BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

con makes some excellent points as for objective standards all Ican say is have you been in love have you been loved -how can you present t objective standards to access this love or being loved -some things are subjective you seem to believe in the scientism of quantifiable things i.e if it cant be quantified then it is not valid so i ask again how do you quantify your love or the love of your lover or again if you believe your mum/dad etc love you how do you prove this through quantifiable objective standards or if you say to your lover you love him/her and he/.she says prove it what quantifiable things will you show or say-to each one he/she might say you are just lying or trying to deceive con says "Pro could appeal to objectivity/inter-subjectivity by: Producing a study that shows a large number of people think that this poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing Demonstrate that said elements of this poem ("full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing") objectively exist within this poem Again, at the present time, all my opponent has provided is his/her personal feelings of the poem, which fails to fulfil the BoP." in answer I present the views of nicraM - in the comment section- to give evidence of someone who subjectively saw the the beauty and the longing and the this longing or beauty is there even if as nicraM says you don't believe in soul mates or souls "I was going to debate this but once I read the poem, I realized something. The poem is a nice piece of writing and even if you don't believe in soul mates or souls for that matter, it still tends to warm your subconscious. so I ask con give us your subjective views on the poem if you agree with nicraM then i can present you as evidence for as well as seeing the beauty that captures the soul mates longing-thus undermining your claims
This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

Subjectivity versus objectivity/inter-subjectivity My opponent states that he/she “find[s] this poem captures the longing of soul mates in very emotive language and imagery”. This is not sufficient to fulfil his/her BoP. Since the resolution pertains to objectivity, Pro must affirm that the poem does objectively hold those values, or at the very least, for the most part, inter-subjectively. Failing to do so will result in my victory. Pro could appeal to objectivity/inter-subjectivity by: Producing a study that shows a large number of people think that this poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing Demonstrate that said elements of this poem (‘full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing’) objectively exist within this poem Again, at the present time, all my opponent has provided is his/her personal feelings of the poem, which fails to fulfil the BoP. The existence of soul mates In this debate, it will be contested whether this poem captures the soul mates longing. Since no definition of what a soul-mate has been provided, I will now provide one. According to ‘Today’s Christian Woman’, soul mates are, “God bringing together two lost hearts who experience the end to their loneliness and realize complete compatibility in all the deepest longings of their being” [1]. This concept of ‘soul mates’ has not been provided with any proof, by my opponent, and just because there is a definition for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it does not mean that such a thing exists. Instead, the question is begged, in assuming that soul mates exist. The resolution does not refer to the soul mates in the poem, rather, ‘soul mates’ as a much broader concept. It is the 'soul mates' longing, which implies an objective phenomenon, rather than a specific showing of a particular couple’s possession. Otherwise, the ‘mates’ would be grammatically fitted with a possessive apostrophe. So, in regards to the concept of soul mates, I ask that Pro provide evidence for such things, or else he/she will have failed to provide arguments to fulfil his/her BoP. Reference [1] . http://www.todayschristianwoman.com...
This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

I find this poem captures the longing of soul mates in very emotive language and imagery l'Anima Canta http://www.scribd.com... if you dont read the poem there is no point in debating Preface the souls cry across time for he for she soul mates pine for eternity to be again both we oh ohh ohh souls long to be we again both we for eternity parted in times immensity the soul mates long again to meet in the worlds eternity to be we to meet to kiss to be we to be we not parted for eternity
This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

Thanks for the debate. Subjectivity versus objectivity/inter-subjectivity1. Pro was to affirm the resolution by either objective/inter-subjective methods. For whatever reason, Pro thinks that [“for the most part”] inter-subjective means that the requirement is only two people’s vouching. Again, the opinions of two people does not make for something being true. “I did provide some one who subjectively saw the beauty- thus con cant claim victory -from her own words” This quote shows that my opponent has no conception of the standard of evidence required. Again, the resolution required my opponent to provide evidence that the resolution was seen objectively, or for the most part, inter-subjectively (i.e. out of 7 billion people in the world, a good majority of them would believe it). I really can’t be any clearer: two people’s confirming something does not mean that it is true. 2. You’d think that if Pro were to be arguing in favour of this resolution, he/she wouldn’t require my opinion mid-debate to make his/her case. 3. Pro essentially concedes the debate here, in the 2nd round, by saying: “as for objective standards all Ican say is have you been in love have you been loved -how can you present t objective standards to access this love or being loved -some things are subjective” He’s rhetorically asking how he can meet his BoP (proven objectivity or convincing inter-subjectivity), implying that it can’t be met. In other words, Pro argues that what’s required of him to win this debate can’t be done. The existence of soul mates My opponent has completely dropped this argument; the resolution is negated on this point alone. Conclusion Pro fails to meet his/her BoP. Pro even indirectly admits that what is required to meet the BoP can’t be done. The latter of my arguments was completely dropped by Pro. The resolution has been negated. Thank you for reading :)
This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

con says "My subjective views aren"t relevant to this debate" she is quite wrong as she said above "Pro must affirm ..., or at the very least, for the most part, inter-subjectively. Failing to do so will result in my victory." thus admitting the role of subjectivity" i asked for her subjective views on the poem but she refused con says "Producing a study that shows a large number of people think that this poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing" I produced nicraM from his comment which affirms that some one did see the beauty of the soul mates longing which he stated said "I was going to debate this but once I read the poem, I realized something. The poem is a nice piece of writing and even if you don't believe in soul mates or souls for that matter, it still tends to warm your subconscious. I also asked con for her subjective views to see if she could see the beauty Thus if she did then she would have been someone else like nicraM -she did not respond -thus indicating perhaps a bit of fear that her own subjective view might shoot her in the foot by showing that she herself sees beauty in the poem con says "...or at the very least, for the most part, inter-subjectively. Failing to do so will result in my victory." thus admitting the role of subjectivity"" I did provide evidence ie nicraM thus she cant claim victory [also con herself might have been evidence but she did not have the courage to tell us her subjective views which we can only assume was because of fear of giving evidence that does not support her con position all in all 1)I did provide some one who subjectively saw the beauty- thus con cant claim victory -from her own words "Failing to do so will result in my victory.thus admitting the role of subjectivity"
This poem is full of beauty that captures the soul mates longing

Thank you for the response, shakuntala. Subjectivity versus objectivity/inter-subjectivity “as for objective standards all Ican say is have you been in love have you been loved -how can you present t objective standards to access this love or being loved -some things are subjective” My opponent essentially concedes the debate by admitting that the resolution can only be proven subjectively, rather than objectively. Again, the resolution pertains to the objective: ‘This poem is…’ (objective), rather than: ‘This poem can be…’ (subjective). “you seem to believe in the scientism of quantifiable things i.e if it cant be quantified then it is not valid so i ask again how do you quantify your love or the love of your lover” That’s your problem – you’re the one claiming that it’s possible. “or if you say to your lover you love him/her and he/.she says prove it what quantifiable things will you show or say-to each one he/she might say you are just lying or trying to deceive” By implying that it’s impossible to objectively argue for some things (e.g. the resolution), when affirmation of the resolution requires objective arguments, then you’re in a lot of trouble. “I present the views of nicraM - in the comment section- to give evidence of someone who subjectively saw the the beauty and the longing and the this longing or beauty is there even if as nicraM says you don't believe in soul mates or souls” If two people claimed that they saw a pink unicorn, does that mean that the pink unicorn exists? Not necessarily, because the standard for objective proof requires a lot more than that. Likewise, having two people claim that this poem is something isn’t enough to prove that the poem is what they claim. “so I ask con give us your subjective views on the poem if you agree with nicraM then i can present you as evidence for as well as seeing the beauty that captures the soul mates longing-thus undermining your claims” My subjective views aren’t relevant to this debate. You, as Pro, are trying to prove that this poem objectively does what you say it does. The existence of soul mates There is no trace of my opponent responding to arguments made here – extend my arguments.
Larztheloser's Vote In This Debate Was Not Reasonably Justified

When I refer to "Pro", I mean the "Pro" in the debate we are dicussing. I do not mean myself.This is not really a deep resolution that requires a large character limit. 4,000 characters should suffice for this particular type of debate. Now, I urge voters to take a look over this debate before continuing:http://www.debate.org...Con created a rule, and a consequence with regards to that rule being broken. Pro did not contest that rule or consequence, and thus continued the debate under that pretense. Since Pro did not contend that rule and the consequence, then they stuck. Here is what I am speaking about:"Plagiarism, either directly or indirectly, is resultant of a full seven point concession."If Pro thought that rule was unfair, then it should have been contested. When things are not contested in debate, they hold. Pro shamelessly plagiarized his rounds. He deserved a temporary ban, not points in a debate. Most of the voters gave Con all seven points that he rightfully deserved. Larz argued that even if Pro's argument was plagiarized, Con did not refute it. However, Con did not have to refute it. There was an uncontested rule that plagiarism resulted in a full seven point concession. Larz did not give Con the full seven points. Not only that, he gave Pro arguments and believed he won the debate! You cannot win a debate off of plagiarised arguments, especially when there is an uncontested rule pertaining to a full seven point concession. If it was uncontested, then it is essentially agreed upon. There is no way Larz should have voted to have Pro win the debate when Pro plagiarised; especially with the uncontested rule. Larz' vote was self-evidently unjustified. This is probably the reason I will not spend that much more time on it.
United States federal government should pay financial reparations to African Americans

Ok well I won't bother putting the other arguments I had planned to make in here because my opponent unknowingly conceded the debate. He misconstrues African Americans for ALL African Americans, which he says is implied, but truly is not. If I say "The US should take in refugees", does that imply that they must take in all refugees? If I say that I'm going to give soup to homeless people, does that mean I'm travelling across all of America to give soup to all homeless people? The only thing implied by the resolution is that the US will give X amount in reparations to X amount of African Americans. Because the resolution does not put a quantity on the amount of African Americans nor the amount of money they should be paid, this allows the affirmative to put a number on both of those factors. My opponent made a bare assertion here which turned out to be incorrect. Anyway, let's go through his objections of the resolution in general, with the knowledge that even if I concede on the amount of African Americans1. My opponent claims that descendants should not be able to demand money from others' descendants. However, this is incorrect for 3 main reasons:A) It's not two individual people, it's the United States Government and a large amount of African Americans. The situation is different once it's put on a larger scale. Germany just finished paying of WW1 reparations in 2010, but it's not like the people that started that war are still alive. It's just a matter of the fact that the government is held to a higher standard than some individuals in these matters...B) Actually the way things work isn't terribly far off from that as families can demand reparations from organizations and sue them on behalf of a deceased family member. Sure more time has passed, but why accept that justice has a sell-by date?C) Just because the current laws don't allow for something doesn't mean that it's just. With that logic we shouldn't ever change legislature. Not to mention how, again, it's not even a logically valid analogy. 2. Again he just makes a blind assumption which isn't logically valid and thus can be dismissed completely. For these reasons, I enthusiastically affirm. Thank you. Good luck.
United States federal government should pay financial reparations to African Americans

Thank You I do not deny that some African Americans have been oppressed. If this argument said "the government should pay financial reputations for some African Americans, then I would have agreed with Pro. However that is not what it said. It said "African Americans." This implies that all African Americans have been mistreated. This is not true. Many were not yet born during the events Pro describes, slavery and the civil rights movement. Pro argues that African Americans are descended from those who did suffer form such horrors and so should be granted final compensation. There are many things wrong with this statement. 1: lets say hypothetical, 100 years ago my ancestor was wronged by Pros ancestor. Now lets say 100 years latter I try and take Pro to court for what happened to my ancestor 100 years ago. Am I entitled to payment form Pro? Probably not. 2: Not all African Americans are dependents of those who were wronged. Many of them could have moved to the U.S. long after the civil rights movement. Renumber this argument is about "African Americans" not "African Americans whose ancestors moved to the U.S. some time before the 60s." If an African American fells that they specifically have been discriminated against due to race by the U.S. Government they may press charges. Here is a list of some laws concerning race discrimination http://civilrights.findlaw.com... Works Cited Reuters, Thomson. "Race Discrimination: Applicable Laws - FindLaw." Findlaw. N.p., 2016. Web. 15 Aug. 2016. <http://civilrights.findlaw.com...;.
United States federal government should pay financial reparations to African Americans

Thanks for accepting! I planned to write more but sense we have 2 rounds after this and I'm unexpectedly very busy I'll just start out with this:Justice (Giving each their due) demands that we give reparations to African Americans. For centuries African American's have oppressed in various ways through the laws enacted by the United States Federal Government. As I'm sure my opponent won't even contest, they've been mistreated by the government through obvious means such as slavery, lack of civil rights, and unjust'/racist courtroom rulings or dealings with police and government in general to name a few things caused directly by the government. Although African Americans suffered physically and mentally through these things, they also lost financial potential as a result. Seeing as how our government set them on a road to financial failure after leaving them with nothing, it's only just that they recieve the reparations as an attempted repayment. Remember, I'm not strictly talking about slavery, but also civil rights injustices that kept them from earning their fair share as well in addition to certain programs not giving them their fair share (Such as the GI bill not giving nearly as much money per person to blacks as they did whites after WW2).My opponent may claim that most of the people affected by civil rights injustices, and definetely all of the people who suffered from slavery, are not alive, thus there is no one to give the reparation to. However, this is not sound, due to the fact that their direct decendants can still recieve the money they presumably would have gained had their elders not been practically robbed of their full financial potential. If one can draw a link between them and a deceased family member that should have recieved a more fair share of pay (whether it's through slavery or civil rights injustices), then they deserve to gain what should have been their's to start with. The reason African American's have a higher poverty rate isn't because they are genetically inferior, it's because they were robbed of their financial potential. In summation my contention is that regardless of whether it's practical or not the US has a moral obligation to give African Americans financial reparatinos because of historic injustices. Thank You!
Donald Trump

The resolution and initial claim is "Donald Trump should not become President", this implies that no matter what, he should not win. I say that I believe in the democratic system. If he wins the majority, he wins. We cannot just say so and so cannot run because of such and such. We have done this for every election. He is black, he is old, he is catholic, he is too young...now he is not refined enough. He has policy, he has support, thus, he can win.
Donald Trump

If you agree that you don't want him to be president why are you debating with me about him, it is kind of ironic you don't want him as president but yet you are debating for him. If he is not political, he does not believe in women's rights and he is main accusing Mexicans for the illegal immigration when it is all countries that do it including Americans. I am against him, just because he has most of the representatives doesn't mean that he has most of the people of the united states. Yes he is American, yes he is in the race. The real question is he the right person to be the president of the united states. Is he going to be able to uphold his promises, is he going to help the people, will he follow the Constitution or the Bill Of Rights?
Donald Trump

News flash - the democratic system does not bend to your whim. Elections are not based on "deserving" to win, they are based on public support. Trump is outside of the system that many has seen has hurting America, and that is appealing to many. We don't have a emigration problem, we have a immigration problem. The issue is that the welfare programs that are good and being stressed by the influx of immigrants. The concept of supporting legal immigration is not insane. We need to fix the system, but the wall, in theory, has support of the majority of Republicans. He is of age and is a American...he has a right to be president. This is simple. You do not have to like him, but he is winning.
Donald Trump

Okay here is the news flash he does not deserve to be president, the main one who deserves to win is Bernie Sanders, but my main concern is how he is being towards Mexico, Mexico hasn't built a wall to keep the Americans out so why should he do that to Mexico. Also believe that he has no right to become president since he seems to think of woman as lower than men agree that is very unpolitical and he does not think of the precautions of his acts.
Donald Trump

Look, I do not like Trump. He is not politically knowledgeable and probably will be bad for this country. BUT... I am bothered when I see people use the word "should". If he wins the majority of the delegates at the RNC, then he "should" win the nomination. If he wins the majority in the general election then he "should" win the presidency. Understand that there is a difference between should and what I think. Also understand that his policies are gaining support. A wall is a solution to problem that many Americans see along the border. It may not seem to be the best but I believe in the democratic system. It sometimes spits out something bad, but we can not just say no because we do not like it.
Jesus is not the messiah

As the final round has met us, I must say, I have been very disappointed. I had high hopes for this debate and I have found that my opponent has beat the same fallacious ideas down into the dirt. In my last rebuttal I should point out several things:1. My opponent claims I have used scholars as a way of issuing a fallacy right after he made it the requirement that we use a biased translation of his choice, and therefore, he has issued a fallacy in hopes of deceiving the audience.2. My opponent has asked for votes because I issued an argument in round one. I am new to this site and never knew what that term meant. I also have apologized, explaining my reason in the 2nd round.3. My opponent has never attempted to refute my propositions in round one.4. My opponent has made it a requirement that we only use his opinion as a fact (Deceptional Fact Fallacy).It is on these grounds that I state that this debate has been a waste of time and more so a biased requirements debate.However, I can only make one rebuttal for my opponents last argument:My opponent has done just as I "prophesied" in the last round: Post his opinionated translation.In the end I can only propose this. The proof is in the Bible, which I pointed out in my first argument that never was refuted (it was ignored). I can even boldly make the claim that I have proven the possibility of the entire Judaist claim to be a matter of interpretation.By this I have fulfilled my requirements and can only ask for a vote in the favor of Con because I have in fact, provided sufficient evidence.On a final note:My opponent has claimed my arguments were false while having nothing to back up his claim but his opinion. He also summed your reasons for voting in his last statements. If your reasons for voting are based solely on:1. A lie2. Not submitting to his false propositions3. A vague "more" It is obvious that my opponent has admitted that his arguments cannot provide proof enough. And therefore, my opponent has admitted to not being able to fulfill the Burden Of Proof!It is on that basis that I ask for a vote in my favor.Thank you to all that have reviewed and kept up with this debate!Peace be with you from God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit!