BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good

Unsurprisingly, my opponent still has not mentioned any reason to believe this nobody (appearing in a tiny show in a small part of a city which is not advertised is not being a "somebody", anymore than an appearance speaking in a church for five minutes on faith makes you eminent) is a postpostmodernist.Postpostmodernism can be said to mean, roughly, "a common positive theme of current attempts to define post-postmodernism is that faith, trust, dialogue, performance and sincerity can work to transcend postmodern irony."[1] Or, to quote Turner, a postpostmodernist: "the gradual dawn of a post-Postmodernism that seeks to temper reason with faith."[2]To be fair, another school argues that post-postmodernism is "intellectual triteness"[3]. "Whereas postmodernism favoured the ironic, the knowing and the playful, with their allusions to knowledge, history and ambivalence, [post postmodernism] typical intellectual states are ignorance, fanaticism and anxiety"[3]. None of this, of course, exists in the poetry above, because it does not have any pretences to being postpostmodernism. It is closer to the latter in the fact that my opponent displays a fanaticism, ignorance and anxiety in his defence of the poetry, which justifies for example Kirby's analysis that we live in a pseudo-modern (a term referring to a post postmodern world) society. However, this does not exist in the realms of the poem, and therefore we ought to vote CON. 1 - http://tinyurl.com... 2 - City as Landscape: A Post Post-modern View of Design and Planning, Tom Turner3 - The Death of Postmodernism and Beyond, Alan Kirby
Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good

con says "I have no burden to show how this nobody is post postmodern. The burden of proof I'd on the one who purposes. You have given no evidence. And that which is presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, or in a preferred formulation of this idea: absence of evidence is evidence of absence." point 1 con does not answer why the poet is not a good poet thus he has not refuted my claims point 2 con says "I have no burden to show how this nobody is post postmodern" true but if you say he is not post postmodern then you have a burden of proof to show why thus he has not refuted my claims con does not even tell us if he has even read the poems point 3 con has taken the con position but does not tell us why this Post Post-modernist poet is not any good all he says is "this nobody " [even a nobody can be good] being a nobody does not prove the poet is no good-for even "a nobody" can be good thus not refuting my claim con infact shows to us all his prejudices -again without any proof -and forgetting that even "a nobody" can be good on the contrary I gave evidence that the poet "is a somebody" is good ie being invited to give a recital in America Thus in conclusion I back up my claims with sources on the contrary con gives no argument to refute my claim except the fallacious comment that the poet is "a nobody" can be good -forgetting that even "a nobody" can be good
Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good

you say "Post postmodern is irritatingly a specific literary movement, and my opponent will have to show including sources what post post modernism is, and then demonstrate, again using quotation, what particular aspects of his work are post postmodern. Otherwise, he cannot come close top fulfilling his burden of proof. I am personally if not narcissistically wondering if he is now post postmodern rather than archaic after a previous debate in which my opponent demonstrated a complete ignorance in postmodernism. Now, he is instead of putting him in a well established literary movement, he instead must be BEYOND this literary group and into the newest thing. Nevertheless, I'll listen with bated breath for my opponents arguments." no where do you say yes or no to my post "Is this Post Post-modernist poet any good" if you say he is no good then say why if you say he is not a Post Post-modernist poet then say why you only focus on the Post Post-modernist -without telling us if you agree and why or if you dont agree and why I TAKE IT YOU HAVE READ SOME OF HIS POEMS so if you say he is no good then say why if you say he is not a Post Post-modernist poet then say why I have made the claims if you disagree so tell us why you disagree with post I have backed up my claim that this Post Post-modernist poet is good by citing evidence which would support that if you disagree with the evidence then why
Abortion should not be aloud unless very harmful to the mother.

Thanks for the debate. Your argument, that a fetus is a creation of God so we shouldn't kill it, doesn't make any sense. Let's suppose for a second that indeed, God created the living things on Earth. Well, each time you eat - even a plant -, you kill a creation of God, don't you ? God being by definition a perfect being, he knew what he did when he created us with the feeling of hunger, so either he made us evil from birth on, or he doesn't mind. Point is, God can't be anymore angry at mankind for abortion than for everything else. So, once we put aside the religious aspect of the question, let's get on the interesting part : should we morally allow or disallow abortion ? This question is putting the mother's interests against the unborn child's ones. Let's assume for a second that we forbid abortion. Either this child will be an 'orphan' (given to an orphanage) or he will be educated by parents who consider him from start more a burden than a chance. Would you really want to live a life like that ? Before you answer that question, here is an interesting statistic : 15% of the orphans commit suicide before they rage age 18. http://www.orphanhopeintl.org... On the other hand, you have a mother who has to bear a child she doesn't want. This will often have dramatic consequences in her life, disallowing further studies for example. Disallowing abortion puts a major hiatus on her future, and thus on the future of eventual other children. All by all, I think it can be considered that the interests of that one child who would probably live a life of misery, can't justify the denial of the right of a woman to dispose of her own body...
[SHARED BOP] Hitler's philosophy is superior in morality and reasoning to Stalin's

You have officially forfeited 7 points."I shall now outline both philosophies with a quick opening statement as to why I think Stalin's is superior, I want my opponent's opening statement (in favour of Hitler's philosophy) in round 1, it is not just for acceptance." "There is a shared burden of proof (BoP) so simple negation of my points will result in a seven point forfeit in votes since you must have constructive points of your own in favour of Hitler's philosophy."Time to remake this debate.
if you are in favor of social progrms you will loose your freedom!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, our freedoms are not god-given. "Big government" as in the government we have now, seeks to help everyone, not just the wealthy and powerful. The point of social prgrams are to make the standard of living better for everyone. It is what democracy is supposed to be about. By the people for the people. not by the elite, for the elite. Where do you get the idea that "big govenment" wants to imprison us? Furthermore, what do you even mean by "big government"? Also, where do you get the idea that democrats want to do away with capitalism? And are you so dependent on this capitalistic society that you really think we will PERISH without it??
A diseased mind is more dangerous than the disease itself.

Rebuttal:"The disease doesn't have to be a literal disease. The disease mind can also be a corrupt person. The disease is corruption in, for instance, politics, and the diseased mind is the corrupted person in it."-Well done, but...-If pro claims that a corrupt person has a diseased mind, then it is only logical that corruption in general be a disease. One corrupt person is certainly less dangerous than corruption in its entirety. -Furthermore, as established in my round 1 arguments, the diseased mind comes from the disease itself. The corrupted person is corrupted because of corruption. Corruption causes people with corrupt minds. -Regardless of this statement, my rebuttals in round 1 already proved against your claim that a diseased mind is more dangerous than the disease itself, therefore, even if you have provided one example in which the diseased mind is more dangerous than the disease, your resolution is still negated.*Pro has not met his burden of proof.
A diseased mind is more dangerous than the disease itself.

Thank you for instigating such a thoughtful and interesting topic. Rebuttals:- My opponent argues that the depression and mental condition derived from a critical disease is more dangerous than the disease itself. -However, Pro fails to realize that without the disease itself, the depression mental condition would hypothetically not appear. -A person who is depressed but has no physical disease is easier and safer to cure than a person with a serious cancer who will most certainly die, as there is no cure for cancer at the moment. -A person with a depressed mentality has a less probable chance of dying than a person with a fatal disease who has close to 100% chance of dying (since it is "fatal), therefore, the disease is certainly more dangerous than the diseased mind.
Can you be in love with more than one person

1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a deep love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love, and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2.The idea of love is something everyone wants 3.Feelings of infatuation are often mistaken for "love" 4.People of faiths where it is custom to marry more than one person may be marrying for reasons other than "Love" 5.Actual love requires a lot of time and maintaining. There is no time to love more than one person. 6.Deep feelings of lust are often mistaken for "love" during a period of time. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.Therefore a person cannot love more than one person. Non-controversial- (1)It is a definition previously agreed upon. (2,3,6) I feel that they are ideas my opponent will agree to. Controversial- (4) One could argue that one could learn to love there other partners romantically. (5) One could say that if one puts in the effort it could improve their possibilities of loving more than one person.
Can you be in love with more than one person

Definition of Romantic Love: A love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a deep love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love, and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2.There is no limit to how many people someone is allowed to be in love with at once. 3.Some cultures do not obey societal beliefs in following Monogamy. Mormons who practice polygamy are capable of being in love with more than one woman at once. 4.Certain romantic partners may satisfy particular needs, while others do not. When you love someone, there are also going to be things that you do not love about him or her. Your other love might make up for what the other one lacks. 5.Some people prefer to be in open relationships because they find it to be beneficial for staying in love. 6.How you feel about every individual differs from the next. Your relationship with each person can consistent of different mental and emotional connections, but be similar on the level of intensity. 7.Therefore, it is possible to be in love with more than one person at a time. Non- Controversial: Premise 1 is non-controversial because this statement is an agreement of the definition. Premises 2 and 6 are non controversial because I feel that my opponent will approve of these general statements. Controversial: Premises 3, 4, and 5 are controversial. Premises 3: Some people may be in polygamist relationships, but not truly be in love with each of their wives. They could just be following orders of their particular religions. Premise 4: You can argue that if you truly are in love with someone their flaws do not matter to you. Unconditional love does not seek satisfaction within others. Premise 5: There have been monogamous relationships that have stayed in love without the presences of a third party.
Can you be in love with more than one person

1.I still agree to the definition of romantic love being, "a love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love and exhilarating feelings of happiness." 2.The idea of love is something everyone wants because an idea is easy and what"s even easier is readily putting labels on things that aren't necessarily being checked for accuracy which the case. 3.Feelings of infatuation are often mistaken for "love" 4.People of faiths where it is custom to marry more than one person may be marrying for reasons other than "Love" 5.Actual love requires a lot of time and maintaining. There is no time to love more than one person. 6.How you feel about every individual differs from the next. Your relationship with each person can consistent of different mental and emotional connections, but not everyone can connect with you the same way that special person does or else we would be falling in love left and right. However, instead every connection varies so this prevents such a case. 7.Deep feelings of lust are often mistaken for "love" during a period of time. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.Therefore it is not possible for one to romantically love more than one person I have agreed and added one or two premises but kept most of my own because I feel that they have been sufficiently defended.
Can you be in love with more than one person

1.Both sides have agreed on a definition of romantic love. Romantic love is a deep love for another person that involves intimacy, attachment, unconditional love, and exhilarating feelings of happiness. 2.There is no limit to how many people someone is allowed to be romantically in love with at once. Romantic love should not be confused with platonic love, or familial love. 3.Some cultures do not obey societal beliefs in following Monogamy. Mormons who practice polygamy are capable of being in love with more than one woman at once. However, it is possible that although they may have multiple marriages, it does not mean that they are in love with each partner. 4.Certain romantic partners may satisfy particular needs, while others do not. When you love someone, there are also going to be things that you do not love about him or her. Your other love might make up for what the other one lacks. 5.Some people prefer to be in open relationships because they find it to be beneficial for staying in love. Open relationships are beneficial for both parties involved. 6.How you feel about every individual differs from the next. Your relationship with each person can consistent of different mental and emotional connections, but be similar on the level of intensity. 7.Therefore, it is possible to be in love with more than one person at a time.
Can you be in love with more than one person

4. I"m not saying unconditional love erases a person"s faults. Unconditional love means loving someone regardless and learning to live with them. Running to the next person because they can "better fulfil your needs" is not love, unconditional or otherwise. 5. People in unhappy relationships, by our agreed upon definition, are technically no longer in love with each other romantically although they might still care for each other in some way if the situation is as you described. Assuming we are using all relevant definitions of the words: intimacy and attachment, unconditional love already been previously described and happiness being self-explanatory it makes your example and justification for open relationships invalid. Open relationships can be between two people in love with each if that"s the terms of their relationship, this is not what I"m arguing. What I am arguing is their "love" for their other partners besides their main one because most times the point of open relationships is to not have to build and maintain anything with anyone besides the main person and to have sex with anyone they want. 6. To clarify, I"m saying that one"s ability to form different types of connects with different people is directly the cause of infatuation and lust are mistaken for love and I was asking what about one"s ability to do this makes it possible to love multiple people? This, to me, is the reason why one cannot fall in love with more than one person at once because whether one realizes it or not we tend to seek out the same kind of connect over and over and we fall in love with people of that variety. Not everyone can connect with you the same way that special person does or else we would be falling in love left and right. However, instead every connection varies so this prevents such a case.
Can you be in love with more than one person

2. I stated that there is no limit to how many people someone can be "in love" with. In love, meaning romantically involved. 3. I do agree with your argument that although they may be legally married to a person, it does not mean that they are romantically in love with them. 4. Just because you love someone unconditionally, does not mean that they do not have faults. Instead of arguing and trying to change the person into someone you want them to be, it may be easier to just have someone else fill those needs without the burden of unwanted conflict in your other relationship. 5. The difference between my fourth and fifth premises is that open relationships are meant to be beneficial for both parties in the relationship. When people are unhappy in relationships they tend to keep it a secret from their partner and confide in someone else. This causes a lack of honesty, which can result in partners feeling alienated. Open relationships will allow both parties to be completely satisfied without the feeling of guilt or anxiety. My fourth premise does not say whether both parties know the multiple relationships. 6. I am not completely clear on the question you are asking me. There are not that many feelings that can be mistaken romantic love besides lust or infatuation. When I say they have different connections with different people I mean that some relationships are based on certain values that others are not. One couple might have a similar spiritual connection, while another might be a connection based on intellectual similarities.
Can you be in love with more than one person

2. I agree although you never specified whether you meant romantically or not. 3. While some cultures and religions do marry multiple partners it"s for that reason only. One does not have to be in love to get married. It"s completely possible for them to love only one partner romantically and the rest as nothing more than friends that just so happen to be bound to them. 4. If one would feel as though they might need multiple partners to sate their needs does this satisfy our definition of romantic love? According to the definition love is unconditional. If two people were in love but one or both partners were feeling some degree of dissatisfaction would they not, according to the definition, try to compensate, or work through it, or either choose to do nothing because they love that person unconditionally? 5. Can you please clarify how your fourth and fifth premise differ. 6. While I do agree that relationships vary between different people. However, it is also possible for other feelings to be mistaken for love, as previously mentioned, and those feelings can be just as intense as you said but that"s entirely different wouldn't you agree? How does one"s ability to form various different connections with various different people effect one"s ability to romantically love multiple people? In response: 4. It is possible for people of the Hindi faith to learn to love their partners romantically however they have no choice in the matter and forced love often turns out to be something completely different. This is also the case here. If one was arranged three partners it"s dubious that they love all of them equally. More practically, it might be possible for them to just love one romantically and care for the others or not love any of them and just think that they do. 5. I agree that while it may be easier to love some people than others but maintaining that love and that relationship with that person may take the same if no more time than other relationships. If one feels that they have more time to love more people romantically do they in fact love the first person at all?
Can you be in love with more than one person

1.It is a definition previously agreed upon. 2.I do agree that the idea of love is something that everyone wants. 3.I also agree that people tend to mistake infatuation with love. Love is something that last for a long time, where as infatuation is a short lived passion for someone. 4.Although people may marry someone for reasons besides love, it is possible for them to form a romantic love for that person. In Indian cultures it is common for marriages to be arranged. Even though they might not be in love with the person at first, they could learn to love them. 5.Some relationships take more time and patience"s than others. If your love for someone comes easy, it is possible for you to have time to work on a romantic love with another person. 6.I agree that feelings of lust can seem like love at first. It is easy to become overwhelmed with feelings of passion that can be mistaken for love.
Taxes should be Significantly Cut

We are debating that taxes should be either significatly cut or cut altogether. Like the income tax should be significantly cut and there should be one flat tax rate for all income groups. Taxes like the sales tax should be cut altogether during a recession, and should be significantly cut in all other times. I will be arguing that these polices are good, and you are arguing that these policies are bad. Thank you in advance to the debater that accepts this.