BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Competition

Mourning Dove! I know not of lapis lazuli much, for a lover knows not of things such, to him it appears naught but in the eyes of his love, beckoning a cry, that of a mourning dove! That sad rose in his heart that yearns for the beloved, grows thorns glazed of blood, forever unloved! I am encompassed in madness, aware of my own sadness, until the music of our love begins to play, and we are taken to that land far away! For in this world it cannot be, that I love you and you love me. This melody of ours, does it play in your heart? It intoxicates me so, and yet fills me with woe. For I shall never receive your true love, I shall always remain your a mourning dove! This is the first poem I wrote in years so I realize it sucks, but I am proud of it. Go easy on me, kay! :) Over to you!
You should follow Stoic principles

The Stoics do argue for people to remove attachment from people, but this is not an unrealistic goal. According to the Stoic Epictetus in "The Enchiridion" calls for someone to remind themselves what the general nature of an something is in order to help remove attachment. For a someone who is thinking about a wife, friend or mother they need to remind themselves that that person is ultimately a human being and thus they are mortal. One has to accept that their loved ones will one day die. Attachment to people clouds the mind from accepting this truth, and thinking that a loved one will not die what is really unrealistic.
You should follow Stoic principles

The Stoic way of living is a very non relatable way to live today. They not only want us to have no attachments to objects, but also to people. To argue that you should not have an attachment to a person so you will remain emotionless if something happens to them is unrealistic. Do you not have an attachment to your parents? A sibling or friend? The stoic way of thinking would leave you with less feelings of remorse in your life, however, I seriously doubt anyone could live detached from all objects and people.
You should follow Stoic principles

You should follow the Stoic principles of apathy. It is beneficial to suffer neither pleasure of pain so that one may live a good life. Epictetus argued that one source of pain in our lives in our attachment to objects. He claims that if we cease to have emotional attachment to objects that we will in return never feel pleasure or pain. Having emotional attachment to trivial objects will first create pleasure and then cause unnecessary pain is unnecessary, thus living a life based on Stoic principles is beneficial.
You should follow Stoic principles

A Stoic way to live is no way to live at all in my opinion. Who wants to live a life free of emotions towards people or things? If we actually did follow Stoic principles there would be no love in the world. A world without emotions, where everyone is detached from everyone and every thing sounds like a boring way to live to me. It might result in a less stressful life overall, but I think you would lose more then you would gain. I would rather be sad for a little amount of time if someone died then to live my life without ever getting attached to anybody.
You should follow Stoic principles

The Stoic way of thinking calls for one to be able to control their emotions and thus feel no pleasure or pain. It calls for one to be able to control their emotions and reactions to things which is a noble character trait to have. Epictetus alcalled for his readers to "never entertain any abject thought, nor too eagerly covet anything" in "The Enchiridion." This argument means that there are unpleasant things in the world, but they are ultimately out of our control, and therefore the best way to handle them is to not entertain them with emotion, but to just not react and accept them. Living a Stoic way of life calls for one to be able to understand what they can control.
You should follow Stoic principles

I do understand the method in how he wants us to detach ourselves from things and people, I'm just saying it's unrealistic to think a person can be so emotionless. I know it is unrealistic to hope that people are immortal and will never have to leave us. I think what's tricky about thinking this way is that most people love the people and things around them and will be ultimately affected no matter how hard they try to remain stoic. I'm saying the unrealistic part is trying to become detached and therefore emotionless in the first place.
THBT Mining is advantageous

Introduction Mining is the process or industry of obtaining coal or other minerals from a mine. (this debate covers all types of mining) Clarification: I am not here to prove that Mining is environmental friendly because obviously it is not; however, I assert that it gives us a lot of benefits and that as long as there is no alternative to it, it’s very advantageous still. I will present only one point each round. Point 1With mining, we can obtain minerals which in turn are used to support and create the technology that we have. No alternative to mining can be given, as without mining we cannot extract necessary minerals. Minerals are extremely important to many things. According to The National Mining Association, Gold is used in dentistry and medicine; in jewelry and arts; in medallions and coins; in ingots as a store of value; for scientific and electronic instruments; as an electrolyte in the electroplating industry. Similarly, Lead is used in lead batteries, gasoline additives and tanks, and solders, seals or bearing; used in electrical and electronic applications; TV tubes and glass, construction, communications and protective coatings. Further, Silica is used in manufacture of computer chips. Lastly, Uranium is used in More than 20 percent of America's electricity. It is also used for nuclear medicine, atomic dating, powering nuclear submarines and other uses in the U.S. defense system[1].These are just to name a few minerals that are necessary for many things. Now tell me, Is there other way we can get the minerals without relying to mining? Or you want to tell that we should go to ancient time where technologies are not important? Whichever it is, mining is very essential to everyone and its damage to environment can be minimized.thank you![1] http://www.nma.org...
Dr. Pepper > Coca-Cola

If we just do an oppion debate with no back up its like saying Dr. Pepper tastes like crap with out any back up on why it tastes like that. The resolution says Dr. Pepper is better then Coke. Well I have to prove that Coke is better then Dr. Pepper. I'm not proving anything by saying Dr. Pepper tastes like crap. . Indeed I don't like Dr. Pepper and I'd rather drink coke any day, and due to my satistics more people drink coke then dr. pepper. and because of this, I win this debate. Because all you have said was that dr. pepper is so much better then coke without giving any evidence saying that it is. Debating on just oppioion with out facts never works.
Dr. Pepper > Coca-Cola

You worry about how you debate, and I will worry about me. But other than those statistics, you didn't give me a good reason why you believe Coca Cola is better than Dr. Pepper. Wouldn't a debate be much more effective if you held some sort of personal conviction to what you're defending/debating? Coca Cola has this weird, annoying effect of not being able to quench your thirst. Has anyone else noticed that? Maybe it's the company's plan to get you to drink Coca Cola, be left unsatisfied, and buy more of their products ignorantly? Dr. Pepper tastes better, is quenching, and doesn't leave your throat and mouth feel quite as filmy and acid-y.
Dr. Pepper > Coca-Cola

You must not be a debate. If you just rely on oppinion it isn't debate. Debate is about truth no personal oppinion. Because if all you can do is say Dr. Pepper is better and can't prove it you lose. That isn't how it works in the real world. By the way I gave source. Coca Cola company... if what of what pop sold the most. Obiviolusly Dr. Pepper wasn't better then Coca Cola. Oh for future reference it's good to have a strong introduction because if you don't you seem weak and easy to beat. Introductions are used to impress the voters and the judge. Some people don't read all of the debate just the first arguments. I see nothing but a Con vote. Thank you.
Dr. Pepper > Coca-Cola

Who cares about those lame stastics? Since you can't make an argument yourself, you must rely on some unsited source? Dr.Pepper, I believe, is better than Coca Cola because the latter leaves a nasty acidic after taste. Reason my first argument wasn't so "strong" was because it was merely an introduction to what my opinion is. I was and am going to elaborate more later. Thank you for accepting my first debate.
Dr. Pepper > Coca-Cola

Well your first argument isn't very strong. You have one point saying that Dr. Pepper is the best soft drink with no evidence. Without evidence you cannot win this debate. This is a survey of what beverage was most drank by the coca cola company. .. BRAND CASES SHARE Coca-Cola 1,425 24.3% Pepsi-Cola 1,056 18.0% Dr Pepper 323 5.5% Seven-Up 317 5.4% Tab 188 3.2% Sprite 171 2.9% Mountain Dew 169 2.9% Diet Pepsi 154 2.6% DietDr. Pepper 69.1 1.2% There evidence. .. Coca-Cola is better then Dr. Pepper. .. Oh another thing Coca Cola is the greatest becaust it made Dr. Pepper. .. .
no one can know/prove anything 100%

If one can only know that "no one can know/prove anything 100%" to a 99.99% certainty then this definitely leave a 0.001% uncertainty meaning that they accept that there is a 0.001% chance of it being possible that someone could know/prove somethign certain. If there is even a 0.001% chance that this could happen there is now no validity behind the statement "no-one can".Let me explain the dilemna.This statement creates a paradox from which there is no escape. If one can know for certain that no one can prove anything 100%, they therefore are the contradiction to their own statement. If one can't know for certain that no one can prove anything 100% they inherently accept that someone can and thus, no matter how small certainty there is of this possibility, it is definitely false to assert no one can. No one: no person; not a single person.
no one can know/prove anything 100%

for the purposes of this debate, i am defining proof/knowledge as "100% conclusive validation of a claim"i argue that no one can know for certain whether or not an alleged "proof" of theirs is valid because there is a potential for their own human error.secondly, an alleged proof must pass certain criteria to be confirmed as a valid and 100% conclusive proof. but how can we know that these criteria cant potentially yield a falsehood? the only way to prove otherwise would be an exercise in circular reasoning, as you would be using those unconfirmed criteria to try to validate itself.this is a 1 round debate. i can't prove that proving things is impossible, as that would contradict myself but i believe i have made a strong case that i accept as 99% conclusive
Freedom of speech in the Netherlands

What do you think of freedom of speech in the Netherlands? Firstly we will give our opinion and then you can react to this and send in your own opinion or idea about this topic. We think that freedom of speech in the Netherlands should be limited a little bit more, we think that sometimes, for example with Geert Wilders, the border is crossed. Because of the freedom of speech, people are allowed to say things like the Islam is the enemy and they should go away (which we think is nonsense). We think this must change and people should be limited in the things they are allowed to say because they can offend people and that badly affects the society. We are interested in your opinions about freedom of speech in the Netherlands. Should it stay like it is now or do you think that the Netherlands has to make certain rules about where you cross the border in freedom of speech. And if you think that there should be some borders, where should they be placed, do you think?
Freedom of speech in the Netherlands

My OpinIon iS thAt FreedOm oF spEEch ShouLd noT bE LimiTed. mY argumeT wiLL bE AbouT A SimpLe EquAsIon x*7-y=U^547758YUUYSBHDHJJKS X*7 Is FreE SpeeCH. As ThaT iS FreE SpeEch and thE equatioN Leads tO a HuGe NUmbEr TheN I SaY FreE speeCH iS goOd bEcause MorE SpeeCh MeaNs more bIG NumBerS!!! FreE SpeeCh Is GooD becAusE WitHout iT It mAy Be PoliTicallY incorect fOr ME to dO ThIs, TheN I wouLd HavE No FUn NooB SniPes. ConCusIon:. I wiN BecausE I hAve GooD ArguMents AnD Grammar, AnD MaDe A BiG NumBer :) I WiLl ShoW HeR ArGumentS Are NoT CoHerAnt: GEErT WilderS Is GaY, MoRe SpeeCH, LeSS SpeeCh, MitT RomNey WaS BorN in Mexico, HitLer LikeS Jews, NethErlands NeedS SOPA, ThIS Isn't A DebatE, OpInion, NewT GinGrich NeeDs To LaY oFF on McCDonAlds, and ArGumenTs MaKe SenSe. HeR ArgUments MaKe LesS SensE TheN Mine, My ProOf Is ThE arGumentS ShE maDe LisTeD AbOve. VoTE CoN SoUrCes: TrolInG.CoM StOp SpaMMing DDO WitH All TheSe ProjecT aCCount.GoV Hi, SiLLy PeoPle.NeT
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

Sorry. .. I'm new to this and i though the first round was only for constructive arguments. I thought it unfair to make arguments against my opponent for one more round than he could, so i will make my rebuttals in this round after defending my points. If my opponent had read through my case, he would have seen that it makes no difference whether or not Pakistan is in desperate need of out help. However, we cannot even consider this because all he has shown is that a guy said he didnt need aid. .. AFTER he knew he wasnt getting any. Pakistan, entrenched in poverty, obviously needs the aid, and at the very least wants the aid. Therefore Pakistan will go to China and Saudi Arabia, as well as possibly extremist groups, and this massive threat to national security must be weighed on the con side. Rerouting after 9/11 doesnt matter to this debate, because as I've shown, the vast majority still goes through Pakistan. My second point still stands. My opponent failed to give anything resembling an adequate argument to my 3rd, 4th and 5th points. He has failed to show why we should be abolishing every single form of assistance in all sectors, as he has focused his entire case on the military. He is essentialy trying to win this debate on the ridiculous claim that Pakistan, one of the poorest countris in the world, filled with terrorist groups, doesnt want or need assistance. Now let's move to my opponents case. I've already shown why his first point falls. (60% live on under two dollars a day (wikipedia)) The rest of his points are about why we need to stop military funding to Pakistan. Two huge problems with this. First, my opponent fails to take into account the huge risks associated with suspending military aid, whether it is an extremist takeover of government, or the early withdrawral from Afghanistan and loss of many crucial trade routes Second, my opponent is forgetting that he must defend ALL assistance, not just military assistance. He has failed to defend the suspensions of military assistance, and he never justifies suspending educational, agricultural, medical, developmental and other forms of assistance that ewe currently give to Pakistan. There are also specific problems with his second and third points. His second point is that Pakistan is giving the Taliban U. S weapons, making the war on terror. He avoids the fact that should we suspend assistance, those very terrorists could takeover government, and that since many are in Pakistan, we could not win the War on Terror without cooperation from the Pakistani government. His third point is about the secret plans being released. The problems from above (response to second point) stand. Also, he has failed to impact this. So what if China has low-flying planes? ? Why should this outweigh the nuclear harms and national security risks of suspension.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

All points of my opponent are no longer valid due to the fact of my first point of Pakistan no longer wants or needs our aid also I will report the fact the supply routes were re-routed after 9\11 with a stream line connection of goods. As you can see my opponent no longer has any standing points so I must resort to my own case. 1. Pakistan does not want and\or need our help. 2. Pakistan gives US weapons to the Taliban making the war on terror considerably harder. 3. Pakistan ISI releases crucial secrets such as mission plans and technology. In example they gave China full access to the US Navy Seal team 6 helicopter parts which, were extremely top secret due to there ability to avoid radar at low altitudes. Since my opponent has no attack whatsoever on my 2nd and 3rd points I must assume he agrees with them. As I Quote Martin Luther King Jr. "Silence is Compliance" If my opponent agrees with the majority of my case I must assume with my side of the debate.
Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan

I will begin with the following observationsPakistan has rejected military aid. When the United States decided to cut 800 million in funding in pakistan the leader of the pakistani government stated that he no longer needs United States aid. Taliban recieves weapons from Pakistan soldiersThere have been numerous cases in which the New York times reported that the Taliban had recieved various weapons from Pakistan soldiers. Removing Aid would resolve this issue. Pakistan's ISI releases US secretsFrom Cbs news it has been recorded that the ISI released US mission plans to the Taliban and other insurgency groups resulting in the failures of the missions. It is for these reason I stand on the Pro side of today's debate, any disputed points should be brought up in the next rebuttal or i must assume that my opponent agrees with them.
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Why would any parent tell / teach there child that stealing the right thing to do if it is really needed? That must be to most craziest thing to tell anyone. Stealing is against the law and wrong. Yes ethics is up to us to make a decision, life is about making decisions. its either we are going to be on a right path or the wrong path which was taught to us in school. LIKE I SAID ethics is knowing right from wrong. it either black or white it can not be both.
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Most philosophers have theories on morality and ethics, that's why I relate them with one another. I know what the definition of ethics is. I have stated before that ethics have alot to do with opinions as well and opinions vary from culture and from different people. What is one person's right, might be your wrong, and vice versa. Opinions are based on what we strongly believe in. Freedom to me is to have a set of laws that I can abide by and that can protect me, as well as laws that I agree with 100%. Freedom is exactly what we want to do. Being told what to do, is not being free. Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. Ethics is defined as moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. If we have to be governed, then we are not experiencing freedom. Yes, we can be told what to do and learn what is right and what is wrong. But, it is entirely up to use to choose what is what. The moral principles that are governed to us, my not always be right or wrong. That all goes back to my point. We can be taught that stealing is okay if the item is really needed. That's not a good moral to be taught. We learn the value of ethics and what it truly means in our early stages of life into adulthood. The advice, the tips, and lesson we are given could be wrong and could be right. It depends on the individual, as well as the other important factors I have mentioned. Ethics is ethics whether it be right or good moral principles or wrong or bad moral principles. Either way, there isn't a wrong or right answer. It's up to us to make that decision. We are given ethics as a part of growing up,and we have to just run with it. When you take ethics into your own hands and make the decisions you feel are right to you, you make think about how it affects other people as you mentioned. Immanuel Kant was a philosopher who believed certain types of actions such as crimes were wrong even if it brought about happiness. So, you have to ask yourself, if I was to do this today, how would it affect other people and will they follow in my footsteps? We cannot answer that question until the decision is made. When it comes to Kantian ethics, whether the decision be right or wrong, it would affect other people. Therefore, right or wrong decisions are blind to ethics.
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

I am not saying that any religion is wrong or right. But Yes I used religion only for an example. we can see that religion have right and wrong ethics and principles involved with it. however, I know that we are talking about ethics and not religion so what is your purpose for talking about philosophy, morality? They kind of tie into one but ethics is ethics and philosophy is philosophy. Just like right is right and wrong is wrong. If you did forget the meaning to ethics, Ethics is knowing right from wrong anyone can tell you this. Ethics is not have the best of both worlds. For example the sky is either blue or its red it can not be both. Back to you and philosophy, are our opinions based off our society (that makes the law) or the things that we believe in? What is freedom to you ? we must know what freedom is in order to know what's right or wrong. Freedom does not always have to be based off us doing what we want to do when we want to do it? With the red car, green car example that would be consider two sides to every story. one person tell the whole truth while the other tell some truth. How do we know that the person who seen the red car seen the whole accident. that same person could had been just coming out of a store and seen the ending of the accident. The same argument apply for the person who blamed the green car. The only way that we can tell who was in the wrong is by a video. without any proof the argument is not valid.
There is no right or wrong answers in ethics.

I know that you makes some points about justice connecting to ethics. But your meaning to justices seems like you are more on my mind side then anything. I am arguing that right and wrong are with in ethics. Your meaning to justice is basically saying that things must be right and that society created laws and law make thinks right or wrong. Justice affect the people and what the people have to be right. Only because the people are the morjorate. Unlike other country most of there people have now power and to them they don't know what is right nor what is wrong. leaving them to be lost and confused. A country that has law is a country that have more freedom. The thing with religion is that if you are faithful to your religion then committing sin is wrong, Hands down it is wrong more matter how you look or view it. it is wrong to those people because they know there beliefs and they care about there values. You say that you that there area lot of factors that effects the decision making process in terms of right and wrong but they are not clear. everything need back up sickness and murder cases are two different things. The way that I would view sickness is that sickness have no connection with ethics that just something we as humans have no control over it. Murder cases on the other hand have right and wrong. That's why those type of cases go to court. I ask you since all we can do today is follow the law what happens when we don't follow. what happens when we disobey the law are we right when it affect others ? That was a great example with the train but I would just take my own life trying to protect the grandmother and family