BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sonnet debate

Thanks, Pro! First, I thought your last sonnet was truly very well done. You're continuing to impress me, Phil - Keep up the good work! Second, the word 'natural' has 2 pronunciations, one of which only has 2 syllables (look it up in the dictionary, folks), so therefore all of my lines in the last round were actually 10 syllables... Haha but like I said, I was just kidding about that anyway, and don't really care about that little discrepancy at all. Moving on, I'll clarify what my last sonnet was about: The writer is, quite frankly, a femme fatale - charming and destroying every woman in her wake. The trap's depart represents the letting go of the trap into the world, readily masked in order to never miss the target with "shards" meaning vicious intent. The perfume so sweet represents the charm; the masking of the viciousness that the victim can not see. The writer is illustrating how she is stealing the woman - her soul and her mind - so easily and so viciously. It then continues to show how the writer has the woman at her complete mercy; that not even something as powerful as violent wind could stop her. Afalse romance ensuing and the woman is done for, as her soul is finally arrested in the writer's venom. She is a slave to her (the writer's) charms. The writer finally realizes that in the end, she is actually the slave to her own passions, as she is dependent on her "victim" to fulfill her vile needs. My interpretation of Pro's sonnet is as follows: The writer is in some tense or volatile situation where the outcome is dependent upon a specific decision made by at least three persons. After the vote was cast, the writer feels some sense of forgiveness or understanding of a certain someone (maybe the one affected by the vote). The writer implies that he made some sort of decision, so maybe he was one of the people who helped cast the vote. In saying "my decision marked immunization," maybe the writer was hinting at what vote he gave or what it entailed. The writer concludes by saying that love for one's self is unnecessary or inappropriate, and reaches "all limits from the above" (maybe spiritual?). My 2nd Sonnet: I feel that if I close my eyes forever The darkness will become only a fear I had once upon a time whenever In a foreign land far away from here Oh good mercy plagued by my sweet madness The insanity my body's coping Like a shiver to warm the grim sadness Misguided survival for the hoping In my day I have made dreadful choices In my haste to mask the painfully real Sold my eyes, my mind, my freedom, my voice All to make the devil's business deal I found no flames in death, but with great fright! My hell was never seeing heaven's light!
Sonnet debate

I'd first like to begin by thanking Pro for starting this interesting and creative debate, and commend him on his well written sonnet! That said, I'll take a shot here and guess that his sonnet was about him overcoming some type of temptation. I cannot figure out exactly what that temptation is/was (maybe you're not supposed to?). It would appear as if Pro is saying that he need not be "here," though where 'here' is remains a mystery. However, 'here' is apparently committing treason i.e. a betrayal of some kind. I hope Pro can expand on its meaning at some point later in the debate. Regardless, the sonnet sounds like it has a happy ending :) Moving on, I agree to the proposed rules of the debate; however, noticed some discrepancies opponent's post -- First, Pro notes in Rule #3 that a line should not start with the word "And." However, you'll notice that my opponent actually begins the 14th line of his sonnet with the word "And." Also, Pro also states that each line can only have 10 syllables. In looking closely, however, you'll notice that his 6th line has only 9 syllables, and his 10th line has 11 syllables. Nevertheless! Pro's sonnet was really impressive and I really don't care about those minor violations lol. I look forward to a really fun debate and hope to do more of something like this in the future. Good luck, Pro! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - My Eloquent words mask the trap's depart Uncontrollable with a certainty So shards never miss her targeted heart A perfume so sweet her eyes could not see Her soul would be all mine through candied grace We'd move to closer, more personal things Like heated contact; inadequate space To my lips movement her sanity clings Natural phenomenons like violent wind Could not confine my charming advances Staggering with verbose shackles she's pinned My lies dressed in lace; forging romances Though my flourished venom is arresting Seems I'm the one weak without protesting
Sonnet debate

For anyone who doesn't know what a sonnet is: There are three traditional forms of sonnets, rather there are two and a variant that makes the third and has commonly come to be accepted as a third form. First it is important to point out that a sonnet is a lyric poem with a topic that is of a more romantic bent. The form of a sonnet is in its name which is derived from Italian, sonnet, and Occitan, sonnet, both meaning literally little song. There is the Italian sonnet, and the Shakespearean sonnet. RULES -------- 1. Both debaters will be using the Shakespearean version of the sonnet. The reason for this is because these sonnets are much simpler to compose, follow, and make sense of, and are generally less complex. 2. Each sonnet will be made up of fourteen lines, each line with only ten syllables. 3. Words such as "and, or, but, as, so, if, then, when, or which" should not appear at the beginnings of lines. Each line starts capitalized. 4. The first four lines follow the a-b-a-b line scheme and are a introduction to your sonnet. The next four lines must follow the c-d-c-d rhyme scheme, and must be used as a build up in the plot of your sonnet with a climatic cliff hanger at the end of these four lines. The next four lines must follow the rhyme scheme of e-f-e-f. The last four set of lines must be used as the conclusion, which would be a resolution to the climax that occurs in the end of the second four set of lines. The last two lines of your sonnet must rhyme. These last two lines, or the rhyming couplet, at the end of your sonnet is where we lay out the "lesson" the reader is intended to learn by the end of your sonnet. This rule is pretty long, and I am sure my opponent already knows this format. This was purely for the intent of the readers who may not know the format of a English (Shakespearean) sonnet. 5. This fifth and final rule should not effect judging in anyway, and is mainly just for fun. Both debaters must try and guess at the meaning of their opposers sonnets. If their guess was wrong, the opponent must state the real meaning to their sonnet in their next rebuttal. The user getting a guess at the poem wrong, should not effect the readers vote in the slightest, and all focus should be on the creativity of the sonnet itself. Thankyou, Lwerd, for offering up to take this debate. I am sure that it will be fun and inspiring for both us and the readers. With that said I will begin. I need not be here, there is no reason, For my life's fair has been controlled and just; This place right now is committing treason, The will for me to be here lacks its trust, The eager medicine I highly need, Is still hiding from my lack of want. Yes, the cure for my hungry soul to feed, Shows how easily I fall for the taunt, Now I notice the greatness this brings me: Pride aside, I can finally see clearly, My life has finally shown me the key! It's such a relief, my soul is weary, I am truly free and truly living, And my life's sweet fruit is always giving! I look forward to my opponents response. Thankyou -philosophical
Adolf Hitler was a sound military commander and partly Justifiable in his actions.

I Would like to start out by thanking my opponent. Now i will Prove my argument with 3 Points. 1)He Conquered much of Europe. Every where except, Spain,Finland,Portugal,Switzerland,Sweden and the eastern part of European Russia.(PLEASE NOTE:I do not count Italy in this list as they were allies of Germany and basically did whatever Hitler told them too) 2)He commanded an army large enough to hold off the allied forces (U.K, U.S.A, France, Soviet Union. To name a few) for quite some time. 3)He rose to power through his sublime use of tactical politics and violence, an admirable feat. Now i will explain why he was justifiable in many of his actions. 1)The Holocaust! I Do not admire what he did please remember this, Genocide is not an admirable thing. However many people believe Hitler persecuted Jewish people because he simply disliked them. NOT TRUE, He persecuted the Jewish people because he believed (Rightly so) that they were taking the jobs of the German people and destroying the German economy (Partly True). 2)The War! After the treaty of Versailles in 1919, Germany had to agree to these points. 1-Not allowed to join the league of Nations. 2-Demiltarisation of "The Rhineland". 3-Not allowed an Air force. 4-German Army Restricted to 100,000 soldiers. 5-German navy restricted to 6 battleships and no Submarines. 6-"The Saar" Given to France. 7-"Alsace-Lorraine" returned to France. 8-Forbidden to Unite with "Austria". 9-All German colonies given to France and Britain as Mandates. 10-The "Polish Corridor" Given to Poland. All in all Germany went from being a once great country that could compete on an international stage to a broken European mess. Hitler changed all this and wanted to make Germany great once again, Also he never wished to make it as big as it was, he believed us "Brits" were brilliant and never wanted to war with us. I Look forward to your Reply
Marco Rubio Would Be the Best VP Choice

Rebbutals "Marco Rubio lacks experience in the political spectrum."The first thing my opponent argues is that Marco Rubio is inexperienced for the job. However, we all know that you have to start somewhere in politics and move your way up the ladder to a high position (senator, congressman, governor). Usually, your experience as a state senator is confined to state politics until you become a federal senator. The same can be said for a governor. Basically, Rubio is in the same territory he was before he entered the federal senate; the Florida senate. This means he has the advantage of being well aware of how the senate works [1]."Since Rubio was confined to only state politics for the majority of his career, the national public does not enough about him."Does not enough what? Sorry, but this is rather confusing. It seems that what my opponent is saying based of his paragraph is that Rubio has not been grilled by the media. We all know however, that Rubio seems to be a very intelligent person. He so far has had strong showings when interviewed and that has so far not changed. May I also remind you that back in 2008, the Republican vice presidential choice, Sarah Palin, and the Democrat's choice, Joe Biden, debated. Many believe that Sarah Palin won the debate and remember she also was not really experienced [2]."Lastly, Rubio himself has shown that he is uninterested in becoming the VP for the Republican ticket. Republicans need someone who is willing to step up to the plate and says that they are ready and willing to become the VP for Romney."He could be lying for all we know. Remember when Chris Christie was asked many questions if he would run for president? He refused many, but the media still asked. This is because sometimes the unexpected happens. Maybe Rubio is going to accept the request with public unexpecting it.Now to my own points.Rubio is from FloridaRubio is from the largest swing state in the country; Florida. With its large amount of electoral votes it is an important state for Romney and Obama to win. Because Marco Rubio is from there (and seems to be supported there since he was elected to the senate) he will no doubt swing some votes to Romney that could make him win Florida [1]. Rubio does have National AppealMy opponent actually said in his arguments that he did not. This is false. Rubio is a Hispanic and he would become the first Hispanic to be nominated as the vice presidential candidate on a major ticket in history. No doubt the Hispanic voters (even if they are not Cuban, which Rubio is) would be looking at this and then support Rubio. It makes logical sense. Also, Rubio is young. Thus, he would appeal to younger voters while Romney is older and will appeal to older voters. While Romney is more wealthy, Rubio has working class routes [1,3]1. http://www.elephantwatcher.com...2. http://www.usnews.com...3. http://www.elephantwatcher.com...
Marco Rubio Would Be the Best VP Choice

Marco Rubio, is not the best Vice Presidential Choice for Republican Presidential Candidate for Mitt Romney. Marco Rubio lacks experience in the political spectrum. Rubio spent time as a City Commissioner in Miami before entering state politics. Any experience that he gained would be relate solely to local affairs and would not necessarily assist him in making legislative decisions in the Florida State Legislature. I contend that his first years as a state senator did not adequately prepare him for his Speakership of the Florida House of Representative. Although he did weld somewhat considerable power in state politics, outside of Florida he was a relative nobody. His experience was confined to state politics until 2010, when he won the junior Senate seat for the state of Florida. Since Rubio was confined to only state politics for the majority of his career, the national public does not enough about him. Most other vice presidential likelys have been known to the press and public for decades and have to defend their positions. Rubio has had few positions that needed to be defended. Besides, the mark of a good politician is the ability to take a stance on a controversial issue and continue to have support from his constituents. Since Rubio lacks experience, situations where this would be needed is nonexistent. Now, a United States Senator, Rubio has less than two years under his belt. Until now, his primary focus was on state politics and a good VP choice should be well-known to the public and have experience beyond local and state affairs. Rubio could be a great VP choice or even a contender for the presidency but only after he has gained more experience whether it be political, economic, etc. There are other VP choices that have the experience, the likability, and the charisma that Rubio lacks. Since the overall quality of VP choices cannot readily be weighed against each other we have to use basic standards to compare. Does Rubio have any executive experience? He has not been governor of state. He has not founded and lead a company. Does Marco Rubio have the exposure of other choices? No, Rubio has been confined to Florida. Others have been involved in national affairs for a number of years and the public knows them. Lastly, Rubio himself has shown that he is uninterested in becoming the VP for the Republican ticket. Republicans need someone who is willing to step up to the plate and says that they are ready and willing to become the VP for Romney. Rubio lacks the national appeal, experience, and is not interested in becoming the VP nominee. He is not the best choice then.
Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should not apply the Second Amendment to American citizens

Hello Since my opponent has forfeited the round, this will be short and sweet. My opponent is saying that the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to US Citizens. When our founding fathers made this Bill of Rights made, it was meant for the Citizens of this great country, not states having a "well regarded militia. " The 2nd amendment means that, but it also gives, "the right of people to keep and bear arms. " Once again, drugs are illegal, but they still manage to get onto street corners and in people mouths. Does my opponent think that if we ban guns a fairy will come stopping every crime? No. There are tons of crimes where the guns wasn't in the hand of its rightful owner, or it was unregistered.
Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should not apply the Second Amendment to American citizens

Hello Sorry for the delay. I've had baseball and it's hard to find time to respond. "People kill people with guns. That solves for argumentation with murder and as well as crossing that over to homes being robbed, and even being raped. If citizens did not possess "guns" then they would not be able to do this" That is interesting. So if you look at the U.K. (they have a gun ban) there would be know crime involving a gun, right? Well 2 years after the ban in 1997, crime involving a hand gun rose 40%. Also, the U.K. has a higher crime rate than the US and not by a little too. The U.K., crime rate per 100,000 people is 1,831 people higher than the US. And, the city with the highest restrictions (D.C.) somehow manages to have the higher murder rate than any state. Sources- http://wheelgun.blogspot.com... http://www.gunowners.org... I am confused by the 6th paragraph (starts w/ I'm going to...) It sounds like you are just further proving my point. The definition I provide does relate to guns. It says "carry weapons" then you provide a definition of firearms and, "concede that this definition speaks of guns but it also speaks of a weapon." A gun is a type of weapon, so I don't know what you are talking about. "Going back to your question of how citizens can protect themselves without the use of guns. Police officers." I already said that police officers couldn't be there all the time. And if you contradict, then where were they in 2005 when 16,692 people were murder in 2005. The police can't be there every second. The only solution you provided was peace officers, and where were they? In fact, I have never seen a peace officer in my entire life. The only safe haven for people is guns. If you say karate or self defense classes that could take months to master, with guns it would only by days or weeks. "The second amendment was produced during a time frame in which there was battle on American citizen's front yards" Have you thought that maybe we got the 2nd Amendment to keep us safe from the British soldiers? As you said, they fought n front yards, back yards, fields, everywhere, but maybe the government wanted a way to keep the citizens safe if they are alone. The whole point during the late 1700's was less government. So why would they leave it up to the government to protect the citizens? My arguments- You seem to think that if we ban guns the whole country would be safe. Let's just look at some of the other things that have been banned before. The 18th amendment banned liquor, did people still drink it? Yes. There are drugs illegal in this country, but for some reason you could find them at most if not all of the high schools in this country, or even middle schools. Banning just wouldn't work, crimes would still happen. Readers, my opponent keeps on saying "well regarded militia." Please take into consideration that he hasn't talked about the 2nd part, "the right to people to keep and bear arms." Please ghsdebater09 what does this mean?
Pen is mightier than the sword.

I believe that I have won this debate as I have proved through an example backed with evidence that the sword is stronger. My opponent has only looked at a situation where the sword was involved and has had no evidence backing her point. She also hasn't shown an example where the sword and the pen can be compared, however, I have used an example that compares the two together and have proved that in a situation where both are involved, the sword wins out. Please cast a con ballot.
Pen is mightier than the sword.

We come across the old truth "pen is mightier than sword" in serious discussions. Since the pen is used to espress idesas and the sowrd is used to impose one's will by superior violence, the statement really means that ideas have more influence than violence. Since violence is always used for a purpose, there is a some idea behind violence. What matters is the kind of idea in the service of which violence is used. The sword can only destroy, but the pein-the ideas expressed by the pen-can also build. The pen is the vehicel of thought and ideas have helped man to reise over purely savage conditions. They have built up free institutions and democracy. Thought enables man to voyage through the infinite the philosophy to unlock the secrets of the universe in science, to contemplate the universe, to create beauty and to commune with God. It is in this sense that the pen is mightier than the sword. It must be emphasized that non-violent is not a method for cowards. If one uses this method because he is afraied or merely because he lacks the intruments of violence, he is not truly non-violent. The Phrase "passive resistance" often gives the false impression that this is a sort of do-nothing method in which the resister quietly and passively acceps evil. But nothing is further from truth. For while the non-violent resister is passive in sense that he is not physically aggresive toward his opponent, his mind and emotions are always active, constantly seeking to persuade his opponent that he is wrong.
Pen is mightier than the sword.

I will use this round to present my case 1. American Revolution. The American revolution was a war that was started because the Americans were sick of being controlled by Britain. Before this war was started however, a couple of events took place. One thing that took place was the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. This was a document in which the Americans declared themselves independent from the rule of Britain. The point is they drafted this document and nothing happened, this document didn't free them from England the only thing that did was when the Americans took up arms against Britain, only action freed them from England. Sub point:petitions. According to revolutionary_war_and_beyond.com, before the revolutionary war the first continental congress and many colonists sent petitions to England in order to change how England treated America, none of which worked. The second continental congress decided to send the olive Branch petition, a petition in which the Americans only asked for reconciliation, not even independence from England. The king of England responded to this by declaring the American rebels. We can see through this evidence that the sword is indeed stronger than the pen. I would write more but as I am typing from my iPad which is extremely hard I will only post one point also as my opponent dropped the case round I feel it is unnecessary to post another argument Thank you a please cast a con ballot. Source: http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com...
was Donald trump the right choice

Donald J. Trump was the right decision for president of the United States. Here is his platform - Dealing with Illegal immigration. Deporting Illegal immigrants who commit crimes in the United States. - Building a border wall to restrict the undocumented and unsupervised flow of drugs, weapons, and people across the border. - Repeal and Replace of Obamacare. This would fix the rising premiums and allow Americans to choose health care. It is also important to note that many good parts of Obamacare would be kept. Such as the part on people with preexisting conditions. - Repeal and Replace of many detrimental trade agreements like the Trans. Pacific Partnership. - Infrastructure Investments to modernize American infrastructure. - Defeating Radical Islamic Terrorism - Tax cuts stimulating Economic growth - Transfer of power from the Federal Government back to the States on many issues. - Implementing a travel ban on immigrants from countries were vetting can not take place at a high enough standard to prove that the immigrants were terror free