BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Debate

I wrote this poem, On the Other Side, about a dark time in my life, where I really and truly wanted to get away from this world and everyone in it (*very much sugar-coating this.*) I was struggling to find myself- who I was, who I should be, who I wanted to be, who society and family expected me to be. Somewhere, within all that confusion, I managed to hold on to that tiny string that was slipping out of my fingers- my religious strength. From all the stories about Heaven and Hell, I believed that I would be better off in there hereafter, because the world was cruel place, where I didn’t belong or fit in. This poem, I believe, adequately expressed my thirst for my Identity and my faith at the time. On the Other Side On the other side, I’ll be free- From all the things That bother me; From haunting rumours And “friends’” greed; From expectations; From me… On the other side, I’ll be able to smile- About no more Wicked wiles… No more discrimination; And cruel men; And hurt and oppression, And horrible ends… On the other side, I’ll be at peace- Finally contented, Having everything I need; A reassuring presence of You around me You’ll love all the time, constantly, I’ll be with You, finally, And that’s all I need, to be happy. -AnnieOnto you bsh!
Poetry Debate

Thanks, Annie! I will now present my last original poem for this debate! It's called: "The Grandmother/Neighbor Across the Street." When I was little I would walk across the street. Her hands were brittle But they guided me behind back, to her garden where the apple trees were ripe. Her heart was hardened-- branded: outsider; me too. We found acceptance, an ally in the other. Walk in the entrance: I would smell apple strudel. For the child who made her laugh, she spared no expense. Mentor: a role well played-- the neighbor across the street, more a grandmother for one who didn't know his own. In the snow, no cover-- she was outside; no clue why. I had moved by then. But they had told me she had died. Years had gone, yet still I recalled her hands: leading inside for strudel on a rainy day or to pick apples from the garden trees in May. Mem'ries: Time doesn't seem to let them fade. I couldn't believe I was so sad that day.
God is Dead.

To break down this debate Death is the absence of life, and life must first exist for death to occur. By pros own confessions God cannot die nor does he exist thus negating the affirmation. By any logical standpoint death entails death. One cannot alter a definition to fit whatever they want it to mean or debate would be pointless. Stars could mean the sun or blue could mean green. Definitions exist for a purpose and death means death. If pro wanted a different resolution he should have clarified it My syllogism remains non refuted.
God is Dead.

Lol you basically just argued that because the title was confusing, I should fix it next time XD Hilarious. Sighhhhh alright. I'm not even going to post an argument this time. I mean, you literally haven't given any evidence to God. You've only been criticizing my aphorisms from professional scholars unlike you and I and ignore the longggggg list of evidence against the christian God. So I'm just gonna wait for an "actual logical response" concerning the existence of God rather then your critique of grammar.
God is Dead.

By pros own admission god does not exist " my goal is to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility. " For something to be dead it must first die, and for it to die it must first exist. Dead - no longer alive or living : no longer having life [1] (P1) For God to be dead he must first exist (P2) God does not exist my pros own admission (C) God cannot be dead because he does not exist Vote Con Pro has effectively negated his own burden and resolution. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
God is Dead.

Christians consider the existence of their God to be an obvious truth that no sane man could deny. I strongly disagree with this assumption not only because evidence for the existence of this presumably ubiquitous yet invisible God is lacking, but because the very nature Christians attribute to this God is self-contradictory. It is taken for granted by Christians, as well as many atheists, that a universal negative cannot be proven. In this case, that universal negative is the statement that the Christian God does not exist. One would have to have omniscience, they say, in order to prove that anything does not exist. I disagree with this position, however, because omniscience is not needed in order to prove that a thing whose nature is a self-contradiction cannot, and therefore does not exist. I do not need a complete knowledge of the universe to prove to you that cubic spheres do not exist. Such objects have mutually-exclusive attributes which would render their existence impossible. For example, a cube, by definition, has 8 corners, while a sphere has none. These properties are completely incompatible: they cannot be held simultaneously by the same object. It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility.
Donald Trump

hello there. if there is one thing which annoys me, it is the trend among republicans to say that we should not trust the media. you see, these days, the media is all we have. it is the only real source of information. i got this definition online: me"di"a1 G2;mēdēə/Submit noun 1. plural form of medium. 2. the main means of mass communication (especially television, radio, newspapers, and the Internet) regarded collectively. "the campaign won media attention" synonyms:the press, the fourth estate, the news, the papers; broadcasting, publishing; big media; citizen journalism "the media went wild with the story of the singer's arrest" you see, anonymous, the media is all we have. we have nothing else. it is the only way to carry information. by being online right now, you are using media. watching tv is media. reading news is media. everything today is media. it tells the story of the human race. it is the only thing we can trust. if you cannot accept this as valid proof that donald trump should not be president, you are only further testifying that republicans are stubborn. i ask you, the american people, to face facts. the world is wrong.
Donald Trump

So basically you are saying that you are taking the word of the lying media and saying it is proof to strengthen your opinion even though it is not only lie but just words from the media that wants to brain wash our youth and yet you fully take their word for it and state it as your own words just to strengthen your opinion though invalid in the first place is now just fake news reported from websites that shouldn't be trusted. now I ask you give me real proof to prove your point instead if lies made up by a corrupt business that lies for money and power.
Donald Trump

okay. https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.rollingstone.com... http://www.charlotteobserver.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.foxsports.com... http://www.mirror.co.uk... http://www.independent.co.uk... http://nation.foxnews.com... http://www.newyorker.com... http://www.latimes.com... http://www.foxnews.com... https://www.indy100.com... http://forward.com... http://www.rollingstone.com... in my own words: Allow me to begin my statement with a fact: in absolute tyrannies, such as North Korea's current situation, you cannot choose your leader. Your leader chooses himself. There are no votes, no decisions. The people only have one option. Here in America, however, we do have a choice. This system of government is called democracy, and it has persisted here for over two hundred years because it is effective. It gives every man and woman a chance to decide who runs their country. Usually, two options are presented before the people. The candidate who gets the most votes wins. Let us acknowledge that "the most votes" essentially represents the majority of the American people. Therefore, what "the majority" thinks is what most Americans think. And this year, most Americans did indeed think strangely. Are most Americans racist towards the African-American race? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who hates the African-American race. Do most Americans hate the Middle East? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who hates the Middle East. Do most Americans hate Latin America? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who hates Latin America. Do most Americans hate China? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who hates China. Do most Americans hate homosexuality? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who hates homosexuality. Do most Americans promote rape? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who promotes rape. Do most Americans want poverty to endure? Apparently so, because most Americans chose a leader who will never solve poverty. Do most Americans hate women? Apparently so, because even American women chose a leader who hates American women. This is not prejudice, this is not a lie, this is not even a political opinion. Few people realize that the presidential election is really only a survey. It"s a survey that tells us what most people like. We only vote for leaders we like. Why would we do otherwise? The above statements are the truth. The cold and honest truth. America"s choice in leaders tells us who Americans are, what we stand for, and what our country is. Not all of us, of course, but most. This year the majority had a choice. They made it, and now they can see where our country and reputation as a country goes. In conclusion, whether Donald Trump should be president or not is not a question of politics. It is a question of the sanity of the majority of the American people.
Resolved on balance

I accept. I expect that I am allowed to present definitions because of the absence of an outline to the argument. The BoP is on con. [1]Beneficial: receiving or entitling one to receive advantage, use, or benefit [2]Balance: a state of equilibrium or equipoise [3]Standardized tests: any form of test that requires all test takers to answer the same questions, or a selection of questions from common bank of questions, in the same way, and that is scored in a "standard" or consistent manner, which makes it possible to compare the relative performance of individual students or groups of students. Contention 1: Testing is provably beneficial to all students. Contention 2: Standardized tests are normal tests. Contention 3: Tests help teachers recognize where students need help with learning. C1: A test is a a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something[4]. By taking a test, a student is able to see how well they know a subject. These tests can help the student assess what they need to study. This is beneficial to the student in the case where they may not know what all they do not understand, which is where a standardized test can help them. C2: A standardized test is not just the tests that you take once a year that are sent in to assess your overall knowledge, they are also, by definition, the tests you take ever so often in all of your classes. A standardized test is just a fancy way of describing a test that everyone in a class takes, whether it be 'multiple choice' or 'true or false'. C3: By taking a test, not only does the student help themselves find out what they need to learn and study, it also allows the teacher to be aware of what their students are learning, and what they are having a hard time with. Whether the teacher decides to help out individuals or their class as a whole, this can be equally efficient in addressing these types of issues. Conclusion: I have upheld my value of the beneficialness of standardized tests, that standardized testing is beneficial to k-12 education in the United States, and I urge the affirmation of the resolution. Sources: [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]http://edglossary.org... [4]http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Resolved on balance

I accept your apology, however you must recognize that organization is key in such debates. I also would like to point out that there is no style of debate that promotes plagiarism, or the absence of effort put forth in research and constructive arguments. It would have been better if you had explained this debate through and through in the first round rather than just state the resolution. Finally, I explained that there was no need for me to present any more arguments because all three of my contentions still stood, as you made no effort to refute any of them; you forfeited the round, it was not my uncertainty of arguments, it was the fact that it was unnecessary to present any more. I will still refute your contentions however. Rebuttals R1: Not all students cram for tests. In fact, studies show that cramming is less effective than taking a test based on knowledge you already have obtained and learned, so taking a test after cramming does not reflect the knowledge you crammed, but more of what you remember learning[1]. Tests do not undermine the point of learning, as they are only instruments of measuring understanding and performance of a topic. This does not undermine a student's knowledge. Secondly, any form of standardized test can show a student that they need to work on a certain part of study, which they may have misunderstood previously. It is unfair to only look at a small group of students and how they think; however, it is fair to consider all students as a whole. R2: The term "standardized tests" already covers all kinds of tests - from college entrance tests, to an algebra test - and does not need to be adjusted. The achievement tests that most middle and high schools take across America do not impact a student's life or their future, they are only an assessment to measure how students across the Nation are learning. R3: Again, cramming information the night before a test has proven to be inefficient and unnecessary, as most students only remember the information that they have previously learned[1]. Those students who consistently study will most likely produce the best results on their tests rather than those who try and cram all information just before a test. The way that a student learns a subject is not tested therefore their learning style is irrelevant to a test. The test only tries to assess the student's knowledge of the subject rather than how they learn it. The way that a student learns is completely irrelevant to their ability to test, as these are two different things. Tests do not favor visual learners, they do not favor anyone, because they are not meant for learning, but for assessment. Conclusion: Con failed to refute my arguments in the second round, and did not counter my second contention in any way. The lack of arguments that my opponent speaks of is incorrect, as I have presented arguments that he just ignored and failed to contend. I stand by the point that my arguments are still standing, and urge the negation of the resolution.
Resolved on balance

First and foremost, thank you for your input on the resolution, however I am more impressed at your copy-pasting skills rather than your evidence. I recognize the evidence for your argument, but giving sources does not validate blatant plagiarism.[1] Plagiarism is a form of concession. I see no need to present further arguments as you have forfeited. Sources: [1]http://writingcenter.utk.edu...
Evolution is a fact.

By Evolution I am going to assume you mean the Theory of Evolution's definition of evolution or the Biological definition. The Theory of Evolution is in the Scientific Field. I am going to assume when you say fact you mean Scientific Fact. Definitions: Scientific Fact: an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although its truth is never final) [1][2][3] Evolution (Biology) change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. [4][5] I would also like to ask if natural selection will be part of your definition of Evolution as Charles Darwin expected it to be? You may start the debate but I would like to start with saying. .. . it is still a THEORY for a reason. Once again. .. .Thank you for the chance to debate. [1]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://www.answers.com... [3]. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4]. http://dictionary.reference.com... [5]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Evolution is a fact.

Thank you Kethen for posting some definitions however I would like to add some things and clarifications. First I accept the definition you supplied for the word "fact" (scientific). Second I'd like to add to the definition of evolution to make it, "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift, that results in specification. The theory of evolution explains the fact that evolution occurs. The fact is that species over time can change into different species. In order to prove that evolution is a fact I have to prove that over time species can change into different species. I'm going to skips the usual arguments to support this such as using the fossil records, and the similarity between life's structures, and development. The reason evolution is a fact is because of endogenous retroviral genetic material that is in human, and other animals own genetic material. So now I'll explain the best I can. Viruses are entities that enter living organisms and inject their own DNA/RNA into the hosts own genetic material and it then hijacks that cells functions to produce more viruses. Certain viruses can only infect certain organisms for example some viruses can only infect humans and can't infect fish. An endogenous retrovirus is where the viral genetic material is left in the host's cell genetic material but is unable to hijack the host cells functions to produce more viruses. Now the only way a retrovirus can be in every member of every cell of a population is if that retrovirus infected that populations parents sexual cells that spawned the rest of that population; and the only way for humans to share a retroviruses with a fish, rat, or primate is if we all descended from the same ancestor. Humans share around 7 endogenous retroviruses with other primates, 1 with fish, and 1 with rats, and 1 with all other tested animals. This means that it is physically impossible for evolution to not be a fact. http://www.freerepublic.com... http://www.ghanaweb.com... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Global warming

Yes. Global Warming will lead to many consequences that we are not ready to face such as:1.Melting Glacierswith the temperatures rising the glaciers are begging to melt therefore increasing sea level. Not only this but the animals that live in these ice areas are already suffering from this ice loss. Polar bear who need the snow to move around to find food are loosing their homes. This can lead to their extinction 2. Dramatic weather changeswe can be facing server weather patterns such as heat waves, wildfires, and tropical storms .with the increase in tempatures this can become very likely.temeratures are rising furiously and this matter shouldn't be ignored
Global warming

For the sake of clarity, I would like to first reiterate the terms on which this debate was agreed upon, as evidenced by the statements made in the comments section of this debate: 1. The resolution of this debate shall be: "The government should take the issue of global warming more seriously." 2. My opponent will attempt to prove this case, while I will offer rebuttals against her claims. Additional terms: 3. The government in question was not specified, but since my opponent is American, I will assume that it is the government of the United States. 4. The definition of global warming being: "The theory that global average temperature has risen and will continue to rise with significant contribution from CO2 emissions from human activity." I don't think these will be contentious, although please let me know if they are. Despite the fact that my opponent already did make claims, they were unsubstantiated, perhaps due to the fact that the format of this debate was not precisely determined beforehand. Thus, I will agree to this round being used for the acceptance of the debate and allow her to use the start of the next debate round to attempt to prove her claims supporting the notion that the government should take the issue of global warming more seriously. To clearly summarize the format from now on: Round 1 - Acceptance Round 2 - Opening arguments (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro) Round 3 - Rebuttals and/or additional arguments (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro) Round 4 - Rebuttals and/or additional arguments (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro) Round 5 - Rebuttals (Con)/Rebuttals (Pro) Note: The (Con) and (Pro) labels used above are as they appear on this debate, even though in effect it is my opponent who is attempting to prove the resolution. I hope everything above is agreeable and we can begin the debate next round with your opening arguments.
Global warming

My opponent has not defended the legitimacy of any of the following assertions, following my statements regarding the unreliability of their source (the IPCC): -"Dramatic weather changes" -"Changing air quality" -"Changes in agricultural system" In addition, she has conceded that temperatures are not rising noticeably. The only argument of my opponent's that remains it that of melting ice, which began with her argument that glaciers were melting (which she did not defend following my rebuttal) and has now been contorted into the melting of sea ice in the Arctic. Firstly, the fact that my opponent cited the website "www.thinkprogress.org," which is blatantly biased is inappropriate. However, as that particular article was a repost from the World Wildlife Foundation, I will not dwell on the fact that this tertiary source was used. On the melting of sea ice in the Arctic, Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at M.I.T., notes that "the Arctic is notoriously variable in this sense [1]." He also points out that hysteria surrounding the melting of Arctic sea ice has occurred in the past. Here is a statement from the U.S. Weather Bureau made in 1922: "The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot. Reports all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone [2]." Even in recent years, significant portions of Arctic sea ice have receded and then returned shortly thereafter. For instance, in 2007, Arctic sea ice hit a 30-year low. However, in 2008, half of the ice lost in that year resurfaced and in 2009, nearly all of it returned [3]. Therefore, melting Arctic sea ice alone, which is not anomalous and for which there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that it will present a perpetually greater threat over time is not grounds for the government to take the issue of global warming more seriously. Finally, I wish to restate that the resolution of this debate is that the U.S. Government should take the issue of global warming more seriously than it already has, which my opponent has not provided grounds for. Additionally, the outline for this debate stipulated that my opponent would attempt to prove the case, whereas I would offer rebuttals (but would not be proving the negative). Please keep these specifics in mind when analyzing and voting on this debate. Thank you. [1]. Dr. Richard Lindzen Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (December 7, 2009). Retrieved from youtube.com/watch?v=-sHg3ZztDAw#t=20m20s [2]. Ibid. [3]. Lord Monkton on Climate Change - Melbourne Highlights Clip (1 of 2) (February 3, 2010). Retrieved from youtube.com/watch?v=idTHcot8tLc#t=8m58s