BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Liberalism is Good for America

The debate is about LIberalism sir Democrats do not neccesarily coincide with liberalism For all you know I agree with everything you just said. The debate is about liberalism. Not race baiters or certain people in the Democratic party. Please try to stick to the topic at hand. Liberalism is the progression of society. It advances the rights of every individual in a society. For example women. Women did not have the right to vote but in the 1920's liberals fought and they got the right to vote. Same thing with blacks and homosexuals being able to marry whoever they want to marry. Lets move onto economics now: Right-wing economics do not work. Trickle-Down economics failed However lets look at Nordic Capitalism (Left wing Capitlaism). The government takes care of everyone and no one suffers. Trickle-Down led to the lower wages for workers and greater income diversity between the rich and the poor Just look at these photos: https://upload.wikimedia.org... https://upload.wikimedia.org... More proof that Trickle-Down economics fails. However Nordic Capitalism has sustained Northern Europe for decades
Liberalism is Good for America

Liberalism isn't good for America, rather it promotes racial hatred.Liberals do more than any other group to encourage race-based hatred. It's amazing how much we still hear about Nazis and the KKK, even though they're both marginalized, nearly powerless groups of misfits and losers. On the other hand, how marginalized are the hatemongers on the Left? MEChA is allowed in public schools, Al Sharpton is on TV every night, and Democratic congressmen are still willing to appear on stage with Louis Farrakhan. But that's no surprise because promoting racial strife at every opportunity is an actual Democratic campaign strategy. Almost the entire message of the Democratic Party to large swathes of the electorate is, "Everybody who doesn't look like you hates you except us." There are plenty of liberals who have jobs almost solely because they're willing to incessantly shout "racism" to help the Democratic Party. We even have groups of professional grievance mongers like CAIR, La Raza, and the New Black Panther Party that work incessantly to stir up race hatred because it's good for fund raising and gives them a reason to justify their existence. If the Nazi Party or the KKK had tried to come up with a system to keep people hating each other based on skin color, they couldn't have ever created anything as effective as the one liberals have now implemented.
Liberalism is Good for America

Ok, to conclude my arguement here are 10 reasons why liberalism is bad. Vote con! Here are the 10 reasons: Liberalism lacks respect and in many cases opposes the most basic of human rights: life. This one is by far the biggest reason liberalism is bad for America. The rest are in no particular order. 2. Liberalism seeks to weaken our national sovereignty. 3. Liberals originated the movement toward political correctness. 4. Liberals are for a weak military, or at least their actions say that they are. 5. To call themselves "people of tolerance", liberals are some of the most intolerant people on earth. 6. Along the same lines as the tolerance issue, liberals are tolerant of all religions except for Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. 7. Liberals started the current environmental/animal rights/go-green efforts which are not as much about sensible protective measures for the earth and its creatures, but about punishing humans for imposing themselves on the earth and its creatures. 8. Liberals like high taxes. They think they can spend your money more wisely than you can, especially if you"re "wealthy". 9. Liberals are largely anti-capitalism. They tax and regulate businesses so much that many are discouraged from trying to go into business for themselves. 10. Liberals meddle in the private affairs of individuals, businesses, states and localities, and others via big-government.
Everything can be Construed as Art

What is art? Art is a skill such as painting or drawing which causes someone to feel something. The Grand Canyon or any object such as a house can bring about feelings, however snapping those things with a camera is not the same as making a work of art. Only an artist (novice or expert) can create art because art is a skill. If his or her painting looks like a photograph or is completely imaginary, it is art. Whether a picture is art or grafitti depends on whether the person who made it is selfish. If a person paints a picture on property not belonging to them the person has created grafitti, not art. If the same painting is painted on property belonging to them it is art. Art is "often" legal. The law doesn't determine what is or isn't art. Objective morality and human feelings do. Art can be beautiful or ugly, but despite this not everything can be construed as art. My opponent adds: "Also photography is a valued form of art, it takes skill to capture a certain feeling, a certain angle, a certain expression. A photography can inspire as much feeling as a painting. "I'm sure there are many photographers who consider themselves artists, the black and white 'phantom' photograph for instance sold for 6.5 million dollars and certainly does inspire as much feeling as a painting. Inspiration can come from natural and urban landscapes as well as people. What inspires someone to paint something or take a photograph can come from the same source. However it should be noted that the brain takes photographs and stores them as memories all the time, so taking a quick photograph is no different to looking at a house, the moon, or any object.
Everything can be Construed as Art

I believe Con is fixated on what is or is not art based on whether or not it is legal. Again, I do not believe why this is so, and he fails to explain it other than state that vandalism is not art. But then, what is art, according to Con? Con gives almost nothing about what art actually is, and mentions more so about what art is not, mainly that it is not graffiti in public places. Why? Because it is illegal? Would that mean that if the government bans art, then art would cease to exist? Also photography is a valued form of art, it takes skill to capture a certain feeling, a certain angle, a certain expression. A photography can inspire as much feeling as a painting. I do not understand this discrimination, and Con does not explain it either. It almost feels as if Con mistakes art for something objectively good and tasteful, but that simply is not the case. Art can be bad. It has no limits towards either extreme. To conclude, art is not object oriented. Objects are not art by their nature. Their value as art are projected upon them by the agents with the ability to give creative values to them. And thus, everything can be construed as art. Thanks to mostlogical for this debate. And I look forward to his conclusion.
Everything can be Construed as Art

Artists use skill and express creativity or feelings by drawing, or painting. If they selfishly keep their thoughts and feelings to themself, or they write them down or only tell people about them then no-one else can visualise them. Sure there are things which inspire us to paint or draw but we must project our creative thoughts upon objects before we can then call it art. I wouldn't say I lack an artistic appreciation due to viewing vandalism as vandalism instead of art. If you slowly scroll down while looking at the picture below, you may be surprised to find it isn't actually grafitti. I pesonally would not want the mural above, but I know it is art because this is not painted in a public place. If this same painting was found on a bus stop for example it would no longer be interpreted as art. There are people who will disagree with me of course, the guy who painted the below message certainly does! Some people ask 'When does grafitti become art?' but these people fail to realise that art and grafitti are two completely different things. Grafitti is always vandalism, and is carried out without permission on somone else's property while art is often legal and always carried out on someone's own property. A lot of people will call or think the mural I showed is grafitti, because that is what grafitti typically looks like. What makes something art is not it's appearance though, the photograph of the house (or the house itself) I showed in round 2 isn't art, but had the exact image been painted it would be art. This is because art is an expression of human or animal creativity. To create art an artist must first be inspired, s/he might be inspired by nature, by urban landscapes, or by people.The picture of the penis (or woman with a long neck) in round 2 did require some creativity, but the fact this picture is on a bin tells me it isn't art. Therefore not everything can be construed as art.
Everything can be Construed as Art

Rebuttals Con agrees that the Mona Lisa would not be art without those with the capacity for art. Let us observe what this entails. Art does not exist through physical craft alone, it lives within us, with our ability to project creative values upon objects. This is the artist's relation to art. Art is not exclusive to physical artifacts. The construct of the mind is the origin of art. Con posts various photos including vandalism to site that they are not art. But his arguments are mere biases. It is just as conceivable that a man may look at the Mona Lisa and see nothing but a mundane woman without any artistic appreciation or feeling. My argument is not that all art is good, though what is artistically good is largely subjective to begin with. Con concedes that "An artist can paint absolutely anything on a piece of paper that we can see or imagine and it will be considered art even if it is a painting of vandalism" and then makes the odd argument that it is no longer art the moment it is interpreted as vandalism. I do not see why art must be exclusive from vandalism and pro has not demonstrated why this is the case. Then Con goes on to argue that "art isn't selfish". I also do not understand with what logical basis he makes this claim, and how it is supported. In regards to his picture of a penis, it is indeed, art, albeit, not a good one. In regards to Con's final argument, the moon itself is not art by ontology, art itself is a subjective concept of living beings. Thus, art lives within people's minds, their creative projection of values, their imagination. The resolution is not that the moon is art, it is that the moon can be construed to be art.
Everything can be Construed as Art

Thanks for posting your views, I do agree with much you have said, e.g. art must mean something or give rise to feelings to be considered art, and I think it has to be interpreted by a living thing with a creative mind - the Mona Lisa would like you say just be a piece of paper with paint on if there were no life with the capacity for art. If you look at the below picture, if this were a painting or drawing it would be considered art. However, the same image isn't art when it is a photograph. An artist can paint absolutely anything on a piece of paper that we can see or imagine and it will be considered art even if it is a painting of vandalism. But once s/she starts to paint on something that doesn't belong or appear to belong to him or her e.g. a house or car, it will not be construed as art, instead it will be interpreted as vandalism. People who vandalise property express themselves, but it doesn't matter how clever, beautiful or romantic their grafitti is, it is always a selfish act. Art isn't selfish. Photographs like the one below can't be construed as art. To accept the above image as being art or the picture below as art... is to accept the following image below as art because frankly there is no differenceOnly a person's (or an animal's) expressions can be thought of as art, so you can't simply look up at the moon and correctly claim that it is art. Art requires an artist. Sculptures are art because an artist made them; they give an insight to a person's mind. If a river sculpts the land it won't be art, it can inspire someone to paint though.That concludes my view on art, I look forward to rebutting your arguments
Everything can be Construed as Art

I would first like to contend that art is a product of life. I say life and not humans, because I do not wish to exclude other animals the capacity for creating or experiencing art. I would like to note that there is a distinction between creation and experience, and that art is not exclusive to the former or the latter. This distinction is important to note, as art in the case of the former is an artifact or craft that serves a purpose, be it aesthetic or practical, while in the case of the latter, art is not created by the agent experiencing it but still serves an artistic experience. An example would be a person deriving meaningful, aesthetic value from a painting or in nature itself. The question is then, what constitutes an artistic experience, and indeed, goes back to what art is in its essence. What is essential for art to be art? I contend that it must have creative capacity for the agent to derive meaning. Art is an expression, it is a concept that lives within the mind. Science and mathematics are both arts in their own rights, but they have no objective existence outside the human conception and interpretation of the world. We cannot find numbers in physical form, numbers are just concepts and interpretations of what exists. I contend that art follows the same form. Without human beings, or living creatures with the capacity for art, art ceases to exist. The Mona Lisa cease to be a beautiful painting and becomes a piece of paper with paint on it. Thus, those with the capacity to experience art is essential for the existence of the art itself. Herein lies my argument. I contend that art is subject to the mind's experience, not the hands that make it. To further illustrate this point, allow me to give a hypothetical example. Let us say that an artist crafts a statue, and people derive an artistic experience from it. Surely, we would qualify this statue as art? Let us then say that this same statue that people perceived was made by a man was in fact a product of nature. Would it at that moment cease to be art? Is then art maintained by the illusion that human beings crafted it? To bring up an old cliche, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and so I contend it is with art. At the heart of things, artifacts are merely manipulations of already existing, natural elements. What makes these elements suddenly becoming art is not that human beings have touched it but that human beings have the capacity to experience it as art. If there was a block of marble untouched by man, does it become art the moment man marks it with a chisel? Does the mere dent suddenly become art? Art has no limits, and that is because the creative activity of making meaning or finding it is limitless as our imagination. Thus, anything/everything can be construed as art. Art is applied by the creative mind, and not the hands that sometimes does its bidding. I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
Everything can be Construed as Art

Resolution: I contend that everything/anything can be construed as art. Format First round is acceptance. Second round is arguments. Third round will be rebuttals. Fourth round is for answering to rebuttals and conclusion. Definition Definition of Art will not be given, as the very definition is what is being debated. No usage of dictionary will be allowed as an argument to define art. Also merely pleading to authority will not count as an actual argument unless supplemented by the debater's own reasoning and thought. Requirements and Rules Be respectful. Refrain from forfeits, unless a personal situation arises, in which case Con may argue in the comment section for the round. No trolls. There are no other requirements.
Ghost Pokemon Need a Nerf.

I am having some trouble understanding my opponents grammar, but I am going to assume that he is arguing that Pokemon should be armed with Nerf guns. This would be totally pointless and would not help the Pokemon at all. Pokemon are animated and do not exist in real life. They are right up there with unicorns, bigfoot, and wrestling. Why should Pokemon have Nerf guns when they would not be able to use them? Never mind the fact that they are not lethal. But let's say figuratively that they do have the ability to use these guns. How would it affect these so called "ghost pokemon"? Wouldn't the Nerf dart fly right through them as ghosts are commonly known to be transparent? I stand in firm affirmation that Nerf guns would be useless to the Pokemon.
Eugenics("Designer babies)

First I thought just making babies was free, I guess it can cost $100 if you buy a prostitute. But of course designer babies are going to cost a lot now, but that is only because it is such a new procedure. Give time and pretty soon everyone will be able do do this.( dnalc.org) This is just like every new innovation it expensive at first but then after a while every one has one or does it, Like the television, when it first came out not many people could afford one but a few years(20 years) later 98% of people in America has one in their house.(http://www.nyu.edu...) So just give Eugenics time and you will see how cheaper and acceptable it will becomes. And it make sense that it is expensive now because it can stop all major disabilities, negative mutation also it can make humans stronger and smarter.
Eugenics("Designer babies)

Well talking about religion, some religion believe that we should sacrifice humans (don't seem like neither are good). Scientist have been doing this for a while with plants and animals. We have made animals and plants more stronger so why wouldn't we want to do that to are own specie. (helix.northwestern.edu). We could add IGF-I gene to humans and like mice it would enlarge are muscle and strength us or we could add PPAR-S to humans to allow us to burn fat faster destroying obesity. (Onelife.com) This isn't playing God, this is trying to survive
Eugenics("Designer babies)

(*History lesson) The Nazi did have major advisement to modern day science. Also the Nazi did not just do this to random people, each woman inseminated signed up for it and agreed to the procedure(so they agreed to do it.) They want to make stronger humans, but so did half the world, like I said they just were radicals. Done right eugenics can make the next generation stronger than our current generation, we can make humans closer to perfection allowing our race to grow and most importantly survive.(imsnresmet.blogspot.com). With eugenics we can make are offspring smarter, improving our chance of survival as a race, we could design doctors and scientist.(show on picture on the imsnresmet.blospot.com)
Eugenics("Designer babies)

As you said the Nazis did you use designer babies, and not in any good way either. One main thing that they did was inject fertilized eggs with sicknesses and types of cancers. The reason why he did that in because they wanted to see how cancers affected babies. Also they used designer babies to make clones. Hitler wanted more clones so he could grow his army bigger and stronger. The worst thing that they did was try to mate animals with humans. They did this because the wanted to make super humans.
Eugenics("Designer babies)

I understand that there are some miner problems that could happen, but isn't that true with everything. Eugenic has the possibility to STOP all future disabilities and negative mutation from every happening again in the human race. (eugenics-baby-designer.com) Also this process of getting ride of disabilities and mutation will eventually get rid of themselves but with Eugenic the human race can speed up this process of getting rid of disabilities and mutation (negative) faster. (eunics-baby-descom). I know Eugenic can be bad, like when the Nazi tried to use it. The Nazi used a radical version of Eugenic, and we all know radical things can be very bad, but what they did was try to stop insanity, disability and try to help the human race by breading humans. So even in negative light Eugenic good outcome can come from it.
Eugenics("Designer babies)

Designer baby are not natural. According to Biologydefinitions.com the definition for natural baby is a baby that sexual reproduction. 1 out of 5 designer babies are born with a genetic problem. A lot of the problems are like if the parents try to change the hair color it can turn off the gene that controls hair growth. Also 55% of all embryos planted into the mothers die before the full development.(designerbaby.org)
Eugenics("Designer babies)

Designer babies are natural. Through out time people of all religion and backgrounds have want to make a stronger, better baby. (onelife.com) The idea of making a better offspring have been around for ever. But with limited science people just found a good mate to make a good baby. But now with the advancement of science we can do what people have always want, to make a stronger, smart, more beautiful baby, to carry on their legacy and the human race.(eugenics-baby-design.com) This is not ethically wrong, is it unethical to try and make a baby that will survive? No it unethical to let babies die because there not strong enough to pass through natural selection.(eugenic-baby-design.com)
the media only covers celebrity issues to distract us from reall world issues...

My extension of my arguments in the previous round is well warranted since my opponent provided no rebuttals. On top of that, even if you're not completely on board with the points (and the means of refutation) I made, the fact of the matter is that the burden of proof belongs to the one who initiates the topic and my opponent has provided no evidence to support his claims. Thus, I urge you to vote for my case. Thank you.
the media only covers celebrity issues to distract us from reall world issues...

i believe the american media covers celebrity issues to distract us from real world issues. because if american people knew too much about our government we would be able to protest/rise up against our own government using their international crimes against them, to impeach their presidents. the only people that know about the governments business are people who do research and purposely look up this information.i will make more arguements in laer rounds..
Arjuna was the greatest archer in Mahabharat

Pro hasn't refuted any of my points that I mentioned earlier.Pro keeps mentioned that Arjunan was the good one, and Karnan is the bad one. Even though that itself is questionable, the debate was about Karnan being the better archer compared to Arjunan. Also all the points you pointed out, I already mentioned in round 2. So I guess I will close off my debate.
Arjuna was the greatest archer in Mahabharat

I agree Karnan didn't have the same oppurtunites are Arjunan, but Karnan served evil, and frankly didn't deserve to win at all. He fought for the Kaurvas, even though he knew that they were evil. If Karnan was trully good, he would have fought for the Pandavas, even after Vasudev Krishna told his he was really a Pandava. Instead, he choose to fight against his brothers and kill them. Arjunan managed to slay the mighty Bheesma, and helped the Pandavas kill many Kaurava soldiers. So, in my opinion Arjuna is still better. In the end, he managed to kill Karna regardless of the situation, and survived the war. Also, he surived many situations where the Kauravas tried to kill him, even before the war started.