BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary -Neo Dada

Now, this explains a lot. You have lost a string of debates regarding poetry, so now you begin a debate supporting anti poetry, which I've known as the "modern art" of poetry, or the poetry for hipsters. Clearly you have lost the ability to see objectively, as anti poetry as described in your source attacks the idea of putting overly long or fancy words in a poem, and still you follow conventional writing yourself, using long words just to sound smart. I quote you; Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules. What makes Anti-poetry Anti-poetry is its iconoclastic use of language. Was that necessary? Or was it just to sound intellectual? Your double standards won't stand well in this debate, and onto the actual debate topic, Revolutionary; radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.: a revolutionary discovery. This style does not seem innovative or new at all. In fact the frequent use of the word hitherto in the source (used 18 times) as well as other shakespearean examples of language, this is in fact a very old style, not radical at all, and rather, rebellious. The difference between a rebellion and a revolution is that a revolution is a victory, a change. This is a weak and pompous attempt to disregard all the skill in poetry and as we go further in, replace the idea of creating imagery and using words in different contexts to create texture for a poem, just deliberately misspelling words in an attempt to appear artistic. Also, on Neo Dada, an idea that is 100 years old cannot be new or innovative in any way. This is just a rant of a style made by those who cannot understand or follow the basics of poetry. You see, there were revolutionary poets who broke the conventional rules of poetry, but they were also poets like Emily Dickinson, masters in their field and held as such for decades. Shame on you to compare this to the work of old masters, to say that they enslaved with their language, despite using it to call for freedom. Here is an extract of the source you listed. XII Through out the dell I followered her about Hiding hear pearing there in out every where Behind tree within bush I did my love pear on All day long hiding on her I leared upon. The only value given is by the anti poets themselves, that by misspelling the word, it changes the quality of the poem somehow. But even that is not new. This is another cookie cutter slab of unorthodox writing that you have slapped into a debate, and I bet you'll call this a sham and try again should you lose. As always, burden of proof is on you, Proposition. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary -Neo Dada

This theory of anti-poetry is revolutionary it is Neo Dada Anti-poetry is the dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules. Aesthetics-Of-Anti-Poetry-Manifesto-Poetry-Criticism-By-An-Anti-Poet http://www.scribd.com... quote ". Over throw the coteries of the politically correct bourgeoise. Smash break rupture language. Down with middle class speak. Down with poetry. Rise up Anti-poetry. Anti-poetry proclaims the freedom of the imagination over and against rigidity conformity and the straight jacketing of the mind by the tyranny of language. Anti-poetry is poetry that breaks the arbitrary conventions of poetry for a particular historical period It is revolutionary as it brings new ideas and inspirations to an ossified and atrophied medium. It is avant-garde as it leads the way into new unexplored regions of creativity and ways of seeing thing Anti-poetry is it dismissal of all linguistic conventions and rules. What makes Anti-poetry Anti-poetry is its iconoclastic use of language. What makes Anti-poetry Anti-poetry for all historical eras is it abusive relationship with correct notions of language use " "
Dumbo is awesome

Thank you for those very convincing arguments. Okay, AlwaysRight12345, I would advise you to read more carefully before refuting something next time. "First off, (s)he is not correct factually as is shown here: 'You do not know if I am male or female, one religion or another, rich or poor...' however, had (s)he checked what (s)he said, (s)he would've found that much was revealed about him/her." I said originally, "As AlwaysRight12345 must have seen on my profile page, since he saw that 'awesome' part of it, I reveal very little about my true identity. You do not know if I am male or female, one religion or another, rich or poor... and even while talking this much about myself here in this debate, I have not said any of that." The meaning of my words: ON MY PROFILE, I REVEAL LITTLE ABOUT THE REAL ME. ON THIS DEBATE, I REVEAL VERY LITTLE ABOUT ME. YOU KNOW NOT IF I AM MALE OR FEMALE, ONE RELIGION OR ANOTHER, RICH OR POOR, AND I HAVE NOT REVEALED THOSE ANSWERS ON THIS DEBATE. With this clear meaning, AlwaysRight12345, I'm afraid your arguments do not apply. See, I meant I revealed very LITTLE about me in this debate. You still can't tell who I am. Yoda is quite honest, I believe. He probably would've either chosen the year of the first Star Wars movie or 1900, because that is the lowest year you can go on this site. Then he may have commented on his profile that his real birth was _____. Also, Wikipedia describes Yoda as "a fictional character in the Star Wars space opera franchise created by George Lucas, first appearing in the 1980 film 'The Empire Strikes Back'." A FICTIONAL character. Plenty of people do not mean that their profile picture really is their true selves. That is why debate.org has a list of possible avatars that a user can use. I was not lying, I simply chose a profile picture I thought looked interesting. I, Dumbo, AM awesome, AlwaysRight12345. (Not Yoda, but AlwaysRight12345.)
Dumbo is awesome

My opponent has said that (s)he is just like everyone else because of his/her grammatical correctness, self centeredness and pranks. First off, (s)he is not correct factually as is shown here: "You do not know if I am male or female, one religion or another, rich or poor..." however, had (s)he checked what (s)he said, (s)he would've found that much was revealed about him/her. (S)he likes to play pranks, so on and so forth. Secondly, I'm not making this a big reveal as you have been displaying it this entire debate. (S)he accused me of not being Yoda because I am too young. Unfortunately, this site doesn't accept birthdays past 1900 so, as you can see, there is significant proof that I am Yoda. Do or do not, there is no try. "(S)he said (s)he has 'moments with the devil on (his/her) shoulder,' and is at least truthful enough to admit it, but (s)he is not truthful, as (s)he is not the devil." This means that although you claim you are truthful, you lied on your profile picture. Both you lied there and are here lying by saying that you are truthful. What this debate really comes down to is whether or not Dumbo is awesome, and as you can see in these past 5 rounds, or the three I have participated in, I have proven that Dumbo is not.
Dumbo is awesome

First off, no problem about the forfeiting, I hope you had fun with your family, and I'm sorry I jumped on you like that about it. For me comparing myself to you, I am not saying I am more awesome than you (I'm sorry if it came off that way), I just needed an example to build my debates off of. For the time-conscious thing, I always debate within twelve or thirteen hours after my opponent has debated, and that IS time-conscious. Again, I was just using you as an example, and I am sorry. I already said in the first round, I'm not doing this because I am self-centered. On my profile page I was having some fun with all of that "awesome" stuff, and as for this debate, I'm just trying to become more of a part of debate.org by having a couple of debates, so when you invited me to this debate, I couldn't refuse. Most people play pranks. I don't think that's a "big reveal," AlwaysRight12345. I AM grammatically correct and DO fact-check my work. How do you know I don't fact-check? I'm as grammatically correct as you are! (Again, JUST AN EXAMPLE.) Your profile says you are forty-four years old and were born October 2, 1970. When Star Wars' "A New Hope" came out, you would've been six years old. In the Star Wars movies, you are thousands of years old. I seriously doubt that you're Yoda. "(S)he said (s)he has 'moments with the devil on (his/her) shoulder,' and is at least truthful enough to admit it, but (s)he is not truthful, as (s)he is not the devil." Okay, you really need to clarify more what that means.
Dumbo is awesome

Sorry I forfeited that last round, I was in Florida with my family for a birthday. I would like to remind my opponent that this debate has nothing to do with me personally. The topic is "Dumbo is awesome," not "Dumbo is more awesome than AlwaysRight12345." Dumbo started by saying that (s)he is time-conscious. (S)he has little proof of this, only that in this single debate, (s)he is more time-conscious than I am. Dumbo isn't good at keeping all secrets, from looking at her profile in this debate, I can conclude that (s)he is self-centered, plays pranks, not grammatically correct, and doesn't fact-check what (s)he says. These are all also negative traits, so this works on two levels. (S)he said in Round 2 that my profile is Yoda, and I am not Yoda to refute two of my points. Well, in fact, I AM Yoda. I have risen to play on the computer. Just ask my friend, Luke Skywalker. Also, I've learned to talk normally. (S)he said (s)he has "moments with the devil on (her/his) shoulder," and is at least truthful enough to admit it, but (s)he is not truthful, as (s)he is not the devil. As you can clearly see, Dumbo is NOT awesome.
Dumbo is awesome

Since my opponent has forfeited this round, I have nothing to refute, so I can just skip to my debates...: I AM TIME-CONSCIOUS: I like to post my debates as soon as I know it's my turn to post an argument. As you can plainly see, AlwaysRight12345 cannot say that for himself, as he just forfeited a round. I AM GOOD AT KEEPING A SECRET: As AlwaysRight12345 must have seen on my profile page, since he saw that "awesome" part of it, I reveal very little about my true identity. You do not know if I am male or female, one religion or another, rich or poor... and even while talking this much about myself here in this debate, I have not said any of that. I AM HELPFUL: I volunteered at an animal shelter from fourth grade to, if I remember correctly, high school, and since I started at fourth grade, my thoughts were not at all on getting extra credit for school or SSL hours or anything. I was simply trying to be helpful. As you can surely see now, I AM awesome, and have proved it many times.
Dumbo is awesome

I shall start out with my refutations, then move on to my points... "Dumbo has yet to prove s(he) is awesome." Just because I have not yet proved it does not mean it is not true. In my points, I shall prove that I am awesome, and this argument will not be usable. "Dumbo is satanic" My profile picture is the devil because I ENJOY PLAYING PRANKS ON MY OLDER BROTHER. Has anyone not played a single trick on a sibling? Or at least been the tiniest bit mean to them? I think not. We all have moments with the devil on our shoulder, just because I admit to it does not mean I am less awesome than anyone else. In fact, the fact that I admit to it where there are many, many people who don't, like my older brother, makes me even more awesome. "Dumbo is a goat" Just because my profile picture is the devil, and the devil is closer to a goat than a human, that does not mean that I am a goat. Your profile picture, AlwaysRight12345, is Yoda, and you are not Yoda. This argument makes no sense whatsoever. The first of my many points is as I mentioned earlier: I admit to my crimes. I am guilty and pay the consequences, but I do not hide what I have done--I learn from my few mistakes. When I write little notes on my brother's toilet paper, I pay the consequences, if there are any. I am honest, and honest is awesome. Secondly, I just refuted all of your points. I may not be a perfect debater, but at least I could come up with sensible arguments. My last point (for this round, since obviously there are many more points) is that while you are called "AlwaysRight12345," I am called "Dumbo." The meaning of "Dumbo" is "stupid person." I call myself "stupid person" and you call yourself always right. I am more modest than you, and perhaps many other people. You might say that I am not modest because I said I was awesome and all that everywhere, but on my profile I was having a little fun, and in this debate, well, you started it... I'm just responding. As you can see, I AM awesome.
Dumbo is awesome

I will be debating on several factors: 1-Dumbo has yet to prove (s)he is awesome: Dumbo has given no proof that (s)he is awesome. All her profile says is that (s)he is awesome, not why. 2-Dumbo is satanic: Dumbo's profile picture is the devil. Therefore, (s)he must be supportive of Satan. 3-Dumbo is a goat: Dumbo's profile picture is the devil. The devil has horns, a tail and goat legs. He is almost closer to a goat than a human. Therefore, Dumbo is a goat. While goats are the best form of livestock, my opponent has to prove that goats are awesome.
Prohibition (18th Amendment)

Prohibition..the most evident portrayal of the failure of government control in American history. Contrary to popular belief, alcohol consumption after the establishment of the 18th Amendment actually increased (per capita consumption). Prior to 1921, there has been a steady decline in per capita consumption. However, in 1922 (one year after initiation of Prohibition), alcohol consumption per capita increased steadily up until the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. Additionally, the budget of specific government agencies that were involved in the enforcement of Prohibition skyrocketed, while also suffering the loss of tax revenue due to no regulated alcohol sales. The Coast Guard itself managed to spend an average of $13 million a year. In addition, rate of deaths due to alcohol poison related incidents increased dramatically. With the consumption of unregulated alcohol (example: moonshine), came the increase of people dying from consumption dangerously high levels of alcohol. In 1920, a mere 1,064 people were reported deceased due to alcohol consumption poisoning, compared to over four thousand recorded a minimal five years later. Many believed that Prohibition would make it more difficult for consumers to purchase. However, there is evidence conflicting such assumptions. A New Jersey businessman was recorded as saying that there were ten times as many places to buy alcohol between 1921-33 in contrast to before 1921. As we can see today with marijuana- people will find ways to get what they want. Next, many thought that Prohibition would lower violent crime rates, especially in the cities. As recorded, the homicide rate in a number of large cities averaged an increase from a mere 5.6/100,000 from 1900-1910, in contrast to 10/100,000 during the 20's. In conclusion, Prohibition effectively did what our 75 year war against drugs has done- nothing. It consists of a decrease in tax revenue, yet includes a dramatic increase in spending. So, the last question I leave with the reader is: "Is government control worth the time and money?" -Source My source has its own sources entitled at the bottom of the document. I assume the sources listed by the author of my secondary source. http://object.cato.org...
Girls=Evil

That means absolutely nothing! Girls are time and money? Doing math isn't going to prove that girls are evil. Think harder into it. Why do we have so many laws and amendments protecting us? Because we worked hard for it, and the government thinks we deserve it. If we were so evil, we would still be treated like third class citizens to this day. All this "women are evil" stuff is just silly. Use more logic than math if you want to prove that we're evil.
Superman would beat Batman in a fight to the death.

In a scheduled fight in which both Superman and Batman have an allotted and equal amount of time to prepare, Superman would prove the victor. The fight must also be one on one. Although possible that Batman could defeat Superman in a face-off to the death, it is neither plausible or likely, given the qualities and traits of each hero. To put it very simply, Superman is very intelligent, super powered, and almost completely invulnerable with only one inherent weakness, which is Kryptonite. Batman, although possessing genius level intellect and peak human conditioning, as well as a vast amount of resources, is still a mere mortal, and has one method in which to kill Superman, while Superman has an arsenal of methods in which to kill Batman. The only accepted evidence in this debate will be comic books, movies or t.v. shows and/or other works which are canonical to the comic books. Please refrain from using your own personal bias and stick to logic, that is, a comparative analysis of the stats, and powers/abilities of both heroes, should be used to determine who the victor would be. My stance is based on the assumption that both heroes are forsaking their moral belief which prevents both of them from being cutthroat, ruthless, and taking life. Kryptonite is both expected and allowed in this debate, as well as many other methods in which the two heroes can use to defeat one another. What is not allowed is outside help while the fight is in action, and spacious or sophistic reasoning or devices in preparation for the fight such as: Batman would acquire help from poison ivy, to hypnotize Superman before the fight begins, or Superman would destroy all of Batman's gadgets before hand.
Using Animals for Gaming and Entertainment

Why is the suffering of captive animals a fact that justifies making it illegal? Near everything we own and have is a result of someone suffering. Should we ban clothing because they originate from the suffering of sweatshop workers? Should we ban report cards as they originate from the suffering of students taking exams? We allow suffering to occur because we deem it to be suffering of an acceptable extent. In what way is the suffering of captive animals not to an acceptable extent? These animals are often born and raised to be used as entertainment for humans. Is their suffering not simply their natural lifestyle, their fate, then? The suffering of these animals creates jobs and income for people who might've otherwise struggled to find a job as well- does the suffering of these animals outweigh the potential suffering of those who'd end up unemployed? And if you claim that their suffering is not to an acceptable extent no matter what in this situation, where do we draw the line in terms of animal cruelty? Is the suffering of lab test rats too much to bear? What if it leads to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of humans due to substandard medical advancements? As well, you claim that public entertainment is irrelevant, but why is it irrelevant? This site in itself is a tool for public entertainment- if it is so irrelevant, why do you engage in actions that entertain yourself and the public? In sum, it is evident that the base of your argument is somewhat flimsy and over-reliant on subjective, emotional claims.
Young Earth Creationism

Apologies. I, for now, will inactivate my account; Preparing for a test. Not only that, BUT I PUT SO MUCH EFFORT; I ENTERED AN ARGUMENT! A VERY, VERY LONG ONE! AND THEN WHEN I PRESSED THE "REVIEW" BUTTON, IT ERASED IT ALL. IT TOLD ME TO ENTER AN ARGUMENT; ARE YOU KIDDING!? I ENTER SUCH A LONG ARGUMENT, AND YOU DON'T EVEN DETECT A LETTER!? SO CRAPPY!
Young Earth Creationism

I've received concerns regarding my phrasing of the resolution; in particular, regarding the word “better. ” For clarification, (and I trust Con will be fine with this) the resolution is that “Young Earth Creationism is a better explanation for the evidence then Modern Evolutionary Theory. ” I'm not good with phrasing resolutions. Anyways, let's begin! Why Have We Not Died 100 Times Over? A paradox for Evolution, but not YEC A person's genome suffers a loss of genetic information every generation. (1) This is consistent with the YEC model, which posits that life has been degrading since the posited Fall of Man. According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, the human race has existed for ~200,000 years. (2) Within this time frame, and at the current rate of genetic degradation, humans would have gone extinct over 100 times! (3) This paradox is a problem for Modern Evolutionary Theory because the theory posits such a massive time frame of human existence. It is not a problem for YEC, however, because it only posits a time frame of ~6,000 years. Therefore, this rate of genetic degradation is consistent with YEC, but not Modern Evolutionary Theory. Ostracods An oxymoronic explanation from Evolution, but not YEC The embedded video is that of an Ostracod (which I had the pleasure of recording myself). . http://www.youtube.com... That creature is the most common arthropod found fossilized, by far. In 2010, a fossilized Ostracod was found in the Cambrian layer. (4) It was fossilized exceptionally well, and almost idential to living Ostracods. According to Modern Evolutionary Theory, this means that while fish were changing into land mammals, and lizards were changing into birds, Ostracods were not changing into anything. .. for over 400 million years! This is not consistent with the most basic definition of Evolution: “change over time. ” Modern Evolutionary Theory uses the label “Evolutionary Stasis” to explain the phenomenon of the Ostracod, but this makes no sense: “Evolutionary Stasis” is an oxymoron; “stasis” means “no change. ” This means that the explanation for the Ostracod finding posited by Modern Evolutionary Theory makes no sense. However, YEC has no problem explaining this particular piece of evidence: According to YEC, all animals bring forth after their own kind, and do not change into different kinds of animals over time. So no matter how many generations of Ostracods have passed since that Cambrian Ostracod was fossilized, YEC expects that its descendents will still be recognizable as Ostracods. And this is exactly what the evidence demonstrates. Before I hand it over to Con, I'd like to give credit to the user Muted. I first learned of these arguments from his debates. (1) Sanford, John C. (2008). Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome. (2) . http://www.sciencedirect.com... (3) J Theor Biol. 1995 Aug 21;175(4):583-94. Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov AS. (4) Proc Biol Sci. 2010 May 22; 277(1687): 1539–1544. An exceptionally preserved myodocopid ostracod from the Silurian of Herefordshire, UK. David J. Siveter, et. al.
Young Earth Creationism

This debate is technically open to the first person who accepts it; however, if I do not deem you a worthy opponent, I will simply forfeit every round. I'm aware that this carries a huge risk of being sniped by a noob, but I don't care about my statistics on this site anymore.The resolution is as follows:Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is a better explanation than Modern Evolutionary Theory.I'm Pro, and will be arguing in favor of YEC.The first round is for acceptance only. Clarifications should be requested in the comment section.In the second round, if I actually proceed with the debate, I will begin a case for YEC.As much as I'd prefer that this debate assumes neutral truth value for both positions, I've yet to see this happen in practice, so I won't expand on this.