BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Famous Poems: Poetry Competition

I will use one of the great poems of history, often forgotten but very noteworthy. I chose a poem by Lord Alfred Tennyson. Tennyson uses allegory and personification. The Tennyson poem is a bit more direct in terms of its' meaning compared to my opponent's poem.The Charge of the Light Brigade by Lord Alfred Tennyson[1]IHalf a league, half a league, Half a league onward, All in the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. Forward, the Light Brigade! Charge for the guns! he said. Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. II Forward, the Light Brigade!Was there a man dismayed? Not though the soldier knew Someone had blundered. Theirs not to make reply, Theirs not to reason why, Theirs but to do and die. Into the valley of Death Rode the six hundred. III Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon in front of them Volleyed and thundered; Stormed at with shot and shell, Boldly they rode and well, Into the jaws of Death, Into the mouth of hell Rode the six hundred. IV Flashed all their sabres bare, Flashed as they turned in air Sabring the gunners there, Charging an army, while All the world wondered. Plunged in the battery-smoke Right through the line they broke; Cossack and Russian Reeled from the sabre stroke Shattered and sundered. Then they rode back, but not Not the six hundred. V Cannon to right of them, Cannon to left of them, Cannon behind them Volleyed and thundered; Stormed at with shot and shell, While horse and hero fell. They that had fought so well Came through the jaws of Death, Back from the mouth of hell, All that was left of them, Left of six hundred. VI When can their glory fade? O the wild charge they made! All the world wondered. Honour the charge they made! Honour the Light Brigade, Noble six hundred![1]http://www.poetryfoundation.org...The poem is about a moment during the Battle of Balaclava. The poem is about a British cavalry unit charging the Russian lines while taking severe artillery fire. Ultimately it was a losing battle with significant casualties and the cavalry was routed by the Russian forces[2]. The theme of the poem is bravery and courage in the face of danger.[2]http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com...The metaphors include "the valley of Death," "the mouth of hell," and "the jaws of Death." Tennyson uses powerful imagery when he uses words as "charge," "forward," and "blundered." Tennyson is showing the intentsity in the face of guns of being fired upon the Light Brigade while advancing when he uses words like "charge" and "forward." We especially see the most dangerous imagery when he mentions the light Brigade being surrounded by cannons.I am truly upset with my opponent that he would limit this to four rounds. I wish there were five. I may have to flip coin in order to figure out my last two posts in this competition.http://www.youtube.com...
Famous Poems: Poetry Competition

Greetings! This is a poetry debate. You can post your own poems, though you're free to post any famous/infamous work so long as you give a citation. Though that is not all you also need to provide an explanation of the poem, a critical examination if you will in favor of your poem. You are not allowed to adress the poem of the opponent, simply write an exposition of the poem that you have chosen. The poem should not be too long, and must be completely typed out over here. If your poem is too long you restrict your space for the critical exposition which is nearly as important. The order of the debate has 3 rounds to post substantiated material, with 24 hr/round, with a maximum of 8, 000 words.
It's more logical to be agnostic versus being an atheist

When having a debate with someone it's important to discuss definitions. In this case, I have shown you why your debate topic is unclear. It's like saying "It is more logical to like oranges than apples, " when in fact one can like both. I presented my definitions for these terms. The idea is you can either explain how my definitions are false, Or you can reword the initial claim to make sense with my definitions. You have chosen the third approach. The third approach is to ignore my definitions of these terms, State that I understood the debate topic prior to accepting, And claim that there was logical fallacy in my defining the terms of which the debate pertains. There was no red herring. Defining "atheist" and "agnostic" is an important part of discussing the topic at hand. It's important to me to step in and try to help you pose the debate you want properly without misusing terms. When your debate partner asks for your definitions of the terms that pertain to the debate, It is not a distraction from the debate. It is possible my definitions are wrong or yours are. If our definitions become clear and we agree then so be it. It's important to debate using the same definitions for terms or else you and your opponent are having different debates. I have presented my reasoning why an "atheist" view on life is more logical than an "agnostic" one towards the question. I did this after I defined clearly the terms of the debate. R2 should have been you either presenting your definitions or taking the arguments I have given towards the initial flawed question and rebutting or presenting your argument to the contrary. You have done none of these things. I submit my position to the judges to decide. I submit that I have been a fair debater and have presented an argument towards the initial question as I read it. I submit that my opponent had all the time in the world to clarify his definitions or clarify the initial question so this, My R2, Could have pertained more to the subject he truly wished to debate. Asking for clarification is not fallacious or disingenuous in a debate. I submit my opponent hasn't even presented an argument as to how this was disingenuous because he knows it is not. I submit I am left with nothing to debate, And my initial claims stand as is. It is important to note that rewording a debate is not the same as redefining it. May your thoughts be clear, -Thoht
It's more logical to be agnostic versus being an atheist

"Is agnostic atheism a more logical stance than gnostic atheism? " This is not what the debate is about. "One can easily be atheist and agnostic simultaneously. " That's not the way the subject is setup. I set this up a specific way and when you accept the debate you agree to the terms of it. You don't come in changing it up, Talking about definitions. If you don't agree with the setup, Don't accept it. "They are not mutually exclusive positions. In fact, The majority of atheists are also agnostics. This is because the alternative position is largely illogical. One can also be a theist and agnostic. " "Your question then could be reworded multiple ways. " This is very disingenuous when you know what the topic is and wish to modify or alter it. If you wish to discuss something else, That can be taken outside the grounds that I've setup. Being that you haven't dealt with the specific subject that has been presented, No real contention has been set forth. Your hung up on these semantics as a red haring. That would make sense being that there are no arguments shown thus far that being agnostic and agnostic alone is not more logical or rational than being a pure atheist and just atheist. Now you keep saying they can be one in the same. OK, Well we're not talking about one in the same folks. Now if you don't agree or don't wish to discuss these entities separately, What are you doing accepting this challenge?
The Democratic party exemplifies more of the Christian philosophy than the Republican party.

(Don't forget that there is a 24hr post time. I say this because I created the debate, and still almost forgot! )This debate was not intended to be a source heavy debate, just a debate over common knowledge, though I will provide sources upon request. In this debate, I will be arguing the most important aspects of Christianity (as taught by Jesus of Nazareth) to be 4 main principles: 1) Feed the poor"And he answered them, “Whoever has two tunics is to share with him who has none, and whoever has food is to do likewise. ”~Luke 3:11-The Democratic party is known to be more lenient on welfare than the Republic party. They're criticized for providing a crutch and causing the poor to stay in the cycle they're in by providing them too much welfare and no path to get off of it. 2) Help the sick. "Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. "~James 5:14-Recently, the Democratic party has been trying to make strides towards Universal health care. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has taken heat from the Right wing of the political spectrum for costing too much money(Despite Matthew 19:23-24 saying, "Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God. ”). 3) Not judging your neighbor"And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? "~Mathew 7:3 -The 3rd principle can be exemplified through the democratic positions on abortion and their positions on marriage equality. It's not that the democratic party encourages either of the 2 (though I feel they should at least encourage marriage equality), it's that they feel as if they are not to judge anyone and to allow them to make their own decisions in their own lives. This principle can also be seen throughout the previous two stances as well. 4) Loving your neighbor. "The second is equally important: 'Love your neighbor as yourself. ' No other commandment is greater than these. "~Mark 12:31 This point can be summarized with the Democratic party being more lenient on border control, and through the fact that the Democratic party is the more diverse party between the two. It is no secret that the Republican party is the least diverse between the two and is at odds with the Democratic party on the issues of welfare, universal health care, border control (& deportation), marriage equality, and abortion. How these things will have to be swayed, in order for them to have the more Christian viewpoint, is to be the total opposite. Being that it can't be done, it is clear that the Democratic party is the party who is more encompassing of the Christian philosophy.
ODT2: Runescape (Full resolution in first round)

Well here goes my second debate against the competent debater Baggins. I am looking forward to another fruitful debate. Full Resolution: Playing the game Runescape can help you in life I'd also like to note that this is debate is part of the second Official Debating tournament (hence the title having "ODT2") The rules of the debates are as follows: 8k Character maximum 4 rounds 1st round acceptance 72 hour posting time 1 week voting period All of these rules have been set by the organiser of the tournament (Airmax with Microsuck moderating). The BOP will be shared upon by both sides. In this debate Pro has to show that runescape can help 'you' in general. So if there is some benefit for someone under exrtremely rare and exceptional circumtances; that is not sufficient affirm the resolution. Any benefit pointed out by Pro has to be useful for general population of users of the game (i.e. 'You'). And, for "You", it only applies to those people who decide to play the game out of their own source of entertainment. Thus, "wasting your time" would not be an argument as you are spending your own time playing the game for fun. Definitions: - Runescape: Runescape is a fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) released in January 2001 by Andrew and Paul Gower, and developed by Jagex Ltd. It is a graphical browser game implemented on the client-side in Java, and incorporates 3D rendering.- Playing: Engage in (a game or activity) for enjoyment. - Help: Assist - Life: The state of living (essentially the state where you are still alive. The definition should be obvious in this context). Note to readers: We are NOT arguing whether or not Runescape is a good game or not, but arguing whether or not it HELPS you in life. Therefore we will not be arguing on whether or not it is worth buying the Runescape membership, whether or not you readers should start playing etc. There is no strict structure for this debate apart from the 1st round being acceptance only and no new arguments in the final round. And lastly, of course, no trolling or semantics. Any violation of these rules will result in the loss of conduct points and if severe enough, the entire debate (up for the readers to decide). Good luck!
Home-made butter is relatively hard to make using ultra-pasturized half and half cream.

Oh. I would like to thank my opponent for clarifying the use of the word relative as it pertains to this topic. As relative does not apply to my genetically superior family, I choose to shift my contention to the topic "Home-made butter is relatively hard to make using ultra-pasturized half and half cream." I would now like to focus on the use of the word pasturized. It is my contention that it would be much harder to make home made butter out of ultra pasteurized half and half, but not out of pasturized half and half. I am forced to conclude that pasturized cream must be cream that has been regularly attending a protestant church, likely evangelical seeing as it is Ultra pasturized. One can only conclude that all the shaking in the spirit that takes place in evangelical churches at the hands of the pastor's would serve to help separate the cream, making butter an inevitable by product without any work from the cheesemaker beyond transportation to and from the place of worship. It is my contention that cream in constant contact with ultra pastors is much easier to turn into home made butter.
Home-made butter is relatively hard to make using ultra-pasturized half and half cream.

I choose to contend the statement that Home-made butter is relatively hard to make using ultra-pasturized half and half cream. In my argument I will utilize my experiences as one of the foremost experts in dairy production and remind the reader that I am to be called a Son of God. As proof I submit this hidden camera footage of the sermon on the mount. . http://www.youtube.com... My opponent makes a fatal mistake in the use of the word 'relative' in his statement. The term relative is, well relative. My experience is that my relatives find making butter from ultra-pasturized half and half cream easy. Of course, one must take into consideration the superior genetics and bulging biceps bred into the blessed family, but non the less, 'relatively' speaking we have no problems. ;-)
Home-made butter is relatively hard to make using ultra-pasturized half and half cream.

heehee you're funny cheeseguy, However i'm atheist, thus the angel at a protestant church is out of my range. Let me give you some evidence. Just yesterday, i took about a third of a cup of ultra-pasturized half and half cream and shook it for two hours. After the two hours of vigorous shaking, there was only about a tablespoon of butter floating at the top. On the contrary, two months ago, my science class together made butter in fifteen minutes using heavy cream. It tasted very good! It is my conclusion that it is harder to make butter from ultrapasturized cream, than from pasturized heavy cream. Happy shaking.
Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

You have created an incredibly articulated premise and it is an honor for me to debate this topic. Pro established:” Firstly I make it clear that children should not be taught it is untrue either. Simply say, "Some people believe this and some people don't. ” “Rebuttal: Unless I’m mistaken (which I could be), it appears that Pro is advocating that children should learn about religion. Yet, the burden of proof clearly states that “Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true”. Pro defeats his own burden with the opening argument. -----------------------------------------Pro stated: I believe any form of telling your children that your opinions are true in pure indoctrination. Rebuttal: Actually, indoctrination is defined as an effort “to teach (a person or group of people) systematically to accept doctrines, esp uncritically. ” [1] Simply telling your children that your opinions are true is not indoctrination. You would also need to teach them that all other opinions are untrue and that they cannot question your authority on the topic. What my opponent calls indoctrination, I would call a “myopic worldview”, naivety or good old fashion lies. Indoctrination is far more malignant. -----------------------------------------Pro established: “I also believe it can lead to bigotry, as I have seen through many instances of Gays being excluded and Jews being told to go to hell. ”Rebuttal: Anecdotal argument. -----------------------------------------Over to you Pro. . http://dictionary.reference.com...; [1]
Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

I thank anybody who is willing to take part in this debate. Firstly I make it clear that children should not be taught it is untrue either. Simply say, "Some people believe this and some people don't" I believe any form of telling your children that your opinions are true in pure indoctrination. I also believe it can lead to bigotry, as I have seen through many instances of Gays being excluded and Jews being told to go to hell.
Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

What my opponent has done here is remarkably odd, by than saying I have not responded to the objection of my use of the word "indoctrination" then immediately write down my argument, well done. Your beliefs are KEY in anything and everything you will ever do. There are no arguments you could make without beliefs. For example, you could tell me that 9/11 killed many people, and we should punish the people who caused it, but to want to do that you would have to BELIEVE that it was wrong. I'm not going to be stupid enough to say it is a fact you should not push religion on children, I might be horribly wrong, but in my opinion it is unlikely. Interesting objection indeed, but I believe you are nit picking, not at my argument, but my choice of language, and I know you know what I meant. Santa Claus, or Santa, is a man who travels the world in one night on flying reindeer that lives in the North Pole. Not the man he was based off. In fact, I think you just added that last bit in so you could say you have source material, which is what you criticise me for. It was irrelevant, and other than that you had no source material. You just wanted to not look hypocritical.
Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

Pro stated: My stance is that children should be taught about EVERY religion, and not be told by anyone which one that person believes is true. Rebuttal: Anecdotal argument. My opponent has failed to provide a reason explaining why children should be taught any religion, much less every religion. Additionally, my opponent did not respond to my objection over his use of the word “indoctrination” and continues to use the word incorrectly. I find it disingenuous to the premise, to accuse anyone of such malice without citing any evidence or examples. ---------------------------------- Pro restated: The reason I believe that any form of telling your children (or any kids for that matter) that their opinions are facts is indoctrination is because once they get into the habit of believing something is true, it is difficult to accept it if one day you convince yourself otherwise. Rebuttal: Another anecdotal argument; one ripe with irony. Consider, my opponent is trying to convince the reader that forcing your belief upon another is indoctrination. Why then does the opponent begin every round with “I believe”, followed by an absence of supportive evidence or source information? Are we concerned with what my opponent believes? Of course not. We are concerned with what my opponent can prove, which has been lacking thus far. In fact, my opponent has not only failed to supply a reasonable argument for his burden, he has failed to address my objections. Until my opponent furnishes an actual argument, I have no choice but to extend my round one argument. ---------------------------------- Pro established: An example of this is that one kid that still believes in Santa when nobody else his age does. Rebuttal: Interesting objection. Unfortunately, Saint Nicholas is real (or was, rather). We know when he was born (270 AD), we know where he was born (Patara) and we know why he is a time-honored cultural icon (charity for the poor). [1] He was one of many Bishops present at the first council of Nicaea and his signature can be seen on the Nicaean Creed. Additionally, my opponent’s example is fantastic in nature, not religious. Fantasy and faith may be cousins, but they are not the same thing. All arguments extended. http://en.wikipedia.org... [1]
Children should not be allowed to be taught religion is true

My stance is that children should be taught about EVERY religion, and not be told by anyone which one that person believes is true. The reason I believe that any form of telling your children (or any kids for that matter) that their opinions are facts is indoctrination is because once they get into the habit of believing something is true, it is difficult to accept it if one day you convince yourself otherwise. An example of this is that one kid that still believes in Santa when nobody else his age does. Over to you con.
Blocking ads is ethical

If publishers and website creators don't like people blocking ads, then it's up to them to complain to advertising companies. The fact is Malvertising has tripled since last year. When I visit a website, I'm not asking to get tracked, nor am I asking to open myself up to vulnerabilities. I will give a perfect example. A popular site Forbes asked people to disable their adblocker to view their context. As soon as they did, the people that did, were served with malware; Forbes just proved that ad blocking is a essential part of security. https://www.engadget.com... When people search online, they want to consume the content without any interruptions. It would be one thing if the ads were at the very bottom and they were stationary, but their not. The ads cause a series of redirects, pop ups, track users, and yes even deliver malware. When you watch TV, do the ads intrupt what you are viewing? No they don't, they have commercial breaks. Now can you imagine if the ads intruped the movie or sport game you were watching, most people would be post. People don't hate advertising, they hate bad advertising. A lot of people will watch the Superbowel just for the commercials and half time. If the advertising is good enough, people will seek it out. Until online advertising networks get their act together, people including myself are going to keep blocking their ads.