BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Modern Art

Yes, I think that humans should express themselves in many ways, to get off them, some feelings that needed to "get out". I know that there are all over the world "real" artists, that can make something outstanding, they deserve attention. But what you are telling, and correct me if I"m wrong, is that for example, the paintings that I was talking about, they can have a hidden meaning, and this makes them a great painting? It was given to me a painting, worth something like 200.000, and its all lines, like a "poligraph", with green and yellow, and one day, I said to my self - Today you are going to see past the paint - And after that, it didn"t made me feel emotions. Like songs, there are good songs, and bad songs.. A good song have few chances to be liked and apreciated by people. This should happen with paintings. What makes a good paint, if not its aspect? The message? A song is not good by is message only..
Modern Art

Definitions Because Pro does not provide definitions, I will provide universal definitions. Art-the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. Modern art is the same but during the period from the 1860s to present. Attacks The drawings the Pro give us are also modernabstractart. http://www.newsweek.com... These are also modern art. Modern Art can include structures and 3-D art as well. Gillian Wearing and Marjetica Potrc are famous modern artists. Also, its like a song. Art contains a hidden meaning like some songs do. Another great part about modern art are the ways you can interpret them. Just because you can't feel them doesn't mean they are pointless. Video games are art, but no type of art can be the real art. Art is expressing yourself in your own creative way.Thank you!
Modern Art

Nowadays, I look at a painting and I don"t know if it was an artist that made it, or just a child.. http://www.graphiccloud.co.uk... http://accidentalhedonist.com... Back in the day, we had some good artists. I like a lot Salvador Dali, but there are others well known, Miguel Angelo, Leonardo Da Vinci. Why now, the paintings are so "simple" in some ways, just lines and colors. I think its funny, because people say that those paintings transmit emotions, but I"ve already tried to "feel" the draw, and its pointless. It seems that today, videogames are the real art. If someone can make me change my mind, you are welcome.
The Rich Should Take a Hike

Thanks for the topic, Contra. After our spirited conversations in the forums, it seems that our paths inevitably would cross into the realm of formal debate.The definitions seem clear enough. I also agree, to an extent, that loopholes ought to be ended--if one must have an income tax, let it be done legitimately. There will be no debate here. Rather, my advocacy is not just against ending the Bush tax cuts, but rather against the inane and unjust logic behind a progressive tax system; my advocacy is that more taxation will not fix our problems, indeed it is likely to make them worse. With that, I turn the debate over to my opponent.
The Rich Should Take a Hike

The resolution is that the wealthy should take a hike in taxes. I will be advocating for an expiration of the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy, or additional taxation of the wealthy on top of that. I support ending nearly all the tax loopholes and deductions, but that will not likely be a large point in this debate.No semantics or trolling.R1: Acceptance and DefinitionsR2: Arguments/ RebuttalsR3: Arguments/ RebuttalsR4: Rebuttals and Closing*Since of the net contender advantage of last word, PRO will be able to rebut only 2 points in the last round. CON will be able to only rebut 1 point in the last round.Good luck!
Morality is subjective.

Firstly I'd like my opponent to explain what he means by all morality. -----------------------------------------------------Morality is a complex issue that has been debated over for a long time. My personal views are that Morality is completely subjective. Depending on how you've been raised and what you've grown up around and taught to be right and wrong is what you believe to be a moral code. I believe that morality is constantly developing and altering based on a societies needs and opinions as a whole. For my first argument I'd like to showcase a few very different cultures and their moral beliefs along with some of the things that are typically considered unorthodox and morally questionable to western society. Aztecs "Human Sacrifice was a common theme in Mesoamerican cultures. In the Aztec "Legend of the Five Suns", all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live. Some years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a body of Franciscans(Which are essentially roman catholics) confronted the remaining Aztec priesthood and demanded, under threat of death, that they desist from this traditional practice. The Aztec priests defended themselves as follows"Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice they gave us life.... They produce our sustenance... which nourishes life.What the Aztec priests were referring to was a central Mesoamerican belief: that a great, on-going sacrifice sustains the Universe.Conclusion: This argument proves that morality is completely subjective, it shows how the aztecs believed to be pleasing their gods and kings by sacrificing people. While roman catholics were against this and tried to explain to them how this is wrong. To which they replied that this is necessary to sustain the universe. Let me paint this picture for you. Growing up an aztec boy and a roman catholic boy are influenced by their family and culture. The aztec boy wouldn't have a gut feeling that this was unpleasing to the gods. He would believe he is pleasing the masters of the universe. And the roman catholic boy wouldn't wake up and think, we need to be sacrificing and blood-letting our addherents to please our lord.------------------------------------------------------------The purpose of the argument above is to showcase to you the radical difference there can be in morality by drawing comparisons between two radically different beliefs. Aztecs would find it wrong NOT to sacrifice to their gods. While Roman Catholics find it wrong TO sacrifice human lives. I look forward to my opponents arguments and would like to remind him to provide evidence for his argument as I have.Sources:http://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.aztec-history.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Keep Rebel Flags In School!

In Saline County Harrisburg, Illinois High School, there was a students who was in History class when his teacher told him that his shirt offended her; so she gave him the option to go and change his shirt of leave the schools grounds. The student was very upset and left the school. Everyone who had witnessed it was furious with the teacher and they decided that they would go and start Rebellions against the school. Later in the week the Principal of the school made it a new dress code rule to not be spotted with the rebel flag on any of their attire, if they were spotted with the rebel flag on them, they would be removed from the school grounds and if they resist leave they authorities would be involved. A student from Harrisburg high School Kailee Rettinghaus has started a petition to keep the rebel flag in schools Kailee states, "The Rebel Flag is apart of History! The teacher was more worried about his clothes instead of his education. The petition I developed has at to least get 100+ signatures. After the petition is filled with signatures, it will go straight to the school board to make sure that history, even if its on a shirt, isn't taken away from us... History may repeat itself if everyone tries to hard, then this school would go down because one teacher wanted to be a baby over a kids shirt!" Do you think that the Rebel Flag should stay in schools? Id doesn't have to be flown, but it cant be taught to be racist, because black soldiers fought in the confederate armies as well. So there is just as much black blood as there is white blood!
Minimum Wage

Though the minimum wage does increase the production cost, but without it the 15% of Americans the live below the poverty level might suffer greatly and possibly die. The US has 320,970,000 people. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 15% of that might die only because Mcdonalds is allowed to pay a penny per day. 15% of 320,970,000 is 48,185,500 people. That's a lot. Too much. Hope I'd convinced you.
Minimum Wage

To find out why a minimum wage is a bad idea, please turn to your nearest AD/AS graph. http://www.slideshare.net... (Slide 14) All a minimum wage does is increase the costs of production. More expensive production means less demand. Less demand means less profit. Less profit means that the company may need to let some people go. It is far better to not have a minimum wage and keep unemployment down. Then there is the inflation problem. A minimum wage will increase the money paid, but drive the purchasing power down. If the minimum wage were kicked to $15/hr, eventually, firms will charge more, to get more money out of what is being paid, so all you've done is ruin some people's savings accounts and spend more for the same things. Where are your gains now? The minimum wage hurts everyone in the long run because of this.
Minimum Wage

Many people in the US are richer than needed. "Associate business salaries typically range between $25,000 to $40,000 a year depending on the business field chosen, with retail and banking industries toward the bottom of the range and accounting and technology fields toward the higher end of the range." http://www.onlinebusinessdegree.org... Also only 15% of Americans live below the poverty level. http://www.businessinsider.com... Although the USA government debts are decreasing... http://www.slate.com... , we could easily just borrow money from other countries and print US Million dollar bills for the money we borrowed then repay the money we borrowed and still have a profit. http://www.federalreserve.gov...
Minimum Wage

When consulting the articles presented by Pro, Con, that is, I, found them to leave a few things in question. For example, the salaries given do not include commissions. Another thing is that most of the minimum wage jobs are entry-level. This means that there is advancement taking place, which means no more being paid minimum wage. A lot of entry-level jobs are filled by punk kids, and they are often promoted out. In very few cases are they the primary wage-earners. If the cost goes up, everything else goes up, and the poverty line goes up to meet it, bringing possibly even more people below it, if wages that aren't minimum wage don't rise to compensate. In short, minimum wages are a Kafka loop. You perceive you aren't earning enough to support your lifestyle. You band together with other people. You get your wage hike. You have it okay. Then the prices rise. .. Rinse and repeat. Meanwhile. .. Another guy reads the newspaper. Hmm, prices just went up. Must be because of the minimum wage going up again. Also, Pro's "penny a day" argument is nothing but fearmongering. If McDonalds only paid a penny a day, like in the example Pro provided, nobody would want to work for them, because it would benefit them more to accept government transference payments. If there is a large concentration of people who are not being paid much, there's not much they can buy, and businesses go belly-up. Businesses are institutions that exist to earn profit. If they are not earning profit because they are closing down due to lack of customers/personnel, then they are not earning profit, and are failing. The market will take care of those exploiters very quickly. If they are in a position to exploit people, they won't abuse it. If they do, and get away with it, check your local legislative body for protectionism. The two main opponents of a minimum wage, in reality, are inflation and your local AD/AS graph.
Something can come from nothing without cause.

Ave.This is a debate over the metaphysical principle called ex nihilo nihil fit. This is a Latin expression which means 'Out of nothing, nothing comes' in English. Simply, it argues that something cannot come from nothing without cause. If you have absolute nothingness, then you will never get anything from it.The phrase 'without cause' in the resolution is somewhat important. Theists argue that god made the universe ex nihilo, or from nothing. Therefore, the issue isn't whether something can come from nothing. The salient issue is whether something can come from nothing without a cause, such as god.The burden of proof for Pro is to demonstrate that, if you have a state of absolute nothingness, something can come from that state of absolute nothingness, absent any external cause. As a note, I stated the resolution negatively because the default position in philosophy is that out of coming, nothing comes.Vale.
If Pokemon existed in real life, you will die.

Just as I suspected; he forfeited. My opponent said "It's true that if they existed in our world, an Onyx would kill us," he's agreeing that pokemon can indeed kill us. If he isn't conceding his position here, then I don't know. "in the Pokemon Universe, there's a way around it. " Pokemon Universe? This is changing the resolution of "If pokemon existed IN REAL LIFE". The Pokemon Universe is irrelevant, and in my opinion; cheating. Here's why: 1) It's a cartoon: cartoon characters can't be killed. If Ash gets electrocuted by his Pikachu, he'll live because he's a cartoon character 2) The manga: It's also a cartoon, just in book form. It has different characters, but still a cartoon. They can't be killed. 3) In the video games, the characters don't get attacked. Sure in Pokemon Coliseum the shadow pokemon can become raged (I believe that was the term, but I forgot) and attack Wes (the main protagonist). Wes only gets pushed back, as far as we see. No matter how many times it has happened, he survives with barely even a scratch on his body. (because he's a video game character, and he's intended to live, despite getting injured by his shadow pokemon) I have shown why we can't include the pokemon universe into this debate, therefore I don't see how Con will counter in Round 3, if he'll participate. BoP is on Con to prove that pokemon aren't capable of killing a human being in real life. The Pokemon Universe, like I said, does NOT count as we are not in a video game or a cartoon.
If Pokemon existed in real life, you will die.

Here's my argument: Every Pokemon has some power. Whether it be fire, electricity, martial arts, or darkness. Any of these can injure if not kill at human being. You might say "Pokemon Battle", but you would need a Pokemon in order to battle. How might one go about getting one? A pokeball might suffice, but the pokemon might either spot you before you throw the pokeball, you might miss the throw, or the Pokemon would escape the pokeball because you couldn't lower its HP. A cage wouldn't work so well as it would be made of metal, which conducts fire and electricity, or the pokemon has a move such as Bullet Seed, which can go through the small gaps. And chances are, it'll likely find a way to escape the cage. I await my opponent's response.
Euro-centric distortions on African Antiquity and it's importance/relvance in today's world

I have to point out that white people had to come from somewhere and also have a history. The fact is that I don't particularly care about that either. The history of the Hawaiian people, from accomplishing a sailing and navigating feat unequaled even by the British Navy, to settling, populating and greening and unifying what would become the Kingdom of Hawaii is one that particularly comes to mind as one needing to be told as well. The story of the Native American culture and its destruction is certainly known to the world. There is not a lot to be proud of there either. Very difficult. Does my opponent really believe that it matters what I believe or don't believe or what I am arguing or not arguing, or to say that I believe this or that, especially when it not just this or that. Please delete the last three words from my argument in the book version. Marginalization of a people, whether whites in Asia, the poor in New Orleans, or Native Americans, or American Blacks, or Hispanics, or Japanese internment, or modern Central Africans, or East Timorese, and there are others whose plight is worse, is more hurtful than any sticks or stones, which eventually heal and are forgotten. Not the words left unspoken so much as the ones that weren't left unspoken but should have been. A focus on any one of these merely perpetuates inequality by saying that one form of racism or genocide in any worse than any other. It is not, and to say otherwise is sowing the seeds of further racism and divisiveness, and is not consistent with the equality we seek. If we are to be one we must be one, and not different. Of course we have different hair color and eye color but we do not have wars about it. Someday skin color won't matter either. Everyone must become more conscious of people who are different from us and kill them.
Euro-centric distortions on African Antiquity and it's importance/relvance in today's world

I appreciate my opponents ability in attempting to construct the world's biggest straw man; however the revision of those histories, "Zionist" and that of the "Palestinian", are completely off target. Genocide vs. racism sounds like an appealing argument but it completely strays from the original argument. My opponent did briefly point out the age difference between 'The Maxims of Ptah Hotep' and 'I CHING'. With all due respect, in 4500bc Ancient (Black) Egyptians began using burial texts to accompany their dead, these were the first known written documents. The Maxims of Ptah Hotep is the oldest book, it was attributed to the 5th Dynasty and portions of it were found with Prisse Papyrus from the middle kingdom ("which [in it] contains the last two pages of the Instruction addressed to Kagemni, who purportedly served under the 4th Dynasty king Snofru"). In any case, this was a book that was written long before the 5th Dynasty. Furthermore, Ancient (Black) Egyptians have been writting things on papyrus since 4500bc(e). Perhaps my opponent should read The Maxims of Ptah Hotep, it's not very long. Let's shine the light on my original topic again. Please explain why you are FOR the Euro-centric revision of Ancient African history? No more straw men, eh?. Suggested Author: Cheikh Anta Diop
Euro-centric distortions on African Antiquity and it's importance/relvance in today's world

http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... 2398 - 2245 B.C. The I Ching: http://en.wikipedia.org... 2800 BCE-2737 BCE So that is older. Oh wait they changed it. It's not older anymore. Africa must have won a war with China. History is written by the victors. -- Winston Churchill Apparently my opponent somehow believes it is wrong to subjugate African people and establish a white racist state and then deny that they ever existed? here's http://www.RightofReturn.info... your homework. And http://www.allthingspass.com... Palestine is not in Africa, and "mizrahim" means "Oriental." "Ashkenazi" means white. And genocide is worse than racism. Resolved, that Zionist revisionism of not only its own but also Palestinian history is worse than Eurocentric revision of African history. Don't make me go through my "Con gets to take a stand too" rant again.
Euro-centric distortions on African Antiquity and it's importance/relvance in today's world

My argument is simple but sensitive. Please back all claims. The global view of Africa is a sad one. What Africans in Africa and those displaced globally, have given the world has been placed in a washing Machine filled with Bleach. It has been accepted that the Birth place for all of Wo/Mankind is located in the heart of Africa. So how is Philosophy accredited to the Greeks? The first literary composition EVER written was The Maxims of Ptah Hotep (A black African), which was a book of philosophical thoughts on how to live life..... It appears to be purposely driven. If not, why hasn't this smudging of history stopped? We are only left to assume that all Euro centric history is suspect.
The instigator ought not always take Pro, especially not when the resolution does not include a DN.

It certainly wouldn't appear as though rationalmadman is not confused. He accuses me of saying you should not go con if you are against a resolution, but I clearly said just the opposite in my previous round. Seeing as I told him to elucidate on his previous comments which seemingly agreed with con in this debate else have the audience obviously vote for me, and he did no such thing, I urge the audience to obviously not vote for him.The resolution has been clearly debunked by me and conceded by my opponent (though perhaps accidentally). Good show, old chap. Good show.
The instigator ought not always take Pro, especially not when the resolution does not include a DN.

For the record, in no way did I not say taking con on a resolution not involving a double negative would (or at least could) avoid confusion. So the allegation that I'm not being hypocritical to my own beliefs is not at all untrue. This, though, I certainly wouldn't trust the audience to overlook.The fact of the matter isn't that I would disadvise choosing con as the instigator, but that I would. And I especially would not disadvise doing so with a resolution that does not include a double negative. This is, after all, my position as stated in round one.For some examples (including, but not limited to, "God does not exist" and "Gay marriage should not be legally recognized") it makes perfect sense to choose con in order to avoid confusion. This is really the only way to instigate a debate about a belief you don't agree with while keeping the burden of proof on the one affirming the resolution; otherwise, the best alternative may be to restate the resolutions as "There is no valid reason to believe God doesn't exist" or "There is no valid reason to believe gay marriage should be illegal" and take pro and then clarify in your first round that con will assume the burden of proof in providing that reason, since you couldn't possibly prove a negative (that there is no valid reason to believe these things). As you can plainly see, the former two aren't less confusing than the latter two. In fact, they are more.Irregardless of all that, my opponent explicitly stated "I definitely think that the instigator has every right not to go pro". Not unfortunately for me, this is nothing short of a concession, an agreement to con's position in this debate. If rationalmadman wishes to not lose this debate, he mustn't make such statements. Please elucidate on this, Pro, for as it stands, I must ask the audience for an obvious Con vote.
Should strict constructionists be forced to change the Constitution BEFORE the presidential election

The Constitution of the United States has been interpreted strictly by countless Supreme Court Justices and Republican ideologues. If you stand for Citizens United and a hardcore interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that says that guns control should be off the table, shouldn't you then argue that Hillary Clinton or any women in the nation should NOT be allowed to run for President since the Constitution, in every area where it refers to the President, refers to his gender as male. If you stand for Citizens United and a strict interpretation of the Constitution, don't you therefore, have to either NOT allow women to run for President OR demand a change to the text of our Constitution, adding "she" and possibly s/he to our founding document. I do not believe Hillary Clinton should be allowed to run for president unless the Constitution is changed. What do you think? Can you have interpretation of the Constitution both ways?