BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security

My opponent's argument has amounted to nothing more than a definitional attack. He then accuses me of not engaging with his substance - a "petty pseudoattack" which he launched, not me (by attacking my definition in round three). Sadly, there is nothing to engage with. It all rests on his and John Milton's assertion that the ability to speak freely imparts an obligation to speak freely. I've provided clear examples as to why that's false. As I said in round two, I am free to tell you how to rob me, but that doesn't mean I'm going to. The same can be applied to the state or their agents in the case of national security. My opponent never told you why not. He simply disputes my definition. He even challenges his own definition, to the point that I'm not really sure what he's arguing any more. Voters, you can have security and the right to speak freely. They are not mutually exclusive. I proved to you time and time again that we can't trust politicians to remove our rights, we won't learn anything but benign information (because people can also choose not to exercise their right to free speech), and that truth is good for guarding against falsehood. My opponent did not respond except to disagree with the definitions after accepting them. How can I possibly win if my opponent keeps changing his mind about what we are arguing? As such, if con wins the debate, you are buying into a definition, not an argument. If pro wins, it is on the back of three solid arguments that have gone entirely unrefuted.
That free speech should not be restricted for reasons of national security

RulesRound one is for acceptance, rules and definitions. Round five is for summaries only (only post a paragraph or so, and no new material). This debate is not to be judged on sources, or evidence, but rather the quality of arguments (which may, of course, be bostered by sources/evidence). Generally the debate will be more philosophical than empirical. I also ask that my opponent doesn't source videos, because it's nearly impossible to check their origin. Other than that, standard debate rules apply. DefinitionsFree speech - right to express opinions or facts publically without legal restraint or censorship of any kind. I will leave the definition of national security up to my opponent.
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

:(This is agitating. Pro has the BoP. I don't have to prove anything, I just have to negate. I have given reasons for why I think Shakespreare is superior. My assertion is that Shakespeare is more filled with love. Reasons: Dean is vulgarDean is unsophisticated(Both derived from a quick glance at the poetry)Awkward read(Also attainable through a quick read. Shakespeare:The sonnet expresses an eternal love. The speaker has an admiration for the beauty of a girl. He says that this beauty will never fade. He says that she lives forever in the sonnet. This is beautiful, she and all her beauty is immortalized by him. Quotes from sonnet to substantiate my view. "By chance, or nature"s changing course, untrimmed;But thy eternal summer shall not fade," "So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. "Once again pro can't objectively prove something that is subjective. Pro did not respond to my arguments from Solipsism/ Logical Positivism. :)
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

In conclusion con says "Pro says: "this is not about your subjective feelings" No. This is inherently subjective. I can give reasons to why I think Shakespeare is more filled with love than your poems, but I can't objectively verify that they are." con says "I can give reasons to why I think Shakespeare is more filled with love than your poems" but as we can see he has NOT given reasons-all he has given is assertions as I have given reasons backed up by quotes and con has not then I must win the debate it is no use con now giving reason a this is the end of the debate and could not respond even if con did try and prove his point with reasons and quotes so I must win I thank con for his debate
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

Lol pro has not addressed my argument." Logical positivism, also called logical empiricism, a philosophical movement that arose in Vienna in the 1920s and was characterized by the view that scientific knowledge is the only kind of factual knowledge and all traditional metaphysical doctrines are to be rejected as meaningless. " P1) My mind is the only verifiable mind P2) In my mind Shakespeare is more filled with loved P3) In all minds Shakespeare is more filled with love C1) Shakespeare is more filled with loveP1- P1) If I am thinking, I have a mindP2) I am thinkingC1) I have a mindA derivation is if you don't have a mind, you are not thinking.Thinking: ": the action of using your mind to produce ideas, decisions, memories, etc.""A mind /G2;ma=8;nd/ is the set of cognitive faculties that enables consciousness, perception, thinking, judgement, and memory—a characteristic ofhumans, but which also may apply to other life forms"So the notion that if you are thinking, you have a mind, seems to be pretty well substantiated.Proposition X is the proposition that you are thinking.Propistion X' (X prime) is the proposition that you are merely an extension of my subconscious.Both are indistinguishable in regards to verification.Both X and X' are indistinguishable in regards to verification, both propositions are equal.The consequence is that you actually can't verify either. Since they are both indistinguishable, they are meaninglessSince both propositions are meaningless, they should be dismissed. Since I am the only verifiable mind and in my mind Shakespeare is more filled with love, then Shakespreare is more filled with love.Pro says: "this is not about your subjective feelings"No. This is inherently subjective. I can give reasons to why I think Shakespeare is more filled with love than your poems, but I can't objectively verify that they are.I have given reasons as to why I think Shakespeare is better, hence my first round. http://www.britannica.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

con says "Conclusion- Since in my mind Shakespeare is more filled with love, and my mind is the only mind, then Shakespeare is more filled with love. I win ^.^" your are wrong this is not about your subjective feelings this is about how well sonnet 18 objectively fits the definition of love and I have shown with quotes why deans poem fits it better than Shakespeare all you have given is assertions you have given no proof as to why sonnet 18 fits the definition of love better than deans poem except saying "in my mind Shakespeare is more filled with love," you need to show how "objectively" how sonnet 18 fits the definition of love if I wrote "my sh*t stunk to high heaven" and said it was a love poem you would just say it did not fit the definition of love ie passion desire sexual passion etc so same applies here unless you give us objective proof of your assertions then I must win the debate
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

Pro says: "I pity the girl you make love if she only knew that you think her cunt is vulgaralso it is her cunt you want to put your dick in -how horrible for you you are putting your dick is going into in a horrible thingdeans poetry is to teach you that the cunt is a beautiful thinghow beautiful is this- you cant see the beauty because you think the cunt is vulgar how sad"The usage of cunt is usually vulgar. This is not to say a vagina is not profound or beautiful. "Shakespeare is boring he has admiration with out passion"I don't think it's boring, I find it exciting and lovely.Passion is not the same as love. We are debating love not passion. And I would argue Shakespeare does have passion, he's just not painfully vulgar.Argument from Solipsism:P1) My mind is the only mindP2) In my mind Shakespeare's work is more filled with loveP3) In all minds Shakespreare's work is more filled with love.C1) Shakespeare's work is more filled with love.Resolution negated :)P1- I am thinking therefor, I have a mind.Pro is P-Zombie." A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is a hypothetical being that is indistinguishable from a normal human being except in that it lacksconscious experience, qualia, or sentience.[1] For example, a philosophical zombie could be poked with a sharp object, and not feel any pain sensation, but yet, behave exactly as if it does feel pain (it may say "ouch" and recoil from the stimulus, or tell us that it is in intense pain)."It is the case that pro is merely an extension of my consciousness.Conclusion- Since in my mind Shakespeare is more filled with love, and my mind is the only mind, then Shakespeare is more filled with love.I win ^.^http://www.iep.utm.edu...http://en.wikipedia.org...
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

con says "Really? " Cunt /G2;kA2;nt/ is a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be extremely vulga" I pity the girl you make love if she only knew that you think her cunt is vulgar also it is her cunt you want to put your dick in -how horrible for you you are putting your dick is going into in a horrible thing deans poetry is to teach you that the cunt is a beautiful thing how beautiful is this- you cant see the beauty because you think the cunt is vulgar how sad """where is the cunt my cup the delight of the world where is the cunt that be the throne of paradise"" con says The speaker in dean's poem seems to be a nymphomaniac. There is no personal attraction. The speaker merely has an unhealthy obsession with "cunt". " the same obsession you have when you want to put your dick in the cunt if dean is vulgar then so must you be con says "On the otherhand, the Shakespeare is lovely. what can we extrapolate from the dear Bard Of Avon? The sonnet expresses an eternal love. The speaker has an admiration for the beauty of a girl. He says that this beauty will never fade. He says that she lives forever in the sonnet. This is beautiful, she and all her beauty is immortalized by him. The sonnet displays a profound love and admiration, while Dean's poetry is merely vulgar" Shakespeare is boring he has admiration with out passion take deans lines-full of longing admiration and passion nothing vulgar about this -you must realize that if you see the vulgar then your mind is vulgar to the pure all things are pure-to the vulgar mind all things are vulgar "From out of paradise bloweth a perfumed breeze that for this beggar of cunt does bringeth ease scent of the cunt doth o"er flow I that drunketh be I on the breath of that cunt that sendeth the scent to I Oh kohl'in al-deen sighs giveth cunny dew to this wayfarer this slave of cunt hail the seeker of cunt for cunt is lifes meaning lifes questing end alike for all the cunt its lips does spread for all in its folds are warmed and fed a tavern in which the thirstys thirst is quickly fled"
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

NO. NO. NO.Also it is pro's BoP/Love: " It can refer to an emotion of a strong attraction and personal attachment.[1] It can also be a virtue representing humankindness, compassion, and affection—"the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another".[2] It may also describe compassionate and affectionate actions towards other humans, one's self or animals."Dean's poetry is vulgar.The poem just incessantly repeats "cunt".There is no sophistication. Dean's poetry is void of any real feeling, it's limited to vile, offensive, low class porn. ""where is the cunt my cup the delight of the worldwhere is the cunt that be the throne of paradise"Really? " Cunt /G2;kA2;nt/ is a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be extremely vulgar."Cunt is not the word one want's to use when expressing love. Common usage of the world is insulting.The speaker in dean's poem seems to be a nymphomaniac. There is no personal attraction. The speaker merely has an unhealthy obsession with "cunt". On the otherhand, the Shakespeare is lovely. what can we extrapolate from the dear Bard Of Avon? The sonnet expresses an eternal love.The speaker has an admiration for the beauty of a girl. He says that this beauty will never fade.He says that she lives forever in the sonnet. This is beautiful, she and all her beauty is immortalized by him. The sonnet displays a profound love and admiration, while Dean's poetry is merely vulgar. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.shakespeare-online.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18

These love poems are more full of love than Shakespeares sonnet 18 http://www.scribd.com... so lets start with a definition of love http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. 2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance. 3. a. Sexual passion. (Sonnet 18) William Shakespeare, 1564 - 1616 Shall I compare thee to a summer"s day? Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May, And summer"s lease hath all too short a date. Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines, And often is his gold complexion dimmed; And every fair from fair sometime declines, By chance, or nature"s changing course, untrimmed; But thy eternal summer shall not fade, Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow"st, Nor shall death brag thou wand"rest in his shade, When in eternal lines to Time thou grow"st. So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. so words like desire feelings of affection sexual desire romance are keys to analyising both poems so point 1 sonnet 18 has no desire feelings of affection sexual desire- all we get is objective description no subjectivity no emotion now DEANS POEM examples "Last night when all did sleep the breeze did bring the musky scent of the cunts hyacinth breath from which delight did I reap" oh cried kohl'in al-deen "where is the cunt my cup the delight of the world where is the cunt that be the throne of paradise where be the cunt that of my cheek perfumes from its cunts curls where be the cunt that gives this seeker peace fromst the pain that in I swirls Alas no answering call to dry the tears of my lament no one knoweth the cunts intent " these lines are full of love-passion sexual desire etc-where sonnet 18 is not again "The cunt is flushed with red the cunts folds hast burst into spreading blooms on their sight drunked art I hail those who on the cunts musky cunt dew doth imbibe its sweet perfumed breath oh behold the marvel the seeker seeks behold the juice that satiates the seekers parched thirst from which for hours on hours he doth not sleep Oh cries kohl'in al-deen come all to the halting-station of thy afflictions and thy woes for mirth on earth the goal which seeker seeks to give rebirth
Kingdom Hearts 3 vs Final Fantasy XV

Good evening fellow debaters! Its once again the holidays season for my country and I felt the need to spread the joy through debates! Kingdom Hearts 3 and Final Fantasy XV (aka versus xiii) were both formally announced with their new titles at e3 2013. This joyous event sparked many enjoyable live reactions, however, which one was better? Of course this debate isn't about facts, however if you are willing to try and prove that Final Fantasy XV is far more worth the wait than Kingdom Hearts 3 then please accept this debate! I will of course be taking the side that Kingdom Hearts 3 is better than Final Fantasy XV and you must prove to me not only that Kingdom Hearts 3 is not better, but that Final Fantasy XV is. This debate is informal, requires little facts if you want and a lot of concentration on what little details we have! Reference to other games in the series is encouraged.
Trump should continue the National Emergency and build the wall

The korean demilitarization zone is a lot different than illegal immigration. You are also forgetting that MANY more people are stopped than crossed. The illegal border crossings in Israel fell over 94%. " Just about anyone can be welcomed into America's borders. " Criminals, Murduers, Terrororists, And drug dealers. Everybody can say that there is alternatives to walls. But statistically it works. "We do not have an illegal immigrant problem" Tell people who's family members have been KILLED by illegal immigrants that. As well as the drugs. A border wall is a sufficient emergency. 80% of all woman who are at a border crossing which can be helped with 800 million dollars of humanitarian needs, Are raped. The wall is fueling the opioid and heroin crisis. The National Emergency is a power given to the President for a reason.
Trump should continue the National Emergency and build the wall

I will keep it short as well. The North and South Korean border, Knowm has the demilitarized zone, Is arguably the most defended borer crossing yet people defect and illegally cross the border by the thousands. Armmed guards and millions of square miles of land mines beat a simple wall any time. Unlike North and South Korea, Or the examples set by Pro, Just about anyone can be welcomed into America's borders. How does a wall stop a boat, Plane, Train, Or car from crossing at any one of the border crossing ports of entry? All you have to do is say your on vacation and border agents will wave you past. We do not have an illegal immigrant problem via the Fox New version of people walking through the desert that a wall might address. We have over staying your tourist visa problem or validating it by becoming employed, A. K. A an undocumented worker problem. For that you fine business, Like Trump' s who currently employees 100's of undocumented workers, Through the roof for each and every undocumented worker. As for it being an National Emergency I wonder if Pro would like it the next Demoricat elected to the Presidency was to declare a National Emergency over health care, Social security payments, Or poverty without congressional approval. Think about it Pro would you want Berine Sanders to do this for Medicare for all?
Trump should continue the National Emergency and build the wall

Im going to keep this nice and short Its an issue- Illegal border crossings are set to be all-time high for 2019 as well as aliens going in and taking jobs and killing good Americans, Families going to the border is also a problem but 800 million dollars are going to humanitarian needs for families. Also drugs. 8 million pounds of marijuana, The biggest fetanyol breach enough to kill 300 million people. 1 billion dollars for drugs will certainly help. Walls work- If walls don't work, Why does Israel works, Hungary works, East Germany worked, El Paso worked, A county in Texas has a wall on the Eastern side and thats where only 4% of the immigration takes place. National Emergency-This is the only way to build the wall since Nancy Pelosi who is half in a coffin won't budge. As of military not getting money. We spend 600 billion dollars on our military. Russia, Who has more active members counting reserves only spends 100 billion in contrast. So no one is going it be affected, Plus it will cheapen the costs of border security.
On balance, economic globalization benefits worldwide poverty reduction

This is going to be a clean debate. No insults or trolling.Round Parameters:Round 1: Acceptance of termsRound 2: Cases, no rebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttal and new arguments if necessary.Round 4: Rebuttal and new arguments if necessary.Round 5: Final focus, no new arguments, just reiteration.Definitions:On balance: Taking every factor into consideration.Economic globalization: The worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration. [businessdictionary.com] Poverty: The state of being extremely poor. Poverty Reduction: Permanently lifting as many people out of poverty as possible. Third-World Countries: Underdeveloped countries with widespread poverty.
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

It is most likely that the voice actor has some voice cancer or is transgender, etc. Nonetheless, cartoons are much better than comic strips. http://popeye.org... Here is a Popeye comic strip. Can't you see how inappropriate it is? On the other hand, cartoons are generally directed to children, so they have less cussing, nudity, racism etc involved in them. So unless you want a corrupt mind, go watch some Popeye cartoons. This is our last round, and for once we have debated something meaningful. I await your next argument.
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

You do not need motion or sound to enjoy something, you need a good plot and likable characters, and the Popeye cartoons do not have good plots or likable characters. The original Popeye strip was read by millions at the time of its printing, but today, because of the cartoons, it has been buried in obscurity. It deserves far more recognition. It is a legendary work, a work that defined the American landscape for years to come and besides all that, it's darn funny. The Popeye cartoons are not at all interesting. They do not mention prohibition, and there are only 3 characters: Popeye, Olive Oyl, and Bluto. Bluto was never even in the comic strip. He was in there once. The comic strip has many more characters. Oscar, King Blozo, Vanripple, Wimpy, Rough House, Geezil, The sea hag, The goon, pappy, Swee pea, The jeep, Bernice the whiffle hen, Castor Oyl, and others. These characters had real social chemistry, because they were all different, none of them were inherently good or evil, they were complex figures with motivation and charisma. And Max Fleischer destroyed them all. He ruined them, sent them away. The cartoons would be fine if they were a word for word adaptation of the comics. But they are not. They are different, and much worse. He never made a cartoon in the Sappo universe, either, because Sappo is just as good. Sappo is a funny comic, it shows the eccentricity of scientists, and it's one of the earliest science fiction works ever made, it should be put in a museum. It reflects an era when religion and science were battling it out, but before Wotasnozzle arrives, it's still a reflection of contemporary American life. I said that Olive Oyl's voice in the cartoons is 10 octaves too high. Popeye sounds like he has throat cancer. The voice actors chosen were very poor choices. I don't care if Max Fleischer invented Betty Boop on his own. he still ruined Popeye. And ruining Popeye is an unforgivable sin. The cartoons are not funny, they are not intriguing, they are a blemish on every good cartoon ever made. I await your argument.
E.C. Segar's Popeye comic strips are better than Max Fleischer's Popeye cartoons.

Oh, I'm sorry. I now will debate for the animated cartoons. I thought you were referring to one-panel cartoons. Nonetheless, I prefer cartoons, in general, over comic strips. Animated cartoons have motion and sound, and is often more hilarious than comic strips. If you watched the Popeye cartoons before, you can actually find them quite interesting. On the other hand, comic strips are long and often gets boring. Also, if you think Popeye's voice is 10 octaves too high, you must have a negative IQ. If you write in ALL CAPS, SO WILL I: LET US RECONSTRUCT THE 7 WONDERS CURRY IS A DRUG THAT INDIAN PEOPLE BURN TO THEIR MILLION-ARMED GOD THAT IS POLLUTING THE WORLD