BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

"I was merely showing that my definitions are legitimate." Sorry, but they aren't. Whether or not they came from the same source I provided is completely irrelevant. The definition of "awe" in this debate is the one I have provided, to which you agreed by accepting the debate. If one could provide an alternate definition solely because the two come from the same source, one could completely change the meaning of a resolution. "My opponent provides no relevant refutation. Therefore, the argument stands." I did. The initial definition stands, and yours are illegitimate. "My opponent is obviously ignoring my definition of "awe". Of course, most of the population might feel some admiration, or wonder at this picture. However, this feeling would not be "overwhelming". My opponent, by calling the picture "awesome", is hugely overstating the wonderment and amazement that the picture generate." "Once again, while the picture may cause wonderment and amazement to the majority of the population, it does not generate these to an overwhelming extent. Hence, it is not "awesome"." Yes, I am ignoring it. The magnitude of the awe, which you have chosen to be "overwhelming," is irrelevant, as it is not part of the resolution nor is it part of the definition of awe. Second, the magnitude of the awe would be completely subjective and would vary greatly from person to person–however, the existence of some form of awe in the majority of people is undeniable. Ladies and gentlemen of Debate.org, PRO is the way to go. My opponent's argument is based completely off his own definitions, which are illegitimate, and therefore, his arguments are illegitimate as well. I have clearly shown why the image in the resolution is indeed awesome.
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

"'These are the two definitions which opponent's source provides.' Irrelevant. I provided the definition 'inspiring awe or admiration or wonder.'" I was merely showing that my definitions are legitimate. "By the power invested in me as a member of Debate.org, I declare this argument null and void, as the premises upon which it is based are incorrect." My opponent provides no relevant refutation. Therefore, the argument stands. "Obviously, there are exceptions, but the majority of the population would feel awe at this image. I have already explained why–curiosity is part of human nature, and there is nothing about which to be more curious than the vast unknown, space." My opponent is obviously ignoring my definition of "awe". Of course, most of the population might feel some admiration, or wonder at this picture. However, this feeling would not be "overwhelming". My opponent, by calling the picture "awesome", is hugely overstating the wonderment and amazement that the picture generate. "I have shown that the majority of the population has an interest in space, and therefore, would find the unfamiliar phenomena illustrated in the image awe-inspiring, and therefore, awesome. My opponent is simply an outlier in his lack of interest in the picture." Once again, while the picture may cause wonderment and amazement to the majority of the population, it does not generate these to an overwhelming extent. Hence, it is not "awesome".
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

"These are the two definitions which opponent's source provides." Irrelevant. I provided the definition "inspiring awe or admiration or wonder." "1. The picture certainly does not inspire fear. In fact, it looks much like a computer desktop. A picture such as this: http://images.whatsthatbug.com...... is far more able to inspire fear." By the power invested in me as a member of Debate.org, I declare this argument null and void, as the premises upon which it is based are incorrect. "2. The picture does not inspire overwhelming wonder. I was not so consumed by wonderment as to further research these ice volcanoes, nor even to read the caption in its entirety. Obviously, it was possible to resist any wonderment which I experienced." Obviously, there are exceptions, but the majority of the population would feel awe at this image. I have already explained why–curiosity is part of human nature, and there is nothing about which to be more curious than the vast unknown, space. The majority of the population's fascination with space is evident in many ways. One is the overwhelming popularity of entertainment that deals with elements of space, such as Star Trek. Another is the amount of support the space program has gotten, especially discounting the criticisms of it that are based on cost issues rather than interest issues. According to a 2002 poll, more than half of the population believed that the space program should continue, and those who did not support its continuation were concerned with the amount of money it would take, not whether or not it was interesting [1]. "3. The picture does not inspire overwhelming admiration. An overwhelming sense of liking would, no doubt, result in an inability to tear oneself from the image. However, I managed to do so within seconds. Therefore, I resisted any admiration felt." Humans are never actually unable to stop looking at an image. Often, they want to look at it more, but understand that they have other things to do. I have shown that the majority of the population has an interest in space, and therefore, would find the unfamiliar phenomena illustrated in the image awe-inspiring, and therefore, awesome. My opponent is simply an outlier in his lack of interest in the picture. [1] http://www.globalsecurity.org...
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

Alright, typo aside. awe: an overwhelming feeling of wonder or admiration; [1] awe: fear [1] These are the two definitions which opponent's source provides. overwhelming: incapable of being resisted [1] wonder: curiosity [1] admiration: a feeling of delighted approval and liking [1] fear: be afraid or scared of [1] 1. The picture certainly does not inspire fear. In fact, it looks much like a computer desktop. A picture such as this: http://images.whatsthatbug.com... is far more able to inspire fear. 2. The picture does not inspire overwhelming wonder. I was not so consumed by wonderment as to further research these ice volcanoes, nor even to read the caption in its entirety. Obviously, it was possible to resist any wonderment which I experienced. 3. The picture does not inspire overwhelming admiration. An overwhelming sense of liking would, no doubt, result in an inability to tear oneself from the image. However, I managed to do so within seconds. Therefore, I resisted any admiration felt. [1] wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

I will argue that the picture referred to in the above resolution is the image which you have the pleasure of viewing by visiting the link hhttp://apod.nasa.gov...... is, indeed, awesome." Upon clicking the link, I was not given the pleasure of viewing an "awesome picture", but instead, an Alert, notifying me that "hhttp is not a registered protocol." The only pictorial element of the Alert was a symbol much akin to this one http://etavern.net.... This yellow triangle failed entirely to generate any sort of awe or wonderment in my mind. My opponent's arguments apply to an artist's depiction of Saturn, not the picture in question.
Resolved: This picture is awesome.

Clarifications: The picture referred to in the above resolution is the image which you may have the pleasure of viewing by visiting the link http://apod.nasa.gov.... Awesome: inspiring awe or admiration or wonder [1]. By taking the PRO side of this debate, I will argue that the picture referred to in the above resolution is the image which you have the pleasure of viewing by visiting the link hhttp://apod.nasa.gov... is, indeed, awesome. The image is an artist's stylized depiction of a view of Saturn from its moon, Enceladus [2]. The image illustrates ice volcanoes, a phenomenon that does not occur on Earth, but rather on obscure moons on the Solar System's outer planets. It also places us much nearer to Saturn than anyone alive has ever been. Is this not awe-inspiring? The concept of an ice volcano is most likely unknown by the vast majority of the population. The idea of being so close to Saturn, on a moon that has phenomena so unknown to most humans, should inspire awe in us as it is something so unknown, yet so vast. The ideas encapsulated in the painting–the unknown and the strange that occur beyond our atmosphere–epitomize man's fascination with space. This fascination with space is a result of our lack of knowledge of space. When we are still trying to grasp so many aspects of something so vast, we are awestruck by that thing. Therefore, this picture inspires awe, meaning it is awe-inspiring, meaning it is awesome. [1]wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn [2]http://apod.nasa.gov...
The idiom 'all's fair in love and war' is rubbish!

I'd like to point out that your argument is very difficult to read, with all the underlining and bold, and speaking in the third person. It's also coming across rudely in some instances and I don't find following you easy at all and I guess I am willing to even forfeit the debate. I don't mean to be rude myself but this is who I see how you are writing. I fail to see how Osama bin Laden became the highlight of this debate. In your statement of fairness is not about whether everyone went home happy or not, but rather about who won or lost. I disagree with this statement. Fairness isn't about who won or lost and it really does have everything to do with how the game was played. In the end all should be in agreement regardless about the winning or loosing, that the rules were fair for example. Definition of Fairness (Please take note of number 2 which is highly important when it comes to my debate headline). 1 conformity with rules or standards; "the judge recognized the fairness of my claim" [syn: equity] [ant: unfairness, unfairness] 2 ability to make judgments free from discrimination or dishonesty [syn: fair-mindedness, candor, candour] [ant: unfairness] 3 the property of having a naturally light complexion [syn: paleness, blondness] 4 the quality of being good looking and attractive [syn: comeliness, loveliness, beauteousness] http://fairness.askdefine.com... I am going to stick with my argument and once again state that dishonesty is not fair. Wrecking havoc in a deceitful manner is not fair. Refer to the definition of fairness. And going through extremes to get your way in love or in war even if it's highly corrupt, is really not the definition of justice and fairness.
The idiom 'all's fair in love and war' is rubbish!

Thank you for accepting my challenge. I'd ask for grace when it comes to grammar errors I have missed if possible, and that perhaps you'd just consider if the argument is thought provoking enough to continue. I'll start with this explanation of yours: "The implication behind this would be that one is permitted to wreak all the havoc he wants, deceive whoever he wishes to deceive, lie, cheat, or even kill, provided that he does all this either in pursuit of true love, or in the course of a war". The term it's rubbish means that I do not agree that it is fair in all cases to wreak havoc, deceive, lie, cheat and kill and that it's suggest a licence to take any action. In the pursuit of love or in the course of war, there are two sides. Do all sides agree on the fairness? In your example of Osama, I would argue that many of the Arabs and even the Sunni militant Islamist organisation did not find the deceit and the tactics of the Americans fair. People can go to many extremes to get what they want, or what they feel they have a right to, but it doesn't make it fair at all. Fairness suggests that its balanced and agreed by two parties. The definition for fairness is for example, a conformity with rules or standards; "the judge recognized the fairness of my claim". Since there are no standards in wrecking all havoc; (widespread destruction), which affects and has an impact in a very negative way, on even innocent people more often than not, how can we say it is fair? You could believe for instance that it is okay to kill your spouse because you have jealousy issues. You may feel you love your spouse too much to allow your spouse to cheat (just as an example, it does happen). You may not even be accurate in your perceptions and you may have no factual evidence of any cheating going on. Should you kill your spouse and land up in court, you could argue you loved your spouse and the court can't really argue against your perception of love being right or wrong but they can prosecute your actions. Was there fairness for the other party and if there were kids was it fair on the kids? All's fair in love and war suggests that any extreme action taken (the end justifies the means, as you've said) is okay. When it comes to deceit, honesty is really fair play. There isn't anything fair about deception as it's limiting on the other party etc.
The idiom 'all's fair in love and war' is rubbish!

I accept my opponent's challenge, and shall be arguing that the phrase "All is fair in love and war" is NOT rubbish.Note:-For all my arguments over the course of the debate, text formatted in underlined italics denotes direct quotes from my opponent.-"All is fair in love and war" shall be abbreviated at times as AiFiLaW.I look forward to an interesting and well-contested debate. Good luck to Pro.____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Opening statements (rebuttals included)____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________The origin of AiFiLaW is attributed to John Lyly's Euphues, written circa 1580. The essence of it is that when it comes to love or war, the end justifies the means.The implication behind this would be that one is permitted to wreak all the havoc he wants, deceive whoever he wishes to deceive, lie, cheat, or even kill, provided that he does all this either in pursuit of true love, or in the course of a war.As such, for love or war, AiFiLaW indicates that all bets are off; one can use all means at his disposal, and there is no need to follow any rules.------------------------------------------My opponent's only argument in the current round lies in this statement:There is never a exception for deception and there it's never fair. Putting the faulty grammar aside, Pro postulates that deception is never fair. I argue that deception is sometimes fair. There may be times when you must deceive someone in order to bring about your goals. This is, in fact, choosing the lesser of two evils.For example, consider the war on terror. Osama bin Laden was killed in a covert operation; he was essentially "deceived". It's better to cheat and kill a few people before many people are killed.Therefore, deception is sometimes fair, as opposed to my opponent's stance. These "sometimes" are, of course, as indicated by AiFiLaW, cases of love and war.------------------------------------------Love and war are situations that force people to their extremes; they are battles to protect the mental and physical aspects of one's life.Therefore, there is no guarantee that one's adversaries won't resort to under-handed tactics. Which is why, as a general convention, love and war are supposed to be fought as all-out battles. This "rule" is expressed in words by AiFiLaW.It's hardly rubbish; it's the truth of human nature.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________I await my opponent's arguments and rebuttals in round 2. Over to Pro.
The Practice of Tipping should be Stopped immediately.

My opponent's explanation in round two was as follows: "I merely said that food prices would go up if employers were to grant a greater share of their profit to their employees. " This means that under the current system, including tips, food prices are lower than they otherwise would be. Otherwise, the absense of tips wouldn't be able to raise the price. A tip is supposed to be greater for greater service. If service is excellent, it is higher than passable. For poor service, it is socially acceptable to leave no tip. In fact, it is better to leave no tip than just quarter. My opponent claims that these people do not get payed a livable wage. Actually, including the tips, they tend to get a higher wage than many minimum wage workers. . http://answers.yahoo.com... Here you find accounts of many people who say that as waiters and waitresses, they earned over the minimum wage when the salary is included. In this case, their loyalty is to the customers. This is a great incentive to not provide horrible service. This is enough to give the food servers incentive to give good service. My opponent again claims that my argument is that tips are a required incentive. I am not making that point. I am saying that it is a good, added incentive to help increase the quality of service. As I have said before, fast food employees often do take tips. In these cases, the individual can give a tip. For the mechanic, the payment already has a direct correlation with the quality of the work. In the case of restaurants, the customer would have already paid for the food and not paid for the service. This is the only opportunity to pay for such. The argument is not that "they don't earn minimum wage so we should tip them. " The argument for why they receive less than the minimum wage is because they earn tips. Not the other way around. My opponet shows a clear misunderstanding of economics. The employer wouldn't build the minimum wage into the price of the products. He would lower the product's price to be competetive. The extra dollar would remain in the hands of the consumer, who would then use it for the tip. In conclusion, tipping is not required for good performance, but it is a boost. There is no reason for it to be stopped immediately. Such would only be confusing.
The Practice of Tipping should be Stopped immediately.

If the absense of tips would raise the price of the food, then logically the tips lower the price of food. You can't get around this. You also can't deny that the tip provides incentive to be good. If the service is poor, the customer has the power to leave no tip at all. I never said that it was in only incentive. Only that it is a good incentive. My opponent acknowleges that he was getting paid a fair price. I do not assume that waiters would cease to be helpful. I just believe that there would be less incentive to do so. It is harder to for the business to judge the quality of the waiter's work than for the customer to do so. The slight increase in pay and absense of tips would not increase loyalty. The reason that the listed profesions do not have tips is because they can easily be judged in performance. It would be insane to tip writers for their work, as they already have all of the incentive needed to write well and attract readers. It only works for jobs in which the person is providing a service that may or may not be of good quality and would be easily judged by the consumer. Mechanics are already payed fully by the consumer, so a tip would be redundant. I have seen many fast food workers with tip jars. Assembly line workers never come into contact with the buyer, so the buyer would have no way to know the quality of the individual's contribution. They would see a finished product and buy it from the company that pays the worker's full wage. It is easy for the company to judge the quality of a worker's finished work, as they must look at it once, not monitor them over a period of time. Tipping a janitor would be strange. Would some people walking down the hallway randomly give the janitor money? No. They are payed only by the people who own the hallway or area where the janitor works. The reason that tips are only used in such professions is because they come in direct contact with the consumer, who then judges the quality of the performance.
The Practice of Tipping should be Stopped immediately.

My opponent's arguments are generally that the businesses that hire the people these people don't pay them enough, and that they keep the extra profits. This is extremely flawed. First of all, my opponent acknowledges that the practice of paying the workers less allows for the service, usually food, to be cheaper that it otherwise would be. This actually lowers the profit. There is no real way that the business can create an extra profit through this system. Tipping also gives incentive for the waiter or waitress to be polite in serving the consumers. It relieves the burden of checking how well the staff is behaved to the people, who would be the best judges of quality for themselves. This creates overall efficiency in the system. My opponent lists things that would happen if people stopped tipping. The first includes a "perhaps. " This would not be the case. Quality would go down, as there is less incentive for the waiter to do an exceptional job. Number two supports the minimum wage, which should be abolished. It is just an extention of the same failed policy in number one. Tipping does not cause pain.
The Practice of Tipping should be Stopped immediately.

Tipping: The practice of giving an expected gratuity to a member of the service trade. The practice of tipping is one of the most illogical and crazy behaviors in our society. As a consumer you are expected to tip certain people- but not others, and to always tip- but don't give too little! Frankly the social rules of tipping can be a little confusing and arbitrary. People who advocate tipping usually put forth the argument that the people working in the jobs where tipping is deemed acceptable are usually not payed enough. My full sympathies are with the worker. However the practice of tipping simply allows the employer to shirk on the responsibility of paying the worker a living wage. Tipping is the practice of playing the worker and the consumer against each other to the benefit of the employer. This is what the employer gets: he gets to advertise an artificially low price, and he gets to pay his workers a low wage, keeping more profit for himself, because the consumers will pay the worker for him. This is a flawed system. In an ideal system we would simply have one price where all services and employees wages are built into that price. In fact we do have that "one price" in 99% of the services and products sold in our society. It is only in a specific few that the "one price" method becomes unworkable. The practice of tipping is the sly maneuvering of business to have the consumer pay for the labour of the worker while business benefits. There are certain people that you are expected to tip, these include (but are certainly not limited to): the waiter, the delivery man, and the barkeep. But why do we tip these people and not others? Why doesn't the kid in McDonald's deserve a tip? Why doesn't the mechanic working on your car deserve a tip? You might argue that the mechanic gets paid a pretty good wage already while the waiter relies on tips in order to feed her family. But whose fault is this? It is not that of the consumers. Instead the blame should be placed on the business that does not pay enough and the worker who does not leave for greener pastures and more gainful employment. Once everyone stops tipping one of two things will occur: 1) The business will be forced to pick up the slack and increase wages for their employees. Prices will go up but they will be lower (perhaps) then the price of the food now + tip. Everyone wins! 2) The employee can leave the job for another where minimum wage is honored. The employee gets a (somewhat barely) livable wage and the business is forced to do (1) in order to attract more employees. Everyone wins! Please note that when I speak of tipping I do not mean tipping as a form of reward for good service. When an employee (of any field including highly paid ones) excels in their service it is appropriate to reward them. However tipping for the sake of tipping or tipping because a worker does not get paid enough doesn't make any sense whatsoever. By tipping one may think that they are elevating the pain that the system places on the lower-class, however they are merely licensing it.