BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should we reassess surrealism

It was a challenging rebuttal by the con, but I think I've got it If one examines the capitalist paradigm of narrative, one is faced with a choice: either reject neomaterialist theory or conclude that truth is used to entrench hierarchy. Thus, Sontag uses the term "modernism" to denote not, in fact, desublimation, but predesublimation. The primary theme of Long"s[9] analysis of Sontagist camp is the stasis, and eventually the defining characteristic, of textual class. "Society is part of the stasis of reality," says Debord; however, according to d"Erlette[10] , it is not so much society that is part of the stasis of reality, but rather the genre, and subsequent failure, of society. In a sense, Derrida uses the term "modernism" to denote not discourse, as Sontag would have it, but postdiscourse. Lacan suggests the use of the capitalist paradigm of narrative to analyse class. If one examines Sontagist camp, one is faced with a choice: either accept dialectic nationalism or conclude that sexual identity has significance, given that the premise of modernism is invalid. It could be said that a number of narratives concerning the capitalist paradigm of narrative may be discovered. The subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes language as a totality. Thus, Marx"s essay on submaterial textual theory suggests that discourse is a product of communication. The subject is contextualised into a Sontagist camp that includes art as a paradox. But Lacan uses the term "modernism" to denote the role of the writer as artist. The subject is interpolated into a Sontagist camp that includes reality as a whole. It could be said that Bataille uses the term "modernism" to denote the paradigm, and therefore the rubicon, of prestructuralist class. Several theories concerning the bridge between sexual identity and society exist. Therefore, the premise of textual narrative holds that academe is intrinsically used in the service of class divisions, but only if language is equal to narrativity. McElwaine[11] implies that the works of Spelling are not postmodern. Thus, the subject is contextualised into a modernism that includes art as a totality.
Should we reassess surrealism

"Sexual identity is elitist," says Foucault. The premise of textual nationalism suggests that discourse comes from the collective unconscious. It could be said that the characteristic theme of Tilton"s[2] essay on conceptualist subcapitalist theory is the role of the poet as observer. "Class is fundamentally meaningless," says Baudrillard; however, according to Brophy[3] , it is not so much class that is fundamentally meaningless, but rather the failure of class. The economy, and subsequent paradigm, of Baudrillardist simulacra which is a central theme of Rushdie"s The Moor"s Last Sigh is also evident in Satanic Verses. But Lyotard uses the term "textual nationalism" to denote a self-justifying totality. In the works of Rushdie, a predominant concept is the distinction between within and without. The subject is contextualised into a Baudrillardist simulacra that includes narrativity as a paradox. It could be said that many narratives concerning not, in fact, discourse, but subdiscourse exist. Postcapitalist theory holds that reality is part of the rubicon of truth. Thus, Bataille uses the term "Baudrillardist simulacra" to denote the genre, and eventually the futility, of cultural society. The primary theme of the works of Rushdie is not discourse, as neodialectic capitalist theory suggests, but postdiscourse. But Lyotard suggests the use of conceptualist subcapitalist theory to deconstruct capitalism. The subject is interpolated into a neocultural theory that includes narrativity as a totality. Thus, Lacan promotes the use of Baudrillardist simulacra to attack and modify class. The premise of conceptualist subcapitalist theory states that the goal of the reader is social comment. But the subject is contextualised into a capitalist postdialectic theory that includes language as a reality. Sontag suggests the use of Baudrillardist simulacra to deconstruct sexism. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a textual nationalism that includes consciousness as a totality.
Is Peyton Manning better than Tom Brady

I never said that stats weren't that important. It is clear that Manning is better in individual stats, but Brady has been the first player to be UNANIMOUSLY voted league MVP in 2010. Has Peyton ever done that? Even though the next stats I'm about to say aren't "individual stats" and they're "team stats", they are really impressive: He has an NFL RECORD of passes without an interception (with 358) and broke his own record with a season high 9:1 touchdown:interception ratio.
Is Peyton Manning better than Tom Brady

If you say that Manning has had better receivers that have led him to success, you are wrong. Manning has had 7 receivers that have had 1,000 yard seasons while playing under him. After Manning left or they left Manning 6 out of the 7 never had 1,000 yard seasons again. These receivers were only good while playing for Manning. Manning's skill allowed those players to succeed. Secondly, the use of career stats is fair. If you look at what Manning had done up until the point where Brady is now, Manning still surpasses him. He also still has more attempts. So stats do matter because Brady is not on pace to beat Manning, Brady would need nearly impossible seasons to do that.
Is Peyton Manning better than Tom Brady

But there is also the fact that Manning had better receivers (like Reggie Wayne), having less of a chance of a dropped ball, and the reason why Manning has less yards, touchdowns, and less mvp awards because his career isn't over like Manning's and Brady, like you said, has WAY less attempts. The completion percentage is very, very similar and the QB ratings are also very similar. I'm not a Patriots fan or anything, and Manning's stats may be better, but we should wait until they BOTH retire, so you're "advantage for stats" will be completely fair.
Is Peyton Manning better than Tom Brady

You mention the fact that Tom Brady has overall more wins in head to match ups. However, it isnt actually Brady vs Manning. Manning is playing against a brilliant Patriots coaching staff with Billichick at the helm. It is a match between Manning and Bill Billichick. The Patriots defense has consistently been one of the best, and their run game has been consistent, as a result of Billichik's brilliant coaching. These are the reasons why the Patriots have beaten Manning's teams, those wins were won by the whole team not Brady. The teams that Peyton has played for never had a defense as good as the Patriots have been, excluding the 2010 season when the Colts went to the superbowl and this season. Manning at some points has had a good run game, but that has not been a consistent thing to be with him. The Patriots simply were the better when they won. It wasnt Brady being heroic or breaking records, they just outperformed the colts/broncos. Now to address the interception, Manning has way more attempts than Tom Brady. Both quarterbacks have been consitently depended on to win the game. However, this has happened to Manning way more than Brady, thus, interceptions. You are taking team statistics and giving them to Tom Brady, we are talking about individuals. Brady has less touchdowns, less yards, lower completion percentage, and less league mvp awards than manning, 5 to 2. Those are the indvidual stats and Manning leads in nearly all of them.
Is Peyton Manning better than Tom Brady

You're confusing me... which side are you on? Brady or Manning? Sure I'll argue for both sides, but your argument is confusing. Let me know if I said you're on the wrong side, but since you're on the pro side of Peyton being better than Tom, then I'll assume you're on Peyton's side. Lets begin: In head-to-head matchups, Brady is 11-6 (but 2-3 in playoffs) against Peyton Manning by an average score of 29.2-24.2. Tom Brady threw far less interceptions and is a better rusher under pressure, even though in the past 10 games it was 5-5, the last 6 games had Brady 4-2 against the Broncos.
Is Peyton Manning better than Tom Brady

The number one argument for Brady fans as to why Tom is better is the superbowl wins. If superbowl wins indicate who is the best quarterback then Troy Aikman and Terry Bradshaw are better than Peyton since they have more. And Eli is on par with Peyton since they both have two. Superbowl wins are reflective of a team, not of a player. Tom Brady has also been to six superbowls, with one coach. Peyton Manning has been to four, with four different coaches. We dont know if it is the magic of Billichick or if it is the magic of Brady that takes them to the superbowl. We know for sure that Peyton Manning lead those teams to the superbowl. Four different coaches, only one time did he have a hall of fame worthy coach in Tony Dungy.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Yes 2. Yes 3. Yes Now, to explain every single one of these answers, I will define the word "any." any(a): one or some or every or all without specification. I answered yes, in the use of some. I will answer any questions with a no, yes, or maybe. Any questions that deserve a no will be answered with a no, and so forth. Sorry for the late response, it looks like internet came back just in time.
I will not contradict myself.

Resolution: I, Rinexe, will not contradict myself Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO will ask questions which can be answered with a yes or no. 2.When Pro answers with a Yes or a No, he should give an explanation for his answer. 3. Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or a no, he must give us his reasons for this decision. 4. Con may ask only ten questions per round. 5. In round 4, Con will try to show us where Pro made a Contradiction. 6. In round 5 Pro will defend Cons accusations. Then Con will summarize this debate. He may not make new arguments or present any contradictions in this round. ::Important:: Con can only use the information from this debate. So, if I say that I like color blue but in my profile or another debate or the comment section of any debate (this one included), I said otherwise, my opponent will not be allowed to use that information against me. So, only what I say in this debate counts and can be used against me.
I will not contradict myself.

contradiction: "direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency, a contradictory act, fact, etc. " source: . http://dictionary.reference.com... Pro breaking a rule that HE stated is a contradiction because it is inconsistent with something he previously stated. Pro stating that Pro MUST explain his answer if it is not a yes or no, and then not doing so is in direct opposition of his previous statement, and therefore a contradiction. Pro contradicted himself.
I will not contradict myself.

I will start by asking, "When you violate the rules, are you contradicting yourself, or being a hypocrite? " The answer is simple. I as being a hypocrite. It was not contradicting myself as I never stated that I would not break the rules. hypocritical - Characterized by hypocrisy or being a hypocrite contradictory - of words or propositions so related that both cannot be true and both cannot be false The simple matter is that according to Con, I only contradicted myself through one point, and that was by breaking a rule. I did in fact point out that she broke a rule, and I was being hypocritical. Contradicting myself? No. So, obviously, it has been shown that I have in fact not contradicted myself, and Con has failed to make me do so.
I will not contradict myself.

Pro doesn't have to answer with a yes or no but if he does not answer with a yes or a no, he MUST give us his reasons for this decision. ". In the last round Pro answered with "maybe to all questions above" and did not explain why. This is in violation of the rules and so contradicted himself. Even though I did break the rules, it does not matter because Con is not the one that is trying not to contradict myself or be proven that Can broke the rules. I am sorry that I broke the rules, I forgot that I had to ask questions each round. But, I didn't ask questions because I knew already the Pro had broken the rules and contradicted himself and so there was no need.
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

Note: I will be addressing an unborn child as a "baby" for the entirety of my argument to keep things simple, due to lack of an equivalent word.I.Opening ConstructI would first like to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. Now, I'm going to keep this short and simple as to not create too much confusion, as semantic arguments tend to do.A. Abortion is killingIn order to kill something, it must first be living. So therefore we can define killing something as taking away life from a living thing intentionally.To qualify abortion as killing, we must first demonstrate how the entity being aborted is a living thing, and how abortion is intentionally taking the life away from it.So let's define life, or a "living thing". I find this source to be very helpful in doing so.http://www.biology-online.org... an organized structure, being made up of a cell or cells requires energy to survive or sustain existence ability to reproduce ability to grow ability to metabolize ability to respond to stimuli ability to adapt to the environment ability to move ability to respire These are the qualities of a living thing. So let's compare these to the qualities of an unborn child. Any stage of pregnancy will definitely show the baby is made up of cells. From the very conception, it is a single celled zygote. Without energy, a baby will not function as a system. This is why the umbilical cord exists, to supply energy from the mother to the baby. While not immediately utilized, a baby will eventually develop sexual organs and therefore the ability to reproduce. A baby has the ability to go from a zygote to a fetus, aka growing. A baby could not get energy if not for a metabolism. A baby's body will react with heat and coolness, to regulate body temperature. Adaptation can be accomplished in a variety of ways, the most simple being hot and cold though. Adapting to each to regulate temperature. A baby can kick inside his mother's uterus. A baby could not produce energy if not for cellular respiration. So, in conclusion, an unborn child is a living thing. Eliminating a living thing with intent is killing.B. Abortion is done with intent.According to our definition, abortion is the intentful elimination of the baby. Seeing as my opponent accepted this definition, the quality of intent is retained.C. Killing is morally incorrectAs agreed upon in the first round, this is another given.D. Abortion is morally incorrectSine we have seen how abortion is killing and how killing is morally wrong, it is very easy to put the two together to form the resolution.
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

I. DisclosureAs a forewarning to all readers, I will be arguing with semantics. If you dislike that type of argument, please do not vote. I only wish to see objective voters who decide the winner based solely on the correctness of his argument, not the means in which it is presented. I will be taking the stance that abortion is morally wrong. To affirm this resolution I will be connecting various definitions to show why this is objectively correct. Therefore, I will be defining all terms at the beginning of this debate. If my opponent feels that I cherry picked a definition to suit my argument, he retains the right to provide a source to a definition that better complies to the common definition. II. Terms1. This debate will take place in 5 rounds with the first being an acceptance round.2. There will be an 8,000 character count cap per the usual.3. Each debator will have 3 days to post his argument. A single forfeiture will result in a loss of the conduct point. Multiple forfeitures will be the equivilant of a concession, causing my opponent to lose all rights to points.4. The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate. So I will be taking the fundamental that applies instead of allowing the whole subject matter into this debate. This fundamental will be as follows:One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect. III.
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

I do sincerely apologize to Con for such a shameful forfeiture. Time escaped me and will assume full responsibility for the wasted round.As for my argument, I was scrambling to come up with one. Though, I can only blame myself for letting such simple mistakes like using "I" instead of "we" or proof-checking the link I provided be used in the hands of my opponent.. I'm sure that I could formulate an argument at this point, however it seems like a futile effort that would inevitably lead to shameful nitpicking.With that, I conced this debate to Pro and leave this round to him for his final words.
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

I must say, I am disappointed to see that Pro, the instigator, has forfeited round four. I am not completely surprised however. As I said in the closing of round 3, critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether. It seems that Pro, the instigator, has chosen to abandon the argument altogether.
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

Pro has indeed made this a humorous debate! It was amusing to see how he'd attempt to remedy a critical error he made, when establishing Terms of the debate in Round #1. The exact quote from Pro, in the Term #4 section of the 1st round said: "4. The subject of morality is a tricky one. If not carefully understood, it can ruin a debate. So I will be taking the fundamental that applies instead of allowing the whole subject matter into this debate. This fundamental will be as follows: One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect." However, in opening of Round #3. Pro attempted to express the details of Term #4 as... "we will be solely using a fundamental of morality." Perhaps that's what Pro meant to say, but that is NOT in fact what Pro said. Notice that in Round #1 Term #4, Pro chose to use the word I. That was a critical error in this consensual semantic debate. "I" is singular, not plural. Pro did not say "We" will be, and therefore Con, can't be... bound to the supposed "fundamental" in Term #4 from Round 1 Further, Pro said he would be "taking the fundamental" not "using" the fundamental, nor "sharing" the fundamental. "Taking" is an odd choice of words in this sentence. It's unidirectional and does not imply any collective use. Pro recognized and implicitly acknowledged his errors, by cleaning it up and replacing it with the words "we" and "solely using", in Round #3" Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he seems to have abandoned his bold intentions to "argue with semantics". Pro now makes the bizarre claim that he is actually arguing "with"...a broken link to ebay. (Very Odd) Pro's error so badly damaged his intended strategy that in Round #3 he also refused to defend his own logic, by referring to his own argument points as just "Headings". "Headings"...Really ??? Let us remember that Pro and I are debating whether "Abortion Is Morally Wrong". As worded, that means each and every Abortion, regardless of circumstance, situation or context., is morally wrong. To support his argument. Pro wants to be able say that that "Killing" is morally wrong, However, that premise, even if true is insufficient. To avoid consideration of circumstance, situation on context, Pro would need to prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. I say again, Pro can not prove that "Killing" is by itself "inherently" wrong or immoral. Nor can Pro prove, for example, that it is "morally incorrect" for a police officer to save a life, by intentionally shooting to kill the killer. It would seem that situations and context must also be considered. Critical errors have left Pro without the necessary logical building blocks required to make his initial argument. Pro must therefore prove/justify his premise, find another strategy or abandon the argument altogether.
Abortion Is Morally Wrong

Nice argument by Con, however it has it's faults.I. Cross ExaminationFirst off, I would like to note misunderstanding by my opponent. In the "Terms" section of my first round, I stated that instead of allowing the full subject of morality and it's inherent confusion, we will be solely using a fundamental of morality. That said fundamental being:One human intentionally taking the life of another human is incorrect. By accepting my terms, Con accepted that this be the fundamental of morality. I was not making an argument, I was setting a term. One which Con did acknowledge in his first round and accepted them along with the debate. He is therefore bound to it.Con also misinterpreted my point C. He labeled them as arguments when all they really are is headings. I did, in fact, mean that human-human killing is morally incorrect. This was evident by me saying "as we agreed upon in the first round". By which I mean him agreeing to the terms.So, I have no obligation to prove that one human killing another is morally wrong, as Con has signed himself to that by accepting the debate.That basically nullifies his whole second round.My opponent makes yet another mistake by assuming me saying "I will be arguing with semantics" actually means "I will be arguing using semantics"He outright stated that semantics is not a person or entity, when that is not at all the case.http://www.ebay.com...;So I see it as completely rude of my opponent to disregard my friend semantics as not even being a a real person. I sincerely hope he apologizes, or else my friend here may stop helping me debate.Back to Con.