BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

'1) ie this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet'Thats not an argument, thats just an opinion. A very poor and uninformed opinion, and therefore proves nothing. If Colin Dean really is the most famous poet in Australia, then how come wikipedia hasnt even heard of him? http://en.wikipedia.org...'2) and given proof ie jim hogg says so himself'Jim Hogg is not the king of poetry who single handedly decides if someone is a good poet or not. Jim Hogg isnt even a real person either, hes a pitiful creation someone used to promote Colin Dean's work... And you can tell since both of them have equally sh*tty poetry. '3)and given evidence the poem jim hogg has written about Australia's leading erotic poet'People who think that Colin Dean is Australia's leading poet: 1People who think that Colin Dean sucks terribly and shouldnt make poetry anymore:20 and counting 3 here: http://www.debate.org...2 here : http://www.online-literature.com...2 here : http://www.writingforums.com...2 more here : http://www.debate.org...1 here : http://www.debate.org...3 here: http://www.debate.org...4 here: http://www.debate.org...2 here: http://www.debate.org...Here are some of the comments people have said regarding Dean's work:'Colin Leslie Dean is an untalented poet and philosopher from Australia who abuses sites like DDO and Yahoo answers in a vain attempt to gain exposure and promulgate his non-celebrity' - Agent Storm'Those poems sound like they were written by syphilis itself.'- Poetaster' Remember that scene in "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" when the Vogon Commander strapped the protagonists to a table and forced them to listen to his terrible poetry or else be thrown out the airlock into space? You, Shakuntala, are that Vogon' - oromagi'What did I just read?' - Sargon'wtf is this?' - Enoguiera' I think we can all come to a consensus that this just sucks.' - Fictional_Reality'Wow, this is arguably one of the worst and most lifeless poems I've ever read in my life.' - SargonPoint is Colin Dean is a horrible terrible poet who if he were to die tomorrow, nobody would notice at all since nobody knows him sicne his poetry is so f*cking awful
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

This Scottish poet jim hogg says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet http://www.scribd.com... I argue that jim hogg is correct jim hogg says http://www.poemhunter.com... Ode Tae Colin Leslie Dean, Australia's Leading Erotic Poet Allegedly Weel, colin man, ye"ve done us proud Ye"ve plestered a" the wa"s an" a" Ye"ve sprung fae in a b"low yer shroud An" flashed us wi yer whang an" a" An" mushrooms rare ye didnae spare Until oor very een were sare Wi kittlin" skits this day But feminists aroon the globe Are writhing wi their wrath an" a An" probably there"ll be a probe Wi" bile an" much anathema Yer rhymes are ripe fer getting sockt Yer tool"s in line fer getting" dockt In whittlin" fits this day An" aye it seems there come the day Whun structured rhymers, scribes an" a" Must realise it"s time tae slay Some ither fiends some ither whar Ye"ve fed us foo on Aussie prose Wi chittlin whits ye passed as brose Never-endin"ly this lang day jim hogg
This Scottish poet says this poet is Australia's leading erotic poet

'just because you dont like his poetry it does not mean he still cant be Australia's leading erotic poet'Are you retarded or something? The argument is that EVERYBODY hates this guys work which therefore means he is not even close to being a leading Australian erotic poet. 'on the other hand I have given the opinion of a Scottish poet jim hogg'Again retard, Jim Hogg isnt the all knowing being who determines if someone is a good poet or not. His opinion literally doesnt mean anythingPro has failed to produce two people who think Colin Dean isnt a sh*tty poetPro has failed to counter the fact that far more people dont like his poetry then those who do like itPro has failed to even suggest that Colin Dean is even famous in AustraliaPro has failedVote con
should Socrates have killed himself

In killing himself, he became one of the greatest philosophers of all time. He helped to influence all philosophy and had helped to set a foundation for all western philosophy. On the matter of upholding true law Socrates had a chance to leave Athens if he was displeased by the way the Athenians ran the country he could have left. Socrates said, "But we say that every man of you, who remains here, seeing how we administer justice, and how we govern the state in other matters, has agreed, by the very fact of remaining her, to do whatsoever we tell him." The way Athenian court was set up he also had the chance to submit before the court a proposed punishment for his charge. In the apology he makes it clear that he would rather death over exile. Thus, Socrates decided to stay instead of leaving because he agreed to the way the law was.
should Socrates have killed himself

Socrates had other duties to not only continue his divine mission, but a duty to his family. His wife came to visit him a jail to remind him that he had a family to take care of. He could also have done so much more, imagine how much he could have accomplished if he lived his life to a natural end? He had a duty to uphold the true law and in rejecting the death sentence he was denying an unjust law, and an unjust law is no law at all.
should Socrates have killed himself

No, they were looking at the world through a similar viewpoint. The goals might have been different, but the methods they used were similar, they both sought to awaken the people to the true nature of the issue at hand, and convince them to do what was just and virtuous. Socrates was the epitome of doing what was right and just, he lived his life and eventually gave it in the pursuit of a just life. If Socrates didn"t kill himself then he would prove himself guilty for running away. Socrates said, "You will confirm the judges in their opinion, and make it seem that their verdict was a just one. For a man who is a subverter of law may well be supposed to be a corrupter of the young and thoughtless."
should Socrates have killed himself

Martin Luther king and Socrates are not related they are two different people in two different times dealing with two different problems. MLK is dealing with racial injustice in America and is trying to gain his civil rights. He is fighting against t oppression in every form physical economic and social. The black communities in America have been segregated and have little to no rights in the legal system. On the other hand, Socrates showed his people to open their eyes and think about the world. He discussed the topics of justice, and virtue among many others. He believed that his people had been asleep and that it was his divine mission to awaken his people to the deeper philosophical truths of the world.
should Socrates have killed himself

Socrates mattered because he influenced many other thinkers that came after him; such as martin Luther king who alludes to Socrates in his famous letter "letter from Birmingham jail" he says, "Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise form the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal." He is also the starting point of what we come to know as philosophy he teaches Plato who teaches Aristotle; from Aristotle we have a chain of philosophers that eventually leads us to modern philosophy, and this is only part of the chain, many of the ideas Socrates came up with influenced the thought of the roman stoics.
should Socrates have killed himself

Socrates didn't matter; he only annoyed his fellow Athenians and made them look stupid. He also spread unorthodox stories of the gods. The evidence he uses to defend is case is dubious at best since all the authorities he draws upon are dead. "Chaerephon is dead himself but this brother, who is in court, will confirm the truth of the story" as shown by this statement the originator of the tale of Socrates"s wisdom is dead and all we have to go upon is hearsay.
Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling

Because this is the final round, I will sumerize why my opponent fails to prove that military spending hould be diverted to education.The Burden is on Pro to prove that military spending should be diverted to education. What Pro has only provided is how much money is being poured into the military. I have shown that pouring more funding into the Department of Education won't help the issue as the United already spends the most per student. Despite the fact that with current trends, our education spending has increased exponentially, test scores have stagnated and we have dropped in the world rankings in various subjects. Because we spend more than all the other nations on education, adequate funding is not the issue here. While Pro is probably right in the fact that more funds are diverted to higher-end schools than poorer schools, he/she has failed to prove that the poorer schools must be funded more by pouring military dollars into the Department of Education. Like I have said in previous arguments, with the more than adequate funds the Department of Education has, it could easily reallocate its funds to the poorer schools or reform its infrastructure.Because I have negated Pro's argument, Pro fails to meet the burden that military spending should be diverted to schooling. Vote Con!!!
Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling

I'll break this into two arguments. Allocation: My opponent argues that my point is irrelevant because "with that much money being poured into the Department of Education, surely the poorer schools would have received some of this funding." This is true. Otherwise, there wouldn't be schools to worry about. This doesn't mean that my argument is invalid, all it means is that we can confirm that schools exist. Money still goes to already successful programs, programs that have an obvious divide along economic class lines. Diverting funding will solve the allocation issue. As is found in the military, liberal funds means liberal spending. The United States military has over 3x the amount of money put into it than the second ranking, China [1]. Clearly, we put a lot of money into our military. To compare the U.S. to China again, we have 4x as many aircraft, of any type, than China [2]. For the purpose of home security, we are more than adequate, and we spend our money very liberally. Ergo, if the same kind of attention was given to education, more spending would be done on lower income schools. While spending would go to higher income schools, they only need so much. Education as a Cause: Education leads to a better functioning economy and better working conditions for workers [3]. The U.S.A. is already as safe as it can get from outside influences because our military, as my opponent has mentioned, is the best military in the world. So, I have to ask my opponent one question. When you say "the military is more efficient with its funds than the Department of Education therefore better deserves the funding it recieves.", I would ask you one question. Would you have a doctor heal the healthy? No, you wouldn't. You would have him go and help the sick. As you have pointed out in your original argument, our education system is in trouble. It is falling behind. That's why I say we should move money from a program that is healthy, vibrant, and, most importantly, stable. The military will be just fine while our education system gets a boost. Conclusion: Diverting money from the military to education is a win-win situation. There are no downsides in moving money from the military, but there are plenty of upsides in moving money to education. This plan will help our economy, our working conditions, our status worldwide, and it will bring America back to its once promised ideal. America will be a land of opportunity. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.globalfirepower.com... 3. http://www.investopedia.com...
Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling

"In order to make a more productive nation economically, and therefore capable of devoting the same amount of money, but on a lower percentage, to the military, we should invest in education, at least temporarily, by diverting excess funds from the military."The main thing wrong with this entire argument alone is that this is only a bare assertion without evidence that investing even more money into the education system would make our nation more productive economocally Pro's argues that in Round 3 that the education system is broken because most of the funding goes to well-off schools. While this is true, it is completely irrelevent to your conclusion that the education fund needs more funding. More funds can be allocated to the poorer without increasing the federal budget for the Department of Education. Looking back at my graphy in the previous round, with that much money being poured into the Department of Education, surely the poorer schools would have received some of this funding.Pro's arguments about how education is more important to military are completely unfounded. His/her arguments lack any evidence backing anything Pro says about how education is more important than the militay. I have provided reasons as to why the military is more efficient with its funds than the Department of Education therefore better deserves the funding it recieves. Pro had no response to my statement. Because of Pro not meeting the burden he/she needs to make the argument hold weight, I do not need to negate the argument.
Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling

Let's quickly go over why our scores are slipping worldwide. It's not because our education system is broken, it's because we are doing exactly what con is suggesting by funding working programs. As a nation, our funds are being allocated towards students who have higher incomes [1]. Statistically speaking, richer students perform better in schools because they have more opportunity than their lower income counterparts to get access to educational tools (According to "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell). Therefore, if we allocated funds to lower income areas, we would see our scores go back up. Now, we have to question what is a more worthy cause, education or military. To put it simply, education is a far better cause. Education will lead to further economic advances, better lives, and an ability to improve the military. Education will improve the status quo. Military, however, will only maintain the status quo. The status quo isn't really that great. Therefore, we would be wise to put more money into improving the status quo. We don't have to divert much from our military spending. We could make that diversion not hurt our military. All we need to do is divert and allocate funds, and we will see a positive future begin to bloom. Sources: 1. http://educationnext.org...
Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling

I do not believe that the education system should recieve public funds from any other government institution for multiple reasons.Let me first begin with the fact that the United States already spends the most on each student for education.The costs amount to around $12,000 per student in elementary and secondary schooling. According to data collected from the CIA World Factbook in 2014, the United States ranked 45th out of all the countries in the world in literacy.[1]Below is a chart documentating USFG spending on education: [2]As you see here, despite massive increases of government spending on education, you can clearly see that skills in reading, math and science have been stagnent with no significant improvement. In fact on the world stage, we are actually slipping.Between 2009 to 2012 our standing on the world stage has dropped:25th to 31st in Math20th to 24th in Science11th to 21st in Reading[3]At least with the military, when we spend the most on our armed forces, we are ranked on top as the world's strongest military. [4]From this data, we can come to the conclusion that military spending is more efficient than education spending. If the US Department of Education cleans up its act and we see our education improve on the same budget they are on now, we may consider investing more to expand a working program. However, with the current state of things it is unwise to cut military spending and use it for education.Sources:1. http://www.indexmundi.com...2. http://www.cato.org...3. http://www.businessinsider.com...4. http://www.businessinsider.com...
Money From The Military Should Be Diverted To Schooling

My argument is fairly simple. The U.S. spends roughly 20% of its budget (about $530 billion) on the military, as opposed to education, which receives 2% of the federal budget ($53 billion) [1]. In order to make a more productive nation economically, and therefore capable of devoting the same amount of money, but on a lower percentage, to the military, we should invest in education, at least temporarily, by diverting excess funds from the military. 1 - https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Rapists and predators are best types of people

Rapists and predators are the best I have seen many different people Many different flowers But the predators and rapists Have never impressed me negatively Looking back on, On the spacious wide world The best types of people Are predators and rapists I would gladly salute A good deed done by someone But it was never better Than the deed of a rapist I love the deeds of a rapist With love in his heart Such love forms In all corners of the world Dear predators and rapists Bright under the sun and the stars To you I came back With the head bowing Looking back on On the spacious wide world Best types of people Are predators and rapists
Women should be treated like men

"For hundreds of years, men have used and abused women. "- It goes both ways. "They are payed more, and women are treated like dirt."- Women tend to take more days off and work lower paying jobs. "They are discriminated"- Everyone is. "and are EXPECTED to marry and have kids."- Well yeah, that's the biological role of women; and it's the biological role of men to find a woman and have kids. "This isn't right. They are just as good as men."- This is a false dichotomy; Men and Women have different purposes. It's like Yin and Yang; Masculinity and Femininity. Both are needed.
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

Danger Argument. Given that pregnancy results in 14 times more deaths than abortions, I will use this statistic against my opponent. If 56 million people are lost every year due to abortion, 784 million people die every year from pregnancy. This argument is not really relevant though, considering that women know the risks of an abortion going in to the abortion.Killing Argument. I generally don't attack sources, but Yahoo Answers really is not a reliable source. Like I said in the first round, many doctors agree that "Fetuses are uniquely different from born human beings in major ways which casts doubt on the claim that they can be classified as human beings. The most fundamental difference is that a fetus is totally dependant on a woman's body to survive. A fetus simply cannot be considered a human being because it cannot survive outside the womb. Women should have the right to choose what to do with a fetus inside their body.
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

Danger Argument. I went on the website my opponent listed and I saw that some pregnancy complications were listed. All of the side affects my opponent listed for abortions are things that may happen when a woman is pregnant. The list of complications is actually very long. I completely agree that abortions have their risks, but they will become riskier if they are made illegal. It is not as if women are completely oblivious to the side effects of the abortion going in. My opponent fails to look to the fact that a woman is 14 times more likely to die labor than in an abortion. If we make abortion illegal because it is dangerous, it essentially becomes more dangerous because backstreet abortions are unsafe.Killing Argument. Unless my opponent provides evidence that proves that a fetus is a legitimate child, the killing argument cannot be looked to. Fetuses cannot survive outside the womb until they are well developed. Since the fetus is merely a blob of cells with the potential to become a child, eliminating it is not the same as killing. It would be unreasonable to charge the mother with killing.Is abortion the best option? My opponent noted for this point that not all parents hate their child. Firstly, a women getting an abortion generally doesn't hate their potential child. They just see it as beneficial for them to eliminate the fetus because they are unable to take care of it or because they do not want to endure the process of pregnancy/labor.Also look to the arguments that were not addressed by my opponent: How abortion isn't increasingly popular, and How not al women regret their abortions.
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

The following is a list of side effects that are frequently experienced after an abortion. It is possible to experience these side effects for as long as 2 to 4 weeks following the procedure. Abdominal pain and cramping Nausea Vomiting Diarrhea Spotting and Bleeding http://americanpregnancy.org... Yes there maybe advantages to abortions, but who would want all these side affects afterwards? If this had different regulations, I think that the mother should be charged a warrant because it is killing. "Most parents who get an abortion really do not want to have to care for their child" That is most that does not mean all parents hate their child.
Abortion Being Allowed In The US

Popularity Argument. My opponent attacks my argument that discusses the abortion rate dropping by saying that abortion is still happening. The mistake in this argument is that my opponent does not actually state why abortions are actually bad. Also, my opponent does not address my argument that talks about how the way to lower the abortion rate is not making abortion illegal. The most effective way to actually lower the abortion rate is too provide teens/adults with contraception and teach them how to use it. That will result in less unplanned pregnancies and less abortions.Danger Argument. I am not claiming that abortion is a completely safe procedure. Things can go wrong. However, with abortion legal things are less likely to go wrong because abortions will take place in a safe and controlled setting. Also, my opponent completely drops my evidence that shows that women are 14 times more likely to die due to pregnancy in comparison to abortion. Killing Argument. I would like to extend my evidence witch talks about how a fetus actually is not a baby. This is very important in the debate and my opponent did not address this argument at all. If a fetus is not an actually child, then this shows that abortion is morally permissible. My opponent does note that there are many things that happen when an abortion occurs that are more dangerous than a pregnancy. As a reader, you can't look to this argument because there is no evidence to back up this claim. Also, women choose to have an abortion. When they make that choice, they will be aware of the risks of the procedure.Regret Argument. My opponent talks about how many women do not want to kill their "would to be" child. This is true. However, if a woman has a pro-life stand point, she can simply make the choice to not get an abortion. Being forced into an abortion is extremely rare. If a women regrets her decision, there are many support groups/counselors for that type of thing.Is abortion the best option? The honest answer to this question is not always. The point I am trying to prove is that it can be. Most parents who get an abortion really do not want to have to care for their child. I would agree that not all kids get put in a bad home, but many do. I am in no way advocating for abortion in every circumstance. I am advocating for the mother to have the right to choose what to do with the fetus she is harboring insider her body.