparage me or the author of the poems These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times they are full of bawdy of sensuality of risque and down right good humor http://www.scribd.com... "preface Ah those sublime Chopin Variations on Mozart's 'Don Giovanni': those ecstatic Brahms Variations on Caprice no 24 of Paganini oh to luxuriate in variations on an Ode on Melancholy by Keats to quiver o"er variations on shellys Ozymandios ah to palpitate to gush to flush to spurt forth paroxysm of bliss on variations on sonnets by Shakespeare "
watermelons ahould be sold with happy faces drawn onthem

I would like to sum up my stance to the voters. I am against drawing faces on watermelons because it will cost a little extra and there really is no point to it. You go to the grocery store to buy groceries, not to receive happiness. Also, not everybody finds fruit faces funny - I certainly don't. This is pointless and time-consuming. Instead of finding ways to make people laugh, grocery stores should turn their attention on lowering prices. This would result in a lot more smiles.
watermelons ahould be sold with happy faces drawn onthem

You go to the grocery store to buy groceries, not to experience happiness. It seems as if your side of the argument is rather opinionated. Does everyone find fruit faces funny? I don't. Back to the money issue. The price increase would not be stupendous, I agree, but a few cents in today's economy can make a big deal. And stores order a lot of fruit, particularly watermelons, in the summer. It would be time consuming for something that most people wouldn't even notice or even purchase.
watermelons ahould be sold with happy faces drawn onthem

If watermelon's prices were jacked up due to the drawings of happy faces on them, it would only be by a few cents. Money doesn't buy you happiness. Having silly faces on your fruit does. It can turn bad moods good, turn frowns upside down, and shine light through the darkness. For those people who can't afford to spend a few extra cents, they should take advantage of a take a penny, leave a penny dish. There are always ways to get a few extra cents. It's happiness that really counts.
watermelons ahould be sold with happy faces drawn onthem

Hello. I never thought I would be debating this subject, but I am very excited to do so. My opinion is that the added effort to make people happy will only cost more money. To combat with extra expenses, stores will have raise prices on items like watermelons. Higher prices mean customers frowning. This will only make people sad and make them pay more. It sounds nice, but drawing faces on watermelons will cost customers a little more, in turn making them more upset.
Solitary Confinement

Final Rebuttals and Closing Arguments:'If we are going to dis-credit sources, all of yours has NOTHING to do with solitary confinement, therefore it can be dis-credited as a source. I know you outlined the points, but it really doesn't matter. Your points were rather on how people commit crimes, and how dangerous people are. My context of the sources is my argument. Also understand a YouTube video is a valid source as long as it by a reliable source. My sources still stands. 'Note: all four sources used by myself are in fact relevant to the debate and its premise. Con has failed to expound further on why he believes my sources are not credible, therefore, his contention here can be dismissed. As to the context of Cons own sources, once again, he did not explain exactly which part of each source he was referring to when using them. I, however, numbered each source according to what I was referencing. Sources mean invariably nothing if they are not numbered to what you are outlining - so they should be used as direct citations that support and validate specific parts of your arguments. 'Pedophiles don't need solitary treatment. There is no children in adult prison. I can understand serial killers, but pedophiles? No. 'Either Con has not read my argument properly - or he is deliberately employing strawman tactics. My argument was not that pedophiles are dangerous to other inmates in jail, as I'm well-aware that there are no children in adults jails. Rather it was that pedophiles, due to the nature of their crimes, are widely disapproved of and are thus targets of violence from their fellow inmates. I suggest that Con review source three to understand what I am arguing for when asserting that solitary confinement is a safer living option for pedophiles. I was in fact stating to the contrary of what he has written. The same argument was applied to serial killers, who are also subject to violent behaviours from other inmates on account of mass disapproval. I will reiterate once more that pedophiles and serial killers usually operate alone, and are thus not accustomed to group-oriented criminality or violence. As Con did not address any other points of mine, I will conclude the debate here.
Solitary Confinement

If we are going to dis-credit sources, all of yours has NOTHING to do with solitary confinement, therefore it can be dis-credited as a source. I know you outlined the points, but it really doesn't matter. Your points were rather on how people commit crimes, and how dangerous people are. My context of the sources is my argument. Also understand a YouTube video is a valid source as long as it by a reliable source. My sources still stands "He assumes that merely killing someone is enough to warrant someone being placed in isolation" No, I'm saying that if someone is going to get solitary treatment, they need to do something serious. Pedophiles don't need solitary treatment. There is no children in adult prison. I can understand serial killers, but pedophiles? No.
Solitary Confinement

First of all, you already failed to follow the rules. Your "claim" was basically the debate. The debate is round 2, not round 1. Please follow the rules, but here is my argument. "Solitary Confinement is Necessary in some Circumstances These circumstances would include: 1.) When the inmate is a danger to others. 2.) When the inmate is a danger to themselves. 3.) When the inmate is vulnerable to attack from other inmates. 4.) When the inmate has displayed improper conduct or violated the rules of the institution." - You I agree with none of those. This is to address every single one of your reasons. No. There is no reason to cut of communication, any source of entertainment, or any source to keep your sense of morality. Why wouldn't you give the person something to do if you're going to lock them in a room? But the biggest point of all is the effects solitary confinement, it physiologically messes up people. They become a danger then they were before, especially to themselves. It is cruel and downright immoral. If someone killed someone, there is a different way to approach it then just shoving them in solitary confinement. It will not improve anything, and only make matters worse. We are no better than the murderers to put people in solitary confinement. It's the easy way out, messes up people's minds, and is downright immoral. Also, more on your second reason. Solitary confinement makes people even more of a danger to themselves. So many people tried slitting their wrists and drowning themselves in confinement. Read all of these. They are well worth your time. They aren't just articles like the stuff you posted, these are official sites and research papers. They explain how solitary confinement can lead to physiological problems, lead to more dangerous prisoners, suicide, self harm, depression, mental illnesses, murder of other people, and much more. Sources: [1]https://www.nmlegis.gov... [2] [3]https://books.google.com... [4]https://steinhardt.nyu.edu... [5]https://www.psychologytoday.com...
An objective moral code is contingent on the existence of God

First debate, so please point out anything I can do better in the comments. My topic is "An object moral code is contingent on the existence of God." I define "contingent" as something that occurs or exists only if (certain other circumstances) are the case; dependent on. For example: iff (if and only if) a then b, b is contingent on a I define "God" for the sake of this argument as a being who is both omniscient and omnipotent. Also for the sake of this argument, I will ask that the existence of a Christian version of an afterlife (Heaven and Hell) be assumed to exist if and only if God exists. (If God doesn't exist, neither does an afterlife) The debate will have the format modeling that of a public forum debate: Round 1: acceptance Round 2: speech from both sides (no rebuttals, only new points) Round 3: crossfire (rebuttals, new points/arguments if needed) Round 4: crossfire (rebuttals, new points/arguments if needed) Round 5: conclusive statements, summary of argument (no new points)
The black death was caused by a volcano and not by germs.

1. When a person dies, their internal bacteria gut bacteria will take over and decompose or consume the entire body. This will turn all the internal organs into a soup. Thus, if a forensic scientist comes along 600 years later and examines a tooth and decides that that person died due to bacteria, then one must take this analysis with a grain of salt. Thus, it is impossible to know the true cause of death of a 600 year old corpse. The only exception would be if the corpse was frozen in ice and preserved the tissues. Therefore, I would not take my opponents so called 'scientific evidence' seriously. 2. When a person gets gangrene and the problem is not treated quickly, then, the gangrene will soon poison the whole body and the infection will spread rapidly. Thus, a person who has untreated gangrene can die within a few days. Thus, my analysis is still relevant to the Black Death symptoms and time of death. 3. My opponent has not specified where "bleeding below the skin" took place. Therefore, fingers, toes and nose still applies. Note - Untreated gangrene spreads infection throughout the body soon after if not treated. 4. Note - Plagues mostly only started to occur when cities became over populated. Could just be a result of over population and pollution of water supply etc. 5. Gangrene can also be caused by eating a diet which contains too much grain and not enough meat, fruit and vegetables. This would cause blockages in the fine blood vessels of the body's extremities. Thus, if the sun is blocked out, people would have to rely on stored grain food to survive for long periods of time. This would cause a diabetic type of disease to become prevalent. 6. The religious aspects of the deaths can't be ruled out. After all, the so called disease started near the Vatican and spread from there. Thus, it could have been a military operation to eliminate the Jews and other unwanted individuals. Note- Hitler's Germany hated Jews and associated Jews with rats and vermin. Also note - The Vatican supported Hitler and antisemitism.
The black death was caused by a volcano and not by germs.

Pro states "Gangrene of the fingers, toes and nose. Hmmmm??????? Sounds like frost bite to me!" Pro failed to take the statement from Medicinenet in it's entirety....to wit "the victims of the Black Death had bleeding below the skin (subcutaneous hemorrhage) which darkened ("blackened") their bodies." (1) Neither starvation nor freezing causes subcutaneous hemorrhaging. Therefore CON has shown that the symptoms of Black Death contraindicate both "starvation" and "Famine" and by extension the volcano theory is negated. ********************* Pro states " . Black rats don't live in Northern Europe - Thus, the fleas have no way of travelling and spreading through this region. " CON responds "The primary culprits in transmitting this disease were oriental rat fleas carried on the back of black rats." (2) However rats and fleas were only one vector out of three for the Black Death. "The plague presented itself in three interrelated forms. The bubonic variant (the most common) [was spread by fleas]. ............ A second variation - pneumonic plague - attacked the respiratory system and was spread by merely breathing the exhaled air of a victim. It was much more virulent than its bubonic cousin - life expectancy was measured in one or two days. Finally, the septicemic version of the disease attacked the blood system."(3) Therefore CON has demonstrated that the extent of the rat niche is irrelevant. ******************* Finally Pro states "The world population graphs indicate that the Black Death didn't even register a small deviation in population density and growth overall. Thus, the whole event was mostly just religious propaganda and reasons to purge out unwanted individuals and was part of the religious inquisition which was going on at that time." CON refutes this via this source..", the mysterious Black Death would kill more than 20 million people in Europe"almost one-third of the continent"s population." (4) Obviously losing one third of a population is hardly "just religious propaganda" as pro asserts. (1) https://www.medicinenet.com... (2) http://www.pests.org... (3) http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com... (4) http://www.history.com...
The black death was caused by a volcano and not by germs.

Gangrene of the fingers, toes and nose. Hmmmm??????? Sounds like frost bite to me! Now, that would be a more logic explanation. Rather, than the fantastically impossible disease hypothesis. Thus, the volcanic causes of climate change would be a more logical explanation. Scientists know that if a volcanic eruption caused a dry mist to block out the sun, then the Arctic winds would blow down from the north and cause a sudden and unexpected cold snap in otherwise temperate regions which are unprepared for such a change. Those persons that had adequate clothing and resources survived the plague and those that didn't have adequate clothing and resources died. There, now, with this more logical explanation we don't have to get caught up in the disease hysteria that caused people to go insane and kill all the Jews and blame it on all the traditional enemies of mankind which include - rats, fleas and Asians while Asia being blamed as the origin of the scourge. Note - Madness and rumours spread faster that any pestilence. Note - The Catholic Church went bananas and blamed the disease on the Jews. Result - All Jews were either murdered or exiled. https://www.giss.nasa.gov... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://theconversation.com... Fleas are the cause? The facts just don't add up. Black rats don't live in Northern Europe - Thus, the fleas have no way of travelling and spreading through this region. In those days they didn't have knowledge of how the human body functions. They didn't have any satellite information about weather patterns. They didn't know what a vitamin is. The word "germ" hadn't even been invented yet. The word germ wasn't used until about the 17th century. Thus, the concept of a germ plague was only something that the followers of Luis Pasteur would comply with. I myself, believe in the Antoinie Bechamp theory of disease which states that - "Germs are the result of a disease and are not the cause of it." Modern studies have proven this to be true. It is only greedy medical authorities and pharmaceutical companies that keep alive this old and redundant concept of germs causing disease. This is done because there is a lot of money to made from the germ theory of disease causation. Note - The world population graphs indicate that the Black Death didn't even register a small deviation in population density and growth overall. Thus, the whole event was mostly just religious propaganda and reasons to purge out unwanted individuals and was part of the religious inquisition which was going on at that time.