BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Poetry Debate No. 2

That power was very powerful--I'm not sure that it's blank verse, but it's nice. For this round--Round Unrhymed Free Verse--for my poem, I will be offering one of my truly favorite poems of all time. "Dream Song 14" by John Berryman is sardonically funny, and if you read it with just the read note of sarcastic hilarity, it's an amazing piece. Life, friends, is boring. We must not say so. After all, the sky flashes, the great sea yearns, we ourselves flash and yearn, and moreover my mother told me as a boy (repeatingly) "Ever to confess you"re bored means you have no Inner Resources." I conclude now I have no inner resources, because I am heavy bored. Peoples bore me, literature bores me, especially great literature, Henry bores me, with his plights & gripes as bad as achilles, who loves people and valiant art, which bores me. And the tranquil hills, & gin, look like a drag and somehow a dog has taken itself & its tail considerably away into mountains or sea or sky, leaving behind: me, wag. Citation: http://www.poetryfoundation.org...
Poetry Debate No. 2

This is a beautiful poem which was written by an African child and nominated by The United Nations as the Best Poem of 2006.It is very short and sweet.. And you calling me colored?? When I born, I black. When I grow up, I black. When I go in sun, I black. When I scared, I black. When I sick, I black. And when I die, I still black. And you white people. When you born, you pink. When you grow up, you white. When you go in sun, you red. When you cold, you blue. When you scared, you yellow. When you sick, you green And when you die, you grey… And you calling me colored??http://www.redbubble.com...;
Poetry Debate No. 2

For this round of unrhymed iambic pentameter, otherwise known as Blank Verse, I will stick with my darker theme. My selection is "Degrees of Grey in Philipsburg" by Richard Hugo. You might come here Sunday on a whim. Say your life broke down. The last good kiss you had was years ago. You walk these streets laid out by the insane, past hotels that didn't last, bars that did, the tortured try of local drivers to accelerate their lives. Only churches are kept up. The jail turned 70 this year. The only prisoner is always in, not knowing what he"s done. The principal supporting business now is rage. Hatred of the various grays the mountain sends, hatred of the mill, The Silver Bill repeal, the best liked girls who leave each year for Butte. One good restaurant and bars can't wipe the boredom out. The 1907 boom, eight going silver mines, a dance floor built on springs-- all memory resolves itself in gaze, in panoramic green you know the cattle eat or two stacks high above the town, two dead kilns, the huge mill in collapse for fifty years that won"t fall finally down. Isn't this your life? That ancient kiss still burning out your eyes? Isn't this defeat so accurate, the church bell simply seems a pure announcement: ring and no one comes? Don't empty houses ring? Are magnesium and scorn sufficient to support a town, not just Philipsburg, but towns of towering blondes, good jazz and booze the world will never let you have until the town you came from dies inside? Say no to yourself. The old man, twenty when the jail was built, still laughs although his lips collapse. Someday soon, he says, I'll go to sleep and not wake up. You tell him no. You're talking to yourself. The car that brought you here still runs. The money you buy lunch with, no matter where it's mined, is silver and the girl who serves your food is slender and her red hair lights the wall. This poem is dark, but is powerful I hope it was appreciated. Citation: http://www.poetryoutloud.org...
Poetry Debate No. 2

Sometimes we see something beautiful and striking, and we remember it for a long time afterwords. "The solitary Reaper" is about a similar incident. The poet is William Wordsworth. Behold her, single in the field, Yon solitary Highland Lass! Reaping and singing by herself; Stop here, or gently pass! Alone she cuts and binds the grain, And sings a melancholy strain; O listen! for the Vale profound Is overflowing with the sound. No Nightingale did ever chaunt More welcome notes to weary bands Of travellers in some shady haunt, Among Arabian sands: A voice so thrilling ne'er was heard In spring-time from the Cuckoo-bird, Breaking the silence of the seas Among the farthest Hebrides. Will no one tell me what she sings?-- Perhaps the plaintive numbers flow For old, unhappy, far-off things, And battles long ago: Or is it some more humble lay, Familiar matter of to-day? Some natural sorrow, loss, or pain, That has been, and may be again? Whate'er the theme, the Maiden sang As if her song could have no ending; I saw her singing at her work, And o'er the sickle bending;-- I listened, motionless and still; And, as I mounted up the hill, The music in my heart I bore, Long after it was heard no more. William Wordsworth Source: My English Textbook
Poetry Debate No. 2

Round One - Ballads (ABCB format) Round Two - Blank Verse Round Three - Unrhymed Free verse (no more than 20 lines) Round Four - Villanelle Round Five - Poem of your choice or of your creation My ballad selection is "The Birth of John Henry" by Melvin B. Tolson. I thinks it's darkly comic, and I really enjoy it. I hope you will too! The night John Henry is born an ax of lightning splits the sky, and a hammer of thunder pounds the earth, and the eagles and panthers cry! John Henry--he says to his Ma and Pa: "Get a gallon of barleycorn. I want to start right, like a he-man child, the night that I am born!" Says: "I want some ham hocks, ribs, and jowls, a pot of cabbage and greens; some hoecackes, jam, and buttermilk, a platter of pork and beans!" John Henry's Ma--she wrings her hands, and his Pa--he scratches his head. John Henry--he curses in giraffe-tall words, flops over, and kicks down the bed. He's burning mad, like a bear on fire-- so he tears to the riverside. As he stoops to drink, Old Man River gets scared and runs upstream to hide! Some say he was born in Georgia'O Lord! Some say in Alabam. But it's writ on the rock at the Big Bend Tunnel: "Lousyana was my home. So scram!" Citation: http://www.poetryoutloud.org...
Poetry Debate No. 2

LtCmdrData Hats Off to you for conducting the poetry debates so well... Well for the third round I and another user mikicat10 have composed a poem as a debate. It goes on like this....I got out of bed and stared blankly at the wallThe wall stared back at me and said I was smallEmbarrassed and insulted, I stormed into the hallAnd then I realized, I was not at home at allbecause when I stepped into the kitchen I began to fallthen I landed on top of a big ballthe ball was on top of the mallwhere two shopkeepers had begun to brawlwho were under the influence of alcohol.I know it is a very short poem, but I like it and is A POEM OF MY CHOICE..http://www.debate.org...Lines in Bold are by mikicat10 and the rest by me.
Poetry Debate No. 2

I have stuck with a dark/sardonic theme throughout this debate. I would like to give everyone a break from that, and offer something that--I think--is nostalgic and beautiful: "Mrs. Caldera's House of Things," by Gregory Djanikian. It is a poem of my choice, and I hope it affects you the same way as it does me. Enjoy. .. You are sitting in Mrs. Caldera"s kitchen, you are sipping a glass of lemonade and trying not to be too curious about the box of plastic hummingbirds behind you, the tray of tineless forks at your elbow. You have heard about the backroom where no one else has ever gone and whatever enters, remains, refrigerator doors, fused coils, mower blades, milk bottles, pistons, gears. "You never know," she says, rummaging through a cedar chest of recipes, "when something will come of use. " There is a vase of pencil tips on the table, a bowl full of miniature wheels and axles. Upstairs, where her children slept, the doors will not close, the stacks of magazines are burgeoning, there are snow shoes and lampshades, bedsprings and picture tubes, and boxes and boxes of irreducibles! You imagine the headline in the Literalist Express: House Founders Under Weight Of Past. But Mrs. Caldera is baking cookies, she is humming a song from childhood, her arms are heavy and strong, they have held babies, a husband, tractor parts and gas tanks, what have they not found a place for? It is getting dark, you have sat for a long time. If you move, you feel something will be disturbed, there is room enough only for your body. "Stay awhile," Mrs. Caldera says, and never have you felt so valuable. Citation: . http://www.poetryoutloud.org... Thank you for judging, and thanks to Con for a great round! I hope you have all truly enjoyed this debate.
Poetry Debate No. 2

Image of Love I see your face, I look into your eyes,And I fall apart, can no longer even try.Though I know beauty can be full of lies,Nothing could alter your image for me.If they could part the sands from the sea,They never could part my love from me.Here, there is nothing but rocks and stones,No friendly souls or angels to guide you home.Here, you are so, so very alone,But I have seen your heart, know your words.They tell me that my vision is blurred,That my thoughts are slow, my words slurred.Even love cannot look beyond an evil face;It can't be missed, not a trace.No, you're an image of pure grace.True, beautiful perfection is what you are,I look in your eyes and I can see the stars.I'll always come to you, no matter how far.-Emilly Schaffer http://www.poetrysoup.com...
Poetry Debate No. 2

For Round Villanelle I will stick with my darker theme, and present "Video Blues," by Mary-Jo Salter. I really appreciate her ability to write a steady, fluid stream of thoughts/dialogue, but yet include rhymes without it sounding forced. My husband has a crush on Myrna Loy, and likes to rent her movies, for a treat. It makes some evenings harder to enjoy. The list of actresses who might employ him as their slave is too long to repeat. (My husband has a crush on Myrna Loy, Carole Lombard, Paulette Goddard, coy Jean Arthur with that voice as dry as wheat ...) It makes some evenings harder to enjoy. Does he confess all this just to annoy a loyal spouse? I know I can"t compete. My husband has a crush on Myrna Loy. And can"t a woman have her dreamboats? Boy, I wouldn"t say my life is incomplete, but some evening I could certainly enjoy two hours with Cary Grant as my own toy. I guess, though, we were destined not to meet. My husband has a crush on Myrna Loy, which makes some evenings harder to enjoy Citation: http://www.poetryoutloud.org...
Poetry Debate No. 2

I, Too, Sing America by Langston Hughes I, too, sing America. I am the darker brother. They send me to eat in the kitchen When company comes, But I laugh, And eat well, And grow strong. Tomorrow, I'll be at the table When company comes. Nobody'll dare Say to me, "Eat in the kitchen," Then. Besides, They'll see how beautiful I am And be ashamed— I, too, am America. - See more at: http://www.poets.org...
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

I would like to first comment that due to time restrictions I will not be going into depth on my points. Please bare with me. I would also like to thank the contender for his reply. Tip: Watch your grammatical errors. Your comments are also cut a bit short. If possible, I request of the contender to use more than simply "what?" or "false". Addressing Con: You picked me up on saying assumptionS. However this is correct there are numerous theorieS within the theory of evolution. Besides, you yourself are assuming. "It's foolish to think that animals would just not want to have children". I never said that, nor was it implied. "Animals are not as dumb as you think". How is it possible for you to know in which class of wisdom I personally classify different animals? You took my words to mean this so you could prove me wrong. Or under a non-judgmental eye you are very concerned for animals' feelings. You are a scientist at heart :). To prove G-d's existence on a simple level one needs only to turn to look at his surroundings. The complexity and beauty of our planet- the Earth, the need for a substance such as water, the works of the eye, the DNA code. You are to tell me these are things that just so happened to work out? If you walked into an art gallery, and saw the most detailed painting of a large village (such as this perhaps: https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...), would you believe me if I told you that I just spilled a box of paints and it happened by itself? No, i is a beautiful piece of art! Other points include the following: Scientific theories do not explain the begging of the universe, but the faith in G-d does. Who created time and space? Evolution i unable to override the set laws of nature, which work so perfectly together. G-d's presence, which is most obvious through holy men and miracles, show that there is spirituality that goes beyond nature. Following scientific theories there is no purpose to the world. So why can I not kill myself? Why is it wrong to be immoral? And who is even to say what is wrong and right anyway? Man kind needs G-d to stay away from corruption as well as give life purpose. (I am not saying that atheists have no purpose in their personal lives.) Knowledge of G-d has been passed down through the generations for several thousand years, if not forever. During the period of the Enlightenment, a few hundred years ago, philosophers chose to pull the blind on Divine Being and thought up their own theories(, which came about before the major proofs did). I do not doubt evolution but I see faults in the Theory of Evolution. The best way to learn things as this is to only accept facts during your study period and think rationally.
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

One of the main things used to bring about the ideas of evolution are fossils. But how do fossils prove evolution? There is no fact that these fossils reproduced. What?There is no certainty that every group of creatures had any offspring.It doesn't matter. In fact, it's just foolish to think that asnimals would just not want to have children. So how is it possible to say the evolved through their children until we have what we have today? It is mere assumptions that creatures have a common ancestor.A assumption. If we, as humans, originated from mere molecules that just happened to come together to form intelligence, it just happened that there was a series of genetic mutations, how can we trust our senses? It was a slow process. It taken millions of years. Animals are not as dumb as you think. Why are you bringing senses in this? And is we can not trust our senses we are not able to trust science- which is what came up with the theory of evolution.False. It is more realistic to say we came from a common designer with greater intelligence then us.You still havent proved this.
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

One of the main things used to bring about the ideas of evolution are fossils. But how do fossils prove evolution? There is no fact that these fossils reproduced. There is no certainty that every group of creatures had any offspring. So how is it possible to say the evolved through their children until we have what we have today? It is mere assumptions that creatures have a common ancestor. If we, as humans, originated from mere molecules that just happened to come together to form intelligence, it just happened that there was a series of genetic mutations, how can we trust our senses? They came from what this generation would classify as nothing, not in the literal meaning of the term. And is we can not trust our senses we are not able to trust science- which is what came up with the theory of evolution. It is more realistic to say we came from a common designer with greater intelligence then us.
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

I would like to begin by explaining my contention. The world did not come about by a random explosion of particles, but was rather placed and planned specifically by a Divine figure. The question in the forefront, without all its details, is how is it possible that a random explosion caused something so detailed and perfect? How is it that human intellect of today in its complete, original origin evolved from random happenings of nothingness that just happened to be there with no source? As I see it, a Divine being is boundless and therefore able to bring about such things. Besides, mankind had been believing in such a Being for thousands of years before the ideas of revolution came along in the 18th century. I hope my opponent will be able to send me clearer knowledge on this topic in a most friendly manner.
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

Fine, I forfeit. There was complete lack of justice here! I have too many things to do to waste time on proving a point that I do not need proven. I know the truth and can only hope that others will not spread lies. Please if someone is to vote still do it for who had the better arguments and ignore the lack of morality. I thank my opponent for holding his piece until now. I wish all the best to the people of the world! I can no longer be bothered- if you do not see clearly then that is not my problem. Believe what you see fit- understand what you know- learn what you want- enjoy life! May the right prevail! Thank you
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

Addressed to my opponent,1. I already said what this debate includesBut you didn't even back them up. And your starying from those points.you have no pointsI dont need them. The BOP is on you.3. you are just denying what I bring as proof more obvious than evolutionPlease. You dont even know what evolution is.Please excuse my ignorance but what is BOP :)Burden of Proof. It's your job to prove it.So you forfeit?
The world was created by G-d as oppossed to evolution

Other points include the following:Scientific theories do not explain the begging of the universe, but the faith in G-d does. Who created time and space?Evolution i unable to override the set laws of nature, which work so perfectly together. G-d's presence, which is most obvious through holy men and miracles, show that there is spirituality that goes beyond nature.Following scientific theories there is no purpose to the world. So why can I not kill myself? Why is it wrong to be immoral? And who is even to say what is wrong and right anyway? Man kind needs G-d to stay away from corruption as well as give life purpose. (I am not saying that atheists have no purpose in their personal lives.)Knowledge of G-d has been passed down through the generations for several thousand years, if not forever. During the period of the Enlightenment, a few hundred years ago, philosophers chose to pull the blind on Divine Being and thought up their own theories(, which came about before the major proofs did).I do not doubt evolution but I see faults in the Theory of Evolution. The best way to learn things as this is to only accept facts during your study period and think rationally.Evolution doesn't explain how the Universe was created, because that's not what evolution is about. You still haven't proved your BOP. You are debating a entirely differenet thing. I have nothing to say intil you prove that God created the life in our world then just saying it. Prove it.
The kalam cosmological argument is sound.

Then what caused it to exist? Its still the same issue of every cosmological argument. We can understand the why question inside are own universe because we live in it and we know most everyday objects know. Most of the time this Theory is agreed by Religious person (may not be you) if you are that gives the why reason to if it exist or not. That has issues in itself if God even exist, to a religious person he does to a skeptic he doesn't. I am a religious person and I still struggle with the first point. We can only look at universe with a telescope witch only gives us a certain vision. We Humans now can only measure what we see and not what we cant. What I mean by this is humans cant physically see the outside of the universe. Therefore we can only measure what is inside the universe or where we can see through tools. What leads to the question of when the the universe start and was the earth just the current form adding anther planet. the second point this statement is blank and leaves for lots of questions. How did it exist what happened for it to exist lots of times this theory was used to support a reason for God. This was first used by the Greeks and giving a reason for their god Zeus by Aristotle himself. Later made popular again by William Lane Craig to give a reason for God. It call comes back on giving a reason for God. If the Theory even exist the only thing it proves is that the universe exist and not what caused it. Plus even if accepted it doesn't support Theism, or any other words it debunks the first cause to its own agreement. Just using the agreement itself leaves for lots of wholes and any scientist what uses has to include other augments to prove its point. The issue of the wording it self is it creates a Equivocation Fallacy as it changes from two different definitions first being in sentence two a Scientific one while in sentence three it uses a Colloquial one. It switches from matter in space to everything that exist, everything that has existed, and everything that will exist. In other words it does something no sound augment should every do. In Round two I will agree how else this augment does not work therefore not a sound agreement. Again thank you and hope to have a great debate.
The kalam cosmological argument is sound.

After a long sabbatical, I'd like to return to Debate.org, and this time by arguing against the kalam cosmological argument. 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. I'll argue that Pro cannot show that the premises of the argument are true, and that's about it. Pro will begin their argument in this opening round, and then not post a response in round four.
Pressing a button that kills a random person in the world for a million dollars is worth it

So is this is where you lose I claim that one life can not be sacrificed to save many. I quote Robert Nozik, you quote nothing. You simply say it is. You argue unalienable rights with war. War is different. War is kill or be killed. The USA has had a defensive position throughout history. Hell, our Navy (i know my brother is a lt. commander) can not engage an enemy ship without being attacked first. It is kill or be killed. But the person attacking us in war has violated our right to life. Such as, I can extend my arm, but i lose that right if it extends into your face. You have the right to life, until you violate someone else's life. ****You fail to prove utilitarianism and the fact that someones life is NOT merely a number You ignore my argument that someone who is willing to kill someone for no fault of their own would not be virtuous enough to save someone else. Since you ignored this, and the round is over, we must accept that a killer would not save another one's life. So the ONLY outcome from this would be death. Chances. Chances have a funny way of biting you in the back. What would be the chance that the one time i need my keys, i leave them at home. what would be the one time i forget my wallet, i need money the most. what are the chances that i just happen to get to faulty xboxs. in a row. what are the chances that the one time i eat a light breakfast, i am forced to skip lunch. we all have had these situations. The chances are slim but they occur. But these point doe snot even matter. If i win it, who cares. if you win it, all you prove is that chances are u will not kill yourself. But there are many good people in the world that you could kill. *********************So like I said, I should win because I prove that one life is not worth many and I prove that a user of this would not have the intention of saving a life.