BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Game is illogical

Con has abandoned his previous argument claiming there was rule limiting the Game to those aware of it. I will address his new arguments, although there should not be any change of arguments after this, as it is the final round and I will be unable to reply to them."They have to know which game you are talking about. If someone is playing a game where they cant think about a red hexagon, and someone says hexagon, they may not be thinking about that red hexagon but a different one. What I'm saying is as long as the game they are thinking about isn't the one they aren't supposed to think about, then they are in the clear."My opponent assumes that someone would be thinking about another game if they saw or heard a reference to the Game. This is not necessarily true. If someone read "You just lost the Game!," they would not be thinking about another game, they would wonder what the "Game" was. This argument only applies if it was in a context where someone could mistake the Game for another game. Example: a message popup that appeared after losing an online game of chess."Also If they don't know what a hexagon is, then they cant think about IT specifically until its explained. They can think about wondering what it is or try to figure it out, but until its explained they cannot actually think about IT. I capitalize it to show that when you think about something with multiple definitions, you specify what it is in your head."This argument does not make sense. If someone knew monopoly existed, but did not know anything about it other than that it is a game, he would still be thinking about monopoly? Yes, unless Con is trying to say that a person cannot think about it unless they know how it is played, which is a ridiculous statement. Upon viewing a statement saying that he/she lost the Game, a person knows three things:1. There is Game. 2. They had been playing it. 3. They lost it. Now look at the rule one of the game:1. You are playing the Game.(Neither awareness nor consent is required to play) Now rule three:3. Loss of the Game must be announced.This proves that they did play the Game, and that they lost, but are unaware of their obligation to announce their loss due to not knowing the rules. Since I have successfully rebutted all of my opponent's argument's, I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent for debating this with me :)
The Game is illogical

To rebuttal Ill point out pros quote 1."Another interesting situation occurs when somebody asks about or discusses The Game, without yet knowing what The Game is. If someone asks 'What is a hexagon?', are they thinking about hexagons even though they don't know what one is?" They have to know which game you are talking about. If someone is playing a game where they cant think about a red hexagon, and someone says hexagon, they may not be thinking about that red hexagon but a different one. What I'm saying is as long as the game they are thinking about isn't the one they aren't supposed to think about, then they are in the clear. Your argument is like saying I cant think about cereal with ought thinking about lucky charms even though there are plenty of other cereals that I could be thinking about. Also If they don't know what a hexagon is, then they cant think about IT specifically until its explained. They can think about wondering what it is or try to figure it out, but until its explained they cannot actually think about IT. I capitalize it to show that when you think about something with multiple definitions, you specify what it is in your head.
The Game is illogical

Now, he claims that the site lists a rule in which a person must know what the game is before being able to lose. This is clearly false, as the site (losethegame. net) admits that it is not an actual rule [1]. I have posted it below:"Another interesting situation occurs when somebody asks about or discusses The Game, without yet knowing what The Game is. If someone asks 'What is a hexagon? ', are they thinking about hexagons even though they don't know what one is? "The truth is, this rule is a variation of the game [2]. Let's take a look at Wikipedia: "There are three commonly reported rules to The Game. 1. Everyone in the world is playing The Game. (Sometimes narrowed to: "Everybody in the world who knows about The Game is playing The Game. ")"Variations of a game do not count. If I was good at a variant of chess, could I claim to be good at chess? No. The three rules I have listed above are the only ones that are universally accepted among all Game players, and are therefore the "true" (for lack of a better word) rules to the Game. It is Con's turn. Sources:[1] . http://www.losethegame.net...[2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Game is illogical

Hello and thank you for this debate topic. I personally think the game is stupid but you seem to have missed some information on your trip to that website. If you read through the entire thing, it tells you that up until you know about the game, you cant lose, once someone tells you about the game, or you read about it you are playing and then must obey rule three. You cannot comply with rule three of the game until you know what the game is. Even if you read a t-shirt or sign that says "lose the game" you may not know what that is, and wont be losing until the person with the t-shirt or sign explains it to you. http://www.youtube.com... "When you announce your loss to people who do not know what The Game is, they are likely to ask what it is out of curiosity. Some people play that you must explain the rules of The Game to anyone who doesn't already know" Sources: [1] http://www.losethegame.net...
The Game is illogical

Let us examine the mind game called "the Game". The object of the Game is to forget that it exists. Everybody reading (and comprehending) this has just lost the Game. In the Game, there are three major rules:Rule 1: You are playing the Game.(Neither awareness nor consent is required to play)Rule 2: Every time you think about the Game, you lose.Rule 3: Loss of the Game must be announced.However, rule three and one contradict each other! Awareness is not required to play, but without awareness, how could they announce their loss? One may think if they lost the Game, than they must know about it, but that argument does not hold water. If someone read "You just lost the Game" on a T-shirt, or read the phrase on the Internet, than they would lose for thinking about the game. This does not mean that they know what the game is, and therefore not know that they lost, unfairly preventing them from announcing it. This proves the Game to be illogical and self-contradictory.I await Con's arguments.Sources:[1] http://www.losethegame.net...
given the sheer size of the universe, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists

Seeing pro forfeited the round, there isn't much I can say... This is my first debate and I'm new to DDO, so I don't know what the standard protocol is for someone forfeiting the final round.That being said, I suppose I will just leave the arguments I've made as they are.Anyway, it was a fun debate and I enjoyed it. I guess the rest is up to the voters...
given the sheer size of the universe, the most reasonable view is expecting that alien life exists

i will grant that information you gave, such as the habitable zone, helps to infer more accurately the likelihood that life exists. but, even you found with your calculations, big assumptions and all, that life probably exists based on the assumptions you made. the figure may have not been as high as we might like, but it is what you concluded. also, my numbers may not have been considerate of all factors as it could have been... based on size alone. but, based on sheer size, we can still infer that even with restrictions like the habitable zones, the numbers are so high that we'll still come out to a number of planets with life. as to fermi's paradox, it's not much of a paradox. we live in an unassuming corner of the universe. intelligent life might nto be much mroe intelligent than us... which means they wouldn't be able to communitate with us. they might be less intellgient, again no communication or signs. they might be more intelligent, btu that don't mean they are enough to communicate or show signsto us. especially given the distance and how long it takes even light to travel as far as it does.
Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

Thanks to feminism not dying in the 1980s, the following events were made possible in the 1990s and 2000s. -1991: the U.S. Senate voted to open combat positions for women aviators. -1992: four more women were elected into the U.S. Senate. -1994: the Gender Equity in Education Act was passed, banning gender stereotyping and discrimination in the classroom. -1994: marital rape was banned in the UK. -1994: the Violence Against Women Act was passed in the U.S. -2007: the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act was passed in the UK. -2013: the first ever woman to bring a gender discrimination lawsuit in China won her case and received an official apology from the discriminating party. Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org... Feminism still has a place because not all men respect women equally, and vice versa. However, both men and women are on the right track to gender equality. Feminism is not irrelevant or unjust; a movement for equal gender rights is neither of those things. Misandry and misogyny will not go down without a fight, and feminism is part of that battle.
Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

I have stated in my past arguments and am reasserting now that men and women must bear an equal portion of blame. I am not condemning social norms, because a member of either gender may follow them or not if they so wish, but rather speak against the stereotypes that one gender imposes on another. "Men are pigs!" or "Women are insane!" Again, both men and women are guilty of this. Furthermore, addressing the teams chosen at recess, not all young boys discriminate against the girls who want to play. Some are very polite and accepting, but it is the ones who are not who will grow to be biased if their opinions are not changed. Some girls tease and shun boys, as well. And those are the people who will be more likely to lean towards misandry, if they never grow out of it. I have to disagree with your opinion on how men are portrayed in the media. They are not typically "evil sex-craving addicts," as you say, but characterized as strong, intelligent, masculine, and independent. Heroes, or at least lovable underdogs, are a common role for males in movies, whereas the supporting female lead is normally only beautiful, one-dimensional, and waits to be saved by the male. (Watch a bunch of superhero movies; you'll see what I mean). There are exceptions to all stereotypes, however. Lastly, women and men are not equal. The fact is, a portion of both men and women continue to exalt their own gender and vilify the opposite sex. These misguided opinions are why feminism remains relevant and just. Although men and women are different, both physically and psychologically, their equality is achievable. It just has not happened yet, and both sides have some work to do.
Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

Many of the social standards for males and females are created by society... Not just men. Women are equally to blame for creating their social norms as men are, and vice-versa. Also, the whole kid on the soccer team picking the girl last has little to do with social norms. For starters, most children like to associate with their own gender because children are shy, undeveloped, and unable to express feelings. This means that they are most likely going to associate with people who are most similar to them. Had a girl been picking the teams, I doubt the girl children would have been picked last at recess. In the media, men are equally portrayed as evil sex-craving addicts who objectify and sexualize women etc. Its really no different. Equality doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to be treated the same, it just means everyone needs to be treated fairly. Would you like women to be portrayed in the media as oppressive sex fiends? No you would not. The bottom line is women are already equal. Women and men are equal. Equal, but different.
Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

Forgive me for my shoddy grammar and the incorrect use of refute. I did not proof read my argument well enough obviously. You really have to understand what modern day mainstream-media feminism entails. If feminism was JUST about females being equal to men, then everyone would acknowledge its place in society. The truth is, females have been equal to men for a long time. There continues to be more and more laws and bills passed in favor of women over men; especially concerning birth and child custody rights. Among this, there are also bills which protect women experiencing domestic violence (yet surprisingly enough, there is no such bill for men). We live in a society today where both men and women are equal. While both may have different roles according to social norm, that does mean that the two genders are unequal. But I digress... Back to my main point, the mainstream media feminism of today is full of misandry. Go look at feminist blogs, feminism websites, etc. This has only occurred because feminism has no place anymore in society. Since women now have equality, privileged females, who know NOTHING of the true struggles of the women of the past, have nothing left to stand for. Now what's left is a large group of females who like to point the finger at men for every little inconvenience in their lives. Its idiotic, moronic, and is only poisoning the minds of young females such as yourself. Stop putting yourself in a box and trying to depict living a life without equality. You already have freedom and equality, reach for it and take it. Make something of yourself and leave this nonsense behind.
Feminism is irrelevant, unjust and flawed. It should be stopped.

I would consider myself a feminist, and I certainly do not believe that men are responsible for all oppression of women. Since I refuse to use your biased definition, I will refer to good ol' Webster for the meaning: Feminism: The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. In other words, women should have equal rights and opportunities as men. If the proposition that women and men should be considered as equal human beings sounds "irrelevant, unjust, and flawed," to you, then I hope you come to realize that males are no greater or lesser than females in value and should be treated equally. I also have to note that I think your definition of feminism is contradictory. You say modern day feminists "refute" (meaning to prove wrong) that men are solely to blame for the suffering and oppression of women. You wrote, in effect, that feminists do NOT think this. That is the interpretation of "refute," anyway. Feminism does not mean hatred of the male species. That is not equality. True feminists do not despise males because men have had more societal and political power and opportunity up until recently. Feminism is simply a movement for the equality of men and women. Misandry is not feminism.
Lok at what your Dr. drives., Where they live, what their wife wears.

I not one hundred percent sure what this is about so I will go over two different points. The first point I will go over, is that it is not good to stalk your doctor. Stalking in general is weird. The second point I will go over is that not all doctors are rich. Their are some awesome nonprofit doctors that help people everyday. Their are also doctors in Hadi and other places helping with people in need their. Also, doctors that live in the US work very hard. They work even more in collage.
Would Trump be a good President

I read your statement on whether he should be elected. I understand your view. But this man takes it to the extremes. I know A am young, and my opinions are not worth much in the open world(I'm 15) but on here, they are relevant. So you must listen to me when I say this. This man... what he stands for... is everything I have come to hate in a person. Greed. Racism. Sexism. Injustice. Uncaring. I believe in one word, sir or ma'am- and that word is equality. Every man, woman, and child should have an equal and fair chance to live a good life in this world while they have the time to live it. But Donald Trump- he would end that. He would put America at the top, and shove everyone else down the line, in order of richest and whitest, to poorest and most Latino. and you know who else did that? Hitler. Adolf Hitler imagined a new world order in which the Aryans, the supreme race, would dominate. Then would come the lesser-Europeans- the ones that were still good, but not quite good enough. Then came everyone else. And finally, were the Jews. The only difference with Trump, is that his scale would be based on skin color, not region. And we all know how well discrimination of color went in America before. Slavery. The Rights Movement. In fact, at the time of this writing, Martin Luther King Day was yesterday. So I say unto you, good person whose gender is unknown to me- I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're views are- and some of the I agree with. but Trump is not that one who can carry those beliefs into action- at least not in the right way. the proper way.
Democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism

I cited three methods by which democratic elections are validated without use of force of any kind: (1) by mutual consent of all the participants as practiced in established democratic countries, (2) by an authoritarian regime voluntarily ceding to free elections, and (3) by having an outside agency such as the United Nations supervise free elections. I gave successful examples of each. I pointed out that the only reason to dispute the the holding of free and fair elections is when a faction does not want them; otherwise and agreement will be reached.My opponent did not dispute any of my cited methods of arranging free elections, but rather shifted to a new argument that democracy itself is imposed by "terrorism." That's not the topic of the present debate,and it is a false argument. The grounds by which people organize into societies lies in humans being social animals who organize into societies to achieve a survival advantage. While societies do impose rules, democracy is not remotely comparable to the fear invoked by terrorism in attempts to maintain authoritarian rule. My opponent forfeited, a conduct violation, and left my arguments unanswered. He provided no sources to substantiate his claims with examples.The resolution is negated.
Democratic elections are validated by the use of terrorism

Democratic governments do not derive their authority from democracy, but from inflicting the most terror upon a population than any other organization within the same geographic region. In order to host "democratic elections", an organization must monopolize the right to host elections within their geographic region. This cannot be achieved without initially resorting to the unsanctioned use of violence. I will use the current example of Egypt to establish my point. It is commonly assumed that the Egyptian population should now vote in democratic elections. The question is, now that the regime has fallen, who has the legitimate authority to HOST the election? This is extremely important, because only a legitimate authority can host a legitimate election in which politicians are legitimately elected into power. Everything else is about as meaningful as a bunch of 12-year-olds in Montana hosting an election for the US Presidency. The former Egyptian military is not the legitimate authority to do so. In the absence of representative democracy, the former regime was without a doubt a terrorist organization funded by extortion (which it labelled taxation). In other words, every member of the military who voluntarily joined is a leftover terrorist. Assuming the Egyptian population was aware of this, how then would it identify the organization in Egypt that is the legitimate authority for hosting elections? Who is to say that one election is valid, but another election is not? The only way this is possible is by threatening everyone else with the use of violence. What happens when two large groups of people in Cairo decide to host the election for the next Egyptian Government? The group of people with the most guns, ie those with the most potential to commit violence, would get to host the election. This is why the leftover terrorists identifying themselves as the "Egyptian military" get to host the election. If anyone else tried, they would be locked up in one of the old terrorist raping pens that they called "prisons". That's terrorism.
Would you buy the Porsche 911 Turbo S over Nissan GT-R Nismo

My friend constantly tells me that the GT-R is much better in terms of "bang for buck" and goes on about how the GT-R has one the fastest Nurburgring lap times. I'm a huge Porsche guy, and the 911 Turbo S is faster in a straight line (0-60mph in 2.5 seconds w/ launch control) and is more luxurious and refined. The Nismo starts around $150,000 and the Turbo S is around $200,000. The Porshce 911 Turbo S is obviously the better car overall, and if you had the $150,000 for the nismo, you have the $200,000 for the Turbo S.