BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
learning is stupid, as there can be no learning without stupid

I already made my point, you just ignored it....Here let me post it again:The reason why stupid isnt stupid and why learning isnt stupid is because its stupid's fault that stupid is too stupid to see how stupid stupid is being, stupid. It's stupid to think that stupid is stupid since stupid is stupid for being stupid, thats just stupid, stupid. Stupid is stupid because stupid is naturally stupid by its own stupid fault, if stupid wasnt stupid for being so stupid, then it wouldnt be stupid for stupid to be stupid at its own stupidity of being completely, utterly, stupid..... Why should stupid be called stupid just for being so stupid about being stupid while stupidly denying that stupid cant help how stupidly stupid it really is to be so goddamn stupid? Thats just stupid. LEARNING on the other hand cant be stupid because if learning was stupid and stupid was learning, than stupid would have learned how to not stupidly not know how stupid it really is by being so stupid all the time. if learning cant be stupid since stupid is stupid to being stupid, then you also have to concede that there CAN be learning without stupid because stupid is too stupid to stupidly see its own stupidity regarding how stupid that stupid really is...... Vote argument points to con since pro dropped all arguments about how learning isnt stupid since:1) Stupid is stupid2) The most intelligent man doesn't make mistakes if he is a jew3) Judgement is a mediocre movie4) M Night Shyamalan and Good movies are opposites, much like learning and stupidity, and therefore cannot be synonymous.
Poetry Commentary Debate

I will simply post an excerpt of a work which I dearly love: Pale Fire, by Vladimir Nabokov. In this way my opponent might have a chance to analyze another poem and even the score. "Maud Shade was eighty when a sudden hush Fell on her life. We saw the angry flush And torsion of paralysis assail Her noble cheek. We moved her to Pinesdale, Famed for its sanitarium. There she'd sit In the glassed sun and watch the fly that lit Upon her dress and then upon her wrist. Her mind kept fading in a growing mist. She still could speak. She paused, and groped, and found What seemed at first a serviceable sound, But from adjacent cells impostors took The place of words she needed, and her look Spelt imploration as she sought in vain To reason with the monsters in her brain."
Poetry Commentary Debate

This Is Just To say, by William Carlos WilliamsI have eatenthe plumsthat were inthe iceboxand whichyou were probablysavingfor breakfastForgive methey were deliciousso sweetand so coldI could remark upon the poetic structure I suppose, though I don't think I'm so very educated to do so. I'm not going to be able to assert that this poem has the meaning which I'm going to say it does either, but it means that much to me as I will say it means. Skep's poem was a wonder, and his analysis of it, by my reading, absolutely perfect. I'd say we'll probably just chalk this round down to him here and now, but I'll make my case still of course. I did some reading on William Carlos Williams. It wasn't much, but I was struck by a quote of his, stating that he would never commit a premeditated bad deed, which seems to me to have sounded perfectly in harmony with this poem of his. This Is Just To Say -- what? what is it to say? It's this question which my entire analysis shall pertain to.Really, this poem tells a story of brokenheartedness for me. Not of brokenheartedness at the loss of someone, however, but brokenheartedness in being in want for love of someone that one has, but finding only emptiness and sadness. I have eaten the plums ... those plums which you were probably saving for breakfast ... make no plans around me ... I know not my affections for you ... this is just to say ... forgive me. The poem reads to me as guilt cultivated in the place where love should be -- this thing; love. It reads as if a man who can only find connection to another in a selfish enjoyment of them, then taking an obeiscance of sorrow in respect to them, knowing only a blissful empty heaven, and a guilty burning hell, in them, as if the two should cancel each other out and be something real. The poem reads also as having Christian undertones - the icebox, perhaps; and 'forgive me'. I think that should about sum the poem up for anyone who understands it. It's a pretty thing in its brevity, too.
Poetry Commentary Debate

I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you manage to accept this debate without my approval, you forfeit. Please inquire in the comments or by PM if you would like to be my opponent. This debate will involve three rounds. During each round the participant will post a poem, or a excerpt of a poem, along with commentary on the themes/history/references of the poem. The poem/excerpt should be short enough to allow enough commentary, as each participant will be judged on their commentary. Partial points may be awarded at a voter's discretion.
Ebola

How do you know about Ebola? Do you worried about that issued? Do you have knowledge Ebola? What will you do if you heard Ebola came on your state? In my opinions, Ebola is the most dangerous virus recently,so we have to protect ourselves by knowledge to avoid that virus. However you should avoid to contact with blood secretion from an infected person either direct or through contaminated surface. The virus is not air bone. Which mean those in close contact can be infected and are most risk. Therefore, don't forget to always wash your hand more often! Eat healthy food ,clean the area where you are living.
The Existence of Pagan Gods rather than One Christian/Jewish/Muslim God

My opponent has forfeited, but just about everything he said in his first argument is implausible. He says because polytheistic pagan religions came first and are very common, they must be true. His evidence for this is that many cultures had the same gods with different names. He also says Hinduism and Buddhism are polytheistic religions. Finally says, the nature myths are false, but this doesn't disprove the gods. His example of this is Socrates. I would say that the Hebrew religion historical light very early and monotheism has been practiced in tribal Africa since before history. Zoroastrianism goes back to ancient Persia. So you can't say polytheism was definitely the first. As for polytheistic religions having simaler gods. That isn't totally true. The greek gods seemed to rule over certain elements, sea, sky, fire, plants. Egyptian gods seem to be more metaphysical. The god of the moon is also the tricky magic god. The greek goddess of the moon is a hunter. Ra and Osiris, sun and death, are the two great gods. In Greek mythology Zeus is the greatest god. The underworld god is much more positive then the greek underworld god. The egyptian gods seem to be good vs evil, horus vs seth, and spirtual, magic gods, burial gods, two underworld gods. Everything in the egyptian religion is more about life and death and good vs evil. The greek religion is totally devoid of major good vs evil and also just explains nature. He says nature myths don't disprove gods, but again, one god controls the sea. Why can this god only control the sea? And if Thor doesn't control lightning, how is he the lightning god. By the way, it's false to say that Socrates defended polytheism. He didn't write any philosophy, he just taught it so we don't really know his religious beliefs, but at his trail, he says that morality is non existent in polytheism because each god has a moral code. Also his student Plato founded western monotheism and taught it at his academy. As for Hinduism and Buddhism being polytheistic, that is false. Buddhism has saints, the Buddhas, but not gods. Hinduism has many gods but teaches that these gods are just faces or parts of the one god.
The Existence of Pagan Gods rather than One Christian/Jewish/Muslim God

Opening Argument: Monotheism says the universe is created by one creator and governed by natural law also created by one creator. This being is omnipotent and is far beyond our comprehension. The polytheistic religions have gods that are not omnipotent. In their mythology, the gods are very human and flawed. The creation myths of polytheism give no explanation for the universe and are rather silly. Con says he rejects the myths of the gods, but without the myths what are the gods? They are nothing! Furthermore, these clearly imperfect gods could not have created a perfectly balanced, mathematically designed universe that is incredibly beautiful in it's own simplicity. These gods would fight among themselves and could not create a universe like ours. Polytheism has each god given a special role in the universe. It seems foolish that one god can control the molecular structure of plants, but of nothing else. Any god capable of controlling even a portion of our universe would be capable of controlling the whole universe because all matter is based around the same basic atoms. If so this god had that power, it could not be perfect because there are varying other gods. These powerful gods couldn't co-create a universe. If they divided up the universe, different parts of the universe would follow different patterns of creation but this is not true. Again, any nature god is a total fallacy because no god could only control part of nature. This shows polytheism is a highly primitive religion and philosophy. It is based around nature myths and if you deny the myths then they don't exist. The myths are their only evidence. I believe that only a perfect god could have created this universe and if there are multiple gods, they can't be perfect. All evidence points to monotheism. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Existence of Pagan Gods rather than One Christian/Jewish/Muslim God

The Ancient Gods and Goddesses have been prominent in many cultures and societies. When people think of these deities, they usually associate them with the ancient myths of these cultures. Such as Atlas holding up the sky, or Amun-Ra bringing the Sun across the sky each day. These ancient people used these myths to describe natural phenomenon. However, these ancient Gods could exist without the myths. It is proven that the sun is a giant fireball in space, not some boat/chariot pulled by a God. We know that Zeus doesn't throw lighting bolts either. Some ancients knew this as well. Socrates, an Ancient Greek Philosopher was executed for trying to teach that the myths were stories, and that the moon was rock. He tried to show people the "true nature" of the Gods. Think, almost every single ancient civilization had multiple Gods, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Scandinavians, Native Americans, so many of them, and no monotheistic civilizations. Than suddenly Judaism was created, and that spread and branched off into Christianity, who spread, than Muslim split off and spread. How could you say all these Ancient Civilizations were wrong in their religious practice? The Romans, who conquered much of the known world, The Greeks who even still today contribute to our society, the Egyptians who built the greatest civilization known to man. All these civilization have one thing in common, many Gods. Different names for the Gods, yes, different forms maybe, but still many Gods. Is it very far fetched to believe that maybe these were the same Gods, going by different names? Christians conquered and killed any who refused to believe in their "One and True" God, destroyed priceless artifacts and very valuable pieces of information in attempts to try to destroy these ancient Civilizations from history. People were forced to convert, or be killed/never raise in the social ladder. That is why Christianity succeeded, because of the Nobility using a new religion for more power. The Ancient Gods have been prominent in almost every single Civilization known to Man, it is much more likely the Gods exist, especially since "God" and "His" bible has so many borrowed stories and holidays from the Pagan ones.
The Existence of Pagan Gods rather than One Christian/Jewish/Muslim God

This argument is not whether deities exist or not, but rather if they did exist, which one of either the Monotheistic God, or the Pagan Gods (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Nordic, etc. ) My opponent will be for the Monotheistic God, while I will be supporting the Pagan Gods. Opponent does not have to believe in God, only argue the fact that One God is more likely to exist than the Pagan Gods.
Should kids be able to drop out of high school

Rebuttal Kids are not even safe at home,parents be at work and other places the children practically watch themselves at home and everywhere the they go. Some kids do drugs in front of their parents,the drink in front of their parents kids do all kinds of stuff in front of their parents, that don't stop the kids from doing what they want to do they can be wherever. Argument Studies show that people who finish high school earn 143 dollars more than a dropout student.82% of the inmates in prison have not finished high school,overall there are no benefits for dropping out of school. People who drop out are 2.5 times more likely to go on welfare ,only 9% of job hire people without finishing high school and the numbers drop each and every year and more and more require a higher level of education and a lot of children are not meeting that expectation witch in turn is causing them to constantly fail in life. http://www.dropoutprevention.org...
Should kids be able to drop out of high school

Rebuttal: What about the children who are forced to go to school? If they are unhappy, they will rebel! They will be a danger to not only themselves, but others around them. They could do a lot of dangerous things while in school as well. How many teenagers drink underage? How many teenagers do drugs? How many kids have underage sexual intercourse? How many kids get into fights? Yes, I admit if they are not in school and drop out they will have time to make bad decisions. BUT they may be under closer watch of parents or guardians and hence, be even safer than before when their parental figures could not see what they were up to in school. My argument: My first point: I would like to acknowledge a quote by Darren Shan, "School is a despotic system of indoctrination designed to crush the spirit and stamp out creativity." Honestly speaking, not all students can keep up at a pace that teachers are going. Some of these students have natural abilities or talents that they can showcase or use to create a profitable innovation. For example, Frank Lloyd Wright, the most influential architect of the twentieth century, never attended high school. Yet he used his artistic abilities and any resources he could get his hands on to come up with some of the most prominent designs seen today. Some students may have not the intellect but artistic or athletic talents. These can be developed so that they could provide for themselves. FYI, next round, remember! Post your two other points and conclusion. And if you have rebuttals. We'll do any other rebuttals in the comment section.
Obama is the worst president we've ever had

I will make my sole contention and then rebut my opponent's points. Contention I. The actual worst president. When it comes to terms of policy and changes that happened in the United States, the worst president in all of US History would have to be the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Under his rule, the country split into two and the country fought one of the bloodiest wars in its history. The role of the president is to maintain order within the union and outside of it -- but allowing the union to be split into two countries is not doing his role effectively. He allowed the United States of America to fall apart into two nations, all because some states wanted the right to own slaves. He famously said (paraphrasing) "with or without the slaves, I will reunify the Union", but the entire point of the split was because of the rights to own slaves and how the federal government was slowly changing federal laws. He did this in an attempt to cool down tempers in the south, but what this also did was raise tempers in the north of many abolitionists. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in the nation's history. Our own president allowed 620,000 of our own people die because he could not lower tempers in the south [1]. The murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians is an attrocity, and it is easy to see that this action makes him the worst president of all time. [1]. . http://www.civilwar.org...;Rebuttals: "He destroyed our economy"I believe that you are referring to the banking crisis of '08, which was caused by bankers letting the average person get loans they couldn't afford for a nice looking profit. The values of conservatism and capitalism, NOT liberalism and regulated capitalism (which Obama stands for) were the cause of this economy crash. "apologizes to other countries for America"How is this a bad thing, truly? If we make a mistake (and we do, we are all humans), then we should at least be willing to apologise. If anything, if he did not apologise I would consider him worse than if he did. "refuses to do anything about radical Islam"Maybe this is true, but how does this make him the WORST president in all of history? Did he condone the death of 620,000 Americans, like Abe Lincoln did? If not, then he is not the WORST, but probably bad. "tripled the national debt"That is a pretty huge claim to make without any evidence to back up your points. Maybe this is true (which I doubt, after all, this is unsourced material), but a human life is irretrievable, whereas a debt is able to be caught on if healthy. "sold out the American people"I don't know what this means. "He is the worst president since FDR. "Gentle readers, please take note of this quote! My opponent concedes by saying that FDR is in fact a worse president, since he is the one that establishes the status quo and Obama was never explicitly said to change it. My opponent concedes to the fact that Obama is not the worst president of all time!
Law enforcment officials are to power hungry

Thank you for starting this debate. As Con I shall argue that if anything, Law Enforcement Officials are not power hungry enough.Let us consider the lack of efficiency in stomping on civil rights; if they'd been better at it, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. It would have been a few people complaining over some Muslim visitors disappearing. Heck they could even plant evidence to seal the deal on obviously guilty killers like OJ Simpson, who with more than just a trail of blood a high speed chase and a confession, would not be free to commit robberies or take hostages. Which is a lot worse when you consider the average number of crimes someone gets away with, before the one they are caught and punished for.Looking to how they could best go about being power hungry, and seeing the results... In the future cop series Judge Dredd, they have mind readers to not even need to beat confessions out of people; plus when they define someone as guilty, they may give out a non-challengeable citation on the spot. A death sentence has a waiting period of under ten seconds, including the reading of your rights; and you still (arbararily) get to choose your own last meal! Which is all far more awesome than anything we have today.
YHWH's inescapable existence.

"How would you disprove that it isn't?" I can't, YHWH is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. (It can't be dis-proven) But so is Santa, the Easter bunny, and any other mythological creature. If I said there is a lama behind you but hes invisible and you cant feel him because he hates humans and can teleport, that doesn't make him real that just makes me look insane. How is it any different than a man in the sky judging humanity. I do not have the burden of proof here though, you do. You are the one making outlandish claims like my mind is tricking me when I solve math problems. Who would have the burden of proof if the tables were turned except I used Thor, or an all knowing and all powerful lama. (just a random example)
YHWH's inescapable existence.

How do you know that you don't have YHWH? Proof presupposes order in the universe. What's your account for that order? Your claim that you can prove things without God could simply be your "mind" tricking you. How would you disprove that it isn't? If your going to make a Knowkedge claim, be ready to justify or defend it. My objection is that you can't. Your "atheism" reduces down to speculation and imaginations.
Global Warming is an enviormental epidemic that needs to be stopped.

Global warming in and of itself is a natural phenomenon that allows the Earth to have a unique atmosphere which provides us with the necessary parameters required for life. If global warming did not occur, the Earth would be uninhabitable. Global warming cannot be stopped, and attempts to do so are futile. . http://www.sciencedaily.com... Even if we believe that global warming is being "sped up" by human activity and an excessive concentration of greenhouse gases, we cannot believe that the natural cycle of global warming would somehow be "stopped" if man-made exacerbation is deterred. The resolution does not state that man-made global warming is an environmental epidemic that needs to be stopped- it clearly states "global warming is an environmental epidemic that needs to be stopped". My contention is that global warming is a natural phenomenon that occurs on water covered planets, and assist in warming the planet to inhabitable temperatures.
the god of humanists is human being

1. why con think that everybody need not worship a god? 2. "Humans cannot simply worship other humans as "Gods", it makes no sense." really? then why some human worship film stars like god when the film star is a human being? we call these worshipers "fan". does that make any sense? why some human being worshiped bittles like god in late sixties or seventies when the 4 bittles are just as human as their fan? does that make any sense? 3. no it is not unrelated to my resolution. it is the way humanist should worship human being. 4. the rest 2 arguments are the way humanist should worship human being. they are very much related.
the god of humanists is human being

humanists always denied god of established religion calling he latter inhuman barbaric etc. but like everybody humanists should also have a god whom he serve. Where have you gathered the false premise that everybody should worship a "God". i think that that god would be human being himself. Humans cannot simply worship other humans as "Gods", it makes no sense. a humanist should accept human being with all his vice and virtue. This is unrelated to your resolution; "the god of humanists is human being" a humanist should not try to change a human being by imposing rock solid belief system upon the latter. This argument is not reconcilable with your resolution, therefore it is invalid. rather a humanist must accept a human being "as he is". i think that is true humanism. And?
the god of humanists is human being

humanists always denied god of established religion calling he latter inhuman barbaric etc. but like everybody humanists should also have a god whom he serve.i think that that god would be human being himself. a humanist should accept human being with all his vice and virtue. a humanist should not try to change a human being by imposing rock solid belief system upon the latter. rather a humanist must accept a human being "as he is". i think that is true humanism.