BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existance of Beauty

"Based off of the definition provided, we know that Beauty provides "perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction." However if we look at pleasure, meaning, and satisfaction, we see that all of those are subjective to the person, therefore, beauty itself is subjective to each person. We've all heard the phrase, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," well, it happens to be true. What you see as beautiful, may or may not be the same that I see as beautiful." We both agree it is subjective, as however since it is a subjective opinion on people or art i suggest that the thing we call beauty non-existent and does not have a tangible form and cannot really exist. As people might say that she is beautiful and some say not then we cannot prove such that she is and therefore we must say beauty cannot be proven or exist.
The Existance of Beauty

I shall construct my debate in multiple rounds, rather then posting my entire argument this round. Based off of the definition provided, we know that Beauty provides "perceptual experience of pleasure, meaning, or satisfaction. " However if we look at pleasure, meaning, and satisfaction, we see that all of those are subjective to the person, therefore, beauty itself is subjective to each person. We've all heard the phrase, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder," well, it happens to be true. What you see as beautiful, may or may not be the same that I see as beautiful. I will end this round on this, and wish for my opponent to express whether or not, he believes in that, that beauty is subjective. Of course, he is free to post any pre-counter arguments if he wishes.
The Existance of Beauty

As this is the final round, summations of the debate are all that ought be done. For whether or not beauty exists, both my opponent and I agree that it exists subjectively to each person. And since it exists subjectively, we know that it exists. Even though no one can prove that beauty exists in total objectivity, objective beauty is not what was defined in the first round. I encourage all voters to consider the agreed definitions while going through this debate. Thank you,
The Existance of Beauty

Yes Beauty is Subjective However beauty is an illusion of the mind it doesn't have a physical form or trait like lets say Heaven was a very beautiful place and say in the bible everyone would enjoy heaven however this fact could not be true if beauty is subject the fact of the matter is nothing can be beautiful or ugly its a delusion of the mind a personal prefrence its the whole point of this debate was too see if you can prove that everyone in the world could believe a single object or person in the world be beautiful if their is such an object the tangible beauty or factual beauty exists as in its a fact not a personal prefrence.
Debate should be a required subject in High School

Thank you for your very well presented response! In response to your first counter; While high school is a limited forum, that time could better be spent by analyzing all of the subjects you mention with an eye toward logic and truth. Science, literature, history, geography and all of the other courses would not be detracted from, but rather illuminated by the formal study of logic. Force feeding students the same old curriculum would become outdated as they would be primed to accept only information that could be proved with logic. No longer would "because it's in the text book" be an acceptable answer, and information and learning could take on a real world application. How can we even pretend to teach unless we first teach how to discern useful versus non-useful information? Truth versus fiction? As to your second counter; agreed that all individuals may not be the "debate" type as evidenced by your reference to the Abby, though being educated in formal logic which should comprise the cornerstone of a debate class, would neither interfere with adversarial discussion, but rather give students an appreciation for truth. Even so, a single and I think even you would admit "unique" viewpoint such as the Abby's has never been the guiding force behind public education. Surely, any of us could study anything as you aptly point out, but that does not stop the state from requiring that all students take math science and English. How many of the general population would study those things on their own. You point out in your own argument that you have "(One time, in court, I actually met a high school GRADUATE who could not read or write!)" By making logical analysis and debate a voluntary exercise only, we assure that very few people will ever utilize it. Further, the advertising companies rely on the fact that the average consumer has absolutely no understanding whatsoever about what is and is not logical. A course in debate would at least allow students the ability to recognize that there are fallacious arguments. I look forward to your response!
Debate should be a required subject in High School

Hi Tolaughoften. Thanks for the opportunity to debate an issue in education. So, here goes: I assume that the sentence "Debate should be a required subject in High School" means that to graduate, all students would have to take and successfully pass a course in debate. And that the word 'debate' refers to 'debate' as a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated and argued by opposing speakers I disagree. While I certainly believe that a course in debate should be offered in every high school, I argue that debate should be offered as an elective course, rather than as a required or mandatory course. First, I argue that because high school is a limited time, a school should focus on providing a basic education which promotes minimal competencies in literacy, numeracy, science, history, geography, and other basic substantive courses. (One time, in court, I actually met a high school GRADUATE who could not read or write!) These disciplines provide the student with general SUBSTANTIVE knowledge. In contrast, a course in debate would be a general SKILLS or PROCESS course. I see a course in debate as obviously USEFUL, but certainly not a NECESSARY course of study, for all high school students. Second, formal debate or argument does not appeal to all people. Many people see debate or argument as just CONFLICT which they would want to avoid. (thus, many students would dread taking a required course in debate) Some institutions formally reject debate or argument. For example, I receive the publication entitled SPECULUM BENEDICTINUM from a monastery in Alabama http://www.christthekingabbey.org... . In the statement of purpose of the Abbey, it states: "The Speculum shall not engage itself in debate, nor shall it attempt to prove anything to anybody. It shall respectfully leave all the proving and all the debating to those who feel the necessity to prove and debate something... We cannot - INDEED WE WILL NOT - allow the disturbance of argument or debate or idle gossip and speculation to enter our lives and disrupt the atmosphere of peace and serenity that prevails in our Abbey." Finally, PRO argues "Many students never have the opportunity to study any form of formal argument." I respectfully disagree. Everybody has the opportunity to engage in independent study of a subject. A student can get a book on debate from the school or public library to study the subject. I bought "COMPETITIVE DEBATE - The Official Guide" by Richard E. Edwards, PH.D http://www.amazon.com... for study when I joined this forum. I never had a course in debate in high school or college.
Debate should be a required subject in High School

Many students never have the opportunity to study any form of formal argument. Students would benefit in a variety of ways by being exposed to the debate format. First, they would become more informed consumers, as a fundamental understanding of logic and of fallacious argument would allow them to make more need based and useful decisions in the consumer market. Second, for much of the same premise of the first, students who were trained in logic and debate would be better able to become informed voters and make more logical decisions regarding who they vote for. Finally, students who understood the principles of logic would be far more productive members of society. I look forward to reading an opposing response. Thank you!
History Debate

I was challenged to this debate after posting a potential resolution in the comments section, so I will assume that is the resolution we are debating here...Resolved: The Thirty Years War was primarily a Religious ConflictPro: bettabreeder (affirming the resolution)Con: Romanii (negating the resolution)I am also assuming that the burden of proof will be shared, meaning we will both be presenting arguments for our side of the resolution in Round 2 and then doing a cross-examination of sorts in Round 3.There is only one definition I would like to clarify, and that is of the word "primarily", which, as applied to this resolution basically means Pro will be arguing that the Thirty Years War was more of a religious conflict than it was any other type of conflict (i.e. political, economic, social, etc.).I look forward to Pro's opening arguments!
Starwars: A new hope VS Starwars: Empire Strikes Back

Empire suffers no such problems. Luke is clearly the protagonist -- he changes from Rebel Commander and fighter pilot into an almost-but-not-quite Jedi Knight (and loses his hand). He and Vader know about each other and circle each other through most of the movie (in fact, Vader's desire to capture Luke is what drives the entire story forward).(This is not to say that simply having a protagonist/antagonist dyad makes a movie "good", but that some of the pacing issues of the first film can be glimpsed through this exercise. Not having a clear sense of who the protagonist is can lead to wasted time spent explaining things -- if we know who the protagonist is and what they want, there's no need for "telling" -- we can get on with the "showing"
Starwars: A new hope VS Starwars: Empire Strikes Back

First of the protagonist is clearly luke skywalker for a number of reasons. 1. There is a true character arc and a real development in the storyline. The only other argument for a main character would be Han Solo. He has a small be relevant story arc. In a new hope, It sets the base for what star wars movies are like and creates a whole new genre. A new hope sets a standard for modern science fiction and a new standard for directors and actors. A new hope (besides for Jaws and planet of the apes) created the Idea of a summer blockbuster. "These aren't the droids you're looking for."
Starwars: A new hope VS Starwars: Empire Strikes Back

We can begin to see the structural problems of the first film by trying to identify the protagonist and antagonist.For the protagonist, there's no clear answer and there are varying cases to be made for Luke, Han and Obi-Wan. (Leia's total lack of growth/change unfortunately rules her right out.)As for the antagonist at first blush it's clearly Darth Vader, but this presents further problems as he only really ever encounters Obi-Wan in what is effectively a sub-plot of the 2nd act (and senses Luke through the Force during the trench run). You could make a case for Tarkin, I suppose, or the more abstract "The Empire", but the waters start to get pretty muddy at that point.
Starwars: A new hope VS Starwars: Empire Strikes Back

A new hope is the way better movie for a number of reasons. 1. The star wars trilogy could be contained just within this one movie. The others movies (Which are good I grant you) need a new hope. 2. It introduces the concept to cinema of "dirty sic-fi" or not streamlined and beautiful sic-fi. The shots of tatooine are fantastic and the whole movie has a wonderful ark. " It is not a moon" It is a space station!"
gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

Even though love is not the only reason for marriage, gays still have the option to adopt and start a family. Saying it is not natural is like saying that handicapped people are not natural and should be exempt from marriage and children If separate but equal is meant for things that have no difference, then homosexuals are included in this. Your gender preference has no affect on anything in life other then who you find attractive and your partners in life. A huge percentage of heterosexuals would be guilty of sodomy if it was still a law. Gay love is completely equal or possibly stronger than straight love because they have to go through so much hate and still love each other.
gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

straight couple can adopt. they are the only ones who should be able to adopt. gay parents is not natural. plus striaghts can in principle have kids even if they are impotent. they are inherentlu capable. gays are not. love isn't the only unit for a copule, kids and family is part of that potential too. and, men and women were designed to be together, so their love is superiror in law to the love of gays. gay love is a deviation of genetics and such. separate but equal is meant for things that have no difference, like skin color. plus, states outlawed sodomy when the country first began, so it's not far fetched that we can make distinctions based on body design and nature and such. did morals change enough by the time 'separate but equal' became the law abolished? we don't have enough indication of such, and we have plenty of natural law to support no gay marriages.
gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

Straight couples with infertility have no way to have kids, unless through artificial insemination. This would be the same as the mothers wife being a step-dad to the child. I will state again that a marriage is not solely to have kids the main purpose is to create a bond of love. A " civil union" would essentially be making gays separate but equal. As court cases have shown, separate but equal is contradicting. You can not have separate but equal.
gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

straight mairrage even with infertile couples has the inherent possiblity to have kids. with gays, it is inherently impossible. if adoptions occur, it should include a man and a woman parents, as that reflects nature. also, man and woman are by nature couples designed to be together. gays are not designed that way. as a matte of repect, given their love and such, we can have civil unions. bsesides what is fundametnallly true mentioned above, if you open up marriage to gays, you'd have to to polygamous couples and who knows what. all we are doing is recognizing a fundamental unit of family that is recognized by nature with its natural consequenes/
gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

First of all, I would like to highlight that the sole purpose of marriage is not to have kids. That can be a part of marriage but the true purpose is to tie to people together in an inseparable bond of love between two people regardless of gender. I will put my self in your shoes and picture marriage as an act to allow child birth. If this is the case then why should infertile couples be able to get married? Throughout your opening statement you strongly imply that gays are not equal to heterosexual people. Assuming my definition of marriage, I want to ask you what makes gays unequal to heterosexuals and also why they are not worthy of marriage?
gay marriage should not be legal - civil unions okay

we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature. we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage. also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there. this is a separate debate, but touches on it. we should only allow males and females to have offspring.it's the natural order, and to allow otherwise would be to pervert how things ought to be for the child. (a gay couple for children who can't get adopted cause no one wants em, maybe an exception i dont know)
Genetically Modifying Human Beings is Unethical.

This is my first debate, so I am a bit unfamiliar with the rules and the website. Thank you bringing up this topic! I will open my rebuttal with this statement: GE is unethical and dangerous because it involves taking several incalculable risks. The consequences could be devastating and irreversible. Furthermore, the adverse consequences may not appear suddenly, and they could take years to present themselves! Here is why I believe GE is unethical: 1. CHARTING UNKNOWN WATERS - there are no guarantees as to how the GE'd human body will react, or mutate. 2. RELIGIOUS BELIEFS - For those with Religious beliefs, you are interfering with God's work. 3. REPRODUCTION - What would the product be if a "natural human" and a "genetically engineered" human mated? This even newer DNA could retard human growth, may possibly spawn something primitive, lethal, or something physically stronger, or mentally superior to both! Mutations could spin out of control. We could very well unleash and cause 4. LIFE CYCLE - All life DOES have its natural life cycle. If you increase the lifetime of human beings, you could devastate other species of plants and animals. Since we eat everything from plants and animals, we could wipe-out crops, and inadvertently wipe-out insects, or animals, that depend on those crops. The domino effects onto different plants, animals, and insects would be cataclysmic. 5. SOCIAL IMPACT – GE'd humans would in all likelihood face discrimination, revulsion, or fear by those who disagree with, or who are terrified, of genetic engineering. Since the person would have been genetically engineered, there are no guarantees that they will be able to adapt to society, form friendships, or close relationships, or conform to the laws and regulations that those in society live by. I'll save the rest for my next rebuttal.
The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially.

Dropped Points by Pro:Questionable evidence for a lack of economic strain from raising a minimum wage significantly. Pro does not address the concern that lack of solid evidence in favor of his position does not rebut inaction. Rather, Pro tries to use this uncertainty as evidence that action will not cause harm to the economy, yet provides little evidence to support his claims. Pro did not refute my assertion that statistics on labor in the 1990's and early 2000's are not equitable to our current economic system.Pro also concedes the point of wide variance in American costs of living. Pro does not show that current minimum wages fit minimum costs of living in the cheapest areas of the country. Rather, Pro concede that a minimum wage should be a "baseline", yet does not show how the current minimum wage was does not fit that standard. Pro does not show how businesses will either stay stable or that prices will not rise. Pro again takes lack of economists' consensus as proof of either positive or negligible effects. This is not the case, as my evidence shows. Pro assumes a lack of clear definition of "franchisee" as not a business owner. Pro does not provide a definition that fits with actual franchise business plans. I admit possible fault for not being clear up front with exact definitions, but this does not give Pro the authority to change the definition to suit his needs.CONCLUSION:Pro advocates a radical change to our current financial system without showing clear evidence that, not only will such change be positive on the aggregate, but that it will not cause equal or greater harm to a fledgling economic recovery. While I must commend Pro on his demeanor, I cannot agree with the facts as presented. If you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no harm, and only good, to raising the minimum wage substantially, you, as I, have no choice but to vote Con.
The US Minimum wage ought to be raised substantially.

Closing RemarksDropped PointsThere are many aspects of my argument that Con has failed to address. These points are therefore DROPPED and cannot be rebutted by con. I will enumerate those now. -My entire point A Argument: The current minimum wage does not account for inflation-My entire point B Argument: The current minimum wage (by historical standards) is quite low. -Con partially adresses Point C: He claims that raising the minimum wage will hurt small business owners. He does not adress my points, though, that raising the minimum wage will help the lower and middle classes. -Con cedes that the impact of raising the minimum wage is difficult to predict, and cannot be determined with much accuracy. Pro points out, though, that if the predictions of impact made by various econmists are graphed, then it can be seen that the vast majority and the median impact is negligable. -Point E is DROPPED as well: Raising the minimum wage will not likely increase the costs of food. Remember, DROPPED points CANNOT be rebutted in the final round, except with cross examination with previous arguments. Therefore, I forward these points. Con's CaseThe only real case that Con has made against the resolution is that raising the minimum wage could possibly maybe hurt the economy. His points are mostly speculation without much backing. Significant doubt is also cast over these arguments, as the pro has shown evidence to indicate that the negative impacts of raising the minimum wage are likely negligable. SummaryCon does not provide a compelling argument against raising the minimum wage, and fails to address many of my points.
Android 3 tablet PCs are a better choice than Apple tablet PCs

Currently, the Motorola Xoom runs Android 3 and has a 10 hr battery life [2]. There will be many brands of varying weight of Android 3 tablets. Xoom weighs 25.7 oz [2] compared to iPad2 21.4 oz [3]. 4.3 oz difference. What Android 3 does that Apple iPad2 does not [1]: HTML5, Flash (ipad will never do Flash) Full file system access without proprietary software. (iPad2 offers an extremely limited method of app-specific file transferring that can be done only through iTunes; you can't directly access or manage the tablet's file system in any way) SD memory card (at least on Xoom) true multitasking Android 3 also does iTunes, Kindle, and Google ebooks, has voice recognition widgets for commands and dictation and web browsing. [1] Android http://blogs.computerworld.com... [2] Xoom Specs http://www.androidtablets.net... http://www.pcworld.com... [3] iPad2 Specs http://www.apple.com...
Android 3 tablet PCs are a better choice than Apple tablet PCs

EVIDENCE 1: Battery Life Battery Life of a tablet is a key factor for the consumer. The consumer would definitely want the tablet that can stay alive as long as possible without worrying to recharge the tablet every hour or so. The iPad can stay up for over 6 hours for the average consumer. However when I see the Android Product’s battery life is around 4 hours. EVIDENCE 2: Customer Support Apple based on Consumer Reports was received first place in technology consumers ratings. They based their criteria off of this… whether the manufacturer solved their problem, how long they waited to talk with someone on the phone, and how knowledgeable the support staff were. Apple received the highest ranking of “Better” in all three areas for both laptops and desktops—the only company to do so. They averaged an 82 on customer support- which was the highest second being Dell in 57.