BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

You say: "you mistake emotional words for being emotional" I disagree. Shakespeare does use a huge range of vocab, and the choice of language an author uses really reflects their passion and the emotions they wish to convey. Shakespeare uses such a large range and that shows how skilled he is in writing emotional poetry. You say: "as I said if you contrast Shakespeare with Dean you can then clearly see what is real emotion and what is clever words strung together in emotionless lines" I strongly disagree that Shakespeare does not string words together. All his verse is written in iambic pentameter and sometimes it rhymes- I will provide an excerpt from one of his works to prove this. Taken from: http://www.shakespeare-monologues.org... I love thee so, that, maugre all thy pride, Nor wit nor reason can my passion hide. Do not extort thy reasons from this clause, For that I woo, thou therefore hast no cause, But rather reason thus with reason fetter, Love sought is good, but given unsought better You can hear happiness, love and humbleness in this excerpt thanks to Shakespeare's choice of language and the fact that it is even written in couplets shows how fantastic Shakespeare was. It is impossible not to find emotion in this piece.
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

your two examples show exactly why Shakespeare is emotionless you mistake emotional words for being emotional I can say "my heart feels sore with anguish and I pine away with grief" that is as unemotional as the examples you gave because just because I use emotional words like sore anguish grief does not make my sentence emotional as I said if you contrast Shakespeare with Dean you can then clearly see what is real emotion and what is clever words strung together in emotionless lines
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

I agree with your views about comparing the two poets, however this debate, I feel, is going slightly off topic. You could create a debate about Dean versus Shakespeare, but this debate is about whether Shakespeare's work is emotional. A few reasons as to why I believe this is: 1. "If music be the food of love, play on" Through this line, we can tell that this character is in love. He obviously is full of passion towards the people he loves. 2. I will now provide examples as to the emotions Shakespeare shows through verse. Self love/ arrogance-If music be the food of love, play on; Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die. That strain again! it had a dying fall: O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound, That breathes upon a bank of violets, Stealing and giving odour! Enough; no more: 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before. O spirit of love! how quick and fresh art thou, That, notwithstanding thy capacity Receiveth as the sea, nought enters there, Of what validity and pitch soe'er, But falls into abatement and low price, Even in a minute: so full of shapes is fancy That it alone is high fantastical. You can tell by reading this that the character is oblivious to the world around him and only cares about himself. Example 2- Why should I not, had I the heart to do it, Like to the Egyptian thief at point of death, Kill what I love?--a savage jealousy That sometimes savours nobly. But hear me this: Since you to non-regardance cast my faith, And that I partly know the instrument That screws me from my true place in your favour, Live you the marble-breasted tyrant still; But this your minion, whom I know you love, And whom, by heaven I swear, I tender dearly, Him will I tear out of that cruel eye, Where he sits crowned in his master's spite. Come, boy, with me; my thoughts are ripe in mischief: I'll sacrifice the lamb that I do love, To spite a raven's heart within a dove. Here, we can easily tell that this character is furious, as he makes threats, false accusations and it is full of hate towards another character. These two examples clearly show emotion and drama and are full of passion that a writer couldn't write without being full of feeling and soul. The works are all from the site: http://www.shakespeare-monologues.org...
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

con says "Whilst both are fantastic poets, this debate is about Shakespeare's poems, not comparing him to Dean's works." and up to a point con has a point but all I am doing is showing how and why Shakespeare's poetry is overrated- because it is emotionless I do this demonstration -showing Shakespeare's poetry emotionless by comparing Shakespeare to Dean Deans poetry is highly emotional Deans poetry shows you clearly what real emotional poetry is thus showing by the contrast that Shakespeare's poetry is clearly seen to be emotionless it is as if you had only tasted cheap wine and thought that was what a good wine is but when you taste real good wine you then see by the contrast that the cheap wine is not that good after all the Western world has been tasting Shakespeare it has thought his poetry is emotional but with Dean coming along you get see what real emotional poetry is thus you see that Shakespeare has really been overrated for hundreds of years
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

I strongly believe that Shakespeare is not overrated and that his works are emotional and passionate. Your point: "it is by comparing Shakespeare to Dean that you see clearly why he is overrated and emotionless" Whilst both are fantastic poets, this debate is about Shakespeare's poems, not comparing him to Dean's works. Shakespeare's work is not monotonous, and he varies the length of his lines. Also, he writes from many perspectives, which adds drama and even more passion to his poems. Shakespeare does write in iambic pentameter and also sometimes uses rhyme and rhythm, he also varies language and structure- his different techniques make his works interesting. Shakespeare is not overrated. He wrote many plays, hundreds of sonnets and was Queen Elizabeth's favourite playwright. Let us look briefly at another famous author- Charles Dickens He wrote many plays and stories, was one of the most famous authors of his time, yet he is not overrated.
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

con says "Now I shall provide another poem to prove they have soul and spirit, this one taken from his play Twelfth Night (1): If music be the food of love, play on; Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die. That strain again! it had a dying fall: O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound, That breathes upon a bank of violets, Stealing and giving odour! Enough; no more: 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before. O spirit of love! how quick and fresh art thou, That, notwithstanding thy capacity Receiveth as the sea, nought enters there, Of what validity and pitch soe'er, But falls into abatement and low price, Even in a minute: so full of shapes is fancy That it alone is high fantastical' it is by comparing Shakespeare to Dean that you see clearly why he is overrated and emotionless here is the contrast From Madam butterfly http://www.scribd.com... Love I long for thee the days are long Empty are my nights I long for thy love cooing song I long Give thy lips to my lips to kiss That I may run my tongue along thy lips edge in bliss Wrap me in thy arms that thee may feel the beatings of my heart Feel the thuddings of my blood Feel the rageings of my love Wrap me in thy arms that thee may feel the longings of my heart Oh lover bend thy head to my breast That I may through thy hair my fingers curl And o"er thy brow my breath to caress That I may to thy eyes my heated lips do press And in my eyes heated lids thee furl Lift up thy eyes to mine again compared to this Shakespeare's clever words and monotonous iambic beat is like a dead fish you can see clearly here and feel madam butterflies passion emotion for her love Shakes pears sonnet is just objective description with no indication of his subjective feelings or emotion Madam Butterfly takes us to the heart of her anguish and longing -nothing like that is in the both sonnets all his sonnets are clever objective words this If music be the food of love, play on; Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, does not compare to this for emotion That I may through thy hair my fingers curl And o"er thy brow my breath to caress That I may to thy eyes my heated lips do press And in my eyes heated lids thee furl one line of Dean is worth all of Shakespeare's sonnet for emotion
Shakespeare poetry is overrated it is clever but emotionless

I agree that Shakespeare's work is clever. However, I strongly disagree that it lacks emotion. It is full of passion and it is obvious that if his work had been emotionless, his plays would have been unpopular. Shakespeare's plays are played more than any other playwright- obviously they are popular. We have no concrete information as to what Shakespeare was like as a lover, however he was married to a woman named Anne Hathaway and she was 9 years older than him, suggesting there must have been some romance between the couple. His poems are emotional- let us take the first line of this sonnet: "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" When reading it, you can hear the stressed words, and this line clearly is passionate. It is obviously tender, loving and gentle. It is full of fond and loving feelings. Now I shall provide another poem to prove they have soul and spirit, this one taken from his play Twelfth Night (1): If music be the food of love, play on; Give me excess of it, that, surfeiting, The appetite may sicken, and so die. That strain again! it had a dying fall: O, it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound, That breathes upon a bank of violets, Stealing and giving odour! Enough; no more: 'Tis not so sweet now as it was before. O spirit of love! how quick and fresh art thou, That, notwithstanding thy capacity Receiveth as the sea, nought enters there, Of what validity and pitch soe'er, But falls into abatement and low price, Even in a minute: so full of shapes is fancy That it alone is high fantastical The line " O spirit of love! how quick and fresh art thou!" shows how madly in love the particular character is and also, the happiness he feels now he is in love by using the word 'fresh'. I disagree with your statements regarding the Western Scholars as whether they value his work or not, Shakespeare's work is full of emotion and drama. I believe Shakespeare's work is good because his plays are full of drama and romance, and that he uses clever techniques and creates complex characters. Whether the authorities think so does not affect me. Shakespeare's work reflects his characters, his love, his passion and explores his ideas. Dean's work is good and thought provoking, however it lacks the emotion that is in Shakespeare's and his originality. This is why I believe Shakespeare's poems are superior to Dean's, also, Shakespeare's has a better flowing rhythm, I believe. In conclusion, I believe Shakespeare is not overrated- he was the greatest playwright in the UK of his time. All his works are full of emotion and drama, thanks to the perspective they are told from and the language and structure used. Sources: (1)- Source-http://www.shakespeare-monologues.org... (2)-Source-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hathaway_(Shakespeare's_wife)
prove to me god is real

So what you are saying is it doesn't matter if what you believe is real. If you feel it's real then that's just fine. I absolutely disagree with that. People have died because of believing in god. People have been accused of being witches and burned for it, and people believed that it was justified by god. And I could trust that Zeus is real and could say that believing in him that is my evidence. If Belief in god is the only proof then there is no proof and nobody should believe in it.
prove to me god is real

Sorry, I left because I went to see Skyfall Why would you ask a question like this if you know it is impossible to prove there is a real God. My question is why wouldn't you want to believe in a God? What is so wrong with having faith in a greater being? The point of religion is to worship and BELIEVE there is a God. Religion is all about BELIEVING. The definition of belief is a state of mind where you put trust and/or confidence in yourself. I trust that there is a God, that is my evidence.
prove to me god is real

Ok i'm not sure if my opponent didn't know that you only have an hour to respond. I will happily try this again some other time it he wants, but for now i suppose i'll just ramble on. The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. I always hear that i need to prove that there is a god when i don't have to do that. I'm not saying there isn't a god. I am saying that there isn't enough evidence of a god. I've herd sermons about god being real, never about how god is real.
prove to me god is real

If there is no way to prove that god exists then why do you believe in god? Feelings aren't good enough. I can believe with all my heart that Santa is real. I honestly can say I saw a flying sleigh on Christmas Eve when I was 8. Now I know that wasn't possible because I know that it was my parents. Then what explains the sleigh I saw? It was my brain telling me that Santa was out there. I saw what I wanted to see. I believed what I wanted to believe. Until god is proven I won't trust blind faith
prove to me god is real

I believe in God. I will try my best to prove to you that God exists but, thats just the thing.... there is no way to prove that God exists. Belief in God comes from the inside, you can be raised to believe in God and then all of a sudden you can start to question your own beliefs. It is all about to the person whether he/she believes in God. Therefore, does God exist? I don't know. But, I do know that I believe he does.
god

My case: People (me), do not believe in god because of lack of evidence, no actual observations, or it does not really affect their lives in anyway. People may tend to lean towards their own, or scientific, reasoning rather than god. In order for my opponent to win, he/she must somehow disprove(?) my subjective beliefs, and my case of why it is justified for people to not to believe in hard. Protip: It is very difficult to disprove one's subjective thoughts/beliefs/ideas. Good luck to that
Extra cirricular activities are a waste of time

E.C. activities should not be part of required school curriculum. This includes music, dance, and sports (as you requested). All of these have small benefits, but should be done outside of a public school's education program. Forcing students to take e.c. activities ruins the objectiveSome students will want to take extra curricular activities, while others will not. Making e.c. activities required in public high schools forces non-enthusiastic students to be there. E.c. activities are well-liked due to one factor... Fun. If non-enthusiastic students are forced to participate, it will ruin the class for everyone (especially the enthusiastic students). When high schools force students take e.c. activities, EVERYONE has them on their college applications. Colleges will overlook a student who was forced to take 4 years of music, thousands of other applicants will have the same electives. Instead top colleges look at a student's gpa (along w/ class rank), test scores, and the difficulty of their classes. Classes that are classified as "extra curricular activities" are rarely taken seriously by high schools, let alone colleges. (http://collegefinancialaidadvisors.com...) E.c. activities burn education fundingThe US education system lacks proper funding. E.c. activities drain significant amounts of money, and others are trying to add more (http://articles.latimes.com...). The government does not have the proper education funding to consider all e.c. activities a valuable use of time and money. As I stated in my previous argument, teaching only core subjects in public high schools will allow students to spend their time and effort efficiently.
Extra cirricular activities are a waste of time

In all the schools studies are the most important feature and the reason behind why they are build up. u say that engineering students do not need the knowledge of music and dance, i did not mean that they should only be taught music and dance and other sports. In most colleges and schools during admission we are asked about are report cards but along with some extra cirricluar talent.As u also stated obesity to be a problem, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION EXTRA CIRRICULAR ACTIVITIES ARE A PART OF THE SCHOOL CIRRICULUM. I would request you to please mention clear;y which extra cirricular activities are a waste of time and money. I would not disagree to the statement that the unemployement rate of those students who are into miscellaneous fine arts is quite high but i did not mean extra cirricluar activities means onle them but i had stated that they are something along with studies. I not only believe but also know that co cirricular activities are not the only thing in schools.
Extra cirricular activities are a waste of time

Half of the e.c. activities you listed put an emhpasis on physical health. Though obesity is a problem in Amercia, it is not a school's resonsibility to require physical activity that uses valuable education time and limited funding.MOST e.c. activities are a waste of time and money:The US is falling behind in Innovation and TechnologyThe US used to lead the world in innovation and technology, however this is no longer the case. (http://www.theatlanticcities.com...)Leading countries focus on core subjects such as science, arithmetic, and reading. Our education program is slowly regressing compared to Western Asia and Northern Europe making huge bounds in tech advancements. Even though we still rank high on this list; we will fall further when my generation enters the job field. Science and Math proves if a country is successfulHere is a list of current leaders in GDP: (http://www.mapsofworld.com...)It is no coincidence that the majority of the wealthiest countries also lead the world in science and math. Putting too much focus on unnecessary activities such as sports, dancing, and music will result in well-rounded students, but overall they will not receive complete education in core subjects.E.C. Activities are easily forgottenA common question students wonder: "How will this help me in the real world?"The truth is, an overwhelming majority of students will have careers that do not require knowledge of music, dancing, or sports. Currently, Engineers (require knowledge of science and math) have one of the lowest unemployment rates at 2% (http://www.usnews.com...).However, students who major in miscellaneous fine arts have one of the highest unemployment rates at 16.2%. (http://www.cbsnews.com...).
Extra cirricular activities are a waste of time

According to me extra cirricular activities are not a watse of time. Extra ccirricular activities also known as co-cirricular activities are activities that are there in schools apart from studies. Infact schools are incomplete without them. How can they be a waste of time if they help us in so many ways. The ways are following- *SWIMMMING AND SPORTS- help us to stay fit and increase our stamina. *ENGLISH AND HINDI DEBATES- make us confident and teach us how to express our views publically *DANCES- make us gracefull and even help in body fitness *MUSIC- perfection or a grace at music can give us a good career because music is itself an eminent profession Some schools even teach martial arts which aids in self defence. Schools would be boring without extra cirricular activities. Academics and only academics would only make us burdent and the number of children who dont like going to school would have increased. Co-cirricular activities make school going interesting and help students to instill there talents. Extra cirricular also relax us in between of our hectic academic schedules. Since these activities are so useful and helpful i believe them to be useful and fruitful and now a waste of time at all
German shepherds, Dobermans, Pit Bulls, and Rottweilers are not mean

Hello, everyone! It is a pleasure to be able to debate this topic. I thank my opponent for posting this debate and I thank the voters for judging this debate. Though it may seem like a topic of relative insignificance, the belief that all dog breeds are naturally docile and only become aggressive due to how they are treated is an utterly false and harmful belief. I know many people who have adopted or bought a dog under the false belief that all breeds are docile, only to have the dog attack a person or another animal. My opponent has taken the 'pro' side, also known as the affirmative. Thus, he has the burden of proof. He must prove to you, the voter, that Rottweilers, Dobermans, Pitbulls, and German Shepards are never born more aggressive than other dog breeds. Since he is the one proving the revolution, I will let him post his opening arguments in the proceeding round. I ask all those observing and/or voting on this debate to enter with a clean state of mind. Do not bring any preconceived notions of the topic into the debate, excluding empirical, objective evidence. Speaking of evidence, all scientific studies or statistics must have a source posted somewhere that is accessible to both the voters and the opponent. If not, the evidence should be considered null. I look forward to a good debate.
Pc's are better than macs

Firstly I would like to start off by refuting some of my opponents' points: Firstly, they stated that Macs are higher quality. However, you can also get Windows PCs that have the same metal quality as a Mac. However, many people do not do this, and the reason is likely cost. Second, they stated that the Mac has a dashboard activated by pressing F12. However, Windows has Gadgets that stay on your desktop, and, unlike what my opponent said, DO NOT NOTICABLY SLOW DOWN THE MACHINE. However, you can look at then WHILE YOU ARE DOING YOUR WORK. Can a Mac do this? No. So in the end, whatever minimal impact they may have in performance is worth it. You can get gadgets for things like weather, a Calendar, a CPU usage/temperature monitor, RSS Feeds, a Slide show, even a Picture Puzzle if you are bored. You can also get gadgets for things like your average WPM if you want. Now I would like to go into some of my own points. Firstly, Macs are not always as cutting edge as Windows PCs. Do you see any Macs with new processors such as the Intel Core i3, i5, or i7? No. They also do not have Blu-ray drives. Those new Intel processors are becoming common on new Windows PCs, and you can get Blu-ray if you want. In fact, the PC I am typing this on has an Intel Core i5 processor and cost just $700, yet doesn't slow down with the 9 gadgets I have running on my desktop. Even in the past, for example (and I mean just a few years ago), when Macs FINALLY started getting SD card readers, Apple was advertising it with the rest of the specs (ex. CPU, RAM, HDD, etc) as if it was some new feature that was unusual. Meanwhile, it had been common in Windows PCs for years, and nothing unusual. Second, they are not available in as many form factors. As far as desktops go, you can either get a Mac Mini (which has limited power and upgrading options), an iMac with the screen integrated (which also has limited upgrading options), or a high-end (and expensive) Mac Pro. What if, for example, you need a mid-range desktop ($600-$800 perhaps), but are a photographer and have a really expensive, color accurate monitor (or plan to buy one). If you got a Mac Mini, it is rather limited, in both power and upgrading options. If you got an iMac, you'd either have to use your nice display as a second one, or it wouldn't really work. And calibration can't fix everything. And a Mac Pro would be WAY out of the price range. So in the end, Macs really aren't for everyone. If I got a Windows PC, there are all sorts of form factors avalible, and many won't break the bank, unlike Macs. So for these reasons and many, many more, Windows PCs are CLEARLY better than Macs.