BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
POEM Battle

Boom, Boom The explosion shakes the sky Colors of red burst outside Life disappear in a cry Like a bomb it's all gone This battle is what I faced with you I always wanted to say adieu This life unforgiving that I led with lies and hatred I was fed Shall I end it now, why me Too blind, could not see The truth of the word carved out in my hand in blood Dying like I been all my life Too late I need t end it Too far you took it Now you broke it Forever lost in endless paradox of hate and love, yet to find the one and only possible truth so hard when you poisoned the youth Crushed me, killed me shot me, yet never left me You cared for me as you stabbed me Guess how I feel to this day torn out inside wanting to burn I thought I would stay this way but I know there is one escape A gun for two eighty loaded with full hatred signed my peace treaty Thanks love. Boom Boom
POEM Battle

Carousel Carousel, Carousel We go round and round Round and round Round and round again In our endless macabre dance Your brightly painted horses smile at me Distorted and sinister they mock me I ride them to the edge and back round again Oh won't you tell them to halt? You've made me so dizzy and sick Shall I ride til my death? Or will the ride itself cause it When I crumple in exhaustion And can no longer mount the horse again Do your malicious dance, Carousel I will dance til I die
POEM Battle

Drop, Drop, Drop Oh how these blood spills Like tears of lost love Life and love truly kills Break these chains To find more pains Drop, Drop, Drop My mind breaks to pieces Can you save me from this My heart burns to ashes I am bleeding out dying with no doubt Drop, Drop, Drop Hate always contaminates Until it covers the sky Violence always creates the pain ever lasting the death never ending Undeniable truth that comes out is very clear No life is worth living when you live in hell The amount of your pain can't save those dear I am not gonna survive only time can tell
The biggest island is not Greenland

Like I said, my opponent never limited the subject island to Planet Earth, meaning the largest island is most probably not Afro-Eurasia. Neither did he limit the subject island to those in the physical plane, meaning the largest island is within a limitless metaphysical confines (haha, limitless confines). It also means that he is completely wrong, the largest island is definitely not Afro-Eurasia as per the second sentence. I'm also disappointed that my opponent would ignore my points.. he didn't even bother contending. Late definitions are unacceptable. It is an abuse, and gives the late definer a clearly disproportionate advantage, especially when the point being restructured is of such importance in this matter. What happens if you don't define? Reputed debater Imabench provides an excellent example: http://www.debate.org... Of course, mine aren't nearly as abusive as equating DNA to Demonic Nambian Antelopes, but ,hopefully, you get the point. CONDUCT: Could possibly go to PRO, but I think PRO's attempts to restructure the debate in rounds 2 & 3 supersede the offenses I've probably committed: overbearing confidence (wait, does this even count?), patronization, informality, etc. SPELLING AND GRAMMAR: He barely Englished, but I think he deserves the tie. I'm not one for overkills ARGUMENT: Obviously, me. SOURCES: My Merriam Webster VS. my opponent's nonexistent source. I think it's pretty clear that I'm the victor here.
The biggest island is not Greenland

CON's point is valid (that the island-nation most call Greenland is not the largest island), but it is completely irrelevant to mine. My point stands. Even if my opponent's point is true, it doesn't negate the validity of mine. Both are true, the biggest island is thus Greenland. Note that a thing is not limited to a single name, and a name is whatever we decide to call something. Fact: Not everyone has to use the same name, and not everyone is limited by the nomenclatural decision of others. Since islands are not limited by space or size, the biggest island cannot be, in all probability, on Earth. In fact, my opponent did not limit island to those on Earth or on the physical plane. That means that the largest island is metaphysical; an unfathomable mass of infinity NOT on Earth. A thing can have many names, and I've given all islands the name: Greenland. Of course, even if we do assume that the island confines is, in fact, Earth, my point is still valid. I've named every island Greenland, thus ensuring the fact that the largest island is Greenland. How is this not valid? A thing can have many names. Whether or not a name is official is subjective, and a name doesn't need to be 'official' to be valid. I don't even know what you are saying. What am I doing? What is this? Have I fallen so far as to be refuting nonexistent points by an imaginary CON? REAL CON, please read my argument. Respond to my argument. It's pointless to develop a position while completely ignoring that developed by your opponent (WHICH YOU ARE CURRENTLY DOING! RAWRR!!). Crazy? Yes. Very. Absolutely maniacal. Contention 8 - Point #6: Definition of language: 1. the vocabulary and phraseology belonging to an art or a department of knowledge [1] 2. the words, their pronunciation, and the methods of combining them used and understood by a community [1] Anyone can create a language, and language does not necessarily require any degree of communication capacity. As for the second definition, there is no upper or lower limit to the extent of understanding necessary to being a language. This means that, as long as there is some degree, any degree, of understanding, it is a language. I'm just covering possible discrepancies, don't sweat it. I will now create the Greenland language. Guess what word comprises the entire language? That's right! 'Greenland'. Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland Greenland. It's alright if you don't understand in terms of communication, I don't either, but it's still a language. Since, according to Greenland language, Greenland is the only viable word, everything is Greenland.. including but not limited to the largest island ever. Greenland Now even if contention 8 - point #6 were not true (yes it is, yes it is), my original point still stands. Don't forget that I've named every island Greenland. GOGOGO! [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The biggest island is not Greenland

Greenland is a country; Green land is a 'land' that is green. My argument suggests that Greenland, the country, (http://en.wikipedia.org... - click that link for clarification on which country I am talking about) is not the biggest island on Earth. I hope we're on the same page here. The biggest island is not Greenland, because the biggest island is the island which consists of a part of Asia, a part of Europe, the Middle East, and most of Africa - click this link - http://picturepush.com....
The biggest island is not Greenland

I say the biggest island IS Greenland. 1. The names of all things are derived from language. 2. All language is derived from the application of sound to a linguistic form. 3. All names are simply applications of sound. Working backward, I will apply the sound (and the visual, English image) of the word, 'Greenland', and thus name each and every island in existence, Greenland. Another way of putting it (hey it's an example!): People of one language calls our planet Earth, another calls it Poopooface (sekai, mundo, monde, shijie, whatever), both are right. It doesn't matter if neither agree, nomenclature does not necessitate a system of priority. A thing's name is what people decide it is. Since, in addition to my being a person, I have cognitive linguistic ability and a certain degree of sound-command, I am perfectly capable of naming every island Greenland. The biggest island is thus Greenland.
Should "In God we trust" be on American money, please watch.

As I've been saying, this is not a matter of free speech. Here is why: You can still trust in god but because you do not have the authority of deciding what to print on money, you cannot just make the decision to print that on money, simply because, you and only YOU, are saying that you trust in god. Just because you trust in god it doesn't mean that everybody trusts in god. All of my points are still valid.
Should "In God we trust" be on American money, please watch.

Yes it is. Freedom of speech is a right no matter what you opine on. I support your rights to equality of representation, but you don't support mine. I have the right to say anything I want, including "In God We Trust". You have no right to my free speech, and the government is most assuredly NOT saying in whom you have the right to trust. All monotheists are equally represented, religion or no religion, that is why I am asserting IGWT as a free speech isssue, not a religious issue.
Should "In God we trust" be on American money, please watch.

I did not say all atheists hate religion and think George Carlin had some valid points. What I am saying is radical antitheists are the isssue here, not the everyday atheist. I apologize for not having proper communication. I do believe both atheism and Christianity should have equal protections under the law. As a center leftist, I am fin with an interfaith section on government property, where skeptics and members of any religion can express their thoughts. I feel personally that the loving and peaceful, but open and honest exchange of ideas is one of the hallmarks of a free and democratic society. I want be fine with a Hitchen's Razor statue next to a cross as long as everyone feels represented. I pay taxes just like atheists, so I have the same right to be represented as an atheist. I want a society where those who pay equal taxes are equally represented. What I wont do is engage in supremicy because I am a Christian, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Finally, let's discuss the First Amendment. Freedom of religion as a right is mentioned, as well as freedom of speech, and that does not exclude religious speech. My final point is that "In God we trust" is not, I repeat not, a freedom of religion issue, but a freedom of speech issue/ Many of the Founding Fathers would agree that speech whether controversial or not, atheist, agnostic, religious, or political, is worthy of protection as a First Amendment right. You can call me a stupid head, and I will support your right to say that. I get nervous when some speech is protected, and some, not.
Should "In God we trust" be on American money, please watch.

It is a free speech issue, and a belief in the God of the Bible through Christianity, and some deists has played a part in the founding of America, and because antitheists hate religion, they want to deny free speech and religious liberty, which are enshrined in the First Amendment. I support your nonchristian rights, why can't can't you do the same for me? I literally would go to bat to defend an atheist, and am a leftist progressive, but the antitheist stranglehold on America is tragique, mon cher!
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

look.. its really simple if i claim i have a dragon in my backyard, you can believe me, theism, or disbelieve me, atheism, or be an agnostic and accept you dont know these are the only position when it comes to religion i have no beliefs i understand matt dillahuntys position, and its is simple, that its wrong belief in science, is theism so im claiming, you are not an atheist, you are theist, fighting another religion false exist, lies exist. evidence: you can lie you can negate the god claim with beliefs in science, religion negates religion, or i accept i dont know, only ways of not believing a claim when aware of it
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

atheism, is disbelief, belief to the contrary belief IS theism, therfore atheism is theism the specifik position of atheism that your warn against, is becasue, its true, and it reveals the religiosity of science absence of belief in god=know or i dont know disbelief=belief there are only 3 possible position on any imaginary claim, belief, disbelief, or acceptance i dont know without disbelief atheism cant exist, if you believe in science, lacking evidence for a creator of everything, then science is your god if i tell you i have dragon chained up in my backyard, and you disbelieve my claim, what is your position on my claim? the reason why atheism is theism, is because they are the same, the theist imagines the evidence and says yes, and the atheist imagines the evidence, and says no, agnostic says i dont know, which is true i dont know=i have to imagine it not having belief on an imaginary claim=i know or i accept i dont know
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

belief is theism, religion, belief in god belief equals god so i am arguing that atheism is a form of theism in itself, which makes atheism religion, which means that the only better position is agnostisism, as that is the only true position belief is doubt, and doubt is religion know=Physical experience=absolute certainty belief is only relevant when i dont know, so i dont know is always true in this case, which automaticly makes belief false the reason why belief equates to theism is that, anything i believe is information, and god is information santa clause is a god that demands that you are good, or there will be no reward... dosnt sound like to much of a stretch does it? lies exist, i will catch a unicorn later today out in the forest i just know it! it will be black with a gold horn, i will ride it and it will l finally take me away for infinite jadada blabbla... i dont know god, and only know is true i dont know unicorns imagination is false reality is unbelieved imaginaiton is unknown alien dosnt equal true
Atheism is a more reasonable position than theism

Definition: Atheism is the absence of belief in any god. (it is not, necessarily, a belief that there are no gods) Since there is no reasonable evidence for the existence of any god, it is more reasonable not to believe in any gods. It strikes me that anybody who wishes to argue Con in this debate only has two possible lines of attack: [1] Provide reasonable evidence that a god exists [2] Provide a reasonable explanation as to why no evidence exists I am confident that I can refute any evidence presented for [1] (although I am prepared to examine any evidence and am willing to change my mind if I'm wrong, it's just that I've spent a long time looking at evidence and none I've seen so far is reasonable). For [2], whilst one may be able to provide a consistent story to justify a "cryptodeity" (a god hell-bent on not being discovered), it is ultimately unreasonable to believe such stories because they lack explanatory power and falsifiability so there is no way to prefer one out of the millions of possible such explanations. I'm happy to debate anybody on any level, but please... one rule... don't try to shift the burden of proof by altering the definition of "atheism" to include the positive assertion that there are no gods... I'll freely admit that it is impossible to prove that no gods exist - and yet such an admission does not lessen my case... it is equally impossible to prove that no unicorns exist, but I don't let that bother me nor do I allow it to alter the fact that I don't believe in unicorns... and, of course, more relevantly to this debate, I don't let the fact that nobody has disproved unicorns affect my rational judgement that it is more reasonable not to believe in unicorns than it is to believe in them given a complete lack of reasonable evidence. I don't fully understand why we make a special case for gods... it seems to me that it is clearly more reasonable not to believe in any gods than to believe in any given the complete lack of reasonable evidence. By the way, fair warning: the Kalam Cosmological Argument has been well refuted over the years, don't go there!
Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church.

Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church. However, Catholics have maintained the canon established by the early Church, most notably by the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage in the late 4th to early 5th centuries. Even before these councils, many of the early Christians identified the deuterocanonical books as part of the canon of Scritpure.
Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church.

I have really enjoyed this debate, and definitely succeeded in learning a thing or two. I do believe that this debate has finally reached it's pinnacle and is now revealed to be a bit of a semantic debate. My opponent has revealed that the definition of the word "canon," as used by the Early Catholics and indeed the Council of Trent is different from what we use today. He claims that the issue at Trent regarding the canon was the use of the deuterocanonicals in liturgy, and I will demonstrate that this betrays the historical occasion for the council as well as the text of the decree. The Council of Trent was a large ecumenical council in 1546 that made several dogmatic decrees to counter the Protestant Reformation. In effect, they made strict definitions within the Roman Catholic Church so as to draw the dividing line and pronounce the reformers as heretics and that they are "anathema" or accursed. Within this historical occasion, it makes no sense to make pronounce a dogma about the deuterocanonical texts to be read in liturgy, but rather that if one does not recognize these books as sacred and canonical that they are anathema. Which is exactly what is said. "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. "[1]It is clearly not saying that every single part of Scripture needs to be used in liturgy, but that every single part of the Scripture they have just defined must be regarded as sacred and canonical. You also mentioned the Council of Florence which actually did not really take up the issue of the Canon, but rather mentioned the list later affirmed as dogma in the Council of Trent. The context is in the eleventh session of the Council of Florence in which the inclusion of the Coptic Orthodox Christians, and mention of the Scriptures was merely to state their agreement on the matter. Not as a council to pronounce official dogma as it was with the Council of Trent. [2]To conclude, no where in the Council of Trent, during the fourth session on the issue of the Canon does it even mention liturgy, but only that one must accept the books listed as sacred and canonical or be anathema. Thus, as this is the first pronouncement of dogma and full authority of the Roman Catholic Church on the matter, it cannot be stated that the Protestant Reformers removed these books from the Canon, but rather disagreed with the current dogma of the church, and was in agreement with other Early Church Fathers who also dissented regarding the inspiration of such texts. His semantic argument regarding the meaning of Canon in the Council of Trent has failed, and thus his argument has failed. [1] . https://history.hanover.edu...[2] . http://www.ewtn.com...
Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church.

However, I am not ready to concede just yet as it is important to draw a distinction in Catholicism between the councils such as Hippo or Carthage and that of Trent. The first ecumenical councils were regional councils that were not considered infallible, or as authoritative as the subsequent councils such as the Council of Trent. From a Catholic Encyclopedia, we have this pronouncement:"The Tridentine decrees from which the above list is extracted was the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal. "[1]That means prior to this council, there was no official and infallible statement on the matter, despite widespread acceptance of the Canon as presented in the Council of Trent and Florence. Since the Canon was only established as Dogma (necessary to believe) in the Council of Trent, such an application of what was truly the "Canon" cannot truly be ascertained by a Catholic except retrospectively through the Council of Trent. There was indeed descent in the Early Church regarding the authority of the Apocryphal books. Jerome, who translated the Latin Vulgate and was a foremost scholar in his time did not accept these books. “St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries. .. For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon). [2]It is made clear then to the readers that the since the infallible decision of the Church had not been made since the Council of Trent, the true nature of the canon prior to this date cannot be fully established from a Roman Catholic perspective. Indeed Jerome distinguished these books as merely ecclesiastical books in his Vulgate translation which was the official translation of the Church for sometime. It can be further noted that the source of this information is not from biased Protestant sources, but rather Roman Catholic sources about the nature of the Canon and it's doubt up until Trent. Certainly it can be calimed that Protestants disagreed with the popular belief concerning the Canon and the "deuterocanonical" books, but it cannot be said that they removed books from the Canon, when such Canon had not been officially established by the Church in a universal and infallible delivery as per their doctrine. [1] . http://www.newadvent.org...[2] . http://www.justforcatholics.org...;
Protestants removed certain books which belong to the canon established by the early Church.

This is a question of history, not doctrine or theology. When it comes to the Canon, the most important event to note is perhaps the Synod of Hippo, which was subsequently accepted by the Council of Carthage. This Synod of Hippo did not name the books known in the Apocrypha but only the standard Protestant Canon. "Canon 24. Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: [then follows a list of Old Testament books]. The [books of the] New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the Epistles of Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews; one Epistle; of Peter, two; of John, apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read. " It was actually at the time of the reformation that it was officially proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church to be part of the Canon, in the Council of Trent in 1546. This was done in the fourth session of Trent. [2] [1] . http://www.ntcanon.org... [2] . https://history.hanover.edu...