BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction.

While I'm not a huge fan of poetry, I think many of your claims are a little over the top. To say that poetry is incapable of conveying things like philosophy or emotion is a little out there. I can think of plenty of poems that are deeply philosophical (Robert Frost's "Mending Wall" is a personal favorite) and convey philosophical concepts much more effectively through succinct length and structure than many 500 pg. novels can. You can't possibly make the case that poetry is incapable of emotion. Poetry is largely emotional by nature. It conveys emotion much differently than literature, but that doesn't make it less valid. In some cases, a poem is better able to convey philosophical, educational, emotional, spiritual, etc. concepts because it is shorter, and its structure is carefully tailored to promote such understanding. Through careful word choice and arrangement of lines, it draws attention to particular emotive words which one would normally just gloss over if it was in a long and involved story. Individual have much more efficacy when part of a 10-line poem than they do in a 500 page novel. I would probably have to agree with you that it is easier to write a poem than a longer piece of literature, but this doesn't make poetry any less valid. In fact, I think it speaks to the power of poetry that it is capable of conveying some emotional/philosophical concepts in a more compact, accessible manner. Not to mention, a poem can stick with you much longer than a novel, simply because of the way it's set up; you can memorize a 20-line poem and have it stick with you for life, or you can read a long piece of literature and only remember broad concepts or a few individual sentences out of hundreds of thousands. If you can get the same understanding from a short poem as you can from a long novel, it speaks to the power of poetry. The odd thing is, I always despised poetry when studying it in high school. Now that I'm in college though, I think I can bring myself to defend it more easily once I've come to understand it better.
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction.

Good fiction (short stories, novels, any kind of story-telling, really) conveys philosophical, personal, emotional, historical and educational concepts. It also provides these within a framework of a story, which immerses the reader in the concepts in a way that would otherwise be impossible. Poetry, especially modern poetry, conveys some of the same concepts but it does so in a much shorter and often formless way. Often, it conveys nothing at all. I submit that people who write and read poetry instead of fiction are lazy. The poetry writers throw out some phrases or words which do not even have to rhyme or follow any structure at all, and the readers thank them because this means they can "fill in the blanks" with their own concepts. It's easy for both, safe for the world-views of both, and it accomplishes nothing. Nothing was actually communicated, because the interpretation is from the reader himself. The reader could get the same kind of inspiration from looking at a rock. Probably more inspiration, honestly. Poetry can be fun if you just want to throw something out there really quick and fun to read if you're not looking to learn anything or be challenged (other than the occasional artless "poetic shock attempt"- i.e. "I want to kiss George W. Bush" or something along those lines). But it stands that poetry is still just underdeveloped (and vastly underdeveloped, at that) fiction. Any poem could be turned into a story with some talent and effort, and it would gain meaning for it. Ernest Hemingway did one better. He used all the advantages of the story to truly convey meaning, but he left just enough ambiguity so the reader could make the stories a little more personal (by "filling in the blanks"). That's a tricky feat to pull off, and I've seen anyone else able to do it. If you can't do that, surely it's better to go with "straight" fiction. After all, if you have no specific meaning you want to impart, what is the point of writing anything at all?
Call of Duty is better than Battlefield

Let me start off by saying that this is my first debate on this site so forgive me if I mess up on anything. I want to experience this debate page and get a feel for it. I thank whoever debates me and I hope we can successfully share our view points on this awesome topic! There are many reasons why I think the Call of Duty series is better than the Battlefield series. In this round, I'm going to put some of my OPINIONS into 3 bullets and explain them. " Call of Duty has a more exciting multiplayer than Battlefield I think this is true, because although Battlefield has a more realistic multiplayer with the larger maps, COD has more of a heart-thumping gameplay when you're trying to get to 25 kills in TDM or leading a 1-3 comeback in Search and Destroy. My friend and I both own Battlefield 2 and 3 as well as Black Ops, MW3 and Black Ops 2. He likes Battlefield 3 the best while I like Black Ops the best. He agrees with me that Battlefield multiplayer is kind of slow going. For example, if you die on Battlefield, you have to go considerably far to get back to the action. In Call of Duty, you can get back to fighting soon after you die. These two things also have other pros and cons, depending on what certain people look for in shooters. Battlefield 3 also has a mutiplayer "pass", since it's an EA game. On Xbox, you already have to pay for LIVE, and if you buy Battlefield 3 used, there's a good chance you're not going to get the pass with the game. If you really wanted to, you could buy a pass, which is about 15 dollars. That makes Call of Duty much more appealing if you play online. " Call of Duty has a better storyline in the campaign Ok, I'm just going to say that both campaigns in any single Battlefield or COD game are fun, but I find that COD is just a bit ahead. Call of Duty has a lot more decide-the-game decisions, especially in Black Ops 2. I believe that Battlefield 2 and 3 might have one, if any, decide-the-game decisions, in which you shoot or don't shoot someone. " Call of Duty has better character development in the campaign Since there isn't much follow up from one Battlefield game to the next, I will just compare character development of any one. For instance, in Black Ops 2, they introduce a few new characters, including Harper. Throughout, the story, he develops into a main character. In the story, you can choose to kill him or not kill him. Some players of the game who killed Harper might've gotten a little sad because they thought he was an awesome character. I believe that is good character development. Whoever debates me on this topic, could you please offer an example of good character development in any Battlefield game you choose?
Building the "Wall"

Don't worry I'm on your side completely I'm doing this for fun... People are always talking about the people in our country who are bad enough like rapists and gun use and stuff so who cares if more people come in. If more people come into our country with no trouble at all, the number could increase and we don't want that because then we have to deal with those people too. People say not all people in Mexico and South America and other places aren't terrorist or anything else people call them. But because of the way people have been treating them, they start to believe that maybe that's who they really are and I'm better off representing the stereotype given. And even though we want to save them, that's just going to put our country in danger and we have to think about the good for the greatest amount of people. My housekeeper is Brazilian and when she voted for Trump I was astonished. But she voted for Trump because she did think everyone had to have a visa because she came to this country legally and if she has to go through that, everyone should go through that. She didn't want random people coming to our country. Anything could happen.
Public Forum topic for September '09

I'd like to begin by final round by thanking my opponent for the opportunity to debate this very controversial topic. I'm sorry that she forfeited the final round of the debate, as I was looking forward to her actually responding to the various (almost all) arguments of mine that she did not address or provide any type of adequate rebuttal too. Perhaps we can debate this topic again in the future. For now, I'd like to extend all of my arguments seeing as how I've already made a bunch that have thus far been ignored. I believe the evidence shows that I have provided a great deal of better contentions than my opponent, and thus I encourage a vote for the Con. Thank you. -- L
Public Forum topic for September '09

"The only difference is that our ancestors used violent force and other malicious attacks to drive the original inhabitants of North America out of their homes, while immigrants are merely attempting to work hard for their money and live in a more effective and safe capitalistic, somewhat democratic society." --Does this mean the immigrants now are not committing crimes? I don't understand this statement. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, illegal immigrants collectively represent a group that is a significant menace to the public. 80% have committed serious crimes in addition to immigration violations, and 40% have violent crime histories. Illegal immigrants killed Denver Police Officer Don Young and Los Angeles County Deputy David March. There was also a case of an illegal immigrant dragging his girlfriend to death behind his car. Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the U.S. who have had an average of four victims each. According to Deborah Schurman-Kauflin of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, the study translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across U.S. borders illegally per day. Rep Steve King also reports 8 American children are victims of sexual abuse by illegal aliens every day--a total of 2,920 annually. In 2005, Cornelio Rivera Zamites was arrested for the kidnapping, molestation and murder of four-year-old Esmerelda Nava. In 2005, there were 10.5 million illegal immigrants, according to the government, including about 264, 000 in jail and prison for non-immigration crimes. That's an incarceration rate of 2.5%. "We already have a Border Patrol; obviously they're failing (and many are corrupt)." --With attrition through enforcement, we would be strengthening our Border Control. Therefore, this doesn't stand. "Amnesty, as defined by its opponents, has come to mean getting forgiveness for free. But under the Senate's current compromise, the path for illegals is not anything close to easy. Under the compromise, the 12 million immigrants would face a 13-year process including $5,000 in fines per person, benchmarks for learning English, and an onerous "touchback" provision that calls for the head of each household to leave job and family behind and return to his or her home country for an indeterminate amount of time to queue up for the final green card. Nothing free about that, notes TIME magazine." --This is with amnesty? I'd like to point out that amnesty has failed seven times. "It's ultimately THEIR fault that immigrants work." --How so? As far as diseases go, if the immigrants came over legally, there would be less. Therfore, "kicking them out of the country" would mean they could come back legally, lowering the rate of disease.
you would commit suicide because of love for money

Who said I will tell them I got a bag full of gold?? Lol you have taken a wrong ideology here. I never mentioned that I will tell them that I have a bag full of gold.. I just said that if they wanted something in return I would give them few of it. Furthermore, the bag is always with me so there is minimum chances of stealing it. Another reason of it is that since I would be a foreign in that land the natives would be in there best behaviour because they come from this traditional thinking that you should always be nice, humble and respectful to someone. For example if you take India and your a tourist there, they will never show any negative behaviour and would show good behavior that is acceptable by all . So the same thing goes with the natives of that desert
you would commit suicide because of love for money

you have been lost in a desert for 2 hours in totally unknown lands for some reason as if the situation itself is alien beyond how you know to survive from your time in nature, and walking around you just realize the place is bigger and bigger, and whenver you get to see from the top of a hill there are just more canyons and sand, its all dry and the sun is hot, you are carrying a bag of gold with alot of weight, and there is alot of money in that gold, you have 1 bottle of water left, so, do you leave the gold, take some of it and save burry the rest, or keep on carrying the full bag of gold, to save water and survive better survive you have only 3 choices, by weight carried in gold, non some or all (which answer is the right one?) post your personal reply in the comment for fun!
Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory

First of all, I am sorry I forgot a few things Social security: 1.(usually initial capital letters) a program of old-age, unemployment, health, disability, and survivors insurance maintained by the U.S. federal government through compulsory payments by specific employer and employee groups. 2.the theory or practice of providing economic security and social welfare for the individual through government programs maintained by moneys from public taxation. For our purposes, I'll use definition 1. But now I wish to mention a few things. 1) My opponent has not addressed any of my arguments, which means I win every single one of them. "i think that the elderly do deserve more money right now," 2) My opponent has not used a fact, shred of evidence, source, or even statement, so this argument is void. The other problem with this argument is that he does not consider that our generation will be old eventually too, except we will be getting much less than what the seniors now are getting. (see con 1 source 1) "and besides as long as we keep our savings we should have enough to last us" 3) I don't understand what "last us" means, but I'll have to assume my opponent means "keep us from poverty" Again, when we are old there will be no social security left for us. And the use of should further disqualifies his argument. 4) My opponent has not addressed any of my issues, nor has he presented any viable positive effects of keeping social security. 5) Vote based on who had a better logical argument, not who you agree with.
Paying into the current social security system should be mandatory

My opening argument is very simple. 1) Social security is not even. People do not get the same amount of money as someone did 30 years ago. Soon all of the baby boomers will reach retirement age and the social security funds will dry up. Most of these social security funds will come from younger Americans. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_is_a_pyramid_scheme 2) Social security discriminates against the poor, as they pay an extra social security tax. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_discriminates_against_the_poor_and_middle-class 3) It gives a very low amount of money back. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#Claim_that_it_gives_a_low_rate_of_return 4) I recommend that the social security system sets up private savings accounts. These savings will not be used for government purposes and they will not be moved to other accounts unless decided so by the owner of the account.
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

The first time I tried this debate, (http://www.debate.org...), my opponent ultra-forfeited. So now, I'm trying this again.To make the title clearer: To make it clearer: the rating system and the organization that distributes the rating should be altered.Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentsRound 3: Arguments/RebuttalsRound 4: Arguments/RebuttalsRound 5: Rebuttals/ConclusionGood Luck.
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

"It should be the responsibility if some nameless people to decide what movie can hear about." It is. The people are nameless, but the company isn't. And I'm not sure what you meant by "what movie can hear about.""By distributing the NC-17 rating, your giving a letter to an aspiring filmmaker saying "no one will hear about this movie." Well der. That's why they call it "Box Office Suicide". Even aside from that, people hear about NC-17 movies. You know, that's why they exist. You can easily find them on services like Netflix or even Redbox and you can find them in pornographic or adult shops. Ok. Look. The reason why directors avoid NC-17 is because it won't be shown in normal theaters. That's a given. NC-17 is exactly like Ao in ESRB. Most people haven't played or maybe even heard of Ao games, but they still have a successful business because there still is that few who plays them. This is exactly the same with NC-17 rated movies. "I care because no one is accountable for the ratings they give!" Um, every single person who works at MPAA is accountable for the ratings. Even the coffee boy that hands about breakfast to the employees. Instead of quoting and countering Pro's last argument, I will show why the Matrix was rated R and why TDKR was rated PG-13.The Matrix: This movie was rated R for it's language and rather extreme violence. On IMDB's content advisory, this movie is given an 8/10 for violence, 2/10 for sex and nudity, 5/10 for profanity, 2/10 for alcohol, drugs and smoking, 6/10 for frightening and intense scenes, The Dark Knight Rises: There is no scoring on each subject for this movie, however it can be read that the subjects in this movie are far better than those in the Matrix.
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

Look up Google Images for the film 100 Tears. That's the kind of violence in an NC-17.That guy has seen better days... Wait... HE STOLE THAT FROM MY BASEMENT! HE TOOK MY STUFF! HE TOOK MY MEATLOAF!These said things are WAY worse in an NC-17 movie.It should be the responsibity of some nameless people to decide what movie can hear about. By distributing the NC-17 rating, your giving a letter to an aspiring filmmaker saying "no one will hear about this movie".The director tried to AVOID an NC-17 rating. That's not the point; if they didn't try to avoid the NC-17, we would have never seen one of the best horror movies ever! And it becomes even more hilarious when a TV program showed the theatrical and "raw" version side beside... They showed "NC-17" material on TV...Who cares who is deciding the ratings?I care because no one is accountable for the ratings they give!As long as the ratings make sense, we shouldn't care.Why is it that the Matrix is R for "kung-fu" while The Dark Knight Rises is PG-13 for punching people until they die, dragging them out into the street, and breaking someone's spine?
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

"You are mistaken. Several horror movies, R, have "Brutal Violence", "Course Language", "Strong Sexual Content", etc, according to the MPAA. So... why can't we show a trailer for an NC-17?" Yes, R rated movies can have those things, but not to the extent of what is seen in an NC-17. These said things are WAY worse in an NC-17 movie. And why you can't show trailers for them? Simple. Like I said, it's because most NC-17 rated movies are either porn or extremely brutal and violent films. Look up Google Images for the film 100 Tears. That's the kind of violence in an NC-17.__________________________________________ "So... Am I right in that it is lackadasaisical?Carelessly lazy? I don't think so. ____________________________________About the scream being released as R thing, you missed a major part. The director tried to AVOID an NC-17 rating. ________________________________________"And again, it should not be a group of... (who knows who) deciding that a movie will fail!" Who cares who is deciding the ratings? As long as the ratings make sense, we shouldn't care.
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

I don't know why exactly, I think it's just because I don't feel very comfortable with saying the full-onThat's fine; it is just odd if you think about it.Like George Carlin said once: you can say "Poopy" and "faeces", but one version of the word is suddenly dirty._____You see, movies that contain brutal murder and rape are automatically given an NC-17 rating.You are mistaken. Several horror movies, R, have "Brutal Violence", "Course Language", "Strong Sexual Content", etc, according to the MPAA. So... Why can't we show a trailer for an NC-17?__________________________________________________________________________I don't know, broSo... Am I right in that it is lackadasaisical?_____________________________________Scream was released in 1996 with an R-rating. The director even tried to avoid an NC-17 rating becaise NC-17 is "box office suicide".While it was RELEASED with an R, it had to be edited a bit. I know this because I saw a documentary on the film. It was funny, considering that they showed a side-by-side comparison, and there was little difference.And again, it should not be a group of... (who knows who) deciding that a movie will fail!__________________________________________________________________________How do we know if they're biased for the studios?Several theories circulate that MPAA is easier on studios while independent films are treated harshly, because Paramount/Disney has huge shares in the company. Regardless of whether or not these accussations are true, we have no way of knowing. The people who despense these ratings are anonymous, and thus they are not held responsible!
The MPAA Rating System Should be Altered II

"Off topic, I know, but why are you censoring your profanity? The little *'s (what are they called?) do not impede my ability to know what you are talking about." I don't know why exactly, I think it's just because I don't feel very comfortable with saying the full-on, uncensored, words. I don't know what the star-thingies are called."We can advertise for movies that contain brutal murder and rape...just don't show them in the scenes in the trailer." Not really, you can't. You see, movies that contain brutal murder and rape are automatically given an NC-17 rating. Move trailers are required to show and tell what the movie's rating is at the end of the trailer. And since NC-17 rated are movies are forbidden from advertisement on television, it is impossible to even have a trailer shown in the first place."And... what is the difference between 16 and 17? Do 17 year olds suddenly have the ability to see someone lit on fire while being eaten alive? I don't know, bro. I'm not the rating system."And directors have the right to make whatever movie they want! Did you know the original Scream was NC-17? Let me tell you, it certainly wasn't any worse than Saw!" Actually it wasn't. Scream was released in 1996 with an R-rating. The director even tried to avoid an NC-17 rating becaise NC-17 is "box office suicide"."How do we know if they're biased for the studios?"Please elaborate on what you mean when you say this.