BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Should Not Be Teached In School

I gladly accept your challenge. First, though, as you have failed to provide us with any definitions, I will define them myself. Definition of poetry (n) Bing Dictionary po"et"ry [ poM2;L9; "tree ] 1.literature in verse: literary works written in verse, in particular verse writing of high quality, great beauty, emotional sincerity or intensity, or profound insight 2.particular poems considered collectively: all the poems written by a particular poet, in a particular language or form, or on a particular subject 3.writing of poems: the art or skill of writing poems On to your points. 'In poetry lessons we learn how to write debates.' I don't know about you, but to me POETRY lesson implies that we learn about and how to do POETRY. You have said that we 'do not use poetry' in our modern day life. I'm not disputing that theory, but what I want to draw attention to is the fact that we do not exactly go around using, for example, Chemistry, but no one is disputing that we should teach that! Therefore, your point is rendered invalid by the fact that poetry is not the only subject that is 'not usable in real life'. If you wish to argue that Chemistry can be used, well consider the billions of poets around the globe who use it, and I'll come on to this. 'There is usually a lot of make(sic) up words' Yes, so what? In fact, one of the greatest poets of all time- Shakespeare- made up the word road. [1] What would we call a road, if Shakespeare had not invented it? The word 'twerk' is entirely made up, but you understand it, no? 'The words are not understandable and the words used is usually old fashion (sic).' Incorrect. A poem is one of the hardest things to pin down. The poem below is contemporary one. In the Sea of it all Waves of anxiety crash over me And I drown in self-doubt. There are guppies, And there are sharks... I let them make me feel small. The effects evident in superficial markings. Obstacles not well suited for soME, Yet enforced for all. Logic is lost. And water will always run. Although the end is upstream I'm Going Down. I assume you can understand this. That was my rebuttal. I believe I need only one point to finish off my debate. Languge is poetry. Indeed, everytime you express your love- 'you are the flower of my heart'- that is poetry. The barrier is so thin as to be nonexistent. Thank you to my opponent, and I await his repply. [1]http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com...
Poetry Should Not Be Teached In School

Poetry is a lesson taught in primary and secondary school. In poetry lesson, we learn how to write debates. The point is that people don't even use the knowledge from the lesson. This means that the lesson is not actually applied in real life. If it is not usable in real life, why would we learn it? That is my first arguments. On my second argument, I know that in the pot, there is usually a lot of make up words which does not actually exist but only used because it rhymes with the others. The words are not understandable and the words used is usually old fashion. I challenge you to rebut my arguments and state some arguments which would prove that poetry should be taught in school. Thank you.
Arming more people and the rite people is the key to our future

I don't even know what the heck your talking about. You sound like your trying to dress up your words and sound great about screwing up a debate. and no that's not what the first round is for, that's what the comment box is for, I'm not trying to be mean but don't join a debate when your not even sure what its about, if you have a question leave it in the comment box, and stop dressing your words and sounding all prissy and admit you were wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong.
US Intervention (Tournament Debate)

Contention 1: The Theory of is.Because of the wording of the resolution and where is is placed all I have to do is point out one event where the US wasn't justified. ChileIn Chile, the United States wanted a more American supportive government and they interveened in the 1970's, but it only turns out that after the assasination the nation's new leader is anti-american and commits great attrocities of which weren't happening before the US interveened and caused a coup to get rid of the old government in Chile.https://www.cia.gov......KyrgyzstanThe US interveened here to inorder to eliminate an Islamist regieme inorder to install a western friendly government and it came out even worse. The current government restricts water rights which are key to these people and the reason that we don't hear about it in America is becuase the United States doesn't want to admit their own failure! http://spectator.org......Middle EastMany people argue that we've gone into Iraq and done great for their government, but the truth is that we went in their for oil and in Pakistan and Afghanistan the United States discovered a REM (rare earth metal) depossit and decided to exploit it!http://isreview.org......I now await my opponent's response.
US Intervention (Tournament Debate)

Resolved: On balance, The United States federal govenment is justified in intervening in the politics of another nation, in an attempt to stop human rights abuses.Thread: http://www.debate.org...Definitions:On balance: Taking everything into consideration; all in all.http://www.ahdictionary.com...Justified: To demonstrate or prove to be just, right, or valid: justified each budgetary expense as necessary; anger that is justified by the circumstances.http://www.ahdictionary.com...Intervene: To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation.http://www.ahdictionary.com...Politics: The methods or tactics involved in managing a state or government.http://www.ahdictionary.com...Nation: A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.http://www.ahdictionary.com...Human rights: The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression.http://www.ahdictionary.com...Abuses:An unjust or wrongful practice:a government that commits abuses against its citizens.http://www.ahdictionary.com...All other words will follow standard American Heritage Dictionary definitions, taking into account context and any discernable intent of the author.
Drinking Water

For the sake of maximum clarification, I will refute my opponent's argument in the exact order he has presented them. 1. + The resolution gives my opponent the burden to prove that access to drinking water is a human right instead of a commodity. Meaning he is not allowed to attempt to achieve both at the same time, he must show that access to drinking water ought not be a commodity, and ought instead be a human right. + We've already established that access to drinking water is need for survival. That is painfully obvious. My opponent has not, however, established that it is a right. He has the claim, he lacks the warrant and the impact. + My opponent neither proves nor establishes anything here. 2. + The argument my opponent makes here is equivalent to a forfeit. He is advocating that water can exist as a commodity, which violates his BOP to show that water is instead a Human Right. + Exactly, the jogger's act is theft. Which shows us that he does not have the human right to have access to that drinking water. Furthermore to refute the later half of my opponent's argument, he has yet to establish access to drinking water as a human right. + In regards to my opponent's free speech example, I must ask; what? What on earth is my opponent attempting to advocate here? The right to free speech, and access to drinking water are two completely different things. The former is a deeply established right, one in which the parameters and restrictions are clearly known. The supposed right to "access to drinking water" is exceedingly vauge, and unfounded in the first place. Furthermore, my opponent has the burden to specifically outline the right to access to drinking water before they may make an argument such as this. Otherwise this argument unfounded and unviable. 3. + The logical syllogism my opponent provides doesn't suffice to advocate access to drinking water as a human right. Were this logic to suffice, then suddenly everything is a human right is one can justify it linked to another right. For instance Black metal: Includes the right of free speech Speaking of murder: Links to black metal Mass murdering millions of people: Linked to black metal Mass murder: Is human right protected under the freedom of speech. In conclusion, my opponent's warrants are weak and do not suffice to warrant access to drinking water as a human right. He does not meet his own burden of proof. And his clash on the Con case is far from viable. There can be no other vote in this debate than for the Con.
Drinking Water

However to show respect to the Con that he has shown to me I will not offer any counter arguments in the last round for the sake of evenness. I will use the last round to simply re-state my points, nothing more nothing less. I find access to water as one of the few necessities in life or a commodity that is needed to live. However it is a human right to have access to clean drinking water because if under any circumstances that access to clean water is taken away or compromised through pollution, then those people depending on that water just lost access to one of the few things in life that all humans need for simple survival. A human right - any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere (including rights to life and liberty as well as freedom of thought and expression and equality before the law) . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Right to clean water is a right to life because clean water is necessary for life while at the same time polluted water can cause severe health complications and if prolonged enough, death. If drinking water, a necessity for life, is not a human right then here are some other essentials to life that would otherwise not be considered human rights, Access to clean food, Access to shelter, Access to clothes, clean or dirty. Access to pursue happiness. That being said if things necessary for life were not a human right, then what would cause lesser rights that are not essential to life to also not be considered human rights? these rights would include Right to a fair trial, Right to speak freely, Right to privacy, Right to a working wage, Right to practice your own religion, etc. My point is, water is an essential to life, and if humans were not guaranteed what is considered essential, then that would mean we wouldnt have any rights to what is considered unessential. If access to free drinking water is no longer considered to be a right of all of us, then other rights to other things just as important or even less would also thus have to be considered not a human right. However clean water is a human right because a human right as described above is any rights or freedoms that must not be interfered with because of any individual's right to live.
Drinking Water

full resolution, "Resolved: Access to drinking water ought to be valued as a human right instead of as a commodity" I'm hesitant about debating this topic here on DDO, but I figured it's at the very least worth a try. I'll allow my opponent to go first when accepting this debate. I repeat: the first round is not just for acceptance, if you accept begin the round. I realize that I am at a disadvantage that way but I'm fine with that. Make whatever kind of arguments you'd like, even semantics aren't off limit. Debate/Argument style, rhetoric, etc. Feel free to argue however you'd like. The only rule/stipulation is that by accepting this debate, you agree not to post any rules either. Neither to limit the resolution or your BOP.
hockey vs soccer

hockey is better! 1. we are non stop. rarely in a game of hockey do we even stop for "out of bounds". we do not have the option of running out to get a breather. 2. we skate at about 35 mph. go at that speed makes hockey the fastest sport on earth without a car. this is also for about a 2 min. shift. at that speed makes it very hard. also with the possiblilty to get hit makes it even more fun. getting to lay people out with all force and making the crowd scream! 3. scoreing. we shoot a little puck at a little net with a big goalie in the way! for us to score is way more amazing then shotting a big ball in a big net with a little goalie. There for it makes hockey a harder sport and pushs players even more to shoot the puck. heres just 3 main points
Taxpayers should be allowed to dictate how governments spend their money.

This was due to my attending a Chinese wedding which lasted, as they do, most of the weekend, thus leaving me no opportunity to post an argument, or at least not a sober one! Anyway, I hope my opponent understands and doesn't consider my forfeit in any way disrespectful. In his response, my opponent observed that the government would still distribute tax receipts so that this will limit the taxpayers control over how the money is actually spent. This is true, and also a good thing. While year on year, the taxpayers' can collectively adjust the amount of money any given Ministry receives, the political decision on exactly how it is spent will be made by elected representatives of the people. My opponent used the hypothetical Ministry of Culture and Art as an example. The taxpayers decide how much money the ministry will have to spend but the voters (who are not all taxpayers) will elect a government that spends it the way they want. For example, The Conservative Party's manifesto might state that the arts budget should be spent subsidising all the lap-dancing clubs that lost their best customers when the balloon went up in the finance industry, while the Socialist Workers Party might promise to fund ethically-sound, environmentally-friendly drama workshops for gay and lesbian members of ethnic minorities who have AIDS. You see, in my system, the voters decide how the money is spent, which is democratic, and the taxpayers decide how much, which is fair. Now let us turn our attention to Bob and Joe and their rather selfish attitude to allocating their taxes. Since Bob and Joe are not the only two taxpayers in the country, their respective choice of beneficiaries of the taxes will be only be two contributions amongst millions of others. Joe's individual decision to allocate more money to Law Enforcement will not, on it's own, be enough to fund a pay rise for all police officers. If there is extra money in the pot to pay for higher salaries, it would be as the result of the collective decision of all taxpayers. We now move on to Defence and the example given of America's military involvement in Iraq. My opponent states that most people disapprove of this conflict and this may be true. However, it doesn't then follow that they won't allocate money to Defence. Most taxpayers realise that America's security is of vital importance. Rather they will vote for a political party that promises to spend their taxes on higher salaries for military personnel rather than on expensive foreign campaigns. In conclusion, this system is democracy, but with value added. Everybody gets one vote each, rich or poor – to deny the unemployed or the retired their vote because they don't pay tax would be totally un-democratic. However, the people that fund the country through their taxes will have the opportunity to dictate the government's fiscal priorities on a year-to-year basis, which is right and just.
Taxpayers should be allowed to dictate how governments spend their money.

Let's say that the Poles, the Danes and the Serbs decide to form a federation and they call their new country, I don't know, The Poledanser Republic. Now, in the spirit of true democracy, the government of this newly formed nation allow all tax-paying Poledansers to decide how their money is spent. Naturally, the cost of running the legislature and judiciary would be protected, but beyond that, the taxpayers are invited to earmark their income tax. Here's a worked example: * Annual income – 100,000 Poledanser dollars. * Income tax rate – 10% * Income tax payable – 10,000 Poledanser dollars. * Percentage of income tax due to cover Government Running Costs (GRC) – 4% * Income tax less GRC – 9,600 Poledanser dollars * Number of Government Ministries – 12: Health; Defence; Arts and Culture; Law Enforcement; Social Security; Foreign Aid; Transport; Environment; Education; Agriculture; Research and Development; Energy. * Amount of income tax per Ministry – 800 Poledanser dollars, when divided equitably. However, not all taxpayers would want the same amount to go to each Ministry. For instance, an environmentally-aware, culturally-enlightened social worker and voluntary peace activist with five disabled children (that were adopted from Africa) and who has an unemployed partner (with profound mental health issues) and who earns 100,000 Poledanser dollars per annum, might decide to give 1,600 Poledanser dollars each to the Education, Social Security, Health, Environment, Art and Culture and Foreign Aid Ministries and nothing at all to the others. On the other hand, a racist farmer on the same income who hates foreigners so much he wants to see them all dead, who isn't married and has no kids and who is paranoid about becoming the victim of crime, might decide to give the Defence, Agriculture and Law Enforcement Ministries 3,200 Poledanser dollars each and nothing at all to the others. In practice, of course, most Poledanser taxpayers would realise that all the Ministries have important roles to play, but some require more funding than others and would allocate each one different amounts accordingly. This, I believe, is an eminently fairer system of controlling government spending than the current norm because it devolves the decision-making process down to the people.
You need a God in order to explain the creation of the universe.

Pro will take on the BOP in this debate and show that you need or have to have a God in order to explain how the universe began.Definition of God that we will be debating.God - 1. A Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.Generally the God accepted as the Christian God, and accepting everything the bible entails would be ideal. We are not arguing the concept of what people may think a God is, but rather what God is accepted to be by most. The creator of the universe and a all powerful omnipotent being.Pro will argue that without a God there is no way to explain how the universe began, and take on the BOP in this discussion.I will argue that you do not need a God in order to explain the beginning on the universe.RulesR1 Con: This is my R1 and is simply the rules of the debateR1 Pro : Since he will agree to take on the BOP, Pro will start to build his own case hereR2 Con: I will establish my own case and may offer rebuttals to pros argument to help build on my own.R2 Pro : Rebuttals and closing statements. He will refute my points and crystallize his own. He will then offer closing statementsR3 Con: I will offer rebuttals to pros points and crystallize my own as well. I will then offer closing statements.R3 Pro: He will simply type "no round as agreed upon ", and this will end the debate.
Doors that open outward are better than doors that open inward

In reading your argument I first thought of it as a joke though now I have greatly reconsidered, now I stand before you in text with a simple yet astounding question. If you were to judge the path taken by a person do you judge the path or the results. For example, if a man were to walk through a golden door that moves outward would that be considered acceptable. Though what if the door is found to enter a gentlemen"s club, is the path taken still acceptable or is the end result considered vulgar? -Benjamin
Doors that open outward are better than doors that open inward

I commend your sense of humor though you have just disproved your own argument. Firstly, if said person knew that the door would lead to a gentlemen"s club then wouldn"t that entail corrupt morals as well? As not to put down others" ideologies though I shall agree with you that there is nothing wrong with entering a gentlemen"s club but it is one"s actions inside that matter instead. Furthermore, as I said before it is not the path that you take but the destination. For example if someone for whatever reason were to go to prison would they be harshly judged if they were to become an executive? I shall leave you to decide.
Doors that open outward are better than doors that open inward

First of all, there is nothing wrong with going into a gentlemen's club. Now, let me educate you. The man should have known the door would lead to a gentlemen's club. If he did not know where the door would lead, he should not have opened it. He should have checked for a sign, knocked, or rang the doorbell. P.S. I have reconsidered my previous statement. Sliding doors are superior to BOTH inward and outward doors. No one has been hit with a sliding door. If the door to the gentlemen's club had been sliding the man could have slid it ever so slightly that he could peek in with one glimpse to check the scene.
It is impossible to define art

Summarizing your arguments: 1) The dictionary gives "manifestation" as a synonym for "expression," and "manifestation" implies that something must be revealed. But art is art regardless of whether or not it is seen/appreciated by others. 2) Art can't be defined because people will disagree. My responses: 1) I agree that art doesn't need to be shown to others in order to be considered art. Expression can be private. If I paint a painting then lock it in a safe without ever showing it to anyone else, are you saying the painting would cease to be expressive? That's just silly. When a person writes in a private diary, isn't that expression? 2) As I said before, I don't expect this debate.org page to spawn a global art revolution that will accept my definition as gospel, but I do think it's a pretty good definition. I have to disagree with your assertion that my definition doesn't apply well to certain forms of art. Consider: the central drive of every person who purports to create art is to convey thoughts, sensations and/or emotions. The way I see it, that's basically the definition of expression.