BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should become a graffiti artist.

In remembrance: It is likely that this Queen will be remembered, giving that she will likely be the last. Monarchies are most unheard of now, so still having a Queen is likely be remembered no matter what the achievements. Most people have to do something great to be remembered, but she can simply be remembered by existing. Point taken.....Lightly: The next point given is all but relevant. What does Queen Elizabeth II have to do with gangsters? Also, social media is not part of this debate. Oh, The Brit: Thank you for the complement, my good sir. The Queen may be thought of as to be able to do whatever she wants, but the fact of it is that if she tried she would be stopped. The fact of the matter is the Queen is unable to do what most think she can, as is still purely a figurehead. Above the law you say?: Again, the Queen is not above the law. Speculations matter not. I see you agree with the Pig reference being offensive. Sources: https://www.gov.uk...
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should become a graffiti artist.

To Begin: I would like to begin by giving thanks to my opponent for the debate since I hadn't been in a debate for quite some time. Also, I recognize that I will be arguing that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should not become a graffiti artist. No practical purpose: I see no practical purpose of Queen Elizabeth II of becoming a graffiti artist. The only real reason I would see her becoming a graffiti artist would have to be entertainment. The world has enough entertainment, leaving little to no need for the Queen to be in the entertainment industry. Keeping Dignity: It is doubtful that the Queen would engage in such activities. The Royal Family has been known to conduct themselves with dignity, discouraging anyone from the thought of her becoming a graffiti artist. Graffiti is a disrespectful act, and is not for anyone with any kind of self-respect. Since she is told to have respect, she should not become a graffiti artist. A Figurehead: Saying that the Queen is incapable of getting in trouble is completely wrong. The Queen is simply a figurehead in the British government, so she does not control any decisions. All government activity is conducted by the Parliament. So if indeed Queen Elizabeth II did become a graffiti artist, she would not be above laws. Humor you say?: The next statement I am addressing is in the matter of the Queen having a good sense of humor. This statement is purely biased, and is not valid. Debates should use known facts, not speculations by few who think alike. Gang? I think not: You cannot call free human beings servants. I know for a fact that anyone who works for her is indeed free, since slavery is no longer legal in civil countries. I also find the reference to Officers of the Law being pigs very offensive. What ownership can be claimed?: You can't claim that the Queen has reign over the Palace. She does not own the Palace, therefore she can't deface the Palace with cans of spray paint. Again with the "Pig" reference. To source or not to source: I took a look at the sources that my opponent offered for explanation. I do not find wiki answers a valid resource, or the biased article that was written by some of the few to claim the Queen has a sense of humor. I also see the clearly photoshopped image.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II should become a graffiti artist.

Drinking cups of tea and wearing smart and colourful hats is all well and good, but what has her majesty done to appeal to the younger (and more chavvy) generations? Unfortunately, the answer is nothing. I'll be arguing that her majesty should consider becomig a graffiti artist.i) She'd be good at staying anonymousShe'd be like a ninja banksy. Nobody suspects the Queen of anything.ii) Even if she were caught, she wouldn't get in any trouble The Queen controls the courts, so even if she were caught, she'd just tell 'em to bog off and she'd get away scot-free. "Lucky Git!" I hear you cry.iii) The Queen has a good sense of humour The Queen has a good sense of humour [1], so the whole idea of becoming a graffiti artist would really appeal to her.iv) She'd have a gang to help herThe Queen has something like 800 servants [2], which means that she could spend as much time as she likes doing a detailed piece and the pig force wouldn't get her.v) Lots of room to hide her inventoryBuckingham palace has something like 725 rooms, so hiding her spray paint, caps and markers would be easy. What pig is going to do a search of 725 rooms?vi) Potential for a big inventoryYou can fit a lot of things in 725 rooms, meaning lots of paint of all different sorts of colours, making Liz's pieces be worth seeing.I thank you. Sources[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...;[2] http://wiki.answers.com...
Conspiracy Theories: You decide!

I am starting this debate to see others oppinions on various conspiracy theories. This will be the first in a series of these debates. the first round is acceptance. Con will choose first topic. We shall debate on that topic for two rouinds, then I (Pro), will choose the next topic to finish out the last two rounds.No sources required, this is mostly a "what do you think" debate, and there is no designated right or wrong answer.
Conspiracy Theories: You decide!

Well, it is now my turn to propose the topic, and I would really like to disuss whether or not AIDs was really caused by someone getting with a "monkey". I believe It could possibly have been made by the governments in one or more nations in order to find a source of population control. For example, China and India are both nations with over one billion people, and there are limits set in place in those nations as to how many kids someone can have.
Conspiracy Theories: You decide!

My opponent proposes that a simulated reality is not fully understood in terms of who runs it or how they do so. I can agree that every detail of how our simulated reality cannot be understood, or expressed, in a debating website which is yet another simulated reality within this simulated reality. The task of Con is not to explain the ins and outs of how the simulated reality works, only prove that there is reasonable doubt that the reality which we presume to be real is not that actual one.Everything that is physically real has an origin of some kind, or at least a relative point at which we can say it 'came into existence'. Even my opponent and myself had a point at which we came into existence, and I do not mean a chronological point of origin, since time itself is an artificial construct in this simulation of reality according to my side of this debate; instead I am referring to a physical occurrence that necessitates that the physically real thing has to exist. Your parents having sex and the specific sperm hitting the specific egg at that time in those conditions necessitated your birth, in the same way that the existence of all the cells in your body in the form that they are necessitates you to act and appear that way in which you do. On the other hand, reality has no such origin to speak of. The only theories proposed, such as a big bang or a divine intervention of some kind, all leave further holes in the logic behind reality since they never explain the origin of the energy or matter that made the big bang or the origin of the supernatural entity that was responsible for the divine intervention. It's all well and good to say that God created you or that a big bang caused the expansion of the universe but one must first explain how the ingredients for the big bang or the set of events that necessitated a divine entity itself to exist.In conclusion, until the set of events that are required for this to real are either stated or justified as being unknown, it is safe to assume that we are in a simulated reality whereas a more sensible one without holes in the logic of its origin is the true one that we are unable to comprehend within the realm of this one.
Conspiracy Theories: You decide!

Before I begin, I would like to once again say that this is pretty much a mostly oppinionated debate (For those of you who will be voting on this debate). As to whether or not we are in a real or simulated realm of existence is easy for me to debate. If we were not ina real realm of existence, how would this simulated realm function? Who would be running it, aliens? It seems really farfetched to say that reality is not really reality. At least, it seems you are saying that it is not. I will note that some things are just harder to grasp than others, such as how we somehow have something inside our brain, which we still cannot locate, that permits us as human beings to be able to have thoughts. But, the thought that we are not in a truly real realm of existence is not hard to grasp in my oppinion; it is impossible. I look forward to your refuting of my oppinions. I would like to end this argument by mentioning one last time that sources are not required to support your oppinion on topics like these, as it would be hard to get a source that would be completely accurate in a world of confusion and unanswered questions.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

OK, so now my opponent's rebuttals are these: 1) My arguments only prove the notion of God 2) The same thing could be applied to the flying spaghetti monster 3) My argument presupposes God First, let me say that if a notion about existence is true, then it follows that it actually exists, as otherwise it is a false notion. In fact, let us assume that God only is a notion. We conceive of God as perfect. Therefore our conception exists - not just as a notion (because otherwise it wouldn't be perfect) but in reality. We cannot say God does not exist if we say God is perfect, because that would be a logical contradiction. So my argument actually proves God, not just as a notion or conception, but as reality. Second, I did not say that the notion of God proves God exists. I said that because God is perfect God must exist. However, this cannot be likewise applied to the flying spaghetti monster, which is not perfect. I know this because it is made of spaghetti and it's a monster - both limitations. Perfection and limitation are also, for obvious reasons, exclusive. Third, the argument my opponent spent the most time on. My opponent argues that the presupposition that perfection exists is an implicit assumption of the conclusion that God exists. In fact, that isn't a presupposition of my case at all. Let me write out my case in logical steps like you did. God has quality Perfect Everything Perfect must Exist Therefore God must Exist I did not presuppose the first line of reasoning because you conceded it before the argument even began. You said in round one that God had various qualities which could only be true of a perfect being. Even if this were not true, line one of working does not say perfection exists. It says that God has a quality. The second line I did not presuppose because it can be logically demonstrated. I in fact did this in round two, and you said you agreed to that analysis at the start of this round. While you might say this line is equivalent to saying God exists, that is only true when read together with my other premise. If I was begging the question, then my conclusion would be stated in one of my premises. In fact, while it follows from my premises when put together, it is not in and of itself written in the premises. It does require a logical connection to be made, as is true of all logical arguments. That isn't begging the question at all. I am still looking forward, this time to my opponent's last-minute rebuttals and summary statement.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

I am going to agree that IF something is perfect then it actually exists so I can draw attention to what I consider the real substance of the argument. Pro says "The only question is whether this perfection is real or imagined. However, as my argument shows, it is impossible to be perfect and not real. Therefore this notion of a perfect being must be true. There is no "if" about it. " Pro kinda gives the game away, he talks about the "notion" of a perfect being must be true. But the question isn't whether the notion of perfection exists (it does) the question is does it ACTUALLY exist. The notion of perfection existing necessarily no more proves that perfection actually exists than does the notion of a flying spaghetti monster prove that an actual flying spaghetti monster exists. Now maybe Pro is arguing that perfection exists, and god is perfect, and thus God being perfect exists, consider this argument. .. . 1) Perfection exists 2) God is perfect 3) Therefore God exists But by claiming God is perfect, what you are really saying. .. . 1) Perfection exists = God exists 2) God is perfect 3) Therefore God exists Perfection exists is just another way of saying God exists. In order to try and prove that God exists, your argument already assumes that God exists (albeit in disguise as perfection existing) this is question begging. "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise" [1] I look forward to Pros response. Sources [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... I look forward to pros response.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

First, sorry for writing "objects" and not "objections." Second, I'd like to thank my opponent for his excellent quick rebuttal. My opponent's two contentions may be summarized as follows: 1. Existence may not be necessary of something that is perfect 2. Only proves IF something is perfect then it exists In order to prove that existence is a quality of perfection, I need to show that something is better when it exists. To do that, I claim that something that does not exist does not have any value, and therefore cannot be perfect. I use the term "value" here quite liberally, as anything other than existence that makes something better. In other words, I claim that God's ability to be perfect is predicated upon God's existence. Let me give a short demonstration. You say God is omnipotent, of infinite power. Yet what power has that which does not exist? It is therefore necessary, if one is omnipotent, to exist. The same could be said for all qualities of perfection. Worth is acquired through existence, therefore without existence there is no worth. Perfection and existence go hand in hand. On to the second argument. It's not a big "if," to ask whether God is perfect or not. I said God was a perfect entity. Your attributes that you ascribe to God in round one are the results of perfection, for instance, omniscience and omnipotence. Therefore I would have supposed you would have conceded the fact that God is perfect. The only question is whether this perfection is real or imagined. However, as my argument shows, it is impossible to be perfect and not real. Therefore this notion of a perfect being must be true. There is no "if" about it. That would be all for this round. I again look forward to reading what my opponent has to say on these matters.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

Seeing that their argument is short and too the point, I will make my objection short and too the point. Pro says. .. . "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" P1 claims that existence is necessary of something that is perfect. Even if this is granted, this in no way proves that something perfect actually exists, only IF something is perfect then it exists, and that is a very big IF now isn't it ? You have to provide more than an "IF" argument to prove that perfection/God exists. I look forward too pros reply.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

I'd like to say hi to my opponent, and thank him for starting this very important topic. I'm going to be running the easiest ontological argument ever. So easy is it, in fact, that it only has one premise. First, however, let me not define God. I say that God cannot be defined because God is perfect, and to define would be to limit God to that definition, which would impinge on God's perfection. My argument proves that a perfect being exists. From this it logically follows, under my definition, that God exists. Here is the argument you've all been waiting for... P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist C: Therefore such a being must exist This is taken from Descartes' fifth meditation: "Because I cannot conceive God unless as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and therefore that he really exists: not that this is brought about by my thought, or that it imposes any necessity on things, but, on the contrary, the necessity which lies in the thing itself, that is, the necessity of the existence of God, determines me to think in this way: for it is not in my power to conceive a God without existence, that is, a being supremely perfect, and yet devoid of an absolute perfection, as I am free to imagine a horse with or without wings." I look forward to hearing why my opponent objects.
The Ontological argument for Gods existence

If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Round 4 Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BURDEN OF PROOF Both sides of this debate have a burden to carry I as the Con will seek to show that Pros ontological argument for Gods existence should be rejected. My opponent as the Pro will seek to show that their ontological argument for the existence of God should be accepted. Definition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first mover ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What this debate is about So, I would like to argue against an ontological argument. What is an ontological argument for the existence of God you may ask ? for those that are unfamiliar with ontological arguments. .. .. .. Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e. g. , from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists [1] Here is an example of an ontological argument. (Pro doesn't have to use this argument, it just presented as an example) 1)It is possible that a maximally great being exists. 2)If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3)If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4)If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5)If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. I will let Pro determine which ontological argument they want to argue for and defend, but I ask they post their ontological argument in the first round and that we stick to just one ontological argument of Pros choosing. I look forward to Pros opening argument. Sources [1]. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Some Days Are Longer Than Years

I actually find it rather humorous that my opponent accuses me of twisting words and interpretations when he is the only one that is doing it. And the extent to which he does it is also something that I find to be blatant and obvious. Debate and Round RulesMy opponent ignores the key elements of what I said and chooses to ignore them. YES - they are not the same. NO - the fact that they are not the same does NOT mean that my position is invalidated. I'll quote what I said in the last round that Pro chooses to completely ignore: " I do not view them as the same however I do interpret that in this instance whether they are similar or the same is irrelevant since I believe that rules regarding definitions come under the heading of round rules and debate rules [due to their similarity]. "ContradictionIt is crucial to take note of the fact that I said that it is arguable that they are the same thing. That means that it CAN be argued that they are the same thing. That isn't the same thing as saying that I am arguing that they are the same thing. This means that there isn't a conradiction when I later said that I DO NOT view them as the same - just similar. ContextI said that I view them as similar - not the same. My opponent's examples are not using the correct term noun. In the term: "round rules". The word "round" is describing the word rules, therefore making it an adjective. Pro uses the following examples: 1. Since each round has a 10,000 character limit, therefore the debate has only a 10,000 character limit. In this example round is used as a noun. The noun 'round', and the adjective 'round' are different. The example is invalid. 2. Since there are 4 rounds, therefore there must be 4 debates. Again, this is the noun, not the adjective. 3. Since the rules state "1st round is for acceptance," therefore the debate is for acceptance. Nope. Again, you are using the noun, not the adjective. None of these examples are true or are even used in the correct context for this debate. Algebraic FormulaPro concedes this as he does not respond to the argument.
Some Days Are Longer Than Years

Con: "I interpret round rules as being comparable to debate rules due to their similarity, especially in regards to debate. I do not view them as the same however..." My response: Great. Con agrees that round rules and debate rules are not the same. This means that the statement "there are no round rules," in Con's estimation, IS NOT THE SAME AS the statement "there are no debate rules." This would also mean, in Con's view, that there are properties exclusive to debates in total, and there are properties exclusive to rounds. Con should admit this outright and concede. But Con's not that type of debater, no, no, no. Con's the type of debater that would...tell you that you're munching on chocolate while he's crapping in your mouth...pee in your face and tell you it's raining...slap you on your head because he claims there's a bug there, but you know there isn't and he's just bein' a douche. Con is...douche dishonest. Hey, you can modify adjectives with nouns too in English. I feel like Con is being so dishonest in an attempt to sell a fallacious and lie-ridden case to readers, that his dishonesty transcends that of your everyday dishonesty...he's reaching douche altitudes here: Con, in round 3: "it is arguable that debate rules and round rules are the same thing" Con, later in round 3: "I interpret round rules as being comparable to debate rules...I do not view them as the same." My response: I'll choose the more recent view of Con's as the concession, and I'll let voters decipher this egregious contradiction. But I'm not done. If we're to agree with Con, in the beginning of round three, that "debate rules and round rules are the same thing," then we must also agree that: 1. Since each round has a 10,000 character limit, therefore the debate has only a 10,000 character limit. 2. Since there are 4 rounds, therefore there must be 4 debates. 3. Since the rules state "1st round is for acceptance," therefore the debate is for acceptance. Con, either way you spin this, you lose. If debate rules are the same as round rules, then 1st round acceptance means total debate acceptance, and by accepting the total debate, you accept the definitions. If debate rules are different than round rules, then you concede that "there are no other round rules" does not equate to "there are no other debate rules," and the definitions must be accepted. Con then baffles me: "I have said that my opponent said x when in reality he said y. There is no difference between x and y" My response: Listen readers; it's not chocolate!