BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

The Aristotle argument does not pertain to this day and age. The world has changed since his time and so has the world of politics. Recall of elections would be very deficient to our system of government. We already have a huge party divide in the United States and people would try to recall elections all the time. This would be terrible, and nothing would get done. I must explain again why i used the Texas example. It shows how much the people react after little or nothing is done. This does pertain to this debate because it is real Americans, taking real action. Also my opponent added new evidence in the last round, while this is not fair i will still respond. 1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source 2. this would expand to national government and would grind the government to a halt Please pro dont tell me what the American people would do or if they would go along party lines. Pro is not America and can not tell us what America will do. He can present evidence of trends in other places and apply it here but he has not so he cant say that. Texas does pertain as i have shown above. Please read my partisan argument above I reassert myown because my arguments contradict his and therefore are a rebuttal.
The People Ought to Have the Ability to Recall Elections

1. Yes i did point out that the president gets elected every four years, representatives every 2, and senators every 6. This was not to agree with pros resolution but to show that you can change elections very often. We are lucky to live in a country where we can change our government peacefully. If politicians are bad it is the responsibility of the american people to vote them out on election day. If citizens were given the power to recall elections politicians would be to afraid to do anything because they could get kicked out of office. a total of 675,000 signatures on white-house succeed petitions. This was all in response to Obama being elected a second term. If he ever did anything that the republican party didnt like he would be in constant danger of being kicked out. So, instead Obama, and all other politicians, will learn not to do anything to keep their jobs. 2. Pro says we are not kicking the politician out for every stand he takes, but who is we. Well we in this sentence is the American people and pro can not speak for all of America. Again I point to the petitions to succeed because it shows that Americans want to leave because of an election. if they had the power to recall them it would become a mess. Republicans would recall democratic elections, and democrats would recall republican elections. 3. Yes politicians should be afraid of the people, but politicians will do anything to keep their jobs, including nothing. They wont want to make anyone mad and loose their job. This would make the American political system very ineffective 4. Actually Texas separation would be constitutional because they were a sovereign state before they entered the union. Also these petitions are very important to this debate because it shows that some americans will act just because a certain party is elected. that is not fair to that official. 5. Also not all impeachments are not done along party lines. Richard Nixon resigned before a vote was held and he was going to be impeached by both parties. And Clinton actually was impeached by the house, but was not voted out of office by the senate. You say that him not getting voted out of office was a conflict of interest. 1, a majority of Americans supported Bill Clinton 2. He was not impeached because the charge, perjury, was not relevant to his position as president. All of the points pro says i made in his favor are wrong.
Impossible Debate

As already stated, my opponent is mistaken about me.The final round ends with my statement, giving me the possibility to win this and have him finally commit to a complete resolution.Thus, it was possible from the very beginning for me to win this.I don't even have to actually WIN. All I need to do is to provide proof of the POSSIBILITY of me winning.Which I did before. I refuted any argument and resolution my opponent brought up.A failure to specify his resolution effects his loss of the debate, as the burden of proof was on him from the beginning, since he made a positive statement.He did nothing to meet his burden of proof, although I pointed him to that in the first round. He only rebutted my arguments, never offering any proof.All we have are his post-hoc statements about him having planned a strategy. But he ignores that although he calls it impossible, he STILL called this a debate. Hence, all rules for debates still apply.Burden of proof, for whatever resolution, was on the instigator - as which my opponent is clearly identified above.My opponent never offered proof.He did thus not meet his burden of proof.I win.So, no matter from which perspective this debate is looked at, I refuted all of my opponent's arguments.Thank you for this little fun battle of wits.
Impossible Debate

Mah-hahhahaha, you have fallen right into my trap!I was not debating about how this debate was impossible--I was waiting until this last round to tell you...it's impossible for you to win.By revealing little by ltitle information each round, I misdirected you to think this was a troll debate. "Of course this debate is possible! I accepted it and he made it, so this debate is possible!" You say to yourself. You are correct, obviously, but you thought of the wrong thing.ROUND ONE: I post confusing sentence, you analyze it and say it's impossibleROUND TWO: I say it only proves my point that "this debate is impossible", even saying "I failed to clarify what exactly you had to do, and you blindly stumbled upon my trap, only helping me as pro." he rebuts it with the fact that he accepted this debate that was made, and thus this debate is impossible.But that's not true. I never clearly stated "this debate is impossilbe....for con to win."I just swindled him by saying part of that sentence: "this debate is impossible, I failed to clarify...you...only helped me as pro". That' even a CLUE to saying that this debate is NOT whether over it's impossible or not, but over the impossibility of winning the debate.The vague title of "impossible debate" made this debate impossible.To win. For Con.
Impossible Debate

My opponent underestimates me.Yes, I analyzed the sentence given by my opponent, disproving it. Because I'm aware of the fact that the resolution was presented as a two-parter in a somewhat spongy way.Had I picked up on the "impossible" aspect of this debate first, my opponent would have argued POST-HOC that I disregarded the sentence he proposed in the post. He's just stalling for time, so this debate would end unresolved and he'd win.So, I chose to disprove the sentence first, so we have that out of the way. My opponent addressed it and has already conceded that his proposed sentence was just a distraction, so he has dropped this point, leaving only the resolution that this debate is "impossible".In fact, I was waiting for my opponent to pick up the debate, thus conceding this is a debate. Which means it's not impossible.My opponent ARGUES that because I did not address the topic of this debate allegedly being "impossible" on the first round, I helped him prove his proposition.But in taking my post up as basis for his argument (rebuttal), he has joined the debate, so it was obviously possible for him and myself to both enter this debate, and now we're discussing a disagreement: this proves we're having a debate, and my opponent is entirely disproved. He even concedes that he premeditated me helping him out as Pro, which by logical necessity makes him "Con".Anything that exists is obviously possible.That which is possible is obviously not impossible.This debate has been taken up by both sides, hence it exists.Thus it is possible.The debate is basically over here. I leave it up to my opponent to concede in the next round in dignity.
Impossible Debate

You have realized the true meaning of this debate: to dissupport the certain tone, quality, and approprateness of a certain word in and comprehend the argument I made.Actually you have not. You think your argument has to be about whether this certain situation is impossible or not, while in reality I revealed what you really have to do in the previous sentence.You have only proven my point that this situation is impossible.That also adds to why this debate is impossible. I failed to clarify what exactly you had to do, and you blindly stumbled upon my trap, only helping me as pro.
Impossible Debate

I accept.My opponent made a little mistake in the link provided. Here it is properly: http://mentalfloss.com...For easier understanding, I will now provide the paraphrasing of the resolution, as offered by the source supplied by my opponent:"This very superficial grammatist, supposing empty criticism about the adoption of proper phraseology to be a show of extraordinary erudition, was displaying, in spite of ridicule, a very boastful turgid argument concerning the correction of false syntax, and about the detection of false logic in debate."This is a positive statement, so burden of proof is completely upon my opponent. All I need to do is prove this impossible or contradictory.This is easily accomplished: Let's strip the sentence down to its main clause.This ... grammatist ... was displaying ... a very boastful argument concerning the correction of false syntax and about the detection of false logic in debate.My opponent has not named who "this grammatist" is, so we must assume it's him talking about himself, as this is a well-established rhetoric stylistic device called Illeism ( http://grammar.about.com... ).My opponent thus has to meet his burden of proof that he is, indeed, a "very superficial grammatist".Definitions:Full Definition of GRAMMATIST by Merriam-Webster's dictionary : a usu. pedantic grammarian gram·mar·ian A specialist in grammar. 1. (Grammar) a person whose occupation is the study of grammar 2. (Grammar) the author of a grammar (from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com... ) My opponent gives his profile as being a fifteen year-old ( http://www.debate.org... ), making it highly unlikely that his occupation is "the study of grammar". While most certainly, grammar is taught in school, more than that is needed to make a person a "grammatist", because otherwise the term would apply to everyone, making a definition of the term useless."superficial": My opponent started a debate about a grammatical problem, the overuse of the ending "-ing" in the English language. This requires in-depth-understanding of grammar and semantics, showing that my opponent is NOT superficial.The proposition is thus disproved.Now to the next part: "was displaying ... a[n] ... argument".This is past tense. But my opponent did not provide any argument on the topics mentioned in the resolution. The resolution is thus disproved.My opponent thus stated sentence that is just not true. He has yet to meet his burden of proof.
video games help hand eye coordination

Ah yes, we are in the same boat there. My arguments would be: Moving your thumbs and less frequently your fingers does nothing to improve actual hand-eye coordination. I would concede that if you were using Wii motion control or PS Move or XBOX Kinect, you would be improving your HEC, but since you are just flicking your fingers independently from what you are watching, it does nothing to directly improve your HEC. I don't think typing on a computer helps your HEC, however if you were using a touch screen key-pad where you had to find the letters and move your fingers to the place you are looking at, you would be getting practice with HEC. You seem to be getting better HEC because your focus is improving as well as muscle memory and spacial skills like reading a map or driving a car, but these are separate measurable mental capabilities. I have never played a video game that advertised better HEC.
video games help hand eye coordination

I would like to add that this is my first debate with this site. I would also like to mention that I am an avid gamer and play 2-3 hours a day. I am not sure about the official rules of who starts since they are not included, but I would like to extend the opening arguments to Pro since it would appear that the burden of proof would be theirs. It will be my objective to prove that video games do not actually improve hand eye coordination. This is seemingly impossible as doing any activity involving your eyes and hands should have some minimal affect on hand-eye coordination. (Such as counting to 10 on your fingers over and over again might improve your hand-eye coordination, but is it worth the effort) I would ask Pro if the terms could be slightly altered to read: "Video games improve hand eye coordination enough to make a significant difference. " Definitions (please revise if not correct, Pro) Video games: an electronic game that involves human interaction with a user interface to generate visual feedback on a video device. Help: Improve in some measurable amount Hand Eye Coordination(aka HEC): the coordinated vision and hand movement to execute a task.
Rights do not exist

Being and existence do not in and of themselves establish either necessary or sufficient conditions that rights exist. For humans to think and reason does not imbue the rock with any moral or ethical value. Saying that everything in the universe has a right to exist does not mean anything more or less than that. A rock is not granted morality or good or evil it is only imbued with existence and therefore being and like all beings nothing more. I see no argument presented that a right exists for all things in all places and at all times. Indeed the violation of a right to existence may be an essential and necessary condition for the sustenance of being, sufficient in and of itself to deny that this right exists. For rights to exist they must be applicable to the existence of the animate or inanimate, rational beings or non-rational beings. Life is a subset of existence not a separate category. The universe is not moral, a necessary condition for rights.
Rights do not exist

1. Anomaly generating life or existence; it does not follow that said anomaly generates rights. If rights are generated by an anomaly whether a creator or by accident are such rights not merely accidental rights subject to whimsy or inconsistency and not universal? 2. The task is to define the good or even the evil rights would address not to define existence. 3. If a right exists there must be a mechanism to enforce it if not it is little more than whimsy to be violated at will. 4. Failed to apply to all things, a rock has existence but not life though it may change and mature. The claim rests on that anomaly-creator, which is not a proven or accepted authority for either existence or life. In the form X therefore Y, rights (Y) are not demonstrated to have any relation to the premises (X), the anomaly-creator. The fact of life does not demonstrate rights exist; only there may be such a thing as being. Existence: the category of all being not the category of human beings.
Rights do not exist

My opponent charges me with four tasks, of which you can read in Round 1. My answers to his questions are as follows: 1) The same anomaly that generates human existence. Whether that anomaly be Creator or accident, existence generated the right to life with it. 2) "To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly." - Henri Bergson. The Universal Good that comes from the right to life is maturation and procreation, which is revealed to be good by our ability to think and have this discussion. 3) Administration of the right to life has already taken place with the existence of life. Therefore, no further mechanism is necessary. 4) The right to life is universal in that, as stated above, living things already exist, and the right exists with them. My opponent is incorrect in his assertion that there are no rights in the universe. The very fact that my opponent is alive and was able to type that argument stands as proof that such rights exist.
Rights do not exist

There are no rights in the universe, no universal natural moral laws guaranteeing rights, the good or mores. For rights, goods and morals to exist they must be true at all times in all places and for all things. This argument categorically excludes the laws of nature and physics, as they are amoral. The contention is "there is no universal good" that would come from a universal right. The only rights, goods and morals that can exist are made by rational beings and are only applicable among those rational beings agreeing to them. Such rights, goods and morals do not exist beyond this arrangement at all times and all places for all things. Taking up this debate one must prove: 1. What generates rights? 2. What is a universal good along with how and why it is good? 3. What mechanism is charged with administering any universal right, good or moral if indeed their administration is necessary or desirable? And 4. How it applies to all things?
Four contradictions about Jesus...

Four contradictions about Jesus... ... that prove the Bible is not the inspired word of God. 1.The Birth of Jesus a) The genealogies of Joseph are flawed and contradict each other. Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38 aa) The Gospels of Matthew and Luke both give contradictory genealogies of Joseph in connection with 1 Chronicles 3. b) The time that Jesus was born. Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:2 aa) Matthew and Luke disagree again, this time on when Jesus was born. 2. Matthew's Prophecy Mistake a) Matthew 21:7 claims that Jesus entered the city on two animals. There is an explanation for this in the Old Testament (Zechariah 9:9) known to many as a blunder by Matthew. Mark, Luke, and John write that Jesus entered the city on one animal. Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14 aa)It may be a small insignificant point, whether one or two animals were used, but the point is if the Bible is inspired by a perfect God then there should be no mistakes or contradiction no matter how small they are. 3. The Empty Tomb a) Who found the empty tomb? Matthew 28:1 Mark 16:1; Luke 23:55, 24:1, 24:10; John 20:1-4 aa) There are several opposing statements of who found the empty tomb. b) Who did they find at the empty tomb? Matthew 28:2-4; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:4-14 aa) Again there is conflicting evidence of facts, to the point of contradiction. 4. The second coming a) During the lifetime of the disciples. aa) Mark 13:30, Matthew 10:23, 16:28, 24:34, and Luke 21:32 tell us that Jesus would return within the disciple's lifetime, but obviously he did not. bb) Paul also thought Jesus would return soon: 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 1 Thessalonians 4:15 KJV (Emphasis Mine) These are just a few of the hundreds of contradictions found in the Bible. These are just a few about Jesus that I chose to use. If this is God's word to man then maybe man should reconsider its viability for instruction and belief. First round for Con is a response, any forfeit results in a loss of debate (voters please comply). No new arguments can be presented in the last round. The Con must deal with all the points of all four topics.
ManBearPig is real.

Round three rebuttalsFact: Burning of fossil fuels causes more Co2 in the atmosphere. Myth: There is no connection between fossil fuels and Co2. Fallacy: Cherry picking. If you look at the chart in the link my opponent provided, it is true that Co2 went down during WWII. Yet, the overall trend is upwards. [7] As you can see in 1850 Co2 was at 285.2 ppm and in 2011 391.15 ppm. Imagine a blueberry bush, and I state "blueberries are blue" then, my opponent finds one blueberry that is unripe and green, then says "all blueberries are green."Next, my opponent's source has a right bias. [8]As for the part about polar caps freezing and thawing, it is true that if you look back over millions of years that glaciers melted and refreeze. Yet, if you look at the rate of which temperature and Co2 are increasing and the human fingerprints, this is almost certainty not a natural event. Fact: Glaciers are melting much faster than in the past.Myth: Glaciers melted in the past and this is part of a natural cycle.Fallacy: Jumping to conclusions. The evidence does not support the myth. An example of this would be if a house had a broken window, a known criminal's fingerprints are all over the scene, and all the valuables were removed from the premises. My opponent then said "strong winds have broken windows before, therefore, the wind was responsible now."Sources.7. https://data.giss.nasa.gov...8. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com...
ManBearPig is real.

One reason is that global warming is one not that easy to test and in an article by American Thinker states "It is said that assumptions are the mother of all screw-ups. Testing of models by the reliable and venerable Scientific Method has been unable to obtain reproducible test results." When people are presented with the question if global warming is real or not they are told about the icecaps and how they are melting and the simple answer is it is what happened before and like before it will freeze again. Sources: http://www.americanthinker.com...
ManBearPig is real.

Round two argumentsPicture of consensus studies. [1] Picture of expertise and agreement graph. [1] Graph of Co2 highest in 800,000 years. [2] Pie graph of Co2 being main driver of climate change [3] Temperature graph of ocean, land, ice, and air starting at 1960 [4] Glacier cumulative volume decreasing graph. [5] Human fingerprint picture. [6] As you can see there can be no doubt from the above pictures and graphs that climate change is happening, humans are the cause, and Co2 is the main driver. Sources.1. https://skepticalscience.com...2. http://www.climatecentral.org...3. https://www.epa.gov...4. https://skepticalscience.com...5. https://skepticalscience.com...6. https://skepticalscience.com...
ManBearPig is real.

ManBearPig is an allegory for Global Warming.I will contend that ManBearPig exists. My opponent will contend that ManBearPig does not exist. StructureR1 Acceptance & definitionsR2 Arguments, don't respond to opponent's arguments yet.R3 Rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's round two argument.R4 Defense respond directly to opponent's three argument.Burden of proofBurden of proof will be shared equally.Previous debate.0.http://www.debate.org...