BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mankind is evil

Hi, I don't agree with you. First of all, 'mankind' is a very broad and general term. Generalizing any humans into a group they can't choose (race, Ethnicity, Nationality, Gender) is wrong. What's even more wrong is applying the same qualities to all members of the group. If you say mankind is evil, You are saying that all people that ever existed are evil. Because mankind is all men and women, Not some. Then does that mean you are evil too? What about me? What about your friends and my friends? How thousands of people be evil if they have done nothing wrong? Saying "manking is evil" is like saying "black people are criminals" or "Arabs are terrorists". The actions of a select few don't define the qualities of many. Just because some people are evil doesn't mean all of mankind is evil. And that is true with any group which you can't choose to not be a part of.
homework should be banned

Even though homework gives us a better understanding of what we are currently learning doesn't mean that we have enough time in our daily schedule to do homework due to the fact that they push us to do school clubs or activities such as choir, orchestra, or any sports activities. Not to mention the school board is already happy with us having over 17 hours of testing and keep us in school at least 9 hours if you include just after school. Also you have to consider all of the tournaments or trips that you have to go on and everyone knows that your already stressed on that.
Children in Kindergarden through Grade 5 carrying cell phones

I will be pro for allowing children in kindergarten through grade 5 to carry cell phones.---Reasoning1. ConvenienceAs children begin school, it will be common for them to be away from their parents. Providing children with a cell phone or similar device will allow them to contact their parents without the necessity of contacting the school office; as the secretary is usually busy with other tasks given by the principle/administrator. Moreover, children are able to contact their parents within and outside of school grounds and vice-versa. This is extremely important because pay-phones are becoming obsolete, and even a child does stumble upon one, they do not carry any cash.2. SafetyParents are able to contact their child in case of emergencies and schedule conflicts. If for some reason the parent cannot pick up the child, he/she can communicate to the child what to do. This will reduce stress on the parent to cancel any obligations or opportunities that show up during that span of time. In addition, the parent can also tell the child on who he/she is allowed to be picked up by instead. Children often follow parents' orders, and therefore will act accordingly if either parent is available for guidance.3. Technological advancementTechnology is rapidly becoming more advanced, it is only normal for children to become familiar with what is around them. Over the past 15 years, A very important technological advancement was made available for commercial uses as of May 2000, the GPS (1). Nowadays, many phones and devices have this very capability; what better way then to use it to locate your children? Furthermore, even if young children are not introduced to cell phones at an early age, they will still be using them in their adolescence and adulthood, the only difference being that the benefits of using them from an early age were not taken advantage of. Overall, there are many benefits of children K-5 to be carrying cell phones. The benefits include being able to contact the child, finding their location based on GPS, and implementing a technologically advanced way of life from an early age.---(1) http://www.gps.gov...
Swagger Should Be Banned

Swagger is the most OP move in Pokemon. There is no way that anything can take out a Pokemon that's got swagger, except perhaps a Pokemon that has more swagger. Let me give an example. I taught my Whimsicott Swagger the other day, and my team went undefeated. Swagger is too good and needs to be banned. Another reason? It doesn't make any sense. How does a Whimsicott have any swag at all? It's a fricking ugly white sheep thing with the eyes of the devil and Santa Claus's trimmed beard. The mere idea of a Whimsicott thinking it's got swag is enough to make any Pokemon raise its attack and try to kill itself. This is unhealthy for Pokemon's target audience, as it promotes suicidal intentions. We do not want to promote suicidal intentions in small children. Ban Swagger. It's the only way.
Communism cannot Work

Pro states that if there's no-one to regulate Communism, it can't work. Since anarcho-communism has never once been attempted, Pro has no right to claim this. The only forms of Communism that were ever attempted were corrupt, dictatorships that pretended to be serving Socialist outlooks while really only serving the needs of their leaders. There hasn't ever been a genuine communist state and thus Pro has no right to attack this.Pro then states that charity is an incentive to be selfless. The only thing charity is is an opportunity to be selfless beyond the call of duty. Instead, a communist society, where everyone is sharing everything they own with everyone else, this society is the only society where you literally have to want to help others in order to help yourself. You motive may seem selfish since you benefit from it but there is no possible way to benefit oneself in communism without first benefiting others on a large scale.Following this, Pro attacks the idea of everyone getting what they need as opposed to some wealthy people getting far more than they need and a majority of poor people suffering beneath them as is rampant in all capitalist societies.The justification Pro uses for this is... Oh, there isn't any!I find it amusing that Pro raises USSR as an example of Marxist communism when Stalinism was as far from Marxist communism as it gets.[1] In Round 1 Pro specifies that we are only debating the Marxist form of Communism.Regarding the Ant analogy, Communism forgets that humans are not robots and actually deserve to be respected no matter how far the 'food chain' they may end up by natural selection. Humans should look out for each other and respect one another if they ever hope to receive any help and respect when they get old and weary or ill.Sources:[1] https://www.marxists.org...
Communism cannot Work

Rebuttals'In regards to the 'people aren't equal' attack, people being equal is actually irrelevant to communism.'What I was saying is that Communism's ideas do not reward hard working individuals but instead reward everyone the same no matter how much they put in. Communism doesn't recognise natural inequality. Private property is natural inequality.Then you try to refute my argument about the class system. You say that Communism goes through an authoritarian stage which is true. But what about after that stage when authority is abolished? Who will then regulate to ensure everyone is equal? An incentive to be selfless is what private charity is. You say no other society has that. Every society has that. But there is no incentive to be forced to live your whole life entirely for the sake of others and for the sake of the state.Innovation is neccesary because without that peoples' problems remain unfixed. This means that people loose faith in the system which is useless and achieving nothing. Therefore the system is abandoned. All the advancements of mankind have come from free individuals not a centrally planned system.I don't think people would give up everything they own in exhange for recieving according to their need and not being allowed to earn more to live above their need. In Communism people only get what they need. They cannot work for more because they are already forced to work to ghe maximum of their ability. There would be no authors, painters, actors, televisions, telephones and so on. Their would be no creativity and nothing worth living for. No imcentive. People would just be forced to live the same basic lives without ever being aloud to earn more.Further ArgumentsCommunism forgets that people are not ants. Ants are simple minded creatures that live in a Collectivist manner. However people are more comolex and our nature requires freedom and innovation, individualism and private property. All things that Communism takes away. Communism rejects human nature and any system that rejects that is destined to fail. The evidence is there- look what happened to the USSR. Communism ruined the USSR. Its economy collapsed, everyone lived in poverty, no one had any freedom. 100 million people have been killed in the last century because of CommunismCommunism also makes the production of wealth impossible becausenjt destroys property rights. There is no prosperity. People just live miserably in poverty. This is why Communism and Central Planning is a failure. The only reasonable criticism of the free market is the rise of monopolies yet central planning requires one big monopoly controlling everything. The exact thing Marx wanted to stop, he created. Furthermore Communism is indifferent towards the environment. After the Communist regime of the USSR, the aral sea has shrunk to about 10% its original size. This is also the effect of Communism. But Communism really doesn't work simo,y because people like to own stuff. Sources -http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com... http://listverse.com... http://personalitycafe.com...
Communism cannot Work

In regards the the 'people aren't equal' attack, people being equal is actually irrelevant to communism. The fact is that in communism people are economically equal, whether or not they inherently are.The entire paragraph about the class system forgets that the theory of communism, proposed by Karl Marx, states that the authoritarian variant of it is Socialism and is merely a transitional period between capitalism and communism.[1] Thus, it was not attacking the anarcho-communist society which Karl Marx held as ideal.The incentive paragraph forgets something vital. In a communist society there is an incentive to be selfless; something that no other society has. In the communist society, only by helping absolutely everyone other than yourself can you hope for yourself to get richer. In other words, only by everyone working as hard as possible for others, will the society itself be a force to be reckoned with in the non-communist world, hence reaping rewards for each member of the communist society if this succeeds.The issue regarding innovation is also not true. It is, however, true that the need to be innovative is less self-centred and less prevalent in a communist society than a capitalist one. Nonetheless, why is innovation necessary for a society to work? In the end, sticking to old fashioned methods is not going to happen if the communist society pays attention to the rest of the world doing the innovation for it. North Korea has often copied computer tech and weapons tech in order to excel itself as a threat in this world, despite having invented none of it itself.The closing statement was quite narrow-minded. The question should be worded "would you happily give up all your property in exchange for a guaranteed level of wealth below which you could never fall?" and some people, especially the victims of capitalism, certainly would.Sources:[1] http://www.workerspower.co.uk...
Evolution is proven fact

Antibiotic resistant microbes, better known as "superbugs" is 100% confirmation and certification and proven fact that evolution is taking place right here in the here and the now. Antibiotic resistant microbes are evolving every single second of every single day to become more resistant to antibiotics. Superbug 1.a pathogenic bacterium that has developed immunity to antibiotics, or an insect that has developed immunity to insecticides. (has developed means evolution is taking place) Now watch the vidies that proves evolution is taking place in the here and now. If you don't, then you have no argument. http://www.youtube.com... - Frontline - The Trouble with Antibiotics Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Rise Of Superbugs Resistant To Antibiotics | Full Documentary http://www.youtube.com... - Antibiotics Resistance The so what nothingness god of the bible (thankfully) is not proven fact No matter which language you speak. god is NOT proven fact.
This must be the greatest love poem ever

hi Ajabi nice to meet you again cheers con say " shakuntala must show that beyond any degree that this poem by C. L. Dean is the best poem ever. " point 1 I am comparing deans poem to sonnet 116-which it is claimed by some to be the best love poem ever so if I can show why deans love poem is better then sonnet 116 I have shown why deans love poem is the best ever so lets start with a definition of love http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. 2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance. 3. a. Sexual passion. b. Sexual intercourse. so words like desire feelings of affection sexual desire romance are keys to anylising both poems so point 1 sonnet 116 has no desire feelings of affection sexual desire proof constrast these lines of Shakespeare "Sonnet 116 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds" these are lifless words evoking no passion no desire now see dean poem Breathe thy hot breath into my ear Breathe thy hot breath that I can hear the pounding of thy heart for I to hear thy soul cry out for I where Shakespeares is lifeless no passion we can hear the desire the passion in these lines or again these lines oh come beloved and make my heart to thud and my veins to sing with thy lips make my ears ring with the love thee does to I do bring oh oh ever so slowly run thy lips o"er the neck of I now for sexual passion tual passion in sonnet 116 but in deans poem these line I be the fig mushy soft for the lips of thee press thy tongue into me slip its tip up my slit and languidly slither it along the scarlet crease run that tongue of thee along the Ganges stream of me run that tongue of thee thru the frothy foam that flows fromst my pink rimmed hole to froth o"er the earth like streaming milk white-like like moonlight coating the earth in silvery frost nothing of a sexual tone is found in Shakespeare so based on the meaning of love "desire" "passion" "feelings " "sexual passion" deans poem is superior to Shakespeare thus making deans poem the best ever what con has to do is show us where "desire" "passion" "feelings" and "sexual passion" are in sonnet 116 and show us why -if he can find them- Shakespeare rendition of them is super to deans
This must be the greatest love poem ever

Hello again shakuntala! Why have I once more accepted your debate? It is because I feel it is necessary that someone competent does so, so perhaps one day you will stop this madness. Now firstly I think it is necessary to understand that this link starts off with analysis which is not a poem, a small ridiculous part is quoted here:'Shakespeares lines are lifeless dead nothing ofhis heart comes through only his mind is talkinghe is not speaking from a heart of love but onlyfrom a mind that intellectualizes love his belovedwould feel nothing from Shakespeare except hisattempt to be clever. 'Quite the assertion, I will not debate on the analysis because the resolution, and the rules imply that the poem written by Colin Leslie Dean, the one you quoted, is the the best poem. I believe it is pertinent to start off with some analysis regarding the burden of proof. As this is a substantive motion, which means that the word 'must' is used shakuntala must show that beyond any degree that this poem by C. L. Dean is the best poem ever.
This must be the greatest love poem ever

This must be the greatest love poem ever http://www.scribd.com... this poem by Shakespeare is number one for the 10 The Greatest Love Poetry of All Time http://www.poemofquotes.com... Sonnet 116 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove: O no; it is an ever-fixed mark, That looks on tempests, and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come; Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved. " now this poem by dean is full of more longing more passion more love than this boring sonnet 116 extract "Breathe thy hot breath into my ear Breathe thy hot breath that I can hear the pounding of thy heart for I to hear thy soul cry out for I Linger on my neck Linger on my neck with thy soft kiss kiss my neck with the soft touch of thy soul linger linger and sigh out thy soul o"er the flesh of I with thy soft kiss breathe out thy love for I from the soul of thine warm my flesh burn my flesh with the hot passion of thine Oh oh give me thy soul along the flesh of I give me thy soul to make my eyes to cry my love for thee oh come beloved and make my heart to thud and my veins to sing with thy lips make my ears ring with the love thee does to I do bring oh oh ever so slowly run thy lips o"er the neck of I kiss dabbing dab dab dabbing "
This must be the greatest love poem ever

I do apologize for the forfeit. My opponent deserves the Conduct points but I still deserve the argumentation points for the simple reason that my opponent had the burden of proof and the motion is clear: 'this must be the greatest love poem ever'. It means that shakuntala had to show that C. Dean's poem is the greatest which he did not. My argument regarding subjectivity stands. My argument about what constitutes greatness in literature, because of subjectivity was never answered. Also my argument about how Dean's poem is too material is also unrefuted. I therefore state, the resolution collapses.
This must be the greatest love poem ever

hi Ajabi con says "I leave you with a poem which is again full of longing: 'And wilt thou leave me thus? Say nay, say nay, for shame, To save thee from the blame Of all my grief and grame; And wilt thou leave me thus? Say nay, say nay!.... WOW yes a very beautiful poem did you write it ? or who did write it - it is great con says "Now I would like to start with some burden of proof analysis. My opponent has taken a nearly impossible burden upon himself. The resolution states: 'This must be the greatest love poem ever', where shakuntala is Proposition" As stated sonnet 116 is considered one of the greatest love poems ever all I have to do is show deans poem is better than sonnet 116 and then I have proved my position I have given that proof in my previous post 1)con has not given us reasons why my analysis is wrong so at the moment all we have from con are assertions but no proof of those assertion-that proof will involve him giving some analysis of deans and Shakespeare sonnet 116 if con does not back up his assertions with proof then I must win the debate
This must be the greatest love poem ever

Greetings shakuntala! Now I would like to start with some burden of proof analysis. My opponent has taken a nearly impossible burden upon himself. The resolution states: 'This must be the greatest love poem ever', where shakuntala is Proposition. Now shakuntala could do two things: he could compare C. L. Dean's poem to every other poem in the word which talks about love, or he could establish an objective standard to appraise the poem. Both are equally ridiculous, because in the first case it would take many years, and we have but 10, 000 characters here, and in the second case because there is a subjectivity to literature which is not found in the sciences. To say that this poem "must" be the best brings forth an objectivity, may I recommend that shakuntala make the title with "may" the next time. Or with on balance so the other person has to bring about a competing poem. Now if you will argue ex vi termini, you need to assume a proper definition. Your use of the definition may be different to other people. You see for me the first part is the most important, and there are many poems which embody this lonliness, this longing, or this passion more beautifully than C. L. Dean's poem. So shakuntala's first point is that Shakespeare's words are lifeless. Again that is his subjective opinion, and one may in any case argue that the words are anything but lifeless. Shakespeare says: 'Let me not to the marriage of true minds, admit impediments. Love is not love, which alters when alteration finds.' Now this is a beautiful embodiment of love, and what it stands for. How it overcomes the quirks and the faults of other people and transcends that. This stanza brings in a person great amounts of emotion, something which Dean's poem also does, granted, but it would be foolish to compare the two. Not because Dean's lines are bad, but because they are both subjectively impressive, but Shakespeare more than Dean. When one reads Shakespeare one's heart erupts into tears. Dean assumes that Shakespeare's poem must contain sexual contact to be a love poem. That is untrue, and as I stated if shakuntala wishes to argue ex vi termini he must first prove his definition. Now poems are based on love's longing, and care, and while shakuntala cannot show that Dean's poem is the best, it is better than his other works. I leave you with a poem which is again full of longing: 'And wilt thou leave me thus? Say nay, say nay, for shame, To save thee from the blame Of all my grief and grame; And wilt thou leave me thus? Say nay, say nay! And wilt thou leave me thus, That hath loved thee so long In wealth and woe among? And is thy heart so strong As for to leave me thus? Say nay, say nay! And wilt thou leave me thus, That hath given thee my heart Never for to depart, Nother for pain nor smart; And wilt thou leave me thus? Say nay, say nay! And wilt thou leave me thus And have no more pity Of him that loveth thee? H"las, thy cruelty! And wilt thou leave me thus? Say nay, say nay!' -Sir Thomas Wyatt Faithfully Yours, Ajab.
Should schools allow students to use their electronics at school

I agree with you in the technological possibilities, we both know that that is not why highschoolers are not aloud to have electronics. They are not aloud to have them because the majority use their smartphones during class disrupting it more then using it to help. I only had 3min. to post so i will make my greater argument on the next round, but i think that electronics just lead to bigger disruptions, and more teenagers thinking they are above authority which i observed in my highschool. Even though some students would use their electronics for the right reasons, the majority wouldn't, and they ruin it for the rest.
Should schools allow students to use their electronics at school

As you can see above I am requesting that students should be able to use their electronics at school. As technology evolves we are able to do more and more on our Smartphones or Tablets or our Laptops. We can download books or use a calculator or even find apps to help us all on these electronics. However there will have to be some monitoring as to check and ensure that students are using it for the correct purposes. But I feel that students would be more interactive in school if they were able to use electronics to help them as there is so much interactive activities to engege in to keep students attention on school.