BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time is Essence

This is a poem I wrote in high school. Crimson stains persist. The ballroom floods with a suffocating metallic haze, and, though we stagger away, we cannot escape it. Absent an alibi, she seeks to rid her hands of blame, and watches in horror its damning grasp. Out damned spot! Ah, patriotism: death's panacea and oh the red spills it makes. What vital duty and purpose the sanguine tide bears But, too, an image of evil and mortality. I was emo, no joke.
Time is Essence

My opponent pretty much rambled incoherently for his introduction, so I will do my best to decipher what he said and identify any real arguments he made.“Time is essence”This statement is not only mostly meaningless, any meaning you could possibly gather from it is false. According to the Oxford English dictionary, time is “the indefinite continued progress of existence and events in the past, present, and future regarded as a whole” (1). It is up to my opponent to clarify exactly how that is an essence of something. Human life? The universe? A timeline?“The world … neither clothe those who are naked, nor feed those who are hungry”I hope I understood this part correctly. Actually, clothes and food come directly from the world. Both clothes and food typically come from plant and animal material, which of course live in the world.“the mind in its masculine essence”I challenge my opponent to explain how the mind (and not just the male mind) has a masculine essence.And in case this is just a poetry battle, I see your hipster rant and raise you a Walt Whitman sonnet:EARTH! my likeness! Though you look so impassive, ample and spheric there,I now suspect that is not all;I now suspect there is something fierce in you, eligible to burst forth;For an athlete is enamour’d of me—and I of him;But toward him there is something fierce and terrible in me, eligible to burst forth,I dare not tell it in words—not even in these songs.That’s pretty much all I got for now. Five rounds of this should be fun.1. http://oxforddictionaries.com...
Time is Essence

This world, in which reason is more and more at home, is not habitable. The world is hard and cold like those depots in which are piled up goods that cannot satisfy: neither clothe those who are naked, nor feed those who are hungry; it is as impersonal as factory hangars and industrial cities in which manufactured things remain abstract, true with statistical truth and borne on the anonymous circuit of the economy, resulting from skilful planning decisions which cannot prevent, but prepare disasters. There the world is, the mind in its masculine essence, living on the outside, exposed to the violent, blinding sun, to the trade winds that beat against it and beat it down, on a land without folds, rootless, solitary and wandering and thus already alienated by the very things which it caused to be produced and which remain untameable and hostile.
Time is Essence

Oatmeal Cookies¾ cup butter, salted, room temp.1 cup packed light brown sugar1 egg1 tsp vanilla extract¾ cup flour½ tsp baking soda½ tsp cinnamon3 cups oatmeal (old fashioned preferred)1 cup walnuts, toasted and chopped1 cup dried cranberriesPreheat oven to 350 degrees F. In a bowl, beat the butter and sugar until creamy and smooth. Mix in egg and vanilla. In a separate bowl, whisk together the flour, baking soda, and cinnamon. Combine the wet and dry mixtures. Stir in the oatmeal, nuts, and cranberries. Place balls of dough on a cookie sheet and bake for 12-15 minutes or until light golden brown.
Abortion is morally acceptable.

So, you say that you believe in the existence of morals as long as they are logical and do not contain fallacies. Then I'll take it that you believe, like many people that murder is wrong. Let me know if you disagree with this. If you do, then this debate is pointless and a waste of time. You can stop reading after this paragraph. Or.... If you do hold that murder is not good, not in the middle, but bad, then this debate is gonna go somewhere hopefully. What I'm going to try and convince you of is that abortion is murder, and since murder is morally inacceptable, so is abortion. I can put it as a math equation if you want: abortion=murder , murder=morally inacceptable , abortion=morally inacceptable. To understand why abortion is murder, I first must prove to you that the aborted human fetus is a human being. Not a potential human, not just "a fetus", but a human. Because murder, defined by Merriam Webster, is "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" [1]. You cannot murder a rock, because a rock is not a person. Killing animals is considered animal cruelty, not murder [2]. So you can only really murder a human. Any other organism intentionally killed is animal cruelty. Because the human fetus in a mother's womb is not considered human by many, then in that case they believe it is not murder, but, well, animal cruelty. There is no in between, and if there is, please tell me what it is (but no synonyms that mean exactly the same thing like "termination"). People who believe the human fetus is not really human are forced with a choice: either human or animal. It can not be in between. A "developing" human as some like to call it is still human. "Developing" is only a subcategory of humans. Just like a "disabled" or "super" human. Because disabled humans and super humans (not like Superman really, but humans who have an extraordinary ability) are still considered humans, why aren't developing humans, as well? If you still believe that a human fetus is not human, then what is he or she? A fish? A lion? You are either human, specifically homo sapiens, or you are some other type of animal. You cannot be only part human. And because the DNA of even a human single-celled zygote is fully complete and dictates that it is indeed of the genus-species Homo sapiens, we can deduce scientifically that this is a human being. I have other reasons to illustrate why a human fetuses, who are human, should not be aborted because they are human, but for now I will see how you do against these. Sources: 1. https://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. www.debate.org/opinions/is-killing-an-animal-murder
Abortion is morally acceptable.

A follow-up to my "Life begins at conception" debate, here we have a debate about abortion and if it is morally acceptable. I will be arguing that it is not (except if the mother's life is threatened, then which I believe it is acceptable). Under any other scenarios, whether the human fetus is simply not wanted or was conceived by rape, I will be arguing that abortion is morally wrong. Note: you must believe in the concept of morals to accept this debate. Obviously someone who does not believe in morals could troll the heck out of this debate. Round 1 will be for acceptance, and Rounds 2 through 4 will be arguments and rebuttals. Definitions (from Merriam Webster): 1) human: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) 2) fetus: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind 3) moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior 4) abortion: the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus Feel free to add definitions or improve upon mine if you see fit in your Round 1 acceptance.
Australia should accept asylum seekers.

you stated "If the effect of taking in these refugees in Germany and Britain were benign then we would not be having the discussion of whether Australia "should" take in refugees." but others have stated differently. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel, said that "Europe is facing a great challenge for our generation. Never before have so many people fled political persecution and war as today. Many of them are seeking refuge here with us in Europe. In view of the crises in our neighbourhood, we must assume that this could remain the case for years. And as Europeans, we owe it to ourselves and to the world to help them.", and Michael MacKellar, the Liberal MP who held Tony Abbott"s seat for 25 years before Mr Abbott assumed it, said, "As a matter of humanity, and in accord with international obligations freely entered into, Australia has accepted a responsibility to contribute towards the solution of world refugee problems." Mr Mackellar promised that the government"s "full resources" would be made available to asylum seekers. While many of the people are against Australia accepting asylum seekers, many are also with. It is completely undeniable that Australia's attitude towards asylum seekers has been shockingly dreadful, and so it is time for a change. yes the word should, indicates duty, propriety, or expediency, but we must remember that not all duties are taken on, i am not forcing anyone to take any actions against there will, this is more like a debate to determine whether it should be a duty or it shouldn't. Yet i should also state that taking on asylum seekers doesn't have to be a duty, but can be looked at in a humanitarian approach.
Australia should accept asylum seekers.

Who else is seeking Asylum in the numbers of millions except Syrian Arabs and people pretending to be Syrian? Your use of the word "should" would imply some duty which overrides what Australians think about it. They practically torpedo Indonesians to send them back if they show up in a boat. "Should" would indicate you support coercing or forcing Australians to do something against their will. How do you justify that?
Australia should accept asylum seekers.

The debate states whether Australia should accept asylum seekers or not, yet when you posted your first argument you implemented that these asylum seekers are Arabs or of middle eastern background, even though asylum seekers can be of any background, but i will consider that you are referring to recent events with the Syrian asylum seekers. These people fled from warfare and fear of been killed, many of them are innocent children and mothers whose fathers have been killed, i'am sure that these innocent civilians do not have the power or even resources to "screw up there country", seen as this power lies within governments and other groups or organisations, yet when there homes are bombed and there relatives, friends and family members are killed, they decide to flee but no body wants to accept these asylum seekers. These people have the right to education, shelter and a normal life but even that is not considered a good idea to be given to them because people, for example your self take the stereotype that Arabs are bad guests into consideration. I am for sure not convinced that these children, have any fault in what is happening to there country and so they deserve a normal life. Australia and many other countries have signed and agreed to the declaration of human rights which states; Article 14. (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations Article 25. (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection. I am also certain that you are knowledgeable that many other articles state that everyone has there right to religion and nationality with out been discriminated upon or criticized.
Australia should accept asylum seekers.

First of all can i just say that this is only a friendly debate, also this debate is about whether "Australia" should accept asylum seekers. You have not provided me with a proper argument or a proper point, furthermore, you have only stated an empty meaningless stereotype about Arabs that happens to offensive and even somehow racist. Yet i would still however, take on this debate in a more educated manner than you have and i will prove you wrong. It is sung in assemblies and heard in ceremonies, the Australian national anthem its self clearly states that For those whom come across the seas we've boundless plains to share; (Beneath our radiant Southern Cross We"ll toil with hearts and hands; To make this Commonwealth of ours Renowned of all the lands; "For those who"ve come across the seas We"ve boundless plains to share" With courage let us all combine To Advance Australia Fair. In joyful strains then let us sing, Advance Australia Fair.)
Australia should accept asylum seekers.

There is no duty for anyone to take any refugees. Arab problems are Arab problems no matter how much you'd like to blame the west for it. When you screw up your own country so bad you have to leave, Europe has some weird duty to take you in? Allowing immigration can have a humanitarian aspect, but it's got to serve the indigenous population. What we can say about these Arabs is that they are really, really, really bad guests. Go home.
The Beatles Are Objectively Better Than Coldplay

No, just bored! So imagine a scenario where you had to destroy either all of the works of Beethoven in existence or the recordings of me, aged 16, playing the guitar (and to be honest, I sucked). An aesthetic objectivist would choose Beethoven: an aesthetic subjectivist would have to flip a coin since they would have no good reason for choosing one or the other. I believe that art relates to human experience. I believe that there are certain 'facts of the matter' about human experience: scientific factors that lie behind our sense of humour, rhythm, harmony, desire for novelty, what makes us cry. An electric drill that drives in screws faster is better than another drill, because that's what it is intended to do. Art that touches on human nature more is better than art that doesn't, because art is intended to appeal to human nature. When I say 'better', I mean of course 'likely to be better', in the sense that we can never know 100% that anything is better than another thing. It isn't perfectly possible to know which art will survive our time, but given that the Beatles have massively affected human experience, making highly impactful art that continues to be enjoyed two generations later, we can say with near certainty that the Beatles will have more of a shelf-life than Coldplay. The society around us is fleeting, but human nature has certain constants. There is something that enables me to relate to something in the Odyssey, even down the millennia. When we say that an artwork was 'of its time', we mean that it appealed to society rather than human nature. No bad art is still popular after 500 years. Human experience is extremely varied, which tricks us into thinking that there is no objective merit to art. But how can we predict what people will enjoy? The vast majority of people will prefer looking at a Turner painting to some soiled underwear nailed to a wall. You yourself have a strong intuition that you'd prefer to listen to Beethoven to my guitar-playing, or at least that it's more valuable. 'Objective' merely means 'better reasons for thinking it', the same an objective fact can never be 100%, but we have excellent reasons for believing it. We have better reasons for thinking that the Beatles' music will appeal to human nature in a hundred years than Coldplay.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

Well, for starters, a papal bull is as a matter of definition considered divinely revealed. A pope may say something political, but the very nature of the papal bull, as well as of his office means that when he says, for instance, that the templars are good, it is meant to represent a truth from god, and if he reverses that belief, the reversal, too, is supposed to be a revelation from god. As far as the jews are concerned, the pope was not claiming that he, personally, believed the jews were guilty of past digressions, he was claiming that god himself believed so. As far as the professor's definitions are concerned, I suggest that we defer to a more neutral source, the oxford dictionary: Morality - principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Faith - a system of religious belief. The papal bull I mentioned about the jews made a judgment of past behavior as wrong, and the restricting based on that of a specific religious belif, and the others all involve the belief that some organization is acting rightly or wrongly. In this debate, I managed to demonstrate how the Catholic Church, in papal bulls, the ultimate of official Catholic doctrine, has repeatedly made pronouncements on topics of religious and moral significance that directly disagree with each other. My opponent, although he stated in one previous round that my arguments were 'debatable', he failed to debate them.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

a catholic professor i know responded to what you posted, when i sent him the examples. here is what he said, i'll just reiterate what i said, with the words of someone respectable who is also vouching for it... "Faith concerns that which has been divinely revealed, and I do not think where Jews may and may not live is a divinely revealed truth; and morals concerns those acts that conform to the natural law (i.e., to the logos of man's nature) as determined by the exercise of right reason. None of those papal documents appears to concern matters of divine faith, but some of them (and I say this without actually having read the documents in question) may fall into the moral sphere since it appears that they may concern treating others with the respect due to them as creatures created in the image of God. That said, most of the documents - at least based upon the summaries given - appear to be of a political nature, and no one ever said that the popes would be consistent when it comes to acting as secular rulers in the papal states."
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

OK, so just to make it absolutely clear that what I'm citing is papal doctrine, everything I mention is a papal bull, also known as the infallible word of god. 1773- papal bull Dominus ac Redemptor permanently suppresses the Society of Jesus 1814- papal bull Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum reestablishes them 1569- papal bull Habraeorum Gens Sola restricts jews in the Papal States to rome and ancona 1586- papal bull Christiana Pietas revokes it 1592- papal bull Caeca et obdurata reverses Christiana Pietas, restricting the jews all over again 1139- Omne Datum Optimum endorses the Knights Templar 1307-1312- papal bulls Pastoralis Praeeminis and Vox in excelso condemn and abolish the Knights Templar 1120- Sicut Judaeis states that jews should be treated with respect, noting 'The Jews ought to suffer no prejudice." 1555- Cum Nimis Absurdum states that they should be restricted to ghettos and made to identify themselves, as well as banning them from many occupations, stating that their 'guilt has condemned them to eternal slavery' Ok, there's four flat out contradictions, in which the papacy said something, then said it was wrong. For some of them, they even go back on it again. All of the documents I cite are papal bulls, considered infallible, and easily meeting the standard set by my opponent. I eagerly await my opponent's refutation of my arguments.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

in this debate, i am not counting the issues of limbo, or "no salvation outside the catholic church". you would think if the catholic church were not true, that it would have contradicted itself at some point in two thousand years. the only things that count are statements that are authoritative, things that could be considerted "infallible". the pope, intentionally, teaches, the church, on faith and morals. that is the criteria. it includes many councils and other statements by popes. note: -this does not include moral corruption, only official teaching. that means you can't use bad priest, even peodofile priests. it means you can't use the inquisistion where millions were killed by catholics. can't use the sins of past popes. it has to be actual teachings of the church, as said, councils and statements by popes. etc. impeccable v infallble, there's a difference. -since we are comparing official statements, id rather not use the bible either. it's usually too open to interpretation to begin with. we are examining the church's consistency on its own anyway... and you'd think even beyond the bible, it'd have contradicted itself within two thousand years. -also there's a differnce between widespread belief and doctrine. that so many believed the earth was made in six days, that the earth was flat, that man wasn't from apes etc... only shows they are human. it'd make sense at first impression. this isn't doctrine. you have to cite a quote or citation. -there's a difference between practice and doctrine too... preistly celibacy is practice, reading the mass in latin is a practice... etc also try not to be vague. so many claims of contradiction online are superficial. for example, "papal bull regarding jews", without getting into what exactly is contradicting what etc. if possible, find the quote or citation for what you are referring to. also I have debated this topic many times in the past, if you would like you may review my profile to see all the points brought up by past debaters etc
Donald Trump is an idiot.

Do you really think that because they only have one university it is okay to call them that?? Really? Another thing. He said, and I quote: "Why can't America have more people from Norway? " That mean why can't we have more white people? He wants to have a border wall for what? Having more people benefits us. The wall is a symbol of hate. And what does that mean? Did you see this vid? Does that guy look like a criminal to you? Another one. A peaceful protest. some White Nationalists go out and run people over with a car. Trump goes out and defends the White Nationalists. skip to 115 Look at this one. Nazis and peaceful protesters. and he says....... very fine people on both sides??? What sort of man does that? A White Nationalist. I like the part where you so graciously admit that you didn't know about the tax. Well, he cut it for rich people. And increased it for poor. Shift aside that rock solid evidence. these are for laughs
Donald Trump is an idiot.

I do not know much about the tax bills, but I did some research and found that he's actually cutting taxes. I do not understand much about economy, but what I understand of what you're telling me is that the taxes on rich people are going down. I do not think rich people should pay more than poor people, every tax payer must pay the same amount and, if this is what President Trump is doing, then he has my full support. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, it is not my intention to build straw men As for the part where Obama took care of the unemployment, this is wrong. The numbers in his administration were purposely misleading, since the administration considered "looking for a job" in its counting. There is no proof that he is a white nationalist or that he conspired with Russia. And yes, he called Haiti a sh*t hole, but the country has only one University, the HDI is only 0.493, unemployment rate is 13.19% and the list goes on, so I don't think he said that just because it's a black country. If I say a black woman is a b*tch, does that make me a white nationalist? It's ridiculous how, nowadays, you can't do anything against someone who is black or else you're racist. You can't arrest a black person who is committing a crime, police can't shoot a black criminal... it's time to stop.