BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Contest 2

The Wrath of Con ---------------------------- As I toil through this web's site, I struggle against threads like a fly, That in Anansi's trap does espy, The spinsterish predator's dread bite. But surely now one thread is unspun, For this fly has found his release. Soft words carry him on the breeze. No arachnid's maw bled this one. Despite the will of eight shaking fists, He who is me may now fly free, And be rewarded for acting contrarily, Through a series of fate making lists. The motions are ended and the moment upturned. With a red languor the spider wrought its defeat. In surprise the arthropod finds itself spurned. Unexpected cleverness has spoiled its treat.
Poetry Contest 2

When I was young I thought I was always wrong, Then when I was old that I was always right. But what I should have been told all along, Was that I ought not to assume clarity of sight. The butcher knows slaughter, the baker knows breads, The children know laughter, no worry in their heads, The lawyer knows technicalities, the doctor knows techniques, And everyone's realities are shaped by what knowledge one seeks. So when arguing listen and after listening speak. There's wisdom to be found in the sharing. And if you find more than you ever planned to seek, Then less foolish we'll be after the baring.
Poetry Contest 2

The (Non-Existent) Perfect Lover ------------------------------------- When you are in love Remember to consider The facts about her: Is she a smart one? Is she even beautiful? Are the two balanced? If when asked about Illegal aliens and This is her response: "They need to come back" And show us all their death rays." She's not smart enough If her make-up is From organic vegetables, There's no hormones, Better than Foreplay, And has no carcinogens, Not pretty enough But if your lover Is perfect in every way Well then you are gay
Poetry Contest 2

A Debater's Complaint --------------------------------------------------- Why draw knives where laurels would serve? What reason for such wrath? My opening must have struck a nerve, To lead us down this path. 'Twas not my intention to offend, With words implied or said. To boast is but one poet's end, For what cause should I be red? Now let us renew our debate, On terms far friendlier than before. If it your wrath will mitigate, I pledge to offend no more. Sharpened words be laid to rest, Like blades bent in a foreign war. Let each of us rise to meet our test, Lest we each the other come to abhor. Silly Little Rat-Monkeys ------------------------------------ Silly little rat-monkeys never get things done. They dream of amazing things, But get lost in all their fun. Poor little rat-monkeys nest by the bay. Looking to adorn some wings, And fly so far away. Sad little rat-monkeys never had a chance, The sun went red, Now all of them are dead. Too lost were they in their romance. It ------------------------------------------ You only say it, Never mean it, Meant it, Never. You only play it, Never be it, Been it, Ever. You only wanted it, Couldn't live it, So I killed it, Better?
If a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion.

To adress your first rant, I never said rape was God's Will. Never in my entire argument have I. When asked what I would do in my personal situation, I addressed that which you have either misenterpreted or trieds to conskew. In my personal belief, all life is God's creation and God has already prewilled everything to happen a certain way for a certain reason. That is my religious belief and it may not be yours, which is wonderful that there is diversity. However, you asked me which mine was. You say that the woman actually does have every right, and while this is a pretty bold statement, you provide absolutely no evidence to why this is and you cite no sources why she should be able to. You also never mention a case where a woman has killed herself which makes me believe that that has never happened and because you are affirmative you have the burden of proof to prove this. To address the claim about suicide, different people commit suicide for different reasons. I'm sure that people who were not concieved as a result of rape have also commited suicide which flaws this argument. I don't have to answer all of your questions because I am the neg team. As the affirmative, you have to respond to all of mine and if you do not then I win. That's how Policy Debate works.
If a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion.

1st of all you can not say that you won the 1st round because that's the peoples decision not yours. I never said that you were married I said for EXAMPLE so that was an example.Do you think it was in gods will to have this innocent woman raped? You said that the baby was gods creation.Well you might as well say that god says to go rape someone because its my will and I made it.RAPE IS NOT OK and ITS NOT GODS WILL. Was Linda raped that she had an abortion? I don't think shes been raped four times.Where talking about RAPED woman and abortions not just woman who haven't been raped and had abortions. The woman actually does have every right to abort a child that she did NOT consent to. Thats why there is a things called "abortion". So you can abort your child that you did not want. Woman are upset when they keep there raped baby there have been cases of woman killing themselves which proves there upset. Also the child would be upset that he or she is a raped baby/child because they know that its wrong.I even have said that some raped babies that have grown up have committed suicide so of course there upset. You said that I failed to counter any of your arguments but its kind of the other way around you havent answered ALL of my questions yet I have answered ALL of yours.
If a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion.

To counter your first contention, I'm sure that if you asked the "raped baby" whether or not it would rather live with that or lived at all, it would have chosen the first option of living. And can you cite any evidence of any children being upset at learning this discovery? While your second point makes little sense, what I think that it says is about how the mother feels after. Honestly, I wouldn't know I am not the mother of a child that wasn't consensual. I do however know that getting an abortion also brings on emotional distress. According to www.40daysforlife.com, ""I myself had four abortions," Linda wrote. "1976, 1979, 1982, 1985. This year " 2010 " in June, I only have begun to feel the release of guilt, blame and shame for what I have done. It took me 24 years before I attended a post-abortion healing retreat. It took me another nine years to be a part of the Silent No More program." To your third point, I am not married nor am I of age to get married, so I wouldn't know how I felt. However, if that was the case, I would definitely raise the child as my own because taking responsibility is what separates the weak from the strong and I choose to take care of one of God's miracles rather than killing it. Please explain how she has every right to kill another human being, let alone one of her own children. As a side note, you failed to counter any of my arguments that I made and because you have the burden of proof, I have won the first round. You also keep reiterating the same arguments which I have countered with statistics that you have not addressed.
If a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion.

You said that its not the babies fault and the baby wouldn't want to die,but there also have been a very large number of cases of babies who have grown up found there real mothers asked them why they have been adopted and then the mother tells them the story.This will make the child so upset and the child will have to live for the rest of his or her life knowing that he or her is a raped child.So it actually does affect the child,rapist and mother. My 2nd point is the guy in America raped 3 woman and is now a father to one of the girls children.How do you think the mother would be feeling and when the child grows up he or she will know the whole story and know how he or shes mother has suffered.The child will probably end up depressed and probably even commit suicide.So what's the point of making it live when its more likely to kill itself anyways? The mother will never forget it for the rest of her life and suffer.If she wants to have an abortion she should have every right to.How would you feel if say for example your wife got raped got pregnant and couldn't have an abortion when she wanted to?
If a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion.

While the argument of abortion is a serious issue in this country, many people overlook the fact that the choice that the woman makes doesn't affect her life, but also the life of another. For my first contention, you make the point that she did not want to be forced into having the baby. However, the BABY did not want to be forced into this either. How is it the child's fault that the mother was raped and now has to die because the mother does not want to raise him. My second argument is that if the mother truly does not want the baby, she doesn't have to kill it but should rather put it up for adoption. In most states, you are legally able to take a baby to the fire department, with no questions asked, and put it up for adoption. Why would you take something so valuable (life) and completely take away the chance of it living a life so that you don't have to go through emotional stress. What about the feelings of that baby? And although our adoption system in America is currently failing, if I were put in the situation of that baby, I would much rather live in a foster care system then not live at all. How can you deprive another life of something that you enjoy and still consider yourself to be a good person. To counter your second point, that is murder, which is illegal in this country. No matter what your opinion on abortion, killing another human being after it has been born and is alive is murder and they should be sent to jail. No matter what the baby looks like, if she just ,"had to kill it" then she should seek mental help and just put the baby up for adoption rather than killing it. Killing another human life for personal reasons is not only selfish, but it makes you a person doesn't deserve to live. My third point is that in this country, there have been several stories recently in the news about how people who had abortions died. What if that were to happen to the mother? That's two unecessary deaths because of ones selfishness. In conclusion, if the woman doesn't want the baby, there is no justification for killing and she should just put it up for adoption.
If a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion.

I believe that if a woman gets raped she should have the decision/right to have an abortion. My 1st point is that she didn't want this baby! She forcefully got into this mess.Its not her fault.Getting raped must be very horrible and a terrible experience.Its a woman's night mare.And if she gets pregnant and gives birth and its to late to have an abortion because she had no choice but to keep it,then she will have to live with something she never wanted. My 2nd point is that there have been cases of woman getting raped having a baby and then killing it because they couldn't have an abortion.Then the mother either gets home detention or goes to jail herself.This is NOT fair because shes probably really depressed knowing that the father is this sick man.One woman even said that the reason she killed her baby was because 1.She got raped and she didn't want it. 2.She wasn't aloud to have an abortion 3.The baby looked like her rapist and she just had to kill it. So a woman should have the decision/right to have an abortion if she gets raped.
It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence

Full resolution: It is morally permissible for victims to use lethal force in response to repeated domestic violence.This will be an LD-style debate. All types of LD cases are acceptable. Rounds will break down like this:Round One: Con posts debate. Pro posts opening argument.Round Two: Con posts case and refutes pro. Pro defends and refutes.Round Three: Con refutes and defends. Pro refutes and defends. No new arguments in this final round.Pro has right to define all terms deemed necessary as he/she sees fit. Definitions may be challenged and other words that were not defined may be defined if the con deems necessary.Standard rules:1. Violation of the round structure results in loss of conduct point, but not loss of debate.2. Please do not troll. If you accept this debate, be prepared to debate seriously.3. In the event of a forfeited round or a concession, all seven points go to the victor.I await an opponent.
Standardized Exit Exams: Lincoln-Douglas Format

I assumed by the invitation that formalities would be less regarded than they are. As a result, I accepted a debate that required me to research more extensively debate protocol. However, all things good come to those who wait. .. Rebuttal: My opponent says my address against her case was not organized by her case, but by two general responses that did not seek to specifically rebut her standards or her contentions. My opponent is correct. Consistent with LD debate, I asked questions in order that my opponent can clarify her stance. Therefore, it is true that my questions didn't rebut her standards or contentions. However, unless one asks fallacious questions (complex), no rebuttal can be asserted during cross exam. Therefore, my opponent's claim is a just observation that I committed no fallacy. However, my case is organized according to my opponent's. The apparent difference is that my opponent used many words to assert what amounts to babble, whereas, I asserted nothing with no words. I will seek to prove such. My opponent's intended argument is: Less injustice is good. Eliminating exit exams is less injustice. Therefore, eliminating exit exams is good. However, she also argues: Less injustice is good. Eliminating school is less injustice. (Because: ". .. the education system in the United States, like all other human institutions, is rife with disparities. ") Therefore, eliminating school is good. However, she claims: "Justice. Justice, defined by Aristotle as giving each person his or her due, is precisely what education is about. Justice as related to education requires equality of distribution, as every citizen is due a culturally acceptable education in order to succeed within society, otherwise the concept of a meritocracy is fundamentally compromised. Therefore, the affirmative will strive to achieve this due for all US public education students. " Here, she contradicts herself. She claims that citizens are owed an education, which, I assume, is gained through school (but it would suffice for my purposes if it's any "human institution". ) My opponent's definition of justice clearly falls to a reductio ad absurdum. As a result, all arguments that rest on that foundation are erroneous and, therefore, meaningless. In response to the remainder of my opponent's case, NFA LD rules [1] state "The affirmative need only prove that the resolution should be adopted. " Because my opponent has only advanced an erroneous argument, she has failed to accomplish this goal. Therefore, Con must win. [1]. http://cas.bethel.edu...
Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media

However, first I will address my opponent's constructive case regarding cardinals being red. ". .. a generic statement is more of a factual statement than it is an opinion. .. "This is not necessarily true. It moreso depends on one's experience and perspective. For example, cardinals are red is a generalization more than fact. In general, "Male cardinals are brilliant red all over, with a reddish bill and black face immediately around the bill. Females are pale brown overall with warm reddish tinges in the wings, tail, and crest. They have the same black face and red-orange bill. " [1] We should also consider that there will always be exceptions. If anything, many generic statements illustrate the speaker's ignorance rather than proving a fact. However, in many ways ignorance is protected by the 1st ammendment. ". .. we need to look at the bigger picture and realize the consequences that generic statements bring to large groups of people as well as people who are being overlooked by these strong statements. .. "I agree, people should consider the consequences that can result from making generic statements. However, all controversial generic statements made by individuals on social media do not warrant termination of employment. The importance of allowing such generic statements, even if seeped in ignorance, is to protect free speech in general. A society without allowances for free speech is more dangerous than an individual on social media. I will allow for my opponent to further develop her case against the asssertion. . https://www.google.com... [1]
Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media

"Cardinals are red." Today we are debating whether or not employees should be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media. I agree with the definitions presented by side proposition. However before presenting my main contentions, I would like to point out some of the already present flaws in my opponents opening statement. My opponent stated that: "If the statements do not name any specific person, threaten the lives of people or directly harass anyone the employee should be protected. " Well ladies and gentlemen we need to realize that a generic statement doesn't only involve those named, but perhaps those who were forgotten. I will be explaining this in relation to my opening quote "cardinals are red" in my constructive case. I would also like to point out that by definition, a generic statement is more of a factual statement than it is an opinion, but giving out false facts can have an even stronger impact than simply stating one's opinion. Alright so in my constructive case I will be explaining the basic psychology behind generic statements, as well as the justice system already put in place. Ladies and gentlemen side proposition seems to think that the only harm caused on social media is through direct comments to a single or a small group of individuals. Well I'm here to tell you we need to look at the bigger picture and realize the consequences that generic statements bring to large groups of people as well as people who are being overlooked by these strong statements. This resolution must fall ladies and gentlemen, it's for the benefit of all. Thank you.
Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media

Employees should not be fired from their jobs for making generic blanket statements on social media. If the statements do not name any specific person, threaten the lives of people or directly harass anyone the employee should be protected. Otherwise, it is a violation of free speech. Employees should be able to express their opinions without the threat of termination. shared BoP Opponent must prove that it is lawful for employers to terminate their employees for expressing their opinions or making blanket generic statements. Bullying and personal derrogatory insults will be considered direct harassment for this debate.
Cigarets Should Be Illegal.

Banning cigarettes would would be terrible for a few reasons. The first is thats not going to stop people from smoking. Look at how many people smoke weed, do meth, and coke. Thats all illegal so what makes you think people are going to quit smoking just because of that. So making it banned I think it will make them wanna smoke them even more. It will make it seem more cool so they will want to do it. The second thing is the economy would go down. They would give up more than 150 billion dollars which is a lot. So we would not be in the best state. Sorry for this being so short.
Cigarets Should Be Illegal.

CONTENTION ONE: DEATHThe mortality rate for smokers in the United States is three times higher nonsmokers. Cigarettes are estimated to be the cause of 20% of deaths in the United States, every year, or 480,000 deaths [1].Cigarettes have no major redeeming health benefits.Syllogism:P1: Things that cause death without major redeeming health benefits should be illegal.P2: Cigarettes cause death without major redeeming health benefits.C1: Cigarettes should be illegal.CONTENTION TWO: "CIGARETS"So-called "cigarets" do not exist. I have never heard of them. (Cigarettes, on the other hand, are pure evil.)We should ban all imaginary things.Imagine if unicorns started popping up around the United States. People would probably get impaled or something. And they'd probably be smoking some cigarets as they brutally murdered schoolchildren, with carrots.Thus, we must ban unicorns and "cigarets".REFERENCES[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;
Lets debate Cannabis

It's ironic that you would call for less limitations on drug use and then break down during a debate like this. Looking at your past debates, I can see we had a lot in common, save for that you cannot control yourself near a keyboard. All of your problems on this site come from picking fights with people who are incapable of admitting defeat. But I would have accepted defeat if you'd bothered to reply. You've also accused me of saying freedom before in the debate. You'll find if you word search it, that you've said it more than me. It pains me to see someone who, like me, uses rationality and logic, but look at your previous debates! You are solely focusing on debates with right wing republicans, which in general means christians (some born agains). I am dissappointed in you, and I only hope that you do venture to this site again and see what a damn fool you've been. Awaiting your return, Duncan.
Lets debate Cannabis

O.K. This world is sooo freaking twisted its not even funny.. I'm going to stop this debate.. I want someone who can actually have an independent thought.. I'm sorry man but you are sticking to the same arguments and they are hogwash.. I am actually considering dropping this website because I can not handle how freaking ignorant people are. Especially in this country.... I'm sick of hearing the word "freedom"! I'm tired of retards telling me what to do. I'm worn thin from all of the hypocrisies and contradictions.. I want to thank you because you made me want to just lock everything up inside and seclude myself from people that are this closed minded! Every debate I have started people have come to me with the worst possible arguments.. leading me to believe that no one actually knows why its illegal, its pretty obvious that everyone is a freaking criminal and no one has the right to stop you from doing anything... unless of course it infringes on another.. Don't bother with a response.. I'm done!!!