BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The war of peace

Yes grammar and hearts racing and hormones flooding all impulses and art of nature and of the universe. Ah! The coin and the note and the zeroed interface. It, the one God and us to have or not to have, to starve or not, or to live or die. That spectacular existence and that humble diminishment, roll the coin, roll the dice and the one god without vision is neither merciless or merciful. And the coin spins as the Earth spins as the Milky Way spins as we endure our organic sufferance, wrought as if by magic and that magic of ecstasy and that one Gods eye looks not upon nor cares. In their heads and in your head and in my head and in our heads, etched in that magic and notion taught. War and peace, to have or have not, to starve or not, to live or to die. And the kangaroo bounds onward across it's Australian Universe.
The war of peace

So it's, insert it time as we of man become men insert a woman another child of tomorrow is inserted into the world. But the grammar artsy won't let us be as it should be. So it's on with the show. The war of peace is as simple as Fred's peace train. For it is but two sides of a double-headed coin, the woman of women on one side and the man of men on the other as it coins rounds it rolls through the slots width, weight and height. So be it a well-rounded individual. When transparencies of our indifference are as the coins thickness shades of grey to grays within darknesses we of well-balanced individuals be it however long it takes a coin to round. Know it as love as weight not the height of paper stacks of Biblos. Made round to go round, notes and bills are stacked that continuously say I'm hungry. The slot needs to broaden as the coin needs to narrow while it's hight is still 360 degrees while the midnight oils burn back in 1984 while the change of bills and notes to coins in 2009 of a kangaroo's court entanglement within Charlet's web of lies and deceit. Must have been a hell of a web to catch a kangaroo. Numb the s in politics and become a dictator is not the way. While all religions and beliefs belong to the people's discretion of governance. Credibility is kept in check by both parties burden of responsibilities authoritarian people of supposed rational reasoning. If the minority suffers because of a few and the majority follows then why is it but an e on the end of human to make it all alright? Because it isn't alright is it? http://www.dummies.com...
The war of peace

Everything means something in our own heads. Fred was a train driver. I guessed that his range of interest was very limited, not extending far outside home and work. But who knows what fantasies lurked within. Fred had an unusual habit, as described. Fred, though an object of derision to some, was an example of peaceful simplicity to me. Who knows what lurks inside Royal heads. That long line of European war mongers, deluded by their own importance. Let's listen to Ralph Vaughan Williams today maybe? And perhaps rest peacefully in his dope of pastoral beauty. Words are but fluttering notions and pen hand finger keyboard etchings. What are you for in this debate? Fluttering fingers flicked words, falling and failing. Judgement is as judgement does and what has meaning in your head? Intelligence is no indicator of common sense and urine is what urine does. Saturday sitting, sat here on Saturday listening and keyboard tapping. Peace in sound and peace in contemplation and relaxation in composition. And war and peace and the war of peace and peace be with you always.
The war of peace

The 58-year-old enigma has awoken as of course and is most likely a he that joined 1 year ago and a name of Son of Charl. https://www.google.com... So as an uneducated guess, I would say an Englishman but far from a gentleman as his namesake Son of Prince Charles, with the likes of the immature insults. Or was it a juvenile compliment? Sonofcharl remarks that "The military doesn't matter, clowns to the left of me jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you as it were, (Fred head bob grunt") It might just be a compliment and not an insult, so maybe you could share your hidden agenda's meaning with us all. Would you please. And I will apologise with all grace and dignitary that is justly deserved for you the son of the prince. If you deserve it. So let us go on shall we with his choice of music, he is most likely a dope smoker. Have at least the intelligence to consider what you are against in this debate. The war of peace then you are what unsure or you have made an error of judgement or you would like a pissing contest of stupidity? Stupid is as stupid does.
The war of peace

Yes line drawings and old stories. Sometimes it's a struggle to get those power leads in, cheap Chinese imports, low end low precision, low brow threeway bree bro broo. The military doesn't matter, clowns to the left of me jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you as it were, Fred head bob grunt. Afterwards Victor's always full of half truths and inconsiderate and begins failing people, it's a war of words over the leftovers to tell you the truth. The way passed heroically, through the woods and through the trees, high end carbon interface for sure, Victor fell over and lost his voice, threeway woodland cycling reaction, wid wood woo. Australia is a pleasing land mass as is China. Both ways three ways double edged tongue cut. The pen is mightier than the sword and both practised empathy at the Co op, they bought humus and were sympathetic. Through the surroundings and the subject was understanding creation, doing the teachers is cool but can get them into trouble, best to keep it to yourselves and not speak out of turn. Of course be careful not to create the children of tomorrow. It's a tense exit for all of us and peas and beans, threeway legume fantasy, threeway legume frustration, friss fruss froo.
The war of peace

https://www.smh.com.au... The line has been drawn in the sand over China's Vanuatu's military power struggle that leads to that same old story of, it does not matter who was right, it is who is left. Does it matter to the right at all about who has left afterwards? As the victors, truths and half-truths fail to even consider what the war was about, to begin with as the people left and right are but that leftovers and their truths and half-truths are very rarely ever heard. For they are all passed away as like all heroes of war the fallen that never speak again. So please China and Australia and all other Nations of land mass the tongue of peace are as a double-edged sword it cuts both ways. Practising; Empathy, Humility, Sympathy and Cooperation throughout life, create an understanding of the surroundings that we are subjected to, doing this teaches us to talk to each other, so we can speak with each other and not at each other. Peace be with us all for our children of tomorrows existence creator.
Truth is stranger than fiction

Well I thought you might enter mathematics. Funny thing that, because mathematics is not a thing that happens in nature, it's a logical process >made up< to describe numerically, or variably different logical scenarios. Sure it might be applicable to nature because of it's logical nature and the fact that it can be modified to fit to any logical scenario. Meaning that it is in essence fictitious. Also mathematics is a logical method which makes it essentially a part of philosophy not science. Yes I has been adopted by science because of it's useful applicable uses. So I would argue it was disadvantageous for you to include mathematics.
Truth is stranger than fiction

First of all, we do have a true example something going on for eternity. Take infinity for example. There are many version of infinity. Take for example the infinite amount of decimals between two integers. Between 1 and 2 there are the numbers 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9. But then include the next set. 1.11 and so on. There are an infinite number of numbers that go on for eternity. So that is in fact based in truth. This follows your scientific deffinition of truth. I hope to hear you attempt to combat my first points in this last round of the debate.
Truth is stranger than fiction

I disagree that fiction needs to have a basis in reality. For example eternity is something that doesn't exist in our universe. Yet in fiction eternal beings pop up across the board, from elves and reincarnated boars to gods and titans. The conception of something that is eternal is just out of this world and doesn't have any true example in in our universe. Also you forgot to include your definition of truth so from now on we shall use the scientific version of truth. That everything that can be demonstrated to be true by experimentation must be true, and that every theory can be modified or disregarded if new evidence is found that contradicts the previous theory. Once we've agreed on our premises we should move on to the real argument. First of all let us focus on the truth part. If everything demonstrable via the scientific method can be regarded as truth and all other information as false or fictional, even if based on said truth, then that must be the way to conclude something about the world around us. Now if the scientific method is the standard, that everything demonstrable is true, then we can safely regard it the normal way to find the truth and the only thing rational. Now if fiction is not demonstrable via the scientific method, which it isn't, then we can safely say that fiction is difficult to understand or explain from the view of the truth. And if you can remember that is our definition for strange, thus we can conclude that fiction is stranger than truth.
Truth is stranger than fiction

Thank you for your very polite debate. I define fiction as something that has been created. It may be a book or television show. However, i also take the stance that all fiction is based on truth. The human mind is not capable of coming up with entirely new scenarios. Take for example dreams; people say that you never see an entirely new face in them. That the only people involved are people that you have seen or meet before. In fiction, these things (that are based on reality) are given weird and wonderful ways to describe them. Like the zombie creatures. These things are so strange that fiction writers feel the need to create complex ways of describing their existence.
Truth is stranger than fiction

Thank you, for this debate Zebra, I will do my best to be as clear and objective as I can. Thus I hope you, as the instigator, will also try to refrain from emotion and remember to have fun while debating, after all there's no use in debating if everyone's miserable. Well, first of all we have to define the word strange. The definition I'm going to be using is the google dictionary definition, "unusual or surprising; difficult to understand or explain." After that we have only two more words to define. Truth, which I think we'll both agree on, must be objective, though even then there are several different views on, if we're perceiving the world from a scientific view that means we disregard the fact that even science is erroneous if we perceive from a philosophical stand point. so I'll leave the decision to you. Now onto the last word, fictional or fiction, now I think we can also agree that fictional means something that's untrue, false or wrong. Though even then I'd like you to define what counts as fictional, as in do you think untrue or fictional opinions, religious beliefs, statements, folklore etc. count as fiction or do you think anything that is perceived false or untrue is enough to be considered untrue? Now that I think covers round one of the debate, I wish you luck and hope you'll enjoy our debate. I hope you'll find my debating skills more than adequate for your tastes.
Post-Modernism: A paper tiger

"[i]The new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.[/i]" -- G.K. Chesterton This is the face of post-modernism which lives in consummate contradiction-- moralizing absolutely about the falseness of a moral absolute, with an allegiance to nothing but its own self-congratulatory spirit. How succinctly Chesterton gets to the heart of matter by denuding rationalism of its rationality, exposing it to the light of actual reason -- something they so earnestly raise up as an idol, but fail to conceptualize. If one looks for internal inconsistencies as a way of uncovering flawed truth claims, how does the post-modernist view deal with its own glaring contradictions? If post-modernists applaud tolerance as a virtue to be sought after, how do they come to grips for their own intolerance of a view that must remain cogent with the law of non-contradiction -- that two opposing principles cannot both be simultaneously right? If these debates are merely generalizations, then I am in favor of referring to post-modernism as a paper tiger.
Capitalism is justified because it makes life better.

""Improvement has been remarkable", again using Wikipedia but even then, the improvement is marginal at best they're still in the upper middle, barely at that." Do you honestly expect countries to 50 years of communist idiocies like forced collectivization, tyrannical security apparatuses, and isolationism outside the Warsaw Pact to reach the level of western states in less than 20? As to the Stalin quote again, i'm sorry that your knowledge of history and economics is so limited that you have to use Wikipedia as your illegitimate "source". If there was such great economic growth and prosperity, why did the USSR suffer economic collapse? At least I actually provide a source, one with its own legitimate sources. "Again my opponents ignores the context of my argument, The Iraq War is a perfectly good empirical example that supports my argument." You point out no correlation between the Iraq War and private ownership of the means of production. "Lastly, he says find me a system that does this. Of course, The United States, anyone who thinks this country is a free market economy does not economics. How many bailouts were given in the past two years? Ok and did the citizens or the State decide to bail out those certain companies, again the State." State control =/= control by citizens. Bailouts tie companies to the state, not citizens. The only citizen involvement is the use of their money, taken by force. "He completely ignored my argument of how Capitalist systems have used immoral force as well as any other system and simply called my empirical example not relevant." Capitalism offers the most freedom and power to the individual, as I have previously stated. Freedom and power are beneficial, and morally desirable, and this justifies capitalism. Again, you point out no correlation between the Iraq War and private ownership of the means of production. "Since I stated that this would be an LD style round I'd ask that my opponent respect the rules of such and not to bring up any new arguments seeing as how i'll not be able to refute them." I did not accept this debate on this condition. You cannot change the rules of a debate once it is already underway.
Capitalism is justified because it makes life better.

Since there were no real arguments or rebuttals made i'll keep this brief. Your 5th grade history book will tell you that in slavery people were treated better as time progressed this is empirically proven because we know Thomas Jefferson had slaves and let them live in his home where as 100 years earlier they were lucky to sleep on dirt. As to the Stalin quote again, i'm sorry that your knowledge of history and economics is so limited that you have to use Wikipedia as your illegitimate "source". Um the next quote was taken out of context i'm not going to waste my time addressing something that wasn't even addressed by my opponent those judging can read it easily. "Improvement has been remarkable", again using Wikipedia but even then, the improvement is marginal at best they're still in the upper middle, barely at that. Again my opponents ignores the context of my argument, The Iraq War is a perfectly good empirical example that supports my argument. Lastly, he says find me a system that does this. Of course, The United States, anyone who thinks this country is a free market economy does not economics. How many bailouts were given in the past two years? Ok and did the citizens or the State decide to bail out those certain companies, again the State. So to sum things up for the judges i'll go over all my points he dropped did not refute and completely ignored and lastly show how he failed to pose any real arguments to mine other than claiming that history and facts are not sources. First, He has failed again to reiterate his argument of why this is to be justified. So even if you don't like all the arguments I've posed you have to Negate because the Affirmative has not met their burden. He completely ignored my arguments on why an economic system just making life "better" is not a justifiable reason to implement it, he simply tries to argue that the treatment of slaves did not progress for the better even though it eventually led to their release, but again he doesn't like history as a source. He completely ignored my argument of how Capitalist systems have used immoral force as well as any other system and simply called my empirical example not relevant. He did not refute my Browne card in which I showed how forcing an individual to accept a standard of living that is not their own and simply assuming that it's better for them is unjust and that when the government uses this force it leads us towards Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, again unrefuted. So for the preceding reasons and if you go back to the top and read argument by arguments you see how many were ignored and dropped by my opponent. The Affirmative has failed to meet the burden of proof which is again to prove that a capitalist system is justified for making life better. Since I stated that this would be an LD style round I'd ask that my opponent respect the rules of such and not to bring up any new arguments seeing as how i'll not be able to refute them. Thank you Debate.org Vote Neg ;)
Capitalism is justified because it makes life better.

"There were rising standards of living in slave societies" Source? "Stalinism for another example, there was very substantial economic growth in the Soviet Union until 1989, it was the second world not the third world, it's now back in the third world because it's undergoing capitalist reforms" Source? "We've already discussed why that is a terrible argument, that simply because there's a better standard of living somethings justified, so to move on to where he says more jobs better living yay!!!!" So I guess an unemployed life is better than an employed one. "since that time the have made capitalist reforms, and last time i checked they haven't improved if so it's negligible" Absolutely wrong. Improvement has been remarkable. http://en.wikipedia.org... Compare the West to the East. While the West maintained a capitalist system throughout the 20th century, the east did not. "Next i'll quote him, "To date, no country with a non-capitalist system has retained one without using immoral force." Has Capitalism not been guilty of the same? If anything I don't think Noam Chomsky could write enough books to describe the imperialstic indoctrination of the United States' political and economic system on not only Iraq, but many other nations worldwide. The most recent statistics show that 1,331,578 Iraqis have been killed since the United States invaded Iraq (Jeremy Scahill will concur), does that sound moral? The poster child of war profiteering is Halliburton so the argument that the U.S didn't start the war in order for government to sustain itself if is false. Both state controlled and free enterprise economic countries are guilty of this again as i stated earlier i do not have to advocate for a particular economic system that would be past the scopes of the resolution." The Iraq War is irrelevant to the subject of this debate. "not into the hands of the working class citizen" Find me a system that does this.