BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Choose the Topic debate!!!

yes But see, Christmas would not be useless if there was no Easter because we are celebrating the day he was born. So therefore your point is incorrect. No matter what religion people believe in Christmas is still a celebration. And you get gifts from the belief in a man named Santa and he gets you whatever you want. Now it is not quite like a birthday so don't bring up that because I will prove you wrong. I am not going to go there right now. And thanksgiving is yes, a unique holiday but Christmas is more known. Whether you realize it or not its like April fools and the 4th of July. Which is more known? 4th of July. See where I am going with this. Conclusion I have just prove that Christmas is the best holiday and the most celebrated. Thank you for this debate and Vote me.
Poetry Battle

This is a free-form poem entitled "Peace" ----------------------------------------------------------- I believe in the power of peace ---- It will shatter the bricks and let the secret letters tumble onto a newly demolished barrier of ignorance I believe it can foster a pride in a down trodden people as they march with it under their wings; dogs tearing their flesh and police ripping a hole where fathers and mothers use to stand. I see it in women; their self esteem more kinetic than any strength of man. Peace asserts: The individual shall never be held down. Peace mandates: The encroachment of your hand in someone else's liberties shall always be severed. Peace breaks the back of pain working it to a corps and emerging from its remains. It is the distaste for a god who would ever ask one to take a person from this world for their right to pursue happiness; to love whoever they wish. It is life, not death in flawless motion of atoms and mothering of a planet for the billions of conscious beings inhabiting a perfect mystery. I see it in freedom; always following swiftly behind the libertine as he is shackled in prison cells. I find it in my grand father; digging him and his cell mate out of communist prison into the orange dawn. Peace shouts: coexist! The Muslims, Christians and the Jews pulling rivets from bridges will finally see peace is not in the gap of the river. Peace is in the crossing. It is in the allowance of the atheist to cross as well; the rights of the questioner rests in peace. I only need one vision to see my belief; the stars of the night sky in the eternal dome over head. Peace lifts the mind of science; letting it show me the true nature of the infinite space before me. The sheer volume of other worlds humble me to the destructive powers of writhing, imploding masses of fire. And when I finally realize that we are all made of stars of the same material morphed into diverse forms; I will finally acknowledge everything is a part myself: the reality and driving force of peace.
Poetry Battle

Started with an Older one because I've... misplaced the one I was going to start with If you see sadness in my eyes, It's not for me - I've changed. Surprised? The tears are not for what I've lost, Nor for the time, Or for the cost. I mourn the things I'll never have had - I won't have become that man, That lad. My sorrow's for him and not for me. He had it all, IT ALL you see… But he was too old and just a dream; Or I was too young, At seventeen. Or was I too old? Far too mature. And he was young, At twenty four. Or maybe it's all not meant to be… I guess he'll know At thirty-three.
Poetry Battle

I read that Vi wanted to see more Poetry battles on here so I thought I'd give it a go. I've made this 5 rounds long. The first round will merely be introduction since I feel its necessary and then the following rounds will contain the poems with mini specific intro's if necessary. I'm 19 and have been writing poems since I was about 6. My main influence is Spike Milligan and, as a consequence I tend to write short (ish), "light", playful poems which are intended to be mildly amusing. For this reason I, more often than not, like them to rhyme I've written some darker more serious stuff which I prefer not to share but I may throw in one or two dependant on the content of my opponents poems. I intend to start with the only poem I've ever entered into a competition (I won 2nd prize), followed by one of my more recent poems, followed by an older one (either a bit of a deeper poem or an ammended one from when I was a kid) and I might try and finish with an improvised on the spot effort. Comments to go with votes will be appreciated
Should the School day be extended

To the potential, future voters casting votes to one party or the either in the voting phase of this debate soon to come, I submit to you my opening statement. Formal Opening Statement Imagine that you have a child, if you do not have one. Imagine that child working as hard as they can, and being forced into classes that are geared toward a single standardized test. Now imagine receiving a letter from the district’s committee that your child’s school day is being extended by an hour, or two hours, or even three hours. Imagine how you might feel as the parent of that child, and how your child might feel shouldering this burden. No, this contention is simply immoral and absurd. You do not fix a broken pipe by extending its components into a different room. You look into the pipe fixtures and determine where the problem is, and you patch it. Extending the school day to compensate for poor testing schools, lower literacy rates, and poor student comprehension of the science and math curriculum they are taught is not the solution. The solution is how our education system formats its curriculum, and moving away from standardized testing. This is not about the hours of work put in, it is about how each individual student learns. If we continue moving towards this methodology of education, our nation’s future will only continue to look grimmer and duller. I will further argue my stance as the debate unfolds. In advance, I thank my opponent for a feisty and thought-provoking debate. I furthermore thank, once more, the future voters of this debate for whatever deliberations they make, and for whatever verdict they come to. Thank you, God bless you, and I look forward to this debate!
Should the School day be extended

The first argument will be opening statement The second and third will be arguments The fourth will be rebuttals The fifth will be conclusion May the best man win! Opening Statement:The U.S. is 23rd in reading, 24th in science, and 30th in math, according to 2015 average PISA scores. With the resources that are available to us, should we not be able to do better? Now is the time to catch up. By extending the school day, we can bring those scores up to standard with the top scores in the world. Also, extending the school offers many other benefits, such as: teachers would be able to plan the day with other teachers, students would be able to spend time on difficult subjects, students being able to do extra-curricular activities that students would not be able to do outside of school, and would be able to keep students out of trouble.
you are more evil than i am crazy REMATCH

Thanks to my opponent for this wonderful debate. 1. My opponent claims I am evil by making him read my previous argument. But seeing as we are on debate.org, one is expected to be detailed. That isn't evil, that is only using what is given. Ok, that out of the way. 2. All my "insults" were analysis of this behaviour. I am not pure evil, as my opponent claims. He has not proved that I am more evil than he is crazy. He makes no arguments that hold water, only claiming that I am evil. I have sufficiently proved that not only is he crazy, but I am not evil. Therefore, I urge you to vote NEG. And it was great.
you are more evil than i am crazy REMATCH

Thanks to my opponent for the quick and wonderufl response. Wrong. My argument is: 1. You are more crazy than I am evil. 2. We are both not crazy nor evil, so this argument is moot. So as to why he is more crazy than I am evil. I am going to quote some of his own words, which clearly show his insanity. "his argument of that neither of us is evil or crazy is FALSE, yes i tell you he is completely 100% evil so ha there goes his argument." In that sentence, not only does he not use correct punctuation, but his grammar is quite incorrect. It is only by luck that I am able to understand my opponent, and his incoherence clearly shows his insanity. Also, he has taken to laughing randomly during his speech, using "ha", and that also shows his insanity because he is laughing at random points in time. "My username has a perfect reason to I thought of Crazypenguin by looking at a picture and using it as a email thing and then instead of thinking of something else I used if for debate. SO HA (again)." My opponent clearly shows his insanity in this quote. 1. Grammar is quite messed up. 2. He is too lazy to think, a clear sign of insanity. 3. He again decides to randomly shout "HA!" at me, even when he has lost the point. As to why I am not evil. evil, as defined by Merriam Webster, is to be morally reprehensible, arising from actual bad character or conduct. I have never commited a crime, and have tried to lead my life by the highest moral standards. Therefore I am not evil by conduct or character. Now my opponent tries to prove I am evil by saying that I "tazer him". He claims that it hurts, and therefore I am evil. Problems with that argument: a. My opponent has offered no proof as to those actions, nor can he prove I have done those things. Since we both live in the US, we both are subject to innocent until proven guilty. He can't prove my guilt, so I'm innocent. b. Even if I did, he said it himself, I am a close friend of his. I am proud to be his friend, and if I ever did anything that might have hurt him mentally, physically, or emotionally, I am sorry. c. Allow me to redefine what my opponent calls "tazers". It is not the gun, which shoots out a dart on a cable and then shocks you into submission. Tazers, are basically when one comes up behind the victim and quickly and painlessly tickles him in the side, right under the ribcage. If you have ever seen this, experienced this, or ever done it, you will know that it often creates a response in the victim, along the lines of a squeal and a jump. It is quick painless, and is only meant in good humor. If I have ever hurt my opponent through "tazers" I am terribly sorry. It also doesn't hurt. Thank you. PS I got back last night.
you are more evil than i am crazy REMATCH

so my worthy opponent strikes back but............... his argument of that neither of us is evil or crazy is FALSE, yes i tell you he is completely 100% evil so ha there goes his argument. Second he is PURE evil, listen my fellow listeners he is EVIL and I have proof (proven below) My username has a perfect reason to I thought of Crazypenguin by looking at a picture and using it as a email thing and then instead of thinking of something else I used if for debate. SO HA (again). Don't worry I will prove it This burninppuppies is a close friend of mine and he often tazers me which hurts refer to first debate. IT HURTS=EVIL HAHA good luck, hows the other side of the world? I look forward to your arguments
you are more evil than i am crazy REMATCH

Some history on the topic: crazypenguin, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. This entire argument all began in about September, when me and my opponent decided to create a survey for the following question: Is my opponent more crazy than I am evil, or am I more evil that he is crazy? And so began an epic battle between us. To begin: My opponent has submitted the challenge for this debate, and therefore he must have some inkling of what he is going to say. He has to prove the claim. 1. I say that neither of us are evil or crazy, so I can't be more evil than you are crazy, since neither of us are evil or crazy. 2. Even if we were, I am not nearly as evil as you are crazy. a. Our usernames: CRAZYpenguin. Burningpuppies. Your username is clearly the product of a crazy insane mind. Penguins are not crazy. You must be crazy to think penguins are crazy. My username is the product of a ethics lesson, one I want to hold dear to heart. The lesson was this: even if its right, most people won't do it, since people don't like burning puppies. For a more in depth explaination, I suggest you refer to our first debate. So for final words: Prove it.
George I and II (of the Ku Klux Klan; OK I'm kidding) being celebrated

OK George I and II were two evil kings for the following reasonshttp://en.wikipedia.org...;(which happened under one of the two). The English citizens of New York (note this did not happen under a Dutch government, but an Anglo-Saxon, and especially Lutheran religion) lied that black slaves were going to start a revolt. I believe there might have been a rumor that blacks were going to sexually assault and rape white ladies.Under King George I, England regressed into a very puritan society. Hatred of tomboys who preferred guy friends and hatred of autistic people spiked. Mind you, while Victoria was indeed an Anglican, I'm sure that her Lutheran husband (one of the princes of both Prussia and England) planted those evil ideas into her head.The modern conflict in India started under George II. http://en.wikipedia.org...Basically it was an excuse to build a brutal empire. They claimed the Spanish who had made small settlements in India were a threat to the English Protestant power.As a matter of fact, the English Empire started under George I and II. For the most part in between the time of the first English/Scottish settlements in North America and George I, relations between England, and both the English settlers and the Native peoples were pretty peaceful (with the exception of Cromwell). It's only when George I (and especially the second with the French-Indian War) became king that the Viking-style atrocities against the Amerindian people began.
George I and II (of the Ku Klux Klan; OK I'm kidding) being celebrated

"Name one atrocitious act committed by any of those kings" Henry VIII- how about... GOING THROUGH 6 WIVES AND DIVORCING/EXECUTING EACH ONE SIMPLY FOR NOT HAVING A SON? James II- his people hated him so much that they replaced him... what does that say about him? "Under George I, there were quite a few Scottish uprising" You gave the Jacobite Rising of 1715 as an example of a Scottish uprising under George I. However, you fail to mention that the 1715 rebellion was just one of many Jacobite risings lasting from 1688 (when the last Stuart monarch was expelled). In addition, there were also a lot of uprisings during Elizabeth I's reign. So many, in fact, that she EXECUTED the Queen of Scotland! "Part of the reason this vicious and disgusting suppression occured was because the KING's chapel was burned down, and the king-loving citizens wanted to kill blacks in revenge". You don't even understand the cause of the conspiracy. It was caused purely by economic tensions between whites and blacks. Even the Wikipedia articles you keep using say that! The burning of the king's chapel was very minimal cause of the conflict, and the entire affair was handled completely by the local government of New York. "it was her Lutheran prince husband who planted those bigoted ideas Victoria had in her. As for the Puritans (who are very underrated), public education was invented. It was not the arrogant type of religion often portrayed by the media. Some of the most heinous atrocities occured by Lutheran countries. Danish rule in Greenland was cruel as f--k." Are you even noticing how contradictory you arguments are? In round 2, you said that one of the reasons George I is "evil" is because England got MORE Puritan. Now you are bashing on Lutheranism and supporting Puritanism. What!? "The English wanted a piece of the pie and would do at any means necessary, so technically the English did start that war." So, what does that have to do with George II being evil? By the time George II came to power, Parliament was making pretty much all the major overseas decisions... "...the blame can go on George I and II. Actually, like I said before, George II did technically try to bring back absolute rule" First of all, he made no significant attempts at taking back power. And even if he did, why does that make him evil? If wanting power makes you THAT evil, then pretty much every king who has ever existed is evil to the core. I'm getting the feeling that you just picked two random monarchs and are trying to find excuses to hate them... Also, I'm doubting that you have any sort of knowledge on British history... SOUCES: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://law2.umkc.edu... (3) http://www.royal.gov.uk...
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction.

"Even my favorite poem, the Desiderata, could've been enhanced if placed within a story structure. If that had happened, both would have merit. But the narrative Desiderata would be more developed, and would be capable of conveying the message in many more ways through immersion into the narrative." Please do. Desiderata, or anything else. Take a poem and put it into narrative structure. Voters can decide which one is more effective.
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction.

The Iliad is yet another narrative poem. It's a story. It, like literature, includes the effective elements of story, character and scene. My initial argument specifically mentioned "modern poetry" conveying concepts in "short" and "often formless" ways, and you're countering with narrative classic poems. ///Your argument is largely an attempt to discredit poetry as an art form altogether. You argue that poetry is inferior to literature, that anyone who reads it must be lazy, and that it has no merit to the English language./// I never once said poetry was useless and certainly not "without merit to the English language." If the word "underdeveloped" strikes you as so incredibly negative, I suggest that's a personal issue uninvolved with the debate topic (zing!). But seriously, if everyone wrote stuff like Frost, Homer or Shakespeare, I would say that straight literature is underdeveloped poetic literature. As it stands, the majority of poetry, especially poetry written, say, within the last 50 years, is far too abstract in general to convey concepts as well as a narrative form. Even my favorite poem, the Desiderata, could've been enhanced if placed within a story structure. If that had happened, both would have merit. But the narrative Desiderata would be more developed, and would be capable of conveying the message in many more ways through immersion into the narrative. ///Poetry and literature are almost too dissimilar to be compared in such a manner. Each has its merits and disadvantages, and each accomplishes things that the other cannot. Poetry and literature occupy separate spheres, and thus it is inaccurate to say that poetry is a lesser-developed form of fiction./// They're not too dissimilar. They're both creative writing intended to convey concepts. If we had more than 3 rounds, I would challenge you to present me with an abstract poem and I guarantee I could turn it into a superior short story. *** Bottom line: Narrative structure is a time-worn method and proven to be an extremely effective structure to convey concepts. Anything you can say in a poem, you can fit into the structure and it would be enhanced. Just ask Homer.
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction.

Your argument is largely an attempt to discredit poetry as an art form altogether. You argue that poetry is inferior to literature, that anyone who reads it must be lazy, and that it has no merit to the English language. However, you've given little evidence to suggest that the difference between poetry and literature is anything more than personal preference. Poetry and literature are almost too dissimilar to be compared in such a manner. Each has its merits and disadvantages, and each accomplishes things that the other cannot. Poetry and literature occupy separate spheres, and thus it is inaccurate to say that poetry is a lesser-developed form of fiction. I'd be curious to hear your arguments regarding epic poetry. The Iliad, for example, is elevated far above much of the fiction published today. It must contain some merit, or else it wouldn't have survived 2,500 years of changing human culture. It's longer than many works of fiction you could find, the language is highly challenging, and it conveys all the things which you claim fiction alone can convey--philosophy, emotion, education. It is one of the most influential works ever written. I guarantee that of all those authors who wrote all those classic novels which you hold in highest regards, 9 out of 10 would claim to have studied Homer, Vergil, Ovid or any of the epic poets of antiquity. But works like the Iliad and the Aeneid which influenced countless thousands of fiction writers since their publication were POEMS. If poetry is so inferior as you claim, how can poems like these have had such a lasting influence on Western literature and culture?
Poetry is nothing except underdeveloped fiction.

///To say that poetry is incapable of conveying things like philosophy or emotion is a little out there./// I never said it was incapable of conveying the concepts. ///You can't possibly make the case that poetry is incapable of emotion./// I didn't. ///Robert Frost's "Mending Wall" is a personal favorite/// That's an interesting choice because I would call Mending Wall a story rather than a poem. An allegorical story, but story-telling nonetheless. There are characters and interaction and scene. These elements convey the meaning well, don't they? ///Poetry is largely emotional by nature./// I'd say that poetry is largely personal by nature. The problem is that the personal meaning intended by the author and the personal meaning received by the reader are often different. ///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./// I don't understand how a piece of writing could better convey concepts because it is shorter. I would think that the longer one is exposed to a concept, the more completely it would be conveyed. ///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./// What I find is it tends to artificially infuse meaning into words simply because there are less of them. That doesn't mean the words actually have any more meaning. They're the same words if they're in a poem or a novel. ///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./// If it was able to communicate the same concepts as well, that would indeed speak to the power of poetry. However, I don't believe poetry can. If you do, you should provide some reason other than your assertion that it does. My assertion that story-telling conveys the concepts better is based on the reason that there is no substitute for the total immersion quality of a novel. By becoming involved in the narrative, the concepts naturally impact you more. ///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./// Quotes are even easier to memorize and "stick with you". I guess quotes are better than poetry, if this is the criteria to judge value. I'm thinking maybe you just haven't read many good novels, because I have about 50 that stick with me in ways that a million poems couldn't touch.