BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"Being Yourself" isn't a real thing

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my contention. Before I continue to clash my opponents claims and defend my case I will recall the points that have been made up to this point at their current state. In round 1 my opponent claimed that: a person who changes his mind is not "Being Himself". my opponent also claimed that one's body language can change and therefore the image of "Himself" changes and therefore the statement to "Be Yourself" cannot be true. In round 1 I defined Yourself: to be your normal, healthy, and sane condition. I defined it so that my opponent and I are speaking about the same thing and because he failed to do so. My opponent during round 2 claimed that I defined it wrongly. However he failed to define it in a way that would please him, therefore I see no option but continue with the initial definition and kindly ask my opponent to clarify what he means with "Being Himself" In round 1 I claimed that being yourself is a real thing because it is simply a way of asking someone to be sane, normal (referring to the normal state of the person asked to be himself). My opponent attempted to clash this by saying that: sane is different everywhere. I want to apologise for the misunderstanding. I assumed that it would be clear that the standard for normal is set by the person asked to be himself. Therefore my opponent's clash is invalid and it is possible to be "normal". My claim still stands. In round 1 I also claimed that being yourself means make choices you are happy with. My opponent clashed this by saying that: happy is not a real thing. Not as real as a chair. I do not understand how this makes my claim invalid. We all realize when we are happy right? We all know what makes us happy right? Being happy IS a real thing. And it is possible to make decisions that make us happy, therefore asking someone to Be Yourself is real. In the 2nd round my opponent argued against my statements of the first round but I have already pointed out why his arguments are invalid. During my second round I want to ask you, the judges, audience, and y opponent to consider an occasion where someone told you to just "Be Yourself". The most common example would be when you asked your mom how to behave on your first date. Maybe that was just me? Either way. My mom knows me, and advised me to just be myself, or in other words, be who I always am. I argue that telling someone to be themselves is a real thing because people who know you want you to be the person that they like. In a way, "Yourself" is the set of characteristics that define you. Therefore being yourself is a real thing because one can be true to themselves. To end my speech I want to request my opponent to be clearer with what he has to say during the 3rd round so that the judges, the audience, and I will have an easier time understanding you. Please write down in bullet points why you believe It is not a real thing. Nonetheless, good job until now. I am looking forward to hearing more from you Thank you.
"Being Yourself" isn't a real thing

Con is misdefining "Being yourself". You may have a kid in high school who decides he wants to dress more like the rich, popular kids to gain their favor. This is actually a very smart strategic move if you want to have better networking in the future. His friends and even his parents may say he isn't "being himself". This clearly has nothing to do with being sane. Another point: Being sane is not undoubtedly a real thing. "Sane" is a label that is applied to behave that society approves of. If we lived in an Aztec society we would probably categorize the behavior of trying to avoid being sacrificed to the Gods as "Sacrifice Aversion Syndrome" and would claim it was objective based on what ever neurological correlations we found. Science lacks the authority to define aspects of "ought", they can only determine "is". In a different sort of society mental states considered "insane" may be considered "sane" and vice versa. " -What led the person in your initial scenario to work on something he has no passion for?" He lost his passion "-What is passion?" An abstract word that human beings accord to certain behavioral observations and then mistakenly think it has meaningful existence independently of this. The existence independently is typically what people are refering to when they speak of "one's true passion". "Body language" is what people observe to judge and categorize other people's internal states which too often are really just categories that correlate with behavioral outcomes and don't actually have any independent existence from that. Is "happy" a real thing? In so far as one may justly speak of being happy or not as one's prerogative it is. But is it real beyond that? Real the way a chair is real? Real as in independent from anyone's opinion? No. If a person who is really unhappy continuously defines themselves as "happy" not just on the outside but in their internal monologue what exists to make the person wrong? Other's characterizations? Perhaps, but if they're really good at acting happy too and they do act happy then what is there to make them wrong? Nothing. "Happy" is a label humans invent to "give themselves meaning" and "give ourselves meaning" boils down to "Regulate everyday behavior".
"Being Yourself" isn't a real thing

"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." ; Oscar Wilde Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, the reason I started out with this quote by, writer and poet, Oscar Wilde is because it summarizes the negative case which I will be arguing. I, Martin van Pul, firmly believe that "Being Yourself" is a real thing. Before I get to my own arguments I want to direct some questions to the affirmative side, I hope these do not remain ignored. -What led the person in your initial scenario to work on something he has no passion for? -What is passion? -What led the person to change his mind? -Can you please clarify what you said in the large paragraph about body language? I must point out that my opponent failed to describe what he means by "Yourself". I will therefore take the time to do so myself since I think it is necessary for the debate to be clear. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary "Yourself" means, your normal, healthy, or sane condition or self. Following this definition when person A asks person B to be "himself", he is simply telling him to act normal. Since being normal is definitely and unarguably a real thing the resolution is false and "Being Yourself" is a real thing. I will now bring forth my own argument. I believe that the choices we make are what define us. This belief is not an exclusive club to big, live-changing, choices. It includes our decisions for our daily routine, what we eat, what we wear, where we go. Every choice one makes is part of what you are. Therefore, in the scenarios my opponent provided where the person made different decisions I claim that every decision he would made was part of him "Being Yourself". When a person tells you to be "Yourself" what he is really saying is, make a decision that you will be happy with. I am looking forward to see the response of my opponent and to attempting to clash with what he thinks of next. I remind you that the statement: "Be Yourself" is a real thing because A. It refers to the request of being sane, which undoubtedly is a real thing, Or, B. It refers to the request of making a decision that makes you happy, this request, as well, is a real thing. Thank You
"Being Yourself" isn't a real thing

People talk about "true self" and "being yourself" and "one's true passion". But these things aren't actually real. Take a scenario a person decides he has no passion for what he's worked his whole life on and switches to a different path. He says he's realized what his true self wants and he goes for that. Contrast that with the extent same scenario except he doesn't make this choice and instead sticks with what he was doing. Contrast that with him switching to something entirely different from the first part. If in all these cases if he never reaches a point where he "realizes he made a mistake" and "changes his mind" and if he always holds to himself that he made the right decision then it will be said by himself and by people who believe he is being sincere about it really being himself that he was being "his true self". And if he changes his mind or expresses regret then it won't be. It's also possible people will observe body language and the like and decide based on that rubric that they don't believe he is "being true to himself". But even here what if they decided otherwise? What if everyone suddenly changed their minds about what body language meant what(including the person in question who is being observed) in judging this and consistently held to this way of looking at things? Then, there is nothing in the world that would make it wrong. The meaning of body language is entirely dependent on what meanings we give to it. It would be an impossible feat to get everyone in the world to start habitually according different body language meanings different from what we use now, but if we did this successfully and we successfully maintained it then it would become real at least as far as becoming the new social norm to interpret things in a certain way (and this would likely confuse people not going along with it or not understanding what is happening who had defined themselves as happy but are now being told by everyone that they are not or vice versa). This could also cover personality traits. If a person makes a careful study of a certain personality type (say by watching movies), puts it into practice, and they keep it up their entire life what is there that would stop that from being real? Nothing. Unless we are assuming they are reverting back to some other personality state in private but if they don't then there's nothing that would make it fake.
Found Poem Battle.

This one is gonna be a little short. ... Battle: music, Canadian, found poem, rap, ska. Shooter McGavin was right: The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party. Red Sox freak: patsox834. Strange art: i_defy_the_norm. iamadragon: Lance Chavez Q. "Immortal Flash" Dikembe-Gonzalez. Debates. People. Forums. Debate.org. ... This found poem was obviously about this site. I just took random things I found from browsing some pages, and started typing. The first part is a reference to the "battle" debates, obviously. "Shooter McGavin was right," and "The Republican Party ideological stance makes more sense than that of the Democratic Party" are titles of debates. Red Sox freak is the name of a member of this site. The strange art part came about because i_defy_the_norm has a "strange art" photo album thing. The odd arrangement of names I put after iamadragon's name are what he has under "name" on his profile.
Found Poem Battle.

I'm going to post my sources first. I purposefully chose the song J*** In My Pants (http://www.metrolyrics.com...) because of some of the excellent word choices. My poem, however, is not funny like the song and is actually quite romantic. The next two songs are love songs, so they are more "appropriate" some might say. Celine Dion- My Heart Will Go On (http://www.metrolyrics.com...) Barbra Streisand- Evergreen (http://www.metrolyrics.com...) The next song is romantic, but not like the last two. Crazytown- Butterfly (http://www.metrolyrics.com...) The poem: ************ My heart is still When you whisper in my ear I have a found a rose To keep near Our love is unrehearsed...soft...ageless Time will take us But you will still be my love My butterfly My baby My angel My lady ...my love
Found Poem Battle.

Alright...I'm going to start off with the explanation first. This poem is a little odd...it's a tribute to Buckethead; it tells his story -- most of my sources are related to him somehow: his songs, his bio, and his album titles. So yeah...I figured I should say that first, so people won't be like "what in the blue hell is this?" And now we begin. ... Welcome to Bucketheadland. Somewhere over the slaughterhouse on inbred mountain while in the night of the slunk, the ballad of Buckethead is sung from a coop. No one understood him...kids even lit him on fire that time. To this very day, Bucket does not like to be shocked with a cattle prod. Through the smell of burning cartilage and a knothole in the fence, Bucket would watch the Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Giant Robot and do the Bucketbot jig. He got a little guitar; he sat and watched movies while moving his fingers, and all of a sudden there was music. Buckethead practiced so much he started to get real good. One night, somebody threw a bucket of fried chicken into the coop -- but Buckethead couldn't put the chicken back together again. He took his guitar, put the bucket on his head, and ran to the cemetery. All the angels and grey people in the jowls of the cemetery listened to Bucket's beautiful music; they stood there speechless. For Christmas, Buckethead even got a shovel so he could look for more friends in the cemetery! Jump man Jordan even showed him how to sneak into Disneyland disguised as a Haunted Mansion ghost. He was the luckiest boy he knew; everyday was like Halloween. Disneyland was the greatest city he'd ever been to; he loved it so much he burned down his coop. Bucketheadland opened in 1989. The rides its famous for were made out of rusty tractor parts, and a bunch of sticks and animal bones tied together with spider silk. Buckethead even built a huge cemetery in the middle with the statues and tombstones lined up to create the best acoustics. Buckethead traveled around the world for 13 years. From Nottingham Lace to the Bermuda triangle. Buckethead made many new friends; he learned the secrets of embalming and martial arts. Buckethead recorded new albums with his friends. All of these adventures helped Bucketheadland grow into the world of dreams and nightmares that we all know and love. NOTE: Some and events may have been altered chronologically. Stories may be apocryphal, hypothetical, metaphorical or completely made up. ... Ok. A lot of this came from here: http://www.bucketheadland.com... I mixed and matched the lines, as well as adding in some Buckethead's songs and albums. Inbred Mountain, Bermuda Triangle, Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse, and Bucketheadland are all albums of his. The line "welcome to Buckethead land" is featured in the opening seconds of the opening track to the album -- Park Theme (intro.) Jowls, Night of the Slunk, Nottingham Lace, the Ballad of Buckethead, Bucketbot's Jig, Jump Man, and Jordan are all songs of his. http://en.wikipedia.org... I also used this random song a little, just so I had a source that wasn't Buckethead related: http://www.metrolyrics.com...
Found Poem Battle.

Here goes: *********** I'm waiting in my cold cell Reflecting on my life My world comes crashing down The priest comes to read me the last rites Tears fall but why am I crying? I'm the only one to blame Say my prayers "Hallowed be thy name" This party's over My life drifts before me I don't want an end to my story Dying scares me 'Cause it screams the truth Will you remember me? There's no use ************ The first stanza primarily from the song Hallowed Be Thy Name by Iron Maiden (http://www.metrolyrics.com...), but the third line comes from Apocolyptica's I'm Not Jesus (http://www.metrolyrics.com...). The second stanza comes from both of those songs and Sober by Pink (http://www.metrolyrics.com...). The rest of the poem continues to come from just those three songs focusing more on Hallowed Be Thy Name and Sober.
Found Poem Battle.

...we've got a bigger problem now... I am governor Tommy Jordan -- I will command all of you one day; soon I will be president. Zen fascists will control you...you will close your eyes and wear your happy face; come quietly to the master race. Totalitarian news speak looks nice, you say? If you frown, then you will pay! Now it is 1984; big bro and his double speak knocks at your front door. Come to the camp; meditate in school...but don't worry, it's only a shower...never frown and get a pretty flower. Mellow out, you little clowns...for you will die if you mess with president Jordan. If you mess with president Jordan. Jordan's utopia uber alles. ... Ok, this will require a bit of an explanation. It's short -- but it's not simple. Firstly, most of the words are a rearrangement of the Dead Kennedys song "California Uber Alles." However, the name "Tommy Jordan" comes from two different sources: the Buckethead song "Jordan," and an album by the Who entitled "Tommy." And the opening line (we've got a bigger problem now) is a title of a Dead Kennedys song. The part about 1984 and "big bro" are recognizable references to the novel "1984," which was written by George Orwell. The part about totalitarian news speak is also a direct reference to 1984...as is the little part about "double think." For the parts about news speak, totalitarianism, and double think, I went here: http://en.wikipedia.org... For the Dead Kennedys' lyrics, I went here: http://www.azlyrics.com... I couldn't think of a good way to end it off, so I went to my iTunes, and looked at some song names. I came across one called "the Man From Utopia" by Frank Zappa, and I thought "utopia" would fit in well, and add a little twist of irony, considering my poem is clearly about a dystopia. I should also point out that the words "uber alles" aren't only a reference to the Dead Kennedys -- but they were also part of the German national anthem under Hitler's regime. The anthem had the lyrics "Deutschland uber alles," which essentially means Germany over all. There were also some other pretty obvious references to Nazi Germany. Such as the parts about camps and showers. http://en.wikipedia.org... ... But yeah, to explain further, this poem is essentially a satire of government. It mocks right-wingers by taking their viewpoint. It's also an apolitical poem; its message is that with too much government in our lives, we become too dependent on them and trust them too much, and thus, we sacrifice our individuality and rationality...and when that happens, we're really not very far from an Orwellian society. Ok, back to my opponent.
Found Poem Battle.

This is going to be very short and...not so sweet. The short poem comes from a mixture of five songs. They have been rearranged quite a bit, but all of the text comes from these songs: Rapture by the band Hurt: http://www.metrolyrics.com... Got Jealous by Hurt: http://www.metrolyrics.com... Cold Inside by Hurt: http://www.metrolyrics.com... Weak and Powerless by A Perfect Circle: http://www.lyricsfreak.com... And Vicarious (track number 1) by Tool: http://toolshed.down.net... ****************** They said I would be safe They lie They put me away in a cage, Cold on the inside The doctor said, "forget your pain. Pull your head out of your haze." I dig my own grave And they will watch me die
Found Poem Battle.

Thanks for accepting. Alright, to start, I'll go with something short, just to help my opponent get the feel (I hope this works): Dance on fire as the spirit of radio intends -- but beware...when the music stops, there's a message from the underworld: god called in sick today...so tell all the people: no one here gets out alive -- the screams of the butterfly lament the end...turn out the lights; the music's over. Your time is gonna come...but in *my* time of dying, just take my body home. I want nobody to mourn. ... Ok, there are a nice few references here. Firstly, I referenced the Doors many times. I used some of the lyrics from the song When the Music's Over, as well as the song's Tell All the People, Five to One, and the End. I also used "Lament," from the American Prayer album. That can all be found here: http://www.oldielyrics.com... I also briefly referenced Rush, and their song "the Spirit of Radio." I referenced Led Zeppelin, as well; I used lyrics from the song "In My Time of Dying," and used the title of their song "Your Time is Gonna Come." http://www.sing365.com... Lastly, I also referenced AFI and the obscure punk band Agent Orange. AFI: http://www.metrolyrics.com... Agent Orange: http://www.last.fm... That about covers it. I'll give my opponent the spotlight.
Found Poem Battle.

Found poetry: http://en.wikipedia.org... Both myself and my opponent will have to show what we're referencing -- for example, if I reference a song by Pink Floyd, then I'll post a link to the lyrics; if I reference a bunch of song titles by a band, then I'll post a link to their discography. We can write about whatever we want, whether it's entirely frivolous or something more serious. There doesn't necessarily need to be any rhyme scheme present, either. Obviously, the person who comes up with the better found poems is the winner. I'm intentionally not defining what makes one poem "better" than another; I'm leaving that up to the individual readers to decide. I'd also ask that whoever votes posts a rationale for that vote. ...this is merely an introduction -- but my opponent can start if he/she chooses to. I don't have a problem if they use their first round as an introduction of sorts, either. So yeah...good luck to whoever accepts.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

The idea that owning handguns will send this country into eternal damnation is just ridiculous. This country was founded with certain rights and this country has become very successful by sticking to them. So the idea that there is no salvation in this institution eliminates the need for any debate. If there is a problem go out and fix it, do not sit there and acknowledge that there is no hope with no solution. To conclude my argument, handguns are right for people residing in the United States. And during this debate their has been no convincing argument to contradict my case.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

My argument is that sacrificing the debate itself, not just the message of the debate, is the only way that we can ever move beyond worshipping the monolithic ideal of debate. That we can move beyond justifying something because we have hashed it out in the Academy, that we can move beyond our own God complexes -- that is only through the affirmative.While the negative case may be true, it doesn't matter about the logistics of the affirmative. The speech of the 1AC was, in its own right, a rejection of the world and its foundations. I am shooting myself with what is being taken away, and I am shooting you and the debate with it. I leave no survivors, and thus, the negative doesn't matter.
In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.

While I have not personally read any of the works of Nick Land, I think I am able to see the message you are trying to convey, and please correct me if I am wrong. Your point being that sacrificing a right (handgun ownership), is the only way to better our society? While I agree that bringing about change requires sacrifice, to give up the rights that have been affirmed by our constitution, and confirmed by our courts is simply a descent into spiraling staircase where any right may be infringed upon. Simply put, the second amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, the supreme court has on two cases confirmed that right, both in District of Columbia v. Heller, and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Any law that would be passed banning handguns would have a difficult path getting past the supreme court if it were ever approved.