BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is John Steinbeck a better author than George R.R. Martin

Time for the last round of this debate. Thank you to my opponent for participating in the first round. I understand that you probably had time restraints, and I look forward to this round.Arguments: John Steinbeck was a classic author. His messages still apply today. If they didn't, we wouldn't care now. Martin still has to prove that his books can stand the test of time. We can't know this now, of course. Could a book set in a fantasy world survive? Well, one would be quick to point out that the Lord of the Rings has survived, and therefore A Song of Ice and Fire will also. However, let's look at the statistics. A Song of Ice and Fire has sold approx. 15 million copies [1]. It has also been out for 23 years. Fifteen over 23 year equals about 652 thousand copies per year. This is worldwide. Lord of the Rings has about 150 million copies over 60 years[2]. One-hundred fifty over 60 equals 2.5 million copies per year. This is even without inflating the statistics because of the changes in population. Game of Thrones just doesn't stand up to other popular books. John Steinbeck's books have stood the test of time, but Game of Thrones doesn't look like it will last forever.Since my opponent has not responded, I will make this the last argument of the debate. Thanks again for your participation in the debate.Sources:[1]https://en.wikipedia.org... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org...
Is John Steinbeck a better author than George R.R. Martin

No rebuttals because of your forfeit.Shall we make round 4 for rebuttals and summary of argument only? Please answer in next argument. Probably should have set that up anyway.Arguments:John Steinbeck was a pioneer. Authors before him would not take the time to write about something as unimportant as the paisinos of the Southwest, who were considered drunks. John Steinbeck could look beyond this, and see the friendship and the deep bond that the friends had. Once again, Martin could not do that.Steinbeck also was a master of writing shorter books. Although he could, on occasion, write long books (East of Eden), he wrote short books that were easy for people to get through. He didn't need to drag his story on to make it popular. Martin's books were dragged into long series. It is much easier for a reader to stop reading a 1000 page book than a 150 page book. John Steinbeck could say everything he needed in less than 300 pages.I am interested in you response.
Is John Steinbeck a better author than George R.R. Martin

I would like to start by saying that [Con's] point that John Steinbeck is not necessarily better than Martin because of the difference in time periods; that was never my point. I was merely setting up the debate. If you are trying to say that Martin's book are inferior because of the time difference, please keep in mind that I was not making that point and that you misinterpreted me.Rebuttals:The mere fact that I made a small typo does not mean that I have an unformed argument. You admitted ("Also, quite surprisingly, as I saw [Pro] reading "Tortilla Flat" by John Steinbeck earlier"), that you know that I am currently reading it, so you cannot say that I do not know what I am talking about. True, it was a mistake, but I do not necessarily have an unformed opinion.When you say that Martin's fantasy world is completely human, I ask you this: What could be more human than the story of many Americans during the great depression? This is part of our history, that we must remember. When our country put hard-working farmers out of their own houses, we must remember this. When soldiers, fresh out of the army, go back to the streets of the cities, I ask you, what could be more real? Certainly not A Song of Ice and Fire. It is not even set in our world! John Steinbeck's characters feel human, because they have gone through the hardships of humanity. Can I say the same of Martin's works? Their struggles may be similar to ours, but they were not the same. This so called "parallel universe" is not our own. John Steinbeck's certainly is. His characters and plots are our own world's, and they are superior to those of A Song of Ice and Fire.When you say that Martin's works were not cheapened by the television works, I respond by saying that introducing anything into a second media does. Readers are always upset when the screen changes their characters, and A Game of Thrones had various changes. Do reader's prefer the screen enough to want changes to their beloved books? Is A Song of Ice and Fire so easily surpassed by television?ArgumentsJohn Steinbeck's novels are superior to those of George R.R. Martin because of another reason: they have Steinbeck's unique voice. In Tortilla Flat, the character's were drunks, but Steinbeck could portray them as a kind of hero. George R.R. Martin, while being a skilled writer, cannot do that.John Steinbeck's great style also has long descriptions, which add a lot. He describes the landscapes, the people, or anything else, giving the reader a vivid picture in their mind. The worlds are clear, and with the seemingly real characters, this makes Steinbeck's books very good.Lastly, I want to say that although Martin's books have positive aspects, they don't have the soulful depth of Steinbeck's. Everything has meaning. When you finish one of Steinbeck's books, it is thought-provoking. The message could be something as simple as kindness and compassion are valuable. There is always a message that Steinbeck ties in.I have refrained from saying anything as aggressive as "I dare you to do better", because I believe that that does detract from the value of the debate.
Is John Steinbeck a better author than George R.R. Martin

First off, I agree that John Steinbeck has had a lot more time for his books to develop a greater audience: John Steinbeck's first novel, Cup of Gold, was written in 1929, and George Martin's first published writing was 1986, a 57 year difference, which is a large time for the book community. However, having famous literary works doesn't necessarily mean that the book is written better, which is what this entire argument is about. Secondly, before starting an argument, [Pro] should have all all their facts solid. George RR Martin was born in New Jersey to American parents, and has lived in the United States his whole life. Also, quite surprisingly, as I saw [Pro] reading "Tortilla Flat" by John Steinbeck earlier, and in his argument, he mentions "Tequila Flat," a strong point that [Pro] hasn't really developed a valid argument. When [Pro] stated that Steinbeck's writing gave readers the feeling of realistic struggles and sorrows, his reasoning was that A Song of Ice and Fire (the actual title of the series, not "Game of Thrones, as [Pro] put it) is set in a fictional fantasy world that could never actually happen to anyone we know. However, the struggles and sorrows that the characters experience are things that normal people experience. Many of the main characters experience deaths among their family, as almost every other person that has lived has also experienced. In A Song of Ice and Fire, George RR Martin has made it a point to show that every political move in his writing has hints of friendship, something [Pro] so clearly denied. Yes, there are knights and kingdoms in A Song of Ice and Fire, but they are not "Pretty Princess" fantasies, he paints an incredibly harsh picture of what life was like during what would have the parallel time period to us (14-1600's). George RR Martin has definitely made the "little things" beautiful, the detail in his setting description is some of the most detailed I've ever seen, and all of the sub-plots among the major plots have their own kinds of beauty, side romances, little excursions, they all add the eloquent amalgam of character narrations written by George RR Martin. Finally, though I don't see why this should have ever been necessary, is that having a major television network turn your novels into one of the most watched shows ever on TV isn't something to cheapen a series, it is an amazing addition. George RR Martin never wrote his novels for the intent of having them turned into a television series, the first book, Game of Thrones, came out in 1996, and it's corresponding premier date on HBO was 2011. There is nothing that can be said about the gratuity of the television series, as they have toned it down from the books, and there have been more viewers lost from the sex and violence than there have been gained. I dare you to do better.
Is John Steinbeck a better author than George R.R. Martin

This debate puts John Steinbeck, classic American author of landmark literary works such as The Grapes of Wrath, up against British author of the Game of Thrones series, which has led to the popular HBO sensation. Ground Rules; 1. Focus on the issue; no insulting other person unnecessarily 2. Don't copy other people's work; giver proper credit 3. No trolling Time to start with the arguments. Arguments: Steinbeck was a classic author; he wrote about the realistic struggles and triumphs of the American people. George R.R. Martin has more of an escapist style. Steinbeck did not need to glorify life to make an amazing story; his tales are deep and meaningful. Reading them makes you feel the sorrows of the people, and what it really means to be an American. George R.R. Martin's tales may have the politics and intrigues of life, but not the realistic struggle. Steinbeck also used simplicity; while many tales have told tales about knights and kingdoms, or about great fantasies, Steinbeck could find beauty in small things. In Tequila Flat, the characters have an amazing friendship, something that could not be found in Game of Thrones. My third and final argument for this round is that Steinbeck could make a literature not burdened down by the cheap market of television. Martin's works lost value when they were produced at the whims of the HBO producers, a network well known for their explicit content, which has attracted people to watch Game of Thrones. Steinbeck kept his many works to novel formats, and although there have been movies of his books, those have not lessened the value on the same scale as HBO has. Steinbeck's works are still as important as they were in the Depression, but Martin's works are cheapened by the show. I await your arguments.
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

...coughcough...response...coughcough... Excuse me. No, I never said 2.1 X 10=20 It is obvious that that is rounding. There is absolutely no rounding in my explanation, and each and every step has been proven to work. If you look again at the topic of this debate>>> 1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc. >>>Then you will realize that I have in fact proven that 1 CAN have the same value as 0.99etc There is no further way that you could convince other to vote for you, BUt, sadly, many vote on their own opinion DONT DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Therefore, you must vote Pro, as it stands. I also agree that no they are not always the same, but the topic of this debate here allows that to be so. No harsh feelings. PS. DOL means Debate Out Loud.
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

LOL... Okay that is like saying 2.1 X 10= 20 therfore 2.1=2. Thus .9999 cannot equal the same value as 1, because, 1 is 1 is 1, and cannot be anything else. 9999 has it's own value, thus cannot have the same value that 1 has. Therefore, you must vote Con, as it stands, unless Pro provides information voiding the numirical value of these numbers. I eagerly await my opponent's responce.
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

~~~~~irrelavent answer~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Even though people vote on their own opinions, I thought I'd try to show people the truth, and maybe by the time this debate ends, you will agree with me.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lets start here: >>>IF 0.999999999etc. = a THEN 10 x 0.9999999etc. = 10a correct? SO 9.99999999etc. = 10a (-a) (-a) THEN 9 = 9a THEN 1 = a SO 1 = 0.999999999etc There you go, there's the TRUTH (emphasis on truth)
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

1 and .999999. .. is NOT the same, because in order to be euivelent it must be the SAME number. Maybe if you are rounding the number it could be the same. That is like saying "7 and 10 are the same, and have the same value. " Anybody that knows simple math, knows that 7 and 10 are NOT the same thing. Thus my opponent is trying to make you as the voters, and me as his opponent believe something untrue. .9999 is not the same as 0, it is not the same as 1, it is the same as .9999. ~~~~~irrelavent question~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why, padfo0t, did you think of this debate?
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

So you do not agree that 1=.99999, which means it doesn't which means it cannot be PROVEN which means 1 does not =2 even though I can show you the equation that shows that meaning every number has it's own value and you have surrendered. Thus I win, you MUST vote con on this debate. Have fun Chip the Mouster, padfo0t, and all the voters. Also I never thought that you thought that I thought that you thought you made me think that, thus I do not think that you thought that I thought you felt that way.
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

Other than the fact that...like...fifty words were misspelled, that made COMPLETELY NO SENSE!!! Although my opponent persists on making me and others confused, I do not agree with the fact that 1=2, and I also do not agree that 1 is the SAME as 0.9999999999999. What i DO believe is that 1 CAN BE PROVEN to have THE SAME VALUE as 0.99999999999999999999999999999999999etc. Just admit it. What say you about the supposed mouse? PLease say sorry to Chip.,..
1 can be proven to have the same value as 0.9999999etc.

This round was forfeited because the debater found her glasses and now has a huge headache on top of being blonde and did not agree to the allotted time. Okay N/M that, but, that is like saing 1 can be proven to = 2 which doesn't NORMALLY make since. I can prove it though. Thus if you prove something once it is not always ligit, thus, you can prove 1 to be .99999999999999999999999999999999999999999 all you want, but that doesn't make 1=.99999999, unless 1=2 which nobody will agree to without proof. Which means that if a number is a noumber once it must always be that number. Meaning that 1 cannot be .9999 etc. and 1 cannot be 2.
The border wall

Notwithstanding the fact that Pro's 21 word eulogy contains 6 grammatical errors. I think that it's fair to say that Pro has not exactly put their heart and soul into round 2. "The border is Great. " Is the border great? Or is the proposed border wall going to be great? How would Pro describe this greatness? "It has a lot of great uses. " Which? The border or the proposed wall. And pro says "a lot" but only lists one benefit. "And cos the government moneyt. " Quite frankly, What the f**k does this mean?
The border wall

It's a little bit ironic don't you think. Having a wall to stop all the drug dealers and bad people from entering a country that is already full of drug dealers and bad people. In all seriousness though: I would suggest that most "illegals" tend to be economic migrants seeking a more prosperous existence. I would also suggest that the drug dealers and bad people will soon find another route in anyway. Drug dealers and bad people tend to be quite resourceful in this respect. I would finally suggest that the main benefit of a border wall would be as a psychological barrier. Allowing paranoid U. S. Citizens to sleep easy in their beds at night. Further: It would be useful if Pro would clarify two of their statements for me. 1) "I don't care about the good illegals. " (This statement is fraught with contradiction) 2) "But not the ones who sit around collecting tax payer money. " Finally: Isn't it a sad reflection of wealthy societies, That their citizens are now too lazy and arrogant to undertake all the nonetheless important menial jobs?
You should be able to vote in USA under the age of 18 in certain circumstances.

Before we begin this debate, American citizen under the age of 18 includes teenagers, children and even toddlers. Therefore, we must consider the future of this beautiful. If teenagers, whom haven't even graduate from secondary schools, were to vote, imagine the outcome of the election. If children were to vote, they might be easily bribed with simple candies by outsiders, resulting these actions to taint the voting system of this country. If toddlers were to vote, they will definitely toy with the voting system. In conclusion, it is obvious that we need to think responsibly. Therefore, we shan't allow citizen under the age of 18 to vote due to the fact that they are still not considered as adults nor responsible enough.
God created the universe (big,bang)

Okay; First of, just to get this out of the way, Who created God? I mean, people say God is eternal, but if he was, there is no way he could physically do, well, anything. Furthermore, if God was real, why would he let all of the bad things in the world happen? Did he just create the big bang, and abandon us? And this was bothering me; Jesus says God is real. How'd he know? If God JUST created the universe, and left us be, how could be prove it? Maybe he had a weird dream and thought it was a live person (entity) talking to him. I have weird dreams like that too, and it's not like I create a whole controversy about it.
God created the universe (big,bang)

Atheist say that the big bang was caused by a cloud of gasses that exploded and created the universe as we know it but I say that it is the almighty power of my God Jesus Christ the alpha and the omega the way the truth and the life! And I will fight in the name of the lord to prove that this theory is dead to me because they are not paying attention to the fact that there was a great power working behind this theory and that is God
Current US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Threatens our National Security

I feel that I have adequately pointed out the lack of sources as well as facts for my opponents definitions and points. In response to his first question: Don't I believe that our relation with Israel hurts us more than helps us? First, Israel is but one of many countries in the Middle East, as I stated before. The polls in my first speech show clearly that the people in the Middle East as a WHOLE disapprove of the US. I have also shown that this disapproval directly leads to a decrease in economic activity between the US and the Middle East. In further response, I believe our current foreign policy regarding Israel is very effective. Standing by our allies and supporting them in their efforts to counter terrorism is an aspect of foreign policy that is definitely important to maintain. My opponents second question is: what recent attacks put us as Americans in danger? Well, frankly, half of my entire first speech was about this. Lets go down the list, shall we? -5 attacks on diplomatic facilities (20% of all attacks on US diplomatic facilities in US history) -Libya attack resulting in the death of an Ambassador -Furthermore, approximately 60% of all casualties/deaths from the Afghan war occurred in the last 4 years
Current US Foreign Policy in the Middle East Threatens our National Security

I would like to start by refuting my opponents points before going on to reaffirm my own. In my opponent definition of the term "national security" he defines it as the following: a corporate term covering both national defense and foreign relations of the U.S. It refers to the protection of a nation from attack or other danger by holding adequate armed forces and guarding state secrets. However he offers no adequate source, or for that matter, any source at ALL that backs up the validity of this definition, whereas the definition I have provided is supported by a credible source. For that reason, my definition stands. My opponents first contention is that the US policy in Libya and Israel has gained us a critical strategic ally. However, in the entire first contention, only one fact was provided. That fact was that the US State Department stated that the US led efforts to help the Libyan people. He connects this fact to the topic with the twisted logic that this automatically made the US and Libya allies. What the opponents have failed to realize is that the condition of Libya has not improved drastically. As I stated in round 1, just recently this September an attack was conducted in Libya that resulted in the death of US Ambassador Christopher Stevens. Let us also keep in mind this: the topic does not ask for the effects of current US foreign policy in just SOME countries. It asks about all of them. As I stated in my second contention, overall attitudes towards the US from the Middle East are declining. And unlike my opponent, I gave a source. Let us move on to my opponents second contention: Our foreign policy in Iran upholds and protects our national security. Once again, individual policies have no place in this debate as the topic asks about the Middle East as a whole. The opponents maintains that current foreign policy in Iran is favorable because Iran does not feel "under attack". He proposes to continue to impose sanctions on Iran. However, Iran has resisted international sanctions for 21 or more years. The result is obvious: it's nuclear program continues. A nuclear Iran is not acceptable, and current US foreign policy seems to be pushing in that general direction. My opponents final contention is that our current policy is so strong that no Middle Eastern country can undermine it. So please explain to me this. How come, in the years of the latest administration, terrorist attacks have soared to numbers never before seen? How come more people are dying? Furthermore, the physical aspect is just one part of my definition of national security. What about the other two aspects I addressed in my speech?
should kids have a dress code for school .

so I guess we can right until the rounds go out im gount to wast all my characters on leters and numbers hKSGFHighksdjvgnes24g2d5g2dedgeg3d2g1wer6tgfg2wte65g43g16wet43djkjboijbgjhkjhhfhjdjdfghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii I like horses I like horses my grandma bought me a baby pony so I can learn how to train it its in Oklahoma I live in Miami sdgvsdgdsg0s.dg21sd3gstgsgsgsfgfg
there is no objective morality

Under the rules of this debate I am not supposed to debate in the final round, I presume my opponent means I may only repeat what I have already said. Now for some reason however my opponent continues to misrepresent my argument, nowhere have I appealed to objective moral values despite my opponents constant insistence that I have. Or that I must do. Nowhere in this debate have I stated that we are under the any obligation to objective morals. Also despite this being the final round he decides to create a new argument for objective morality, why wasn't this posted in R1 or R2? I can't address it, therefore the voter should ignore it, but amusingly enough I already pre-empted and discredited it in R1. I quite clearly predicted that my opponent would seek out a subjective value to use as the guide for an objective moral system, this is self-refuting. Well being is subjective, to value life is subjective. My opponent has failed to address a single one of my arguments he may as well have forfeited each round. Arguments extended and I am strongly urge a vote for PRO. Thank you.