BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Assuming the illuminati is real it is good for the world and for humanity

Lets wrap this all up. For the people who read this remember that Pro believes in repopulation which means they would get rid of at least %80 of the population. Do you not understand Pro that in order for one world government EVERYONE would have to agree. Are they really going to persuade 3 trillion people on the earth to get on their side. "Assuming the illuminati is real it is good for the world and for humanity" is the topic of this debate and clearly it is not for good. I am Con so I have the right to make any statement about the illuminati in any way. One, they'd have to get rid of 3/4 of the world, they are in control of politics (takes away free will), and 3rd they are behind closed doors. Why must their meetings be so secretive? If they really want to do good they can share their opinios with the public. Pro you clearly admitted that they would take our free will & liberty. Pro said: "The control i refer to is control of major economic and political decisions which actually have an impact on society." If us the people can't make decisions on political situations then what's the point of the first amendment? On the argument about Banks, there are alternatives of currency in one nation. maybe there can be virtual currency this way cash can be produced faster & an alternative to get the USA out of debt. I would have to only agree to a single currency to get rid of a "trust" system we have today as an obvious fact that stands out, we are not trusted with money. Illuminati are affiliated with Freemasonry. "The Illuminati are widely believed to be a sect or faction of the Freemasons. The Freemason, hence the Illuminati, adopted their beliefs and teachings from the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar was originally a religious and military organization during the crusades. Its members became very rich through gifts of land and money from European rulers. By the 1300s, the Templars deemed themselves the "bankers of Europe," because of their enormous wealth and the breadth of their organization. They were hoping to "become wealthy enough to buy the world." Please take this time to read this article just briefly. http://www.unc.edu... Pro again fails to prove that the illuminati is not a satanic group. This makes me question if he was even open to any of my arguments. He does state he does not want to talk about satanic beliefs because it is not real but in that video it clearly shows the relation of illuminati & satanic beliefs. To wrap up my entire argument, Illuminati will have to get rid of 3/4 of the population to get a one world government. They will control politics which we the people will not have a say anymore. Currency may get better yes but there is no reason to meet behind closed doors if they are a cause for good.
Assuming the illuminati is real it is good for the world and for humanity

With regards to a smaller earth population i believe the numbers are greatly exaggerated and reducing the Earth's population does not necessarily require anyone to be killed, simple things like birth control already help limit the growth of the world's population and gradually this will lead to a lower population (the less children people have the less the population of the future). Killing people would be impractical and Pro argues that could never be the objectives of the illuminati as this could create resentment of the organization, furthermore if they had to "create" a global disaster to cut the world's population they are smart enough to understand that such an occurrence could also be detrimental to their existence (there's a possibility that they could lay waste to a lot of valuable infrastructure or fail to control the "disaster") With regards to the argument pertaining to banks Pro argues that a global currency would have reduce the effects of the global financial crisis the world faced in 2008, the current system of multiple currencies is a system based on trust, confidence and risks. The values of currencies fluctuate as new policies are passed. A single currency would eliminate such a system, there would be zero risk (especially when trading currencies, which is done by most major banks, governments and big corporations). This would be beneficial to investors as they require a stable system. A single currency would also eliminate the need for foreign exchange revenues. Furthermore global inflation could be regulated by a single global bank http://www.ecommercetimes.com... "What's going to happen if one disagrees with another like republicans & democrats"? The simple fact that someone disagrees does not immediately mean that he has to be kicked out. This is why solutions such as mediation exist. Talks could be carried out to understand and address the grievances of the said representative and if they do not come to terms, his/her assistant could be promoted to take over, or someone else from the country could be promoted to be a representative "As far as the illuminati controlling everything that's a call for destruction. " That is a quote from your argument, you talked about illuminati controlling everything, do not mistaken your view for my view. The control i refer to is control of major economic and political decisions which actually have an impact on society. It would be impractical, virtually impossible and petty to control every single thing Again, i shall not address your religious argument, religion on its own is a very touch subject if you want to affiliate the illuminati with satan then we have to have a separate argument with regards to whether satan exists or not. Furthermore with regards to Freemasonry: Freemasonry means different things to each of those who join. For some, it"s about making new friends and acquaintances. For others it"s about being able to help deserving causes " making a contribution to family and society. But for most, it is an enjoyable hobby http://www.ugle.org.uk...
Assuming the illuminati is real it is good for the world and for humanity

I say good opening statement Con. I will counter attack you on why the illuminati is NOT a good idea and may possibly be fake. To have a little more knowledge I researched more about the illuminati even though I already know a little. http://www.sjgames.com... The idea of a group ruling the entire world is just frightening. Would the common person really want to be ruled by one power only? Yes America did unite all 50 states to create one super power but a world power? What's going to happen if one disagrees with another like republicans & democrats? Basically everything you see about the illuminati in your eyes, is good, I say it's not. As far as the illuminati controlling everything that's a call for destruction. Reason being is because I think most people would feel they have lost their freedom. Illuminati are known to spy on people. Illuminati has been modeled around Freemasons. Illuminati want to get rid of all religion & have a religion based on government. Would a New World Order be good or bad? An NWO implies that all nations surrender their sovereignty to a world-ruling government. For nearly a century, the world has depended on the protection and leadership provided by a strong, independent United States of America. Considering the corruption that absolute power seems to always bring, a powerful world government ruled by human beings would be a catastrophe for the United States and all the world. The power of human conspiracies is usually overemphasized. But throughout history, there has been one superpowerful conspiracy by Satan the devil, "who deceives the whole world" (Revelation 12:9) For those who are religious know that EVERYONE should have free will & no nations should be controlled by one power. This is for you Pro but aren't illuminati showing "signs" that they are real? http://www.youtube.com... This video shows how the illuminati are Freemasons & freemasons are satanic people. I must wrap up my argument now & ask con to extend the debate time.
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic

My opponent has made the surprising comment: "My argument here is that, for better or worse, rhetoric IS MORE IMPORTANT than dialectic." Who is more important, a scientific journalist or a scientist? They are both very important, but to find out who is most important, you imagine a universe without one of them. A universe without scientific journalists, will be one where scientific discoveries are made, but only few people can know and apply them. A universe without scientists however renders scientific journalists redundant. Therefore scientists are more important. Rhetoric is the art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. The problem with rhetoric however, is that speaker who is doing the informing, persuading or motivating is not always right. The art of rhetoric is not about speaking the truth, but about speaking in a way that will be heard. Just as science is about the truth and scientific journalism is about being heard, so to is dialectic about the truth, and rhetoric about being heard. You mention how rhetoric allows people to speak in a way that allows those of short attention spans to listen. This is important, but again I stress this is important only if the speaker is speaking the truth. The way to arrive at the truth is not through rhetoric, but through dialectic. It is through rhetoric that the truth could be used to inform others, but without dialectic, rhetoric has nothing to share. Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic.
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic

My argument here is that, for better or worse, rhetoric is more important than dialectic. This is in a few areas: 1) The art of persuasion, 2) Actual policy, and 3) The usefulness of language. First, rhetoric compresses nuanced meaning into words that accommodates the scarcity of attention span when discussing issues. That is by being artistic rather than logical, ordinary listeners can more easily pay attention and relate with what is being said. Lingo and jargon is ineffective and comes off as arrogant, but figurative language is down to earth and simpler to understand. Second, rhetoric shows inside information over how actual policy can be construed and enacted. A rhetorician demonstrates an understanding of how words can be interpreted in multiple ways as well as how word games can be played. Therefore, a rhetorician is an expert not only in composing ordinary language, but also in anticipating misinterpretation and doing what's needed to prevent it. Third, language is not merely an ideal set and syntax of words, but is an actual tool for directing others. A rhetorician understands this technique beyond simply being logical, but rather triggers an audience's switches in order to get desired results. This can even take place if the audience is not logically rigorous or methodical. Sometimes, people have pragmatic prejudices in their interpretations of words, so practice can happen by appealing to prejudice. Heck, sometimes, appealing to prejudice is necessary because it's central to an audience's motivation in general. Other times, it's necessary because there just isn't enough time to explain in detail. To be clear, I am not arguing here that rhetoric is more proper. What I'm arguing is properness isn't necessarily the value of language. Rhetoric addresses improperness in the aforementioned styles. Dialectic does not.
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic

I quote my opponent: "He ignores how personal goals are subject to what people believe in. " I do not deny that personal goals are subject to what people believe in. Our argument is however about what is the best way to have people come to believe in something, which in turn influences personal goals. Should people come to believe in something by witnessing rhetorical persuasions, or should people come to believe in things by witnessing and being a part of dialectic discussions? The latter is definitely superior, because without it, society would never progress to new levels of understanding, but would rather just continually reaffirm often incorrect beliefs. For example, a society based on rhetoric alone, would never have accepted the truth that the world is round, as it was against the predominant religious beliefs at the time. It is only through dialectic discussion, through rationality and reason, that there false beliefs were exposed. This example shows why dialectic trumps rhetoric. I also quote: "A dialectic argument, while possibly technically correct, does not commit people to investigate planning in the first place. " I strongly oppose this statement. When people listen to a dialectic, a discussion using reason and rationality to come to conclusions, people are more likely to respect the conclusions that are drawn. Finally my opponent says: "Without rhetoric, the people will not identify with the society they live within. They will feel like they're robots, simply carrying out orders. " This is exactly the opposite of the truth. Through dialectic, citizens are not simply "carrying out orders" but rather the citizens can see the rational and logical reasons underpinning their actions, and how it benefits their society as a whole. They are thus more eager to contribute to a world they understand. Dialectic is rational, but still based on benefiting society. To conclude, I quote my opponent one last time: "Thank you for reading.
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic

My opponent has taken affirmative defense in terms of a counter-proposal. His argument is based around a manipulation of the word "is" by referring to actual reality rather than the art of persuasion among people within reality. Unfortunately, my opponent still ignores the value of psychology in committing towards investigation. He ignores how personal goals are subject to what people believe in, and how social goals require organization inspired by the morale of what people believe in. Whether in civilian or military life, this even applies to my opponent's argument over constructing a battleship in a war. A battleship requires planning. People don't plan unless they're committed. A rhetorical argument will commit people to investigate how a battleship is planned. A dialectic argument, while possibly technically correct, does not commit people to investigate planning in the first place. My opponent also carries this on to victory in the war itself. One, winning the war itself is a secondary issue. Two, even fighting a war depends on organization and morale themselves which are rhetorical, not dialectical, issues. That is people have to be committed towards fighting the fight in order to win. Lastly, my opponent assumes that survival is intrinsically valuable, but this isn't necessarily the case. A side that wins the war by oppressing its own people has transformed survival into slavery. Yes, it might exist, but that existence no longer has importance. Without rhetoric, the people will not identify with the society they live within. They will feel like they're robots, simply carrying out orders. Thank you for reading.
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic

My opponent's last paragraph states "To be clear, I agree that coming to the truth requires dialectic, but the actual truth isn't automatically what matters. It's what people want to believe to be true that matters." I strongly disagree with the statement that my opponent has made. I propose that what people want to believe is not as important as the truth. If something is important to me, it allows me to achieve my personal goals, or allows those I care about to achieve their goals. Similarly, something is important to a society if it allows that society to achieve its goals. Imagine a society whose goal is to construct a battle ship for an upcoming war. Two companies then present to the people two separate plans for the construction of the battle ship. They could both present their rhetorical arguments to persuade the crowd, or they could use a dialectic approach to determine the plan that maximizes the positive outcomes for the society (e.g. lowest cost, most efficient, most reliable etc). Which society do you think is most likely to win the war? The society using rationality and reason, or the society that uses rhetoric to make its decisions? In such practical matters as the example above, the truth is of utmost importance. The truth determines the likelihood of survival for the community, or to a lesser extent, the likelihood of the community achieving its goals. A community that disregards the truth, in exchange for personal beliefs and values, is at risk of their own destruction when presented with genuine threats to their survival, or is at risk of not fulfilling their goals.
Rhetoric, Unfortunately, Is More Important Than Dialectic

To be clear, I agree on the matter of truth, but without rhetoric, a speaker won't persuade others to believe in it. This is especially vital when we consider that the investigation of truth requires psychological commitment. For example, say we have two speakers: an intuitively correct person (such as a scientist), and a communicatively charming person (such as a journalist). Even if the scientist is correct about things, that correctness won't be appreciated if it's not communicated in a way that listeners can appreciate. Listeners will get confused, bored, believe the scientist is arrogant, and possibly feel threatened. The journalist can also embarrass the scientist by cherry-picking details and making artistic retorts. There's also the matter of people being able to claim that truth is relative. Instead of analyzing how it's necessary for things to exist, people can simply synthesize what's possible for things to exist. In turn, they make appeals to emotion, popularity, misery, authority, and misery in order to justify their positions. That is they look at the most common positions, the average positions, and the results of positions in order to determine their "truthfulness" rather than analyzing whether or not something cause is the origin of what's happened. To be clear, I agree that coming to the truth requires dialectic, but the actual truth isn't automatically what matters. It's what people want to believe to be true that matters.
Creative Writing Debate

PikkaxeTHEVIRUS Chapter 1Dan ran down the steps of his house, flipping on the lights as he went past them. None of the lights seemed to fully light up, but he didn't care; he needed to find a phone.Dan made a dash for his wall phone. It was anchient, same as the house, but it should be able to patch a signal long enough. He flipped it almost too easily and hit 911. Nothing happened. Looking up, he saw the cord was cut."No... no. No, no, No NO NO!" Dan ran for the door. He lunged and grabbed for the handle-click. The lock flipped as he touched the cold metal. Sweat ran down his face, soaking his shirt. He turned back around. An axe layed in front of him, blood stained on the blade. The blood of his wife. Dan's eyes jumped up to look around.All around the walls, covering furnature, the stairs were a mixture of the same three sentences: There is no escape. Kill yourself. You are already dead.Dan froze, and felt cold hands gripping his shoulders with an immovable force. He was forced back against the wall, then pushed down onto his chest on the ground. One hand held him down, the other pulled his head back by his hair. Dan's neck hung over the axe. There was nobody in the room, nobody listening in his neighborhood, nobody to save him, and still Dan screamed as if it was worth anything.Then deaffening silence passed over the night. ***"So what do you think? You don't really believe it is haunted do you?" Josh said on the phone with his wife. Josh had just moved to California, and bought the cheapest house on the market. Suprisingly it was the nicest one in the develomement. He was sent early by his wife to get it ready for her and their son. Josh got out of his car and walked to the door, fumbling with the keys on his way. He unlocked and opened the door, walking into the house."Okay honney, I just got inside. It is really spacious, but no sign of ghosts.""Are you sure?" His wife asked."Hold on... GHOSTY! COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE!... Nope, no ghost. Love you, see you when you get here.""Love you too." She hung up."Ghosts," Josh said to himself, chuckling under his breath.And that was the last straw.
Creative Writing Debate

Chapter 3 Josh waited with the axe in front of the door. Nobody came to his house without an invitation from him."Honey what are you doing?!" his wife screamed."Protecting the family. everything will be just fine." “I invited some people over, they aren’t dangerous.” “So you are trying to kill us? Yes… you wish to kill our boy. You are trying to rip apart our family by killing me.” “No!” she said. “How could you think that?” Josh continued, ignoring her. “Then we must kill you first and protect our boy.” “No. Please… don’t hurt me!” Josh’s wife was crying, and blocking the stairs. “Yes. You must go.” With a grin Josh started walking towards his wife. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The boy watched his mother get slaughtered, and heard a voice calling to him. “Come out come out. Daddy doesn’t want to hurt you.” The boy was startled, and fell from his hiding place. “Son… stay there, and listen to me. Go to bed, you are safe now.” The kid got up and ran. Josh chased him until he caught him, and carried him back to his bed. “You need to learn to listen to your parents.” Josh found some duct tape and taped his son to the bed. He left to close the door, but felt a tug on him. Soon it was unbearable, and was pushing him back to his son.You cannot leave. “No. No, no, no.” Anything to get out. His arms raised the axe as he stood next to his son’s bed. A tear ran down his cheek. And then he murdered his own son. Chapter 4 Josh stood, weeping over his torn up son. You cannot leave. "I know..." They cannot hear you. "I know..." Anything to get out."WHAT DO YOU WANT!" Josh yelled to the air.Josh walked down the stairs and slit his hand open. He wrote a message in his own blood, smeared and dark:You cannot leave. They cannot hear you. Anything to get out.He added his own part: Stay away and live. After Josh had written this all around the house, lightheadedly he grabbed the box of matches and everything flamable in the house. He threw everything in a pile on the floor and started torching his home.Josh stood there, flesh burning, absolutely still, watching the flames surround him. The pain was unbearable, and still he smiled. Just as the flames reached the top of the stairs, a gust of wind stamped it out.His warnings were gone.His flesh was still burned.We will not leave. Every killing to ever happen in that house flashed in front of him. He watched chronologically, so he was almost excited when he watched his wife and then son get slaughtered. But it did not end. The final death he was forced to watch...Was his own.Josh shook his head to clear the visions, but opened his eyes to find himself pinned on his back.The axe was falling towards his head, and Josh screamed for the last time.