BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

Well here it is the final round and thus my final response. My opponent seems to have an objection to one of the premises in my arguments ""The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction" he then goes on to say "There is no absolute factual way to respond to the pointing out of an error", his statement is just as much of an assertion as my statement, by the sounds of it, he wants you to reject my assertion yet accept his assertion. If CON really had a problem with the premise, he could of argued for its falsity, if he had shown the premise false he would of shown the argument it was a part of as false, he did not do that. I would note that its a bit late for Con to now argue for its falsity, since this is the last round and I wont be able to respond to any argument.
I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

My opponent has agreed that he was incorrect in multiple ways and therefore wrong. My response is divided into two parts, both agreeing with the mutual exclusion or right and wrong. The first challenges my opponent's first premise in his Part 2. The second negates the resolution regardless of my opponent's rebuttal. == First == Because right and wrong are mutually exclusive and the agreed-upon definition of wrong is "deviating from truth or fact," my opponent's statement, "The right thing to do when your error is pointed out is to accept the correction" is incorrect. There is no absolute factual way to respond to the pointing out of an error. My opponent has not met any burden of proving his opinion on the response to negative feedback to be objectively correct. Rather, it seems to be a subjective and moral "right" rather than an objective, factual one. == Second == I would like to identify that the resolution is two conditions ("PRO is right" and "CON cannot prove PRO wrong"), both of which must be true for affirmation. While my opponent may be currently correct, he has conceded that I have proven him wrong. Therefore, the statement "you can't prove me wrong" is false, for I have proven my opponent wrong. == Conclusion == The resolution is negated.
I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

== Parameters == My opponent contends not my definitions. == Arguments == 1) Self-Contradictory Statement The statement was, "The only rule is that there are no rules. " This is self-contradictory and therefore false because it not only declares the existence of a rule ("the only rule") and the non-existence of rules ("there are no rules. ") The statement would not have been self-contradictory had my opponent instead stated "There only rule is that there are no OTHER rules"; however, he did not, and his statement is self-contradictory, therefore necessarily false. 2) The Existence of Other Rules My opponent dismisses his statements not as rules, but as comments and descriptions, but they are clearly parameters of the debate. - In declaring the topic, my opponent has made the rule regarding what the topic is. - In declaring his side, my opponent has made a rule regarding which side I may take. - In declaring the win condition, my opponent has made a rule regarding the burden of proof. Next, my opponent has denied that he has agreed to the Terms of Use; however, he has an account, and account creation requires agreement with said Terms. Therefore, my "assumption" that my opponent has agreed to said rules is entirely valid. Lastly, because my opponent has declared that there are no rules, identifying that there are rules that exist negates my opponent's statement. 3. Context and Reference My opponent drops, and therefore concedes this contention. == Conclusion == I have identified my opponent's false statements; therefore, I can prove and have proven my opponent wrong. The resolution is negated.
I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

1) "The only rule is that there are no rules" In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself. In confirming A and ~A, my opponent has necessarily made a false statement, and is therefore "wrong." My opponent defies the Law of the Excluded Middle (http://www.quantonics.com......). If I said "there are no rules" then my opponent would of being correct to state, that "there are no rules" is a rule in its self thus is a contradiction, or as he put it "In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself." P1) There are no rules P2) There are no rules is a rule in of its self There fore P1 is a contradiction and thus false But I never made the claim "there are no rules" lets look at exactly what I did claim "The only rule is that there are no rules" P1) The only rule is that there are no rules P2) Stating that there is a rule against rules is a rule in of its self, Thus P1 correctly states that's the only rule is that there are no rules 2) The statement "there are no rules" is necessarily false for other reasons. The following are rules: - "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" " - "I am the pro" - "my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument" These are topic, comments and descriptions, just because he says they are rules doesn't mean they are - The Debate.Org Terms of Use, which my opponent has agreed to http://www.debate.org...... - The Code of Federal Regulations, which exists http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov...... You have made an assumption that I have agreed to these rules, I reject your assumption I still claim you have not proved me wrong "
I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

First, I would like to define the resolution. "I" refers to the author of a statement; in the context of the resolution, this is the instigator. "you" refers to the audience of a statement; in the context of the resolution, this is the contender (or the audience, but the audience can not "prove" anything within the context of the debate). To prove one "wrong" has been defined by the instigator, as "to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument. " To be "wrong" clearly means to be "deviating from truth or fact. " . http://dictionary.reference.com... Reasons my opponent is wrong: 1) "The only rule is that there are no rules" In making this statement, PRO contradicts himself, for declaring a rule against rules is a rule itself. In confirming A and ~A, my opponent has necessarily made a false statement, and is therefore "wrong. " My opponent defies the Law of the Excluded Middle (. http://www.quantonics.com...). 2) The statement "there are no rules" is necessarily false for other reasons. The following are rules: - "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" " - "I am the pro" - "my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument" - The Debate. Org Terms of Use, which my opponent has agreed to . http://www.debate.org... - The Code of Federal Regulations, which exists . http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov... 3) My opponent stated "the statement "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" is made without any context or reference" This is not true. It was obviously made with references and contexts. The following are the references and context: - "I am the pro/for, so my opponent has to prove me wrong in anything to win this argument" - "The topic is "I am right, and you can't prove me wrong" " The first identifies not only who is making and asserting the statement, but who it is referring to with both the "I" and the "you. " The second identifies the context of the statement to be this debate.
I am right, and you can't prove me wrong

My opponent does not contend my argument regarding the subjectivity of his correction argument in regards to the word "right," and so it still stands against his case. My opponent then agrees that his premise was no more than an assertion, and therefore invalid. He then tries to state that therefore my argument is invalid because it has the same lack of evidence as his, yet I used the agreed-upon definition to qualify my statement, so my opponent's rebuttal is incorrect. My opponent's syllogism fails because one can be right about one thing, but wrong about another (this was even one of his premises), and for the reason pointed out last round, that he equivocates the moral definition of right with the factual definition of right. Review: - My opponent agrees that I proved him wrong. - Therefore, I can prove him wrong. - Therefore, the resolution is negated.
Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized.

Contention 1. Homosexuality is a sin in virtually every religion. It is common knowledge that most religions in the world do not support a homosexual marriage. In fact, 53% of people do not support homosexual marriage (1). Legally allowing homosexual marriage is offensive to religious organizations and anyone who does not support homosexual marriage which is a larger part of the population. Contention 2. Legalizing homosexual marriage weakens the definition and respect for marriage. Currently, within the United States, there is a 50% divorce rate (2) this already weakens the definition and respect for marriage. A law allowing gay marriage would speed this deterioration by increasing the number of "non-serious" marriages, friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution within the United States and is deteriorating. A law allowing homosexual marriage would only speed this deterioration. Contention 3. This will further weaken traditional family values essential to society. Society is strong if there is a strong core family unit. In the United States this core family unit of a man, women, and children has sustained the United States through two world wars, the Great Depression, and terrorist attacks. Society begins to break down when this family unit breaks down, such as in the United States. Introducing a new "form" of family would would only complicate and deteriorate society. Contention 4. This provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage. The question asked here is what comes next? Tradition dictates that a marriage is between a man and a women, biologically this makes perfect sense as only a man and women can procreate. Gay rights activists claim that gay marriage should be legalized because it hurts nobody but, this can start a chain reaction which destroys the institution of marriage. You see their logic can be applied anywhere. Why can't someone marry their dog? It doesn't hurt anyone. Or why not their parents or brother/sister? It doesn't hurt anyone. This may seem absurd and obviously a significant portion of the United States would not support it but, that does not matter. All that is needed is a single judge to rule it correct and then apply the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just look at the ruling California judges made about the Pledge of Allegiance (3). It does not matter what the public believes in this case. Contention 5. The gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because studies show it leads to lower life expectancy. Studies show that homosexuals have, on average, life expectancies 20 years lower then the rest of the population. In 1997 and 2005, two separate studies confirmed this hypothesis. Respectively the groups conducting the studies were published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and Psycological Reports respectively (4). 1- http://www.cbsnews.com... 2- http://www.cdc.gov... 3- http://articles.sfgate.com... 4- http://www.lifesitenews.com...
President Barrack Obama was born in Kenya

You need sources for claims like these, sir. I must regretfully pass back over to pro, because until he has a legitimate source for these claims, he has absolutely no evidence to support such a claim. At this point, I have the majority backing(majority of an entire country) of the president's claim to citizenship, as well as a birth certificate. You have some substantial work to do in the final round. Thanks to the readers.
President Barrack Obama was born in Kenya

The Certificate of Live Birth was copied on a Laser printer, which was not available in 1964. There also are statements made by the President's grandmother who witnessed the birth in Kenya. According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA,
President Barrack Obama was born in Kenya

I have sufficient reason to speculate, and believe, that President Barrack Obama, while legally elected by the nation as President of the United States, was NOT in fact, born in the United States at time of birth — as the Constitution explicitly demands. He, or somebody in his confidence, posted a supposed copy of a Hawaiian "Certification of Live Birth," or COLB, on his presidential campaign Web site — even though a COLB, under Hawaiian rules, does not necessarily prove in-state birth.
Kid gohan can beat Monkey.D.Luffy

As I give my opponent a second chance he must state his argument. I will just state a few things about gohan's abilities and how they surpass luffy's. Gohan has inner strength that deals with his emotions that was strong enough that took heavy damage to freza during the time and even raditz was surprised when gohan took a hit to the face to raditz which dealed with his feelings -luffy might not be able to hold off his power against gohans ability to let out all of his feelings which can cause his power to increase. Just like the battle luffy vs naruto naruto won because luffy is not able to handle highly strong powers and forms like the nine tails beast which luffy could not handle. Gohan surpassed his own father. I know we are talking about kid gohan but he surpassed his dads power at the cell and buu saga making him very strong that many opponents had trouble facing him -luffy on the other hand would not be able to cause massive bleeding on gohan even with his special rubber power gum gum pistol or gum gum power 1 which can turn luffy's fist into a cannon ball if I am wrong with luffy's specials please correct me would not be able to cause massive damage would only cause some scratches or gohan would have just stopped the fist from hitting him. Gohan would be able to hit more harder and cause major damage in super saiyin 2 Gohan is able to outwit Luffy's speed I am not saying luffy is not fast but gohan would be able to outwit his speed. Gohan is able to fly in mid air and most of the time in his battles him and his opponents fight at speed that u cant see what is happening and his dodging ability could easily block luffy's attack. This was exact way gohan was able to beat cell and buu. This proves my point so I am giving my opponent a second chance to back up his argument Resources YouTube Dbz.com Google wiki These reasources were just about gohan not him being able to beat him so I got some of the info from here
Kid gohan can beat Monkey.D.Luffy

Heres my argument to this debate or round 1 We all know Dragonballz and One piece are one of the two popular animes or all time. Sorry to bring to all you one piece fans but gohan can stand a chance against Monkey . D. luffy. The reason being because gohan is the strongest character in the Dragonballz series and is more stronger then Goku in that matter. Gohan has played many important roles in Dragonballz history against fighting cell and other dangerous villains that almost would have destroyed the world, but gohan's rage made him mad and very strong and he was able to have power greater then any villain he fought. Gohan protects the ones he love and any time any one kills or hurts his friends they will be up for a big surprise. Luffy is a character in the anime One piece who hate the gum gum devil fruit and had the powers to stretch his body parts into many shapes and sizes, but those powers may not be able to handle gohan's strength in battle because gohan has no limit to his power. He gets stronger each time he rages. Gohan was able to beat cell in his own game. Luffy would had never be able to stop cell because luffy is able to break to cells armor and if he did he would have grown back and absorbed him so Luffy could not stand a chance against cell. If he cannot defeat cell he could not go up against super saiyin 2 gohan. Another thing Luffy can only not be affective by things that cannot penetrate rubber. Gohan's body strength is strong enough to pound bleeding blood to luffy's body and is able to do special powers instead of using his body for battle. One of his special powers are super Kamehameha which was able to beat cells solar Kamehameha. This type of power is able to penetrate luffy's ability to puff him self up to block attacks and could kill him as well or he could survive but with many injuries. Gohan has the ability to fly in the sky. Luffy can place him self in the air but he would have to push him self up to do that. Luffy may have incredible speed but not able to out match gohan's strength in power. -www. youtube. com/watch? v=C_PZH0yqiYM
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people.

This is my first debate on debate.org I am eager to start debating. Here is the topic. Resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people. I have set the character limit to 6,000 and the time between rounds to 3 days. Please do not accept without permission. If you would like to debate this, please comment on the debate.
Best Live Action Batmam

As I said, I know Keaton killed too, but by no means was he the cold hearted murderer that Affleck was. At least Keaton only killed when necessary, Affleck was throwing cars onto people and lighting them up with flame throwers left and right. And I don't believe that Batman going through Robin's death entirely justifies it. Besides, if Batman were to go on a bad phase every time someone in his life died, he'd always be on one of his phases. Batman does tend to lose the people close to him. And I feel that Kevin Smith's points are irrelevant. This is a debate on who was the best Batman, not the best Batman writer/director. I applaud Affleck for going triple duty, but I only judge him by his acting, which he was great at, but not like Keaton. Thanks for this debate. This was fun.
Best Live Action Batmam

Well, to me it seemed like Affleck's kills were justified as his sideckick just died and things were really tough for him to handle. Keaton, however seemed to be a bit of a cynic. Remember that scene when he put dynamite in a fat thug's pant, causing him to blow up, well after Keaton did that, he actully smiled. Seems a bit psychotic and unjustified. Believe it or not Batman has killed some people in the comics, sometimes even with a gun but at those times, just like Affleck, he was going through some stuff. In the Dark Knight Returns novel and animated film, Batman almost choked the Joker to death for killing Robin. That was the same reason, Affleck killed the goons in BvS. As for Smith, yes he said the script was Oscar-worthy but what also counts is how the script is delivered, Affleck delivered amazingly. Keaton before BvS was who i thought of when someone said Batman but know I hear Affleck. Great debate though
Best Live Action Batmam

I agree with you that Affleck's Batman was a lot more darker, aggressive, brooding, and overall more violent. But unlike you, I don't necessarily view those as good aspects. Generally, Batman is supposed to be a dark, almost antiheroish kind of character. But Batman v Superman took it too far. I didn't like how Batfleck killed. Of course, I didn't mind the killing in the dream sequence, but in the other parts of the movie, I didn't like the fact that he killed. Maybe this isn't Affleck's fault, I'm sure Synder and the execs at Warner Bros. have most if not all of the blame, but still, I wish this Batman wasn't a murderer. To me, that's just not Batman. And yes, I know Keaton's Batman killed too, but for him, it just seemed different. I'm at a loss for words as to how, but it just was. However, I admit a lot of what you said was true, especially the part about him starring at Robin's old suit. That scene was just gold. But still, to me, it was never truly Batman; just too violent. I felt like Keaton's Batman really encapsulated the classic Batman, the vigilante who tries to avoid killing if he can help it, like the Batman from the DC Animated Universe. And by the way, I read what Kevin Smith had to say on Batfleck, and he said that the script he was writing for his solo Batman movie might get an Oscar (or at least a nomination), not his performance. And I greatly doubt this; not because I don't have faith in Ben Affleck's writing or directing, but because the Academy rarely recognizes superhero movies, or action movies in general. Heck, even the Dark Knight didn't get best picture or best writing.
Best Live Action Batmam

Honestly, Keaton was my second choice so I know this'll be good. While Keaton was pretty good as Batman, what would really set the mood off was how he would occasionally throw in cheesy one-liners that would really tip the scary persona of Batman off the edge. Now I know this is on the costume designers but Keaton moving his whole body just to take a look behind him looked absolutely ridiculous.Maybe if Keaton were to do it slowly and throw some intensity in his movements, the silly turns would look slightly less ridiculous. Ben Affleck kept all his movements smooth and intimidating. When Keaton was Batman, he was a bit naive and kind even while Ben Affleck maintained a stern, aggresive and serious look just like in the comics, The looks Batman gave to his empty suit and Robin's suit spoke a thousand words. Even the way Affleck's Batman fought seemed so aggresive and deadly, drawing inspiration from the fight sequences from the wildly popular Arkham video games. The fact that Zack Snyder gave Affleck the same Power Suit from the Dark Knight Returns graphic novel was not just awesome but the suit itself looked fantastic and on-point. Even without the suit Ben Affleck as Bruce Wayne is just like how he looks in the comics. We should also keep in mind that Ben Affleck put more dedication into his character then Michael Keaton did. Batfleck definitely had the best body shape when it comes to every Batman actor. Michael Keaton as I said had great Batman but his Bruce Wayne felt a little too be stale while Affleck easily pulled of an excellent Bruce Wayne and Batman. While Keaton did show some detective skills, Affleck made Sherlock Holmes blush when he went undercover at Lex Luthor's party and following dangerous leads. No doubt Affleck showed best, the dark, broody and tortured pyschology that Batman fans know him best by while Michael Keaton kept it a bit to family frienly. The extended version of BvS even further prove all my points by adding scenes where Ben Affleck was pretty much absorbed into his character. The grief, guilt and rage Batfleck showed was absolutely legendary. One of the best Batman fans out there, Kevin Smith even credits Ben Affleck as the best Batman. Link to Smith's words on Batfleck:- http://comicbook.com...-/