BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
belief=nothing

Everything = "all things."Key Word: "All."You: "Everything = something" Me: As I have stated in my definition Everything is not some things. It is all things or more simply: Everything=all things You: Sense = somethingMe: That statement supports my argument. You claim that sense is something - if sense is something then so are thoughts. If thoughts are real, then so is belief. You just conceded. You: Matter is the opposite of information, information is 0 percent of the light in my personal physical experience.Me: I am going to ignore the first part of this sentence because it makes little sense and has little relevance to the debate topic. Key Word: "Personal" Due to the fact that information is not part of the in light in your personal physical experience it does not mean that it isn't part of others. Despite what you claim I believe that information is a major part of your physical experiences. Without information you would not be able to communicate or even participate in this very debate.You: If we cut open a head, and take out the brain we can't poor out the mind, information on the floor, so they are not things, they are nothing.Me: As I have explained in the previous round from a scientific point of view. The mind is not physical. It is part of the brain that cannot be touched or seen. Consciousness is very complex and it makes up a major part of the brain. You should not always trust what you see. Just because you cannot see something. It does not mean that it isn't there. I thought that you would know this considering some of your comments during this debate and during similar debates that you have participated in.
The State of Florida should vote No on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in November.

Since my opponent forfeited the previous round, I will basically explain the impacts of the argument my opponent conceded. First my opponent fails to meet the burden I place on him which is that unless gay marriage harms other peoples rights then limitation or removal is not warranted. His only argument trying to address this was that the gay community heavily uses drugs, which I pointed out in my previous post that this his data was unreliable because of the high crime rate in the city where it was taken. Also I prove that this has no impact on whether gay marriage itself should be legal. Then I also prove the significance of the data I provide from the West Village which proves the opposite of what my opponent was trying to portray gay people as: violent, criminal, and unproductive. Then my opponent also fails to respond to my argument that gay people provide advantages to the community and that there is no warranted reason to punish or prevent them from being married in the state of Florida. The impact this has is that the con can never win in this debate because there is now no logical or warranted reason to deny this right to the gay citizens in Florida. Next, throughout this debate my opponent has ignored the Nadine Smith analysis that shows that roughly 360,000 unmarried couples will lose existing benefits if this amendment passes. Not only will the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment prevent gay and lesbian couples from having any form of legal union but also takes away any existing legal and health benefits they currently possess. This shows that passes this amendment will negatively impact a substantial number of citizens in the state of Florida that could be avoided by voting no to the amendment. Domestic Partnerships will also be in danger if this amendment is passed. By voting pro in this debate you help ensure that the integrity of the Florida constitution is protected and you also help reconfirm our commitment to ALL of our citizens regardless of their race ,color ,sex ,national origin , and sexual orientation, I urge you all to vote NO on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment.
The State of Florida should vote No on the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment in November.

"There are three inalienable rights that bind americans together: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And we the people have duty to reject and condemn any law or policy that seeks to deny any American these essential rights." While that is true there are limits to the "pursuit of happiness." You cannot murder, rape, steal, use drugs, engage in polygamy, incest, or child molestation. In fact, there are hundreds of bad things that the law restricts that make some very twisted people very happy. So, by your logic that says, "gay marriage makes gays happy. Everyone has the right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, gays should be allowed to marry," one could also make the argument that says, "incest marriages make some people happy. These people have the right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, we should allow brothers and sisters to get married." Your first argument is flawed because you don't understand that there are limits to the "pursuit of happiness." You then go on to say that crime rates are consistently lower in gay neighborhoods. The only evidence you give for this is an article in the Washinton Post that states that the crime rate is lower in a gay neighborhood. First of all, that is one neighborhood. That is by no means a large enough of a sample to prove anything. Secondly, I have to ask myself why the city council and the mayor wanted to increase police patrols. Remember, crime rates only have to do with crimes that are discovered. It is very possible that the city council and the mayor had reasonable suspicion that many crimes were being committed in this neighborhood and needed increased police presence to catch the criminals. It is no secret that the gay community is heavily infiltrated by drugs, especially meth. http://articles.latimes.com... This website shows the statistics of gays using meth. "...but it also has a more culturally diverse and artistic culture." So basically your argument is, gay people are artistic, therefore they should be allowed to get married. Hey, look! I can say something and then get a completely unrelated conclusion too! Watch! Hitler was tremendous at making speaches, therefore he should have been allowed to take over the world. I assume you realize that I'm not comparing gay people to Hitler. I'm giving extreme examples to show that your arguments lack any form of logic. "These are tax paying citizens who wish to be able to one day say those two special words to the person they love, I Do." Again I say, just because they love the other person doesn't mean that they should have the right to get married. There are lots of people who love each other who should not have the right to get married. i.e. Polygamists, pedophiles, and incest. We have these rules for very good reasons. To uphold the structure of our society. Again I refer to the above website to show how gays harm our society.
9/11 Inside Job? Response to you

I don't buy into what conspiracists say, I buy into what I saw happen on that day, I watched both planes enter the towers, with the explosions that were perfect in size based on the size of the plane and amount of gasoline, I watched both towers collapse without any additional explosions, we created AL-Quada by our interference with the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, so that automatically means 20 years later they wanted to attack our country? .............. So let me get this straight? Our government back in the 80's formed a terrorist organization that planned in the future to attack their own country and then another decade later we would hunt and kill the man who organized it, if Al-Quada had any link to the government, there would have been more obvious signs, people would have spoken. 9/11 happened, the people who died in the accidents, God rest their souls, are gone and aren't coming back, the men who flew those planes are gone, as sad as it is, we can't change anything, most of America knows that 9/11 was an attack on our country by Osama Bin Laden, who is now dead, we can only adjust and move on
9/11 Inside Job? Response to you

I do know that explosions make loud sounds, but watch the footage of the collapse. You can see windows being blown out by the planted bombs all around the building. Of course our media doesn't want to present that evidence because our government wants us to believe everything they say. The World Trade Centers were even designed and constructed to withstand multiple jet liner impacts. Also former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in an interview that WE created Al-Qadea. During the Cold War, the CIA gave $3,000,000,000 in US tax payer money to Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terrorist network. 9/11 was a false flag operation as an excuse to go to war and so big business an engage in war profiteering. http://rense.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.theinsider.org...
9/11 Inside Job? Response to you

The reason they stood off on United 93 (the last flight) was because they fear an accidental shoot-down of a non-hijacked plane, can you imagine how much worse that would have been? Funny how no one else heard those explosions, people who were in the streets 50-100 feet away from the towers, bombs make a pretty loud noise when they go off if you didn't know, I am not calling these brave men liars but you have to understand what was going on in those buildings right before they gave in. Yeah, the North Tower did after burning for over an hour, the South Tower collapsed within the hour first because it was hit lower and on an angle, do you have any idea how much the tower weighed? Once the part of the structure that got hit started giving in, it forced the whole building to give in, it's basic physics
9/11 Inside Job? Response to you

Are you kidding me?! Do some research. NORAD got a stand down order from the highest office in the White House on that day. Dick Cheney gave the order to do NOTHING about the hijacked air crafts that went out of radio contact. It's standard procedure for NORAD to send up jets to intercept planes that fly off their schedule. Also there is footage of eye witnesses and fire fighters who reported bombs going off inside the WTC. The buildings collapse at free fall speed in seconds. Look up experts on controlled demolition and you might be surprised. Now doesn't that sound like an inside job to you? http://www.youtube.com...
9/11 Inside Job? Response to you

I don't call people insane for researching 9/11 truth, it was a devastation and I can see why people would research it, to make a claim that the government did it with no evidence or leads ISN'T ignorant, since most people who claim that are just angry left-wingers who just want to add one more thing to Bush's "sh*tlist", people made the same claim about Pearl Harbor and JFK's assassination, we have video footage, audio tapes, a confession tape from Al-Quada, and so many more reasons to be believe that we were attacked by an Islamic extremist group than by the government
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

Disabled people, be it mentally or physically are not responsible for their disability, neither are their parents. How are you so sure God punished them. Every one of us have a path laid down for us and maybe their path needs a disability, maybe they'll use their disability as a challenge and do some amazing things. If God being punishable is your argument then your argument holds no water. For your notions of God come from the religion of fear and morality. While God, the entity with a capital G is love and compassion. And where it says to fear God it doesn't mean literally, it means fear of losing eternal fulfilment. Now if I was an atheist I would say something like this, "the fact that you have chucked out science, genetics and such important matters ,considering them trivial, out the window shows how you might love the phrase ignorance is bliss." But since I believe in true agnosticism I'd say your argument holds no water. Now, about time travel, I'll say it slowly time travel won't happen just because some prosthetic company stopped manufacturing, wheel chairs, crutches etc. Now I'd really like to talk about how Indians are stinking up the world. Please do explain about that. For pardon my language but wanting to nuke a nation just for them stinking up the place is pure racism. So I'd like to end my argument by saying, no, disabled people shod not be penalized for their disability.
Disabled People Should Pay More Taxes

I believe that physically and mentally disabled people need to pay more taxes to atone for their disability. Disabilities are punishment from God for one's sins. Those sins could include, but are not limited to, rape, murder, theft, and bullying. Sometimes, the sinner/criminal's kids receive a disability. That is why disabled people need to pay $100,000 USD, or the equivalent of their currency, every year they live. Also, disabled people use stuff like wheelchairs and crutches, which really waste material and production costs. With the same amount of material and money, we could build a time machine so we can go back in time and nuke India so they won't stink up the world. Indians today are indeed a problem: https://answers.yahoo.com... https://www.reddit.com... https://forum.bodybuilding.com... https://talk.collegeconfidential.com... https://www.quora.com... https://answers.yahoo.com... https://answers.yahoo.com...
It was wrong for Facebook to delete the group "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day!"

I will be opposing the motion, thereby arguing that Facebook were within their rights to delete the referenced group. In this opening round, I won't provide much detailed argumentation, rather giving the overview of my case that will be further detailed and expanded as necessary in later rounds. P1) Facebook is a private site, which people choose to participate in, and as such Facebook has the right to set out caveats on people's useage of the site. Agreeing to these rules if we join and use Facebook, we do not have the right to criticise Facebook if we contravene them and they punish the individual / group accordingly. --- Observations --- In order to join Facebook, one has to agree to Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Section 14 says: "If you violate the letter or spirit of this Statement, or otherwise create risk or possible legal exposure for us, we can stop providing all or part of Facebook to you. " [1] In order to create a group on Facebook one is told, at the very first step: "Note: groups that attack a specific person or group of people (e. g. racist, sexist or other hate groups) will not be tolerated. Creating such a group will result in the immediate termination of your Facebook account. " [2] P2) Lots of Muslims - extremists and non-extremists - see Muhammad as someone who should not be depicted, and take great offence at any such depiction. Regardless of the group's primary intention, the creators were aware of the offence that would have been caused - after all, as my opponent pointed out, the group was created in the aftermath of such offence being caused by the South Park episode. C) There are two legitimate avenues that Facebook have, according to the above, to delete the group: - Hosting such a controversial group exposes Facebook to risk: the backlash of the Islamic community, plus the political backlash - evidenced in my opponent's Round 1 with Pakistan's action of banning Facebook due to this controversy. - Whatever the primary intention, the act of insulting a significant proportion of the Islamic population was inevitable and must have been foreseen by the group's creators. This can be seen as "attack[ing] a specific. .. group of people"[2], and so is in contravention of Facebook's rules on the creation of groups. If just one of these options were true - and I argue that both of them are - then Facebook were justified in deleting the referenced group. Therefore, I urge people to oppose this motion. I await my opponent's response. Sources: [1] . http://www.facebook.com... [2] . http://www.facebook.com.... If you don't have a Facebook account, see the relevant section here: . http://img337.imageshack.us...
It was wrong for Facebook to delete the group "Everybody Draw Muhammed Day!"

Some background information: Everybody Draw Muhammed Day was a group in Facebook that was started because, due to a depiction of Muhammed in a recent episode of South Park, the creators of South Park got death threats. This caused many feelings of anger and the call for justice. As most of you will remember, a lot of muslims got very pissed a couple of years back over cartoons showing Muhammed and this resulted in the deaths of 100 people. This Facebook groop was established to send a simple message: "We are not intimidated by your threats and will fight for freedom of expression even at the cost of our lives. " At its peak, the group had about 100,000 members and about 9000-10,000 pictures, and the growth at that time was extremely fast. And then, deja vu. What had happened before happened now. The Pakistan goverment banned Facebook and over 400 other web sited (including Wikipedia and Youtube) because of this one group. Then Facebok submitted to muslims and deleted the group with little to no warning. ---- Good luck to anyone who accepts.
August Tournament - United States should ban Affirmative Action

This debate is for the semi-final of August Beginner's Tournament: Salam vs. TheProphettResolutionUnited States should ban Affirmative Action.DefinitionsShould: Indicating a desirability.Ban: Officially or legally prohibit.Affirmative Action: Affirmative action or positive discrimination (known as employment equity in Canada, reservation in India and Nepal, and positive action in the UK) is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group who suffer from discrimination within a culture.FormatRound 1: Pro's CaseRound 2: Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseRound 3: Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseRound 4: Con defends Con's Case, Pro waivesRules4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voters: 2500 Elo Points, 3 days to vote.1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.4. No trolling.5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.9. Failure to adhere to the rules or format above leads to an immediate loss
August Tournament - United States should ban Affirmative Action

morcos, and the moderator of the tournament, 1harderthanyouthink. Because of this debate, I have gained a much more complex understanding of argumentation and debating, so much that I will actually take debate in high school. You have been a wonderful opponent, and let the best debater win! For those of you who did not read the first round rules, this round is where I abstain. Good luck to salam! **WAIVE**
This house would support removing or replacing the word "the" in the English language.

My opponent has completely dropped one point: the symbol would not actually replace the word "the". Using the "the" symbol may be beneficial to typing speed. That doesn't matter. Since my opponent failed to meet his burden of proof by failing to provide a symbol that would actually replace the word "the", he has lost this debate. For the 4 judging points in this round, I'll explain how each of them should be judged. Sources: Both sides used a variety of reliable enough sources. Conduct: By ending his speech with "wish my opponent better luck next time.", my opponent has lost conduct due to offensive remarks, Spelling and grammar: There was no reason big enough to give this point to either side. Argument: As the Aff could not prove that the word "the" would actually be removed or replaced, he did not meet his burden and thus lost the argument. Thank you to my opponent for setting up this debate. Thank you to whoever puts the time and effort in to make a fair decision. Vote Neg!
This house would support removing or replacing the word "the" in the English language.

I'm very short on time, but none of that matters, as I've clearly won this debate. Con drops all arguments and basically now agrees that replacing the word "The" with the symbol I suggested would save a ton of time in a lot of different settings and in fact be a time saver for most people. Con can not add arguments in the last round so as it stands the impact calculus is as follows: Replacing the word "The" with a symbol would be a huge time saver for most people, but a lot of people would use it to compliment the word as opposed to replacing it. So taking assuming all my opponent's arguments are true and crediting me with all the dropped ones about it being a time saver, we can safely say. Replacing the word "The" with the suggested symbol in the English language would be beneficial for most people.
This house would support removing or replacing the word "the" in the English language.

Even if my opponent wins every argument except for one, they lose this round. This argument is the unrefuted response 2 to my opponents first argument. The symbol "&" does not actually replace the word "and"! The symbol my opponent is advocating for would be a mere supplementation of the word "the", not a replacement. For this reason, every benefit of adding the "the" symbol to our keyboards is a benefit accessible without replacing the word "the". This argument has been dropped and I am extending it as my opponent will need to refute it in order to win. This House: This point no longer possesses relevance in this debate. Whoever needs to accept the benefits of replacing the word "the" doesn't matter because my opponent has shown no replacement for the word "the". Wikipedia: This argument (that and is used less) both doesn't matter and doesn't work. Doesn't work: My opponent has only shown that the word "and" is typed less than the word "the", not that the symbol "&" would be used less than the symbol for the. Doesn't matter: Even if "&" was used less than the symbol for "the", it would matter because the symbol for "the" is not replacing the word "the". Swipe: This argument also loses relevance. Whether a symbol could speed up typing or not, it is not replacing the word "the", simply supplements it. Saves time: This benefit is nonunique to the Aff because the "the" symbol doesn't actually replace the word "the". Conclusion: There is only one voting point in this debate at this point: The symbol for "the" isn't replacing the word "the". It doesn't matter whether or not the symbol for "the" would be beneficial. My opponent has the burden of proving that what he is advocating for actually meets the resolution, and he has not yet proven his burden.
This house would support removing or replacing the word "the" in the English language.

According to Wikipedia, the most common word in the English language is "The", by comparison the 5th most common is "and". Why does "and" get it's own symbol (&), and yet "the" is left out? Here is what the "The" symbol would look like. http://www.debate.org... The qwerty keyboard has the place for a mysterious 27the letter and it's being clogged up by the & symbol when replacing it with a symbol for "the" would be better, saving secretaries and people writing up debate arguments a ton of time. How many times have you spent typing up 3 letters when this whole time you could've just typed out 1? We need to destroy "the" and replace it with a single letter. http://www.debate.org... With people being able to text faster, write faster and type faster the productivity of English speaking countries would sky rocket. There is absolutely no excuse to not use the new letter that represents "the". Follow the below link to help revolutionize how English is spoken please. https://play.google.com.....