BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition

I would like to begin by discussing the wording of the resolution: Does this poet defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competitionThis resolution's wording determines that pro must prove that "this poet" aka Colin Leslie Dean does defeat Shakespeare in this poetry competition. The resolution's wording also determines that con must simply prove this statement to be untrue. As the resolution implies this, and the pro has not provided a burden for the con, my arguments must be looked at with this weighting in mind. I would like to first provide a definition of poetry, as this is important to the resolution, and my opponent has failed to do so. Poetry, as defined by the Oxford Online Dictionary is:Literary work in which special intensity is given to the expression of feelings and ideas by the use of distinctive style and rhythm; poems collectively or as a genre of literatureAs shown in the definition of poetry, their very nature and purpose is to express feeligs and ideas. This definition comes into conflict with the pro's stance n the resolution. The pro stands on the assumption that emotions are concrete and comparable, which would allow them to compete. Emotions however, vary from person to person in response to different things. When one person sees a paintiong, it may bring them joy, and another person pain. Therefore, we cannot quantify or compare emotions, so we cannot say that one poem is better than another as this would entail comparing their expression of feelings, which I have proven to be immpossible. Along with this, ideas cannot be quantified or compared, so according to the definition of poetry which states that its purpose is also to express ideas, you cannot compare poetry. Looking at my opponents arguments: 1) his poems are more emotional that Shakespeare's sonnetsAs I stated earlier, you cannot quantify emotions, as the usage of "more" in my opponents argument entails2) his poems are more lyrical than Shakespeare's sonnetsMy opponent gives no definition of lyrical, and does not provide a link back to the resolution. I have shown what a poem entails, and how "lyrical" it is is not in this definition. If my opponent fails to explain how "lyrical" relates to the resolution than you cannot look to this argument.3) his poems have more desire in them than Shakespeare's sonnetsAgain, no link to the resolution. To summarize, con is arguing that you cannot "defeat" a poem because the purpose of a poem is ideas and emotion which are not quantifiable or comparable. Pro's arguments do not stand because argment 1 is about more emotion, but emotion is not quantifiable, and argments 2 and 3 have no link back to the reslution. Thank you, and I look forward to hearing your response.
Rap Battle: Odyssey & Rocky Lightning

You don't know my styles, I just met youYou call that music? Sounds like poop.Do you think I'm a girl? That very 'sultingI'm tired of of your rhyme, Mr. a-a-b-b.I dont box, you think your cool'cause you live In napa, but all you do is sh*t on a stoolgo home, you don't stand a chance...you mutt.Why do I have HIV?Last time I checkedYour the one with the STDWhy you gotta make your filthy lies?Its cause when you down you look at the skies.You're equilized, like the EQ you use when you rapIts like auto tune, but sounds like crap.The odessy? That's for you to figure atCause thats the end of my rap, kitty cat.
Rap Battle: Odyssey & Rocky Lightning

(Smif-N-Wessun "Sound Bwoy Bureill" Instrumental) Your styles are generic, mine was ethnic made this guy never listened music, he smoke chronic You better with the lights off, go take your clothes off Just show me your round-a** nipples before I piss you off this guy never win the boxing game he got the smack down by the frown a** fame I scar and kill, kill one of that fool You went to Brooklyn, that's a private school New York, boo York, your voice sounds like pork he needs a doctor to take a medicine to cork Rocky needs another real mother****in G That's why he's the one got a HIV Your going to be dead by the thunderstorm you struck by the lightning, if there's a nose, you got the worm Rocky needs some talent of poem, where's your comb? Odyssey is the man that takes Odyssey Rocks The Freedom
Sea lions are seals

P1: Sea Lions and Seals are both marine mammals (called 'pinnipeds') which differ in physical characteristics and adaptationsP2: Animals vary between their shape, size, look and doingP3: Different names = different organisms (no matter how close they are in a family)C1: Seals and Sea Lions are not the same mammalsThis argument is valid. If the premise is correct, so too is the conclusion.Support for P1 & P2:Seals' furry, generally stubby front feet " thinly webbed flippers, actually, with a claw on each small toe " seem petite in comparison to the mostly skin-covered, elongated fore flippers that sea lions possess.Secondly, sea lions have small flaps for outer ears. The "earless" or "true" seals lack external ears altogether. You have to get very close to see the tiny holes on the sides of a seal"s sleek head.Third, sea lions are noisy. Seals are quieter, vocalizing via soft grunts.Fourth, while both species spend time both in and out of the water, seals are better adapted to live in the water than on land. Though their bodies can appear chubby, seals are generally smaller and more aquadynamic than sea lions. At the same time, their hind flippers angle backward and don't rotate. This makes them fast in the water but basic belly crawlers on terra firma.Sea lions, on the other hand, are able to "walk" on land by rotating their hind flippers forward and underneath their big bodies. This is why they are more likely to be employed in aquaria and marine shows.Finally, seals are less social than their sea-lion cousins. They spend more time in the water than sea lions do and often lead solitary lives in the wild, coming ashore together only once a year to meet and mate.Sea lions congregate in gregarious groups called herds or rafts that can reach upwards of 1,500 individuals. It's common for scores of them to haul out together and loll about in the sand, comprising an amorphous pile in the noonday sun.Support for P3:This is common sense. Think of a family in which there are 2 children: Mary and John; although they are in the same family these two children are NOT each other. Mary is NOT John and John is NOT Mary. Now, these two are siblings but technically sea lions and seals are second cousins - FURTHER DISTANCING their relationship.Sources:- http://www.ncaquariums.com...- http://www.dolphinencounters.com...- http://www.nps.gov...- https://www.sealiontrust.org.nz...- http://www.marinemammalcenter.org...- http://nmlc.org... Thus I affirm my argument.
Sexual Music

My opponent: But if your saying sexual music is what cause sexual behavior among children than you are way wrong they could get it from their friends or for crying out loud from the dam TV that's where people get their sexual behavior and I know you cant say I'm wrong cause this one is just cant question cause its the dam truth." (run-on sentence) My response: What I am saying sexual music is a vessel for bad results just like the TV, so no you are not wrong on that point. But you are wrong on the argument. You said that it not bad , then blamed TV for it. If sexual TV is bad sexual music is bad also. Its not a question on which is worst, it about is sexual music bad. I proved how sexual music is bad, my opponent had not rebuttal except to blame TV, they both are media outlets both causing the bad. One is with image and sound the other is sound but more played. Is TV more bad, maybe but thats another debate topic. Can sexual music be good, of course it can, but it also can be bad, thus my point is proven . Good debate
Sexual Music

You say every child finds out about sexual things sooner or later that's true thanks to sexual music it tend to be sooner than later. The fact that sexual music lends to bad results fact is that I turn it's bad. Unwanted pregnaties, sexual diseases. You mixing up free will and a right and assuming its not bad. Just because someone has the right to do something doesn't mean it's good. It's good that we have the right to express ourselfs freely but it doesn't mean the action is good
Sexual Music

Hello Black-widow great discussion and debate topic. I'm assuming you are talking the stance that sexual music is not bad. I will be taking the stance that it is indeed bad. You are correct that everyone has the right to music and many other forms of art but that doesn't mean its good. People also have the right to cut their arm off but by doing so will lead to bad results. Sexual music in the wrong hands can be bad. If an underage child is listening to the lyrics they could be influenced to do some of the things that the music suggests with out knowing the consequences of their actions. Thus resulting in bad results,(std, birth,etc) meaning that its bad.
Let's start a revolution

Okay, so some scientists created a brain chip to help people with paralysis. How is this a cause for concern? InfoWars.com is not a credible source. Your Salon link addresses some current social issues, but none of its points actually prove a government conspiracy to oppress you, nor do they justify overthrowing the government. Your CNN link is pure opinion. Since you've posted sources, I'm going to post some of my own; http://rationalwiki.org... http://rationalwiki.org... http://rationalwiki.org...
Let's start a revolution

"There always loss of life as for destruction of property it happens." That doesn't make it okay. "People are already been chip with brain implants" Source? "and being denied health care treatment" Healthcare will be even harder to get in the immediate aftermath of a revolution. "as while equal rights and opportunites." We're making progress here. A revolution would destroy all of it, since any bigot with a gun would be free to attack minorities during the chaos. "capitalism Are telling people to terrorize people with the consent of local and state government." This may happen in places like South America, but it's usually tied to ineffective policing and political corruption. A revolution could make both of those problems worse. "Look at all big university that do study on the human mans and tell me that's not in humane." Human experimentation? That only occurs if the experiment is safe and approved by the ethic committee. In the case of drug trials, the drug in question must be thoroughly tested on mice first to ensure it's not flat-out poisonous. Human clinical trials test for minor side-effects, not life-threatening ones. Your argument seems to be based on paranoia, rather than observation.
Omnipotence is logically unachivable, thus God can't be omnipotent

CON SAYS: "But if he is able to self replicate in such way, he would be changing its essential nature." ---------- We don't know the theoretical nature of the god, to know if there even was a change. Maybe that was the original nature. ---------- CON SAYS: "Let me frame it differently, I can logically imagine a scenario where I truthfully say: There are no omnipotent beings." I can imagine a scenario where God simply takes away the possibility of a reality without omnipotent beings. He simply wills it out of being or never allows it in the first place. Maybe he has, thus it cannot be. He can then truthfully say that no such scenario exists, and then put the scenario back in place if he feels like doing so. ---------- CON SAYS: "The Christian God has limitations." 1)The word "omnipotence" isn't mentioned in the Bible, so it is simply a theoretical concept, & not a part of Christian religious doctrine. I say this because Con has referenced Christianity. 2)I can imagine scenarios where a god cannot NOT be omnipotent. ----------- CON SAYS: "Darwinian theory doesn't talk about the first living being, abiogenesis does. And yes, the first living being didn't have parents, that's why he wasn't a son." ---------- That's fine. Abiogenesis speaks of the first living thing. It would have no living parents, but it would be "begotten" from something, thus could technically be the son of atoms, dust, etc. ---------- CON SAYS: "Yeah, but that is not a correct use of the word "Son", because even if Geppetto used it, that doesn't make Pinnochio a son, he still has no parents." ---------- Definition of son: 1a : a human male offspring especially of human beings b : a male adopted child c : a human male descendant 2capitalized : the second person of the Trinity 3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (such as a nation, school, or race) https://www.merriam-webster.com... ---------- CON SAYS: "God would be able to create water without hydrogen and oxygen on it." ---------- A theoretical god could create water with jello and cheese. ---------- CON SAYS: "God cannot lie without changing form" Maybe his original form is multi existences or in multiple forms. --------- CON SAYS: "God is not omnipotent because if he was he should be able to tell a lie without altering reality or its form" Maybe he only creates forms where he cannot lie, but has the capability of creating realities where he can lie. He simply chooses not to because he sees no need to lie, seeing he has all the power.
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Looking at Con's link. "The study cohort included 66 lactovegetarians or lactoovovegetarians (LV-LOV group), 29 vegans, and 79 omnivores. Total vitamin B-12, methylmalonic acid, holotranscobalamin II, and total homocysteine concentrations were assayed in serum." [32]. The sample size is relatively small. Compare the total sample size of about 200 to the nurses' health study which has a sample size of 238,000. "Started in 1976 and expanded in 1989, the information provided by the 238,000 dedicated nurse-participants" [33]. Its is possible to eat an unhealthy vegan diet. You could have a vegan diet of all doughnuts, high fructose corn syrup soda, and beer. People mess up all the time and make mistakes. Just because there are vegans out there who make mistakes, doesn't mean all vegans are b-12 deficient. B-12 can be gained from supplements. Also, b12 comes from bacteria "Synthesized only by prokaryotic organisms, vitamin B12 or cobalamin (CBL) is an essential cofactor for several important enzymes" [34]. Claim: Meat eaters can also have b-12 deficiency. Warrant:"Causes of Vitamin B12 Deficiency Vitamin B12 deficiency can happen if you have certain conditions, such as: Atrophic gastritis, in which your stomach lining has thinned Pernicious anemia, which makes it hard for your body to absorb vitamin B12 Surgery that removed part of your stomach or small intestine, including weight loss surgery Conditions affecting the small intestine, such as Crohn's disease, celiac disease, bacterial growth, or a parasite Heavy drinking Immune system disorders, such as Graves' disease or lupus Long-term use of acid-reducing drugs. Stomach acids help break down animal proteins that have vitamin B12. "[35]. Impact: Vegetarians and vegans are not alone in b-12 deficiency. Thus weakening Con's case against vegan. Vote Pro, Con has not make a solid case and only used one outside source thus far. Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. Links 32. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 33. http://www.channing.harvard.edu... 34. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... 35. http://www.webmd.com...
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Pro says that eating meat and dairy products is wrong because we can live on a vegan diet..I Con disagrees. Con believes eating vegan is not healthy.For example a study stated that 83% of vegans are b12 deficient..And this can cause many problems including. amenia,neurological and psychotic problems,and fatigue...Here's the linkhttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... There are lots of studies that say vegans have deficiencies for many nutrients. I'm out of time,will be back for round 5.
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Rebuttal of Pro's argument. 1. Pro assumed I was talking about Hinduism,when I was actually talking about Christianity.One of the Bible verses I.was referring to is Genesis 9:3 it says "Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you"... 2. Pro has said that in even small scale farming theres cruelty. Con's response is that if you believe there is some cruelty in the way they do things,then you should try to ban some of the ways they do things.so then the farmers would have to farm in a humane way.Instead of banning all meat and dairy products. 3. pro says there is no way to kill a animal without causing suffering. I Con disagrees. There are many humane ways to kill a animal. Example 1 filling a room with co2 then put the animals in they pass out without pain.Example 2 Shooting a animal in the head causes instant death and no pain,Example 3 Beheading is a a good way to kill chickens,it causes instant death. 4. Pro says people who eat meat are disobeying the sixth commandment and are being greedy. I Con disagrees. First off eating meat. is not breaking the sixth commandment because when God says thou shalt not kill he was only talking about humans and not animals....I con believes it is not greedy to eat meat,only if you overeat. People who I consider to overeat are obsese people with a bmi of 30 or higher and not average people. 5. Pro says we are killing people by air pollution,global climate change,and are out competing 3rd world countries by giving grain to livestock and not starving people. I Con disagrees Pro does not have evidence for his listed claims. 6. I Con stated in round 2 that it would be very hard for most people to live on just a vegetarian diet,and it would cause malnutrition.Pro disagreed But I Con will stand by my statement. 7. Pro says that being vegetarian would help the environment ,I Con thinks that it would have little or no change on the environment. Feeding 7 billion people a vegetarian diet would cause just as much harm to the environment as it does to raise grain for the livestock to eat. I think pro's arguments are weak and illogical..
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

1 A. i do mostly agree,but i don't believe animals are equal to humans.God said we are to rule over the animals and they are food for us.Animals shouldn't be neglected or killed in a painful way but they are not humans and shouldn't be treated as humans. 1 B. I agree that factory farming is wrong and should not be allowed.My solution is to raise animals outside in fenced enclosures that cover many acres.They would be outside in their native environment and would live like they would if they was in the wild. People would care for the animals and they would be slaughtered in a humane way. This way animals would. live happy and healthy lives,and humans would get the food we need. 1 C Would. not be causing suffering if raised in the way stated above. 1. D. first off I believe it's our right to eat meat and dairy products.YIt would be very hard for most people to survive on just a vegetarian diet.Lack of nutrients would cause people to get malnutrition and diseases caused by malnutritionment would be a crisis. 1. E disagrees. 2 A. Would be hard for everyone to eat this way. 2. B. Cholesterol,and fat is not unhealthy if not over eaten. 3 A. Its called the food cycle,nothing to worry about. 3. B. what about all the acres of forest that will have to be cut down for fields of crops? It would do more harm to the environment if we destroy the environment by making more room for crops to grow.
Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide.

Resolution: Meat, dairy, and eggs should be banned worldwide. This is a normative resolution. I Pro will contend for the resolution. Con will contend against the resolution. Meat " the flesh of an animal used as food" [1] Dairy "Full Definition of DAIRY 1 : a room, building, or establishment where milk is kept and butter or cheese is made 2 a : the department of farming or of a farm that is concerned with the production of milk, butter, and cheese b : a farm devoted to such production 3 : an establishment for the sale or distribution chiefly of milk and milk products "[2] Eggs " the egg of a bird (especially a chicken) eaten as food"[3] Ban " : to forbid people from using (something) : to say that something cannot be used or done : to forbid (someone) from doing or being part of something "[4] Thank you for taking the time to read this debate. Links 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Jainism is the oldest living religion

I have demonstrated why Hinduism and Judaism cannot be said to be older than Jainism. This would hence conclude that Jainism is the oldest living religion. "Jainism can be said to be founded by Lord Rishabhdeva, who was the first Tirthankara. Based on archeological and literary evidence. Some modern scholars puts the date of Rishabha at the end of the Stone Age and the beginning of the Agriculture age. Contemporary historians like Ramaprasad Chanda, Vilas Sangave, Heinrich Zimmer, John Marshall, Thomas McEvilley P.R. Deshmukh and Mircea Eliade are of the opinion that there exists links between Rishabha and Indus valley civilization." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rishabha_(Jain_tirthankar)
Jainism is the oldest living religion

The Indus Valley Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization (3300 - 1300 BCE; mature period 2600 - 1900 BCE). "Not only the seated deities on some of the Indus seals are in Yoga posture and bear witness to the prevalence of Yoga in the Indus Valley Civilisation in that remote age, the standing deities on the seals also show Kayotsarga (a standing or sitting posture of meditation) position. The Kayotsarga posture is peculiarly Jain. It is a posture not of sitting but of standing. In the Adi Purana Book XV III, the Kayotsarga posture is described in connection with the penance of Rsabha." The Rsabha was the first Tirthankar of Jainism, and was worshipped in the Indus Valley Civilization which dates to remote 2000 B.C.E. http://en.wikipedia.org... Hinduism cannot be said to be older than Jainism, because both of them existed side-by-side in ancient India. Judaism came a lot after both of these religions.
Jainism is the oldest living religion

Judaism has also been dated long before the founding of Jainism: Saul, of the tribe of Benjamin, was made king (in c. 1020 BCE) after defeating the Ammonites. He ruled from his hometown of Gibeah, a few miles north of Jerusalem. Saul's reign was marred by conflicts with the prophet Samuel, who held ongoing authority over the kingship. King David, Saul's successor, solved these problems by combining religious and political authority in one person (David and his descendents) and in one place (the city of Jerusalem). http://www.religionfacts.com...Keep in mind that 1020 BCE was before any of the dates you mentioned. 1. There are religions older than Jainism;2. Therefore, Jainism is not the oldest religion.
Jainism is the oldest living religion

If one is considering the historical vedic tradition, the non-vedic shramanism existed parallel to it. Hence, the historical vedic tradition cannot be said to be older than shramanism. Ancient texts also refer to Jainism as shramana dharma (self-reliant) or the "path of the nirganthas" (those without attachments or aversions). The 23rd Tirthankar Lord Parshvanath, can be reliably dated by historians to 877 " 777 BCE. The first 22 Tirthankars lived even prior to this date. Jainism has its roots in shramana tradition which is as old as vedic tradition, and its current form can be reliably said to be organized from 9th - 8th century B.C.E, i.e. from the time of Lord Parshvanath, since other Tirthankaras cannot be dated by historians. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...