BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Abolish plea bargains

Thank you for coming up with this debate. Its an excellent topic. In life there are a lot of gray areas. Each case has different circumstances. There are a lot of factors that go into someone being charged in the first place. How many charges are against them may vary. The arresting officer or other witnesses involved. Plea bargaining allows for the prosecution and the defense to work through these details before a trail. Going to court is costly. It cost money and time for both sides to go to court. It places a heavier burden on the courts themselves. Which depending on their location may already be overburdened beyond their intended capacity. The idea to abolish plea bargaining to promote justice is a generalised idealistic solution to complex problems.
Abolish plea bargains

The sole purpose of the United states justice system is to dispense justice. Hence the name. Unfortunately, there is a flaw in the system that prevents justice from being done in about 90% of criminal cases. This flaw is plea bargaining. Plea bargain is defined as: an arrangement between a prosecutor and a defendant whereby the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser charge in the expectation of leniency. Goal: Justice. I believe that whoever better promotes justice in the justice system should win the round. What is wrong with the system? Plea bargains are unjust every time. People who take plea bargains are either guilty, or innocent. If they are guilty, they are using a plea bargain to escape the punishment they deserve. If they are innocent, they are confessing to, and being punished for, a crime they did not commit. In either case, injustice has been done. When you consider the fact that plea bargains account for 90% of criminal cases in the U.S., you are forced to agree that with plea bargains in place, the justice system cannot accomplish it's only purpose. Plan: Plea bargains will be made illegal in the United States. The advantage of enacting this plan, is that justice can be done. There will still be some wrongful convictions, but in every case, the defendant will have a chance to defend himself, and convictions will be punished appropriately. Please stand with me in returning justice to the justice system.
Should Homeschooling Be Allowed

I would wish to point out a few things that are important: my opponent's use of the words "everyone," "always," and "never." My opponent apparently has very little understanding or exposure to homeschooling. As a little background, I was homeschooled from 2nd through 11th grade. I was not and am not socially awkward or shy. I started a travelling illusions and public speaking stint that worked with suicidal and hurting teens. I have a long-term and serious girlfriend. I have several deep and important friendships. This alone is evidence that it does not "always" happen.Here's a quick quote from a study on the effects of homeschooling on a child's socialization;" Several studies found no significant difference in the social skills of homeschooled and non-homeschooled students. Other studies found that homeschooled children score significantly higher on social development rating scales/questionnaires. For instance, one study using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale, a well-tested diagnostic tool for measuring communication and daily living skills, found that homeschooled students substantially outperformed traditionally schooled students. The average overall score for the homeschooled children on communication, daily living skills, socialization, and social maturity subscales was at the 84th percentile compared to the 23rd percentile for the traditionally schooled students."I also want to deal with this statement from round one: "it destroys there brains"Ok, first, it's "their." But continuing, homeschoolers routinely perform better than public schooled individuals by quite a bit. My homeschooled friends and I are all going places in life. I am hoping to get a Ph.D. in Semitic Linguistics from Oxford. One of my friends is becoming a doctor. Several are aiming for law school. "destroys (their) brains" is honestly insulting to me. End story: my opponent has no backup and seems to simply attack homeschoolers.Sources: http://widenerlawreview.org... http://www.educationandbehavior.com...
Capitalism vs Socialism (Capitalism > Socialsim / Capitalism is superior).

This may put me at a disadvantage, but I'll straight up say that I will concede that Capitalism produces more capital and profits. It's named after that for a reason. So you won't get any argument from me if you argue that capitalism produces more capital. Rather, I'll be arguing that Socialism is morally superior and that this outweighs the fact that capitalism produces more capital and profits. I figured I'd say that now so you don't have to argue that point in your first argument.
Capitalism vs Socialism (Capitalism > Socialsim / Capitalism is superior).

Looking for an honest, open debate. Arguments can vary from economic to moral, past examples (good and bad), neither side has the burden of proof or the need to "prove" their position more so than the other. Any other debate details or formalities feel free to mention. I am totally new to the website so please advise if there are any important rules on etiquette or convention I should be aware of. Cheers,
It is likely that a God or gods exist

Is it likely that a God or gods exist? I am not interested in a semantic debate. By God or gods, I do not refer to a specific monotheistic Judeo-Christian conception of God. Rather, I use a more general, commonplace definition in which gods are either supernatural creators of the universe or even simply supernatural entities that are responsible for a specific aspect of the universe (for example, Poseidon is the god of the ocean, or Mars is the god of war). That is not to say that God cannot possess attributes such as being omnipotent or omniscient or omnibenevolent. Rather, Pro does not necessarily need to establish both that the creator of the universe exists and that he possesses characteristics ascribed to him by Judeo-Christian theologians and philosophers. Both Pro and Con share the burden of proof.
Everyone is playing the game

My opponent states "We clearly have differing views on the game." I'm not sure why this is the case, as seeing as the game was defined in the first round before my opponent even accepted the debate. He has stated that the game is more than just a game, yet has provided no reasoning as to why, nor any evidence to support such a claim. Now, since we are on the last round, the bringing in of any evidence or sources would be extremely poor conduct, as there would be no opportunity to refute it. All I can say in closing, is that nothing was shown to provide even the slightest indication that the game has any power to make people play, regardless of its impotent rule # 1. Thank you.
Everyone is playing the game

I lost the game. No, just kidding. We clearly have differing views on the game; it's importance, it's power, and it's fluidity. You see it as nothing more than a trivial game for fun, where you declare, "I lost the game" whenever you think of it. The game is much more than this, as I have previously stated. You are making a fly out of an elephant, and quite frankly, it is insulting to the true participants and rulers of the game. Please see my previous arguments for the true roots of The Game. I bid you adieu.
Everyone is playing the game

Your arguement of the game states that it is "omnipresent" and you state that "it is the governing force for all societies and civilizations." However I must ask how this conclusion is reached, as nothing in the game dictates anything other than the statement that "everyone is playing the game." It makes no rules on overall behavior, nor controls any actions other than the statement of "I lost the game" whenever you think about the game. But still, nothing in the game, nor outside the game actually requires the participant to play. This isn't Jumanji, where if you choose not to play, the actions of the game will come and kill you (thus forcing you to play). I would also like to point out that the examples of which you've given don't accurately fit "the game" as the game encourages everyone to be aware of the game (thus the verbal statement of "I have lost the game" upon thinking about it), while the examples given (apart from being non-fiction) punished, often through death, individuals that became aware of the game. But even if we choose to accept your examples, they only further my cause as they show of how it is possible to not be playing the game and step outside of it (though, for many there are extreme consequences of attempting to do that). All in all, it has still not been shown how the game is actually able to control people to make them play. It has not been shown that one cannot simply state "I am not playing the game" and be accurate.
Everyone is playing the game

Yes, you are correct that intellectual contemplation is a deep thought on a subject - and in this case, the subject of existential and control-based society. You said "If anything, intellectual contemplation would reveal to individuals (such as it has to myself) that the game has no power to back up its claim": - The whole point of the game is that it is omnipresent, yet invisible and undetectable. Those who come to the realization that there is indeed a game will undoubtedly realize just how powerful the game is, because it is the governing force for all societies and civilizations. Let's look at a few dystopian/Orwellian novels to get a better focus on the game: 1. Brave New World - The population is unwittingly indoctrinated and propagated from birth to believe in the superiority of their respective class system, hold complete reverence towards the "State", and to consume unabated because it benefits society. Their entire life is part of the game, and it holds complete power over them, yet they have no idea. In our world, propaganda and brainwashing are not nearly as prevalent, but each country undoubtedly creates their own form of public manipulation. In Brave New World, the protagonist becomes self-aware of the system, and this is what leads to his ultimate demise. Those in power, who control the game, do not want deviation from the game's standards, which are unbeknown to the public, yet omnipotent and omnipresent. 2. A few other good examples are 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Fahrenheit 451, and the Matrix. The game feeds on unwitting participants, who accept the rules of the game as inherent structure which must be followed. Those who have the intellectual power to see beyond the system of the game are the one's who can see the true power and contrived structure of the society. Nearly every protagonist in dystopian movies/novels face the conundrum of becoming aware of the game, and balancing their desire to expose the game but knowing that doing so will lead to their downfall. Quite a delicate conundrum.
Everyone is playing the game

I must be honest, I do not understand my opponent's argument. He states that you, "enter the game through intellectual contemplation and self-actualization." Intellectual contemplation, as Aristotle sees it, is a deep thought on a subject. Often considered meditation and is designed for reaching an epiphany. But as it is used here, it is simply something that is capible of abstract thought and complex reasoning. Self-actualization can have different meanings, however, based on the later part of my opponent's post, I think he is referring to Goldstien's viewing of it. And that is the ability "to actualize, as much as possible, individual capabilities." In other words, to be the best you can be. However, no link is made on how doing either of these enters one into "the game." If anything, intellectual contemplation would reveal to individuals (such as it has to myself) that the game has no power to back up its claim "Everyone is playing the game. A person cannot not play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing." If there is a link between those two, I ask my opponent to spell it out a little more clearly for both myself, and the people that may vote on this.
Everyone is playing the game

"The game", from a philosophical standpoint, is the realization of self-awareness and human existential obscurity. The game is omnipresent, yet it is not enforced directly, and you only enter the game through intellectual contemplation and self-actualization. Once you start the game, you cannot stop. These people, with exceptional intelligence, regulate the game, and mandate rules. This has been a proven fact throughout history. Examples are the Illuminati, religious leaders, nation leaders, and scientists. They are in the game, and they are the ones who manipulate society to their liking. They prey on the fact that people are not a part of the game and blindly accept the norm. The game's ringleaders are the one who create "objective facts" and decide laws, morality, and large decisions. The game does not force participation, but it is blindly accepted because it provides comfort, "understanding", and satisfaction. To summarize, the people who enter the game are the ones who mandate reality. It is not an option for those unaware of the game to deny the game. Participation is forced and naturally inherent, but not realized. To quote Gustave Flaubert, "There is no truth. There is only perception".
Everyone is playing the game

"The game" in this debate is the common meme mind game. [1] The first rule of the game is, "Everyone in the world is playing The Game. A person cannot not play The Game; it does not require consent to play and one can never stop playing." However, the game does not have the authority to make this rule/claim true. For example. I can say, "all the money in your bank account is now mine." But that does not make it true. Just like saying "everyone is playing the game" does not make it true. I hope that some takes this challenge to prove that the game is able to force participation. Thank you. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...(mind_game)
Truth Does Exist

"Is anything you said above true?" You might as well have asked me if god was benevolent or malicious. I'd tell you that depending on the person you asked you would get a different answer. When asked this question some would respond that god was a benevolent being and then provide evidence from the bible supporting his benevolent actions. Others, would say he is a malicious being and then provide evidence from the bible to support his malicious actions. Finally, some people would respond that god does not exist and therefore he is neither benevolent nor malicious. So now I have to ask you a question.Of all the opinions I stated, which of these opinions is the truth? My answer to this is simply that none of these answers are true nor false. They just are just answers, nothing more. A person's actions being considered "true" or "false" is a perception depending on each individual. A person who is hallucinating may claim that a unicorn named sparkles lives in their bedroom. We may argue with that person and tell them that a unicorn named sparkles does not reside in their bedroom, however to the person who experiences and sees the unicorn named sparkles they believe that the existence of sparkles is real or in your words "true". This suggests that the idea of truth is just as perceptive as the idea that red is a better color then blue. A person cannot prove red is a better color, however that person will continue to believe that red is a better color anyway. You also asked if it was true that this is fascinating? My reply to this is also it depends who you ask. Fascinating is a state of mind, not really true nor false, states of minds can be misleading after all. I may not be fascinated at all, my mind may be incredibly bored for all I know. I have no idea if the senses and feelings I am experiencing are even real or accurate. I can't be 100% certain my will is my own and all I have said is my opinion or someone else's. I could be a robot being controlled through some other entity for all I know. I can not confirm nor deny this. Even the words we are using to speak may not be words or language. It's highly possible that what we believe to be language may actually just be a pile of gibberish. This would all sound like gibberish to a person who didn't speak English after all. So then you're probably wondering if we can't be sure that anything is real, then why would we assume some things are real? The answer to that is,we have no choice.We have to assume that the reality and rules of the reality we live in are real as that is the only way we can function in the society we live in. They may be real, or they may not be real however, we are stuck in this reality and therefore have to adapt to it the best we can. That's all I got to say. Sincerely Oak
Truth Does Exist

Hello Oak, If truth, or what is real, did not exist, you couldn't make the claim "Truth doesn't exist." or "The idea of truth is a delusion our mind created to try to explain an unexplained world" or any of the claims you made in your argument because they all claim truth. If truth didn't exist, you couldn't even make a statement like your friendly gesture at the beginning, "This is fascinating". Is it true that this is fascinating? If truth doesn't exist, which you support, then how can you assert this is interesting? I agree that we perceive truth through our senses. How do we know our senses are correct? I believe it is through God and him upholding existence. The Bible claims that all knowledge comes from the father. So really, to sum up my rebuttal here, all I have to do is ask you one question. Is anything you said above true? If you answer yes then you loose because you admit to the existence of truth. If you answer no, then you have not provided an argument at all. Sincerely, Anthony Bernabei.
Truth Does Exist

This is fascinating. I'll accept your debate. My argument: Truth doesn't exist. The idea of truth is a delusion our mind created to try to explain an unexplainable world. Truth cannot be what is real because we have no evidence that what we are experiencing in this world is even real or not. It is possible to make sense of the world without truth. People who suffer from delusions and/or hallucinations can make sense of the world even if most people would say there beliefs are nonsensical. We all make sense of the world in different ways. Each of us believes the way we make sense of the world is the truth. If this was the case and everyone made sense of the world due to the existence of truth, then that would suggest that all people would come to the same conclusions about problems and issues we have in life. Since we have such a high diversity in what people believe is true, the right thing, the correct thing, or even what is real, then its logical to conclude that the concept of truth was only created as a way for each of our mind's to make sense of the world. In other words it would be the equilvalent of a legendary creature like medusa. Its a fun story to tell, but still just a story none the less. I look forward to your response. Sincerely. Oak
Truth Does Exist

"'Simply answer this question and I will have my victory on your nihilist a$$!' 'Oak, Is it true that truth is real?" Well ok, I'll give you my answer. yes, no, maybe, both, neither, all of the above and none of the above. :) That's what happens when you want me to answer an opinion question. All of our experiences, questions, preferences, ideas, ect are opinions as any of these things can be disputed or in other words a person can doubt or disagree with them. The idea of truth is therefore an opinion, as it can be disputed. In the world we live in, we only have opinions even on the scientific issues. This is because a fact is defined as "a thing that is indisputably the case." Since everything we do and experience can be disputed by someone else, it would be impossible for anything to be considered fact as we can disagree with it. Even simple things we consider "facts" like the grass is green can be disputed by a person. Just ask a color-blind person. Especially the ones who can't see the color we call...green.:) I think I have proved my point. This was fun. Thank you for the debate.:)
God

Okay, this round is omnipotence and omnipresence. God cannot be omnipotent, or omnipresent, because of sin. If God cannot be in the presence of sin, how is he omnipresent? If God is omnipotent, why was sin created? If he is all powerful, why create Lucifer? If he wants to spend eternity with us, why create a method to sin? By doing so, he goes against his own set of morals. How can a perfect god create sin? How can an omnipotent and omnipresent God be constantly in the presence of sin, and do nothing to stop it? This also brings up the omnipotence paradox. It goes as such: Can God create a boulder so large that he cannot lift it? If the answer is no, then he is not truly omnipotent. If the answer is yes, then he is not omnipotent, because he cannot lift it. No one being can be truly omnipotent and omnipresent. Also, an omnipotent, omnipresent, and perfect being that is always in the presence of sin, yet does nothing to stop it, cannot be omnipotent. If he is perfect, why does he allow sin?
God

First of all, moral correctness. 'God's' name has been used to commit terrible acts, such as witch burnings, stonings, and persecution of other religious groups. Even if this was explainable by just a misunderstanding of God's will, other stories in the bible confirm God's cruelty, such as the Noah story. In this story, as you probably know, God floods the world because of sin. Think of all of the infants that were drowned. Another example is the story of the Hebrews conquering Canan. Their God tells them to kill all of the people in cities, even the women and children. How can an all powerful and morally correct God command people to do this? Also, if an all powerful and good God created the universe, why did he allow the choice of sin? If he is without sin, why make imperfect beings that will sin?
God

This is the final round of the debate where I am to only refute my opponent's two arguments and then things come to a close.Round 2My opponent brings up these terrible things that have happened, but yet none of them by God. As for the Noah story, my opponent tries to pull the Appeal to emotion and this argument must be immidiately thrown out of this debate due to the fact that it is a logical fallacy. [1] As for the assault on Caana, this was the simple acts of warfare in that time period. Modern day would see strafings and such, but that's besides the point. Technology and circumstances change. This has been seen throughout history and hence is an irrelivant argument in this debate. The last portion is simple, God gave man free will. IF we simply observe the watchmaker's argument we can see that as the watchmaker creates the watch, he sets it down and walks away no matter if it begins to work or not. It has been known that things deteroate over time and humans are no acception which completely explains and justifies this argument.Round 3My opponent has actually answered both of his own arguments in two conflicting questions. We can see the fact that Satan exists is once again based on free will of angels which created a sort of ying-yang mixture. As for the Rock argument we can see that God is in nature so the answer to the question is both as he is the rock, a lizard, a tree, and even you. [2] Strength and weight are subjective to other dimensions, but are relivant in this one. I have already answered the free will and MOA questions previously.With that I have refuted all arguments that my opponent has created and with that please vote Pro!Sources1. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...) 2. (https://www.blueletterbible.org...)