BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All Dreams Will Come True

Your argument relies on not being able to prove whether what someone says is actually true, so if someone says "I have a dream of becoming a doctor" Then they could be lying and instead possibly dream of becoming a male gimp. For that argument to work, everyone in the world would have to be superficial about their intentions, say one thing but not really mean it. The world is not made up of 100% lairs, liars get caught relativity easily and if everyone on the planet was a chronic lair, it would be apparent through constantly having promises broken. There is no reason to doubt a simple claim made such as "I wish I was a doctor" This Lie wouldn't offer anything to the liar,it's a claim consistent with things we hear on a daily basis and because the claim is not exceptional we don't need exceptional evidence, so we can reasonably trust this claim. However, you would need exceptional evidence to disprove the claim. You conclude with- "People will always do what they want to do. So, people will always make all their dreams come true. Therefore, all dreams will come true." What about pregnant rape victims who die during the rape before they're able to give birth? The fact that they're pregnant tells us they wanted to have a child, that was their ambition, however, against their will they were brutally raped and then murdered. Their dream of one day having a child can no longer be met because they're dead. Therefore it's very possible for dreams to be taken away from people through murder. This is simply undeniable. I only have to demonstrate that at least one person has not met there ambition. My evidence is simply, a dead pregnant woman, oh and what about people with no arms? I'm certain they'd want arms, but I'm sure my opponent would say something like "We don't know what they're really thinking" So maybe they're ok with not being able to masturbate, despite the fact it's a primal urge that every respectable male indulges in? Maybe they've found ways around it like humping their dog? My opponent has to demonstrate that every ambition will be met, regardless of how outlandish or unlikely. His evidence for this is not backed by a single source and consists of never being certain what peoples dreams actually are, even if they tell you.
Martial art instructors should not teach children a martial art

I will not make any new arguements in this round, I will just try to sum up my main points and answer any questions.My opponent says "there are far worse cases of abuse off-camera in both schools and homes. Does that mean school and family homes should be banned for children?" My answer was: children need an education i.e. attend a school, but they do not need to attend a martial arts class. It seems Con is confusing domestic abuse with abuse caused by martial art instructors. They are not the same. Abusive martial art instructors pose a significant risk to the public, they can abuse a whole room full of young impressionable and vulnerable people, then another room full, and another after that before being caught. In fact they could continue to abuse people throughout their career because nobody is able to recognise abuse! This is why it is so serious and why it must be stopped!!I have proven that a lot of abuse occurs inside dojo's, it is not just a few cases, and if it happens on camera it will obviously happen off camera too and probably be worse; possibly like the grahic video I shared. Each video shows students unaware of being abused (including adults), proving how easy it is for martial art instructors to deceive and abuse their students. Learning a martial art is not useful for children. Con has failed to show how a child learning to be overconfident or able to defend theirself for self interest means they will help others i.e. prevent bullying. All I have seen in the videos is people learning to turn a blind eye to abuse, and think only of their self. Children are irresponsible by nature (they are not responsible adults yet) and will use martial art techniques to hurt others, and even try their own dangerous moves outside of a dojo. Taking up a martial art to stop bullying is not the answer, people need to be more aware of abuse and know how to act appropiately when they see it. Anyone can be a bully. The fact instructors can be makes this clear.Learning a martial art will not reduce crime either, it raises a child's chance of being killed by trying to be a hero instead of calling the police, running or screaming. They may also become abusive martial art instructors themselves! Bullies should take up friendlier sports rather than be allowed to do what they enjoy - hurting others. My videos prove that respect is not taught, something they all claim to teach. Trainers do not respect their students and often use them for demonstrations, make them bow, sexually assault them etc.Many thanks for having this debate. Please leave comments and don't forget to vote. Thanks
My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

This debate is impossible to accept. If you somehow manage to accept, you will have to forfeit or it will be considered a loss.The proposition of this debate: "My proposed US political system is better than the status quo". This debate is specific to the federal government.I will argue that the proposed political system is better than the current one. Con would argue that the current system is more superior than my proposal.My proposed government system1. Voters elect representatives in the House of Representatives once every four years (or when the government collapses)2. Abolish the senate3. The House of Representatives elect the US President4. Filibustering is limitedIn reality, I don't necessairly believe that my proposed government system is the best possible system. I am sure that there are other different formats that could be potentially better. However, for the purpose of this debate, we will assume that my proposal is the only available alternative to the status quo.Also, I will have to show that my entire proposed system is better. Even if one of my changes is better than the status quo, I must demonstrate that the system as a whole is better (and vice versa for Con).If you have questions regarding the debate, please ask in the comments. I am looking for a serious debater. Rules 4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voting: 2,500 Elo For the sake of the reader, the format will be:Round 1: Acceptance OnlyRound 2: All arguments/contentions in this roundRound 3: Rebuttals only (No new arguments)Round 4: Defense of contentions (No rebuttals) and a conclusion 1. No forfeits. 2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments. 3. No new arguments in the final round. 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere. 5. No trolling. 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution). 7. No deconstructional semantics.8. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared9. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. I look forward for an exciting debate.
Abortion

Yes people have abortions for stupid reasons but most people don't. Most people spend a lot time considering an abortion before actually having one. People spend weeks and sometimes months thinking about their options and that 'child's' options but come to the conclusion that abortion is the best one. It's not a choice easily made but it is a choice that has to be. Again, I'm not saying that women should have an abortion at will and without reason but there are laws that have been put in place to prevent abortions at any time during the pregnancy and TWO doctors must agree. From a religious perspective, abortions are wrong. But most people have developed their own ideas and morals about what's right and what's wrong and this is just one of those things that come down to your opinion. I'm completely pro-choice as, although I wouldn't have an abortion (unless under certain circumstances)myself, I believe that everyone has the right to do with their body as they please. Just because abortion in legal doesn't make you have to have one.
Abortion

There are lots of options for women who cannot have children but want them. Adoption, IVF etc . It doesn't directly affect that infertile woman's life, does it? If an infertile woman wants a child and doesn't look into adoption or any other method of obtaining a child then that is down to that woman and that woman only. Think about all those children without parents who long to have someone to care for them, to help them learn to be a child again. Think about them. I'm not saying that abortion is the only answer and that if a woman wants an abortion for any reason then she can have one. But what I am saying is that if there is no other reasonable option or choice then what's one child to another? Another child into care, another child that will become an adult at the age of eleven and another child that doesn't feel the love of a parent.
Abortion

I am not completely for abortion however I believe that everyone has the right to a choice. This does not mean that I want everyone to have an abortion for whatever reason they desire however I do believe that people who will be affected mentally or physically should have to choice. It is unfair to say that a woman has no right over her body once there is a lump of cells fused together inside her. A woman that does not want her child should not have to bear child birth and the mental or physical problems giving birth might bring. Advances in science can show us when a developing embryo or foetus is going to suffer massive trauma or disability once it is born. It is unfair to say that a woman must give birth to a child that she didn't intend to have and then suffer the trauma of watching that child die. Personally I wouldn't have an abortion unless it was down to age (20 or younger I would consider it) or if that baby was going to be born with a disability that wouldn't allow that child to live past a certain age.
The Electoral College should be abolished.

You argue that it would be a "nightmare" to count every vote in America. While it may be tedious, it is essential to having a true democratic system. Besides, we currently do count every vote in America, as the popular vote data is used by political scientists and analysts. If we do it for that reason, we might as well just add the purpose of actually choosing the president. Yes, it may take a day or two before we officially know the winner, at least in particularly close elections. But even now, the winner of the popular vote tends to be known before midnight on election night, regardless if they have all been counted yet. One point I forgot to add in my first argument--getting rid of the Electoral College would increase voter turnout. Presidential elections often don't get as high turnout as it otherwise could because people believe their vote won't count anyway. As I mentioned before, 4 out of 5 votes really don't. Once we abolish the Electoral College, voters will have the assurance that their vote really does matter, and they will be more apt to go out and vote. This will increase the strength and power of our democratic system. There have been proposals to reform the Electoral College, and one such proposal is the National Popular Vote Plan. In this plan, which is already well on its way to taking effect, each state taking part would award all of its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. This measure will take effect once it has been approved by enough states to equal the required 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. It has already been approved by eight states and the District of Columbia, equaling a total of 132 electoral votes--almost half that are needed. Personally, I think this plan is a good one and will lead to the eventual elimination of the Electoral College.
The Electoral College should be abolished.

While I agree that the Electoral College is very confusing, I don't believe it should be abolished. It would be a logistical nightmare for every single vote to be counted, and to elect someone by Popular Vote. The Electoral College is a necessary system in place to make the processes of electing a new president easier. I agree that it is wrong when the Electoral College will choose someone when popular vote did not. Instead of abolishing it, we should be looking at a way to reform it. If there is a difference between the choice made by Popular Vote and the E.C. there should be a system to make the right choice. Maybe if the Popular Vote chose some one else, we should follow it that time, but when most of the time the two systems agree, why go through the nightmare of counting every single vote in America.
The Electoral College should be abolished.

The Electoral College is an outdated, undemocratic system and should be abolished. The United States of America is one of the most revered and modeled after nations in all of the world. Yet, our system of electing the chief executive is one of the least democratic of all election systems. In most democratic nations, the people as a whole choose their leader. Whoever gets the most votes wins. In America, whoever gets the most votes in one state gets all of that state's electoral votes, which is equal to the state's number of Representatives plus two Senators. Only Maine and Nebraska do this differently. Thus in the end, the candidate with the most popular votes overall may still lose the election--because they failed to win the 270 electoral votes needed (out of 538 total). This has happened four times: in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 (and almost in 2004). That is four times too many. Because of this system, presidential candidates spend most of their time and money in "battleground states"--states which together make up a large portion of electoral votes and could swing either way in an election. (California has the most at 55, but is a reliably Democratic state, thus it goes mostly ignored by candidates except to raise money). Because of this fact, only about 1 in 5 Americans' votes even really matter. In a truly democratic system, every vote should matter. If we get rid of the Electoral College, candidates will be more hard pressed to spend time in every state, reaching out to as many Americans as possible. Voters in Oregon and Massachusetts will matter just as much as voters in Ohio and Virginia. Now some may argue that voters in urban areas will decide every election. Well, guess what? The majority of Americans live in and around urban areas. But because the election will depend on the votes of all Americans, candidates will have the incentive to spend just as much time in rural Iowa and Kansas as in very urban New York and California. Now it is true that when the system was established, it was rather necessary. News did not travel quickly and thus it was very difficult for citizens to be well informed about their candidates. But even by the mid-19th. century, the telegraph and advances in news reporting solved this problem. People were also becoming more educated, and thus able to make a more informed, educated decision. Now we are in the 21st century, and we can become well-informed and able to form our own opinions simply by watching the news from our living rooms. And one final point-this is the UNITED States of America. We are choosing the leader of one people, of ALL the people. And so it only makes sense that whoever the majority of the American people choose becomes chief executive. It's as simple as that.
The Electoral College should be abolished.

I know many people who would have voted this year if it were not for the Electoral College. Whether they were for Romney or Obama, they knew Obama had an almost certain victory due to how the battleground states were projected to go. People expected Romney to get a lot more votes than he actually did. But because we knew so early on that Obama had almost no chance of losing, people on both sides did not bother to vote. There is no good reason to keep this long outdated system. It does not always reflect the collective will of the entire American people, it causes most people's votes not to matter, and it causes countless complications at the ballot box. Last but not least, public opinion now favors abolishing the system. It's time to amend the Constitution.
Abortion is morally wrong

I just logged on and realised I had 3 minutes left. I will therefore outline my case quickly, and proceed to extend on my case in the next round. May I remind PRO that no new arguments should be brought up in the final round.My case consists of three aspects: that the fetus in question is not a human being, that the baby is inherently part of the mother's body, and that, presuming that both do not stand, there are exceptional cases in which abortion is morally permissible.I would also like to point out that PRO has not taken the liberty to define what a 'human' is, and simply states that "it is his position" that an unbord child is a human being. I shall therefore define 'human' as any creature that has the capacity to live and survive outside of the womb. Sources will come later.Thank you and I await PRO's response
Abortion is morally wrong

Definitions: Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy It is my position that an unborn child is a human being, and therefore, by virtue of his/her common humanity, has the inalienable right to life. Furthermore, there is nothing fundamentally different about an unborn child (in any stage of its development) that would be considered 'sufficient conditions' for stripping that right to life away. Therefore, abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being and is just as morally impermissible as taking the life of any other human being.
We should believe the accusing party

Hello. Acceptance not belief. The accusation must be accepted at face value and the accused person's response must be accepted in exactly the same way. The burden of proof must also be equal. Belief is an assumption that is made without evidence. No fair legal system behaves in this way. Therefore I am neither Pro nor Con regarding the proposition. What I am suggesting is that Con's use of the word belief, Sets an untenable premise.
Absolute Truth

My opponent has frustratingly presented statements that are disconnected from each other and are not relevant to the debate. I cannot get a general theme of what he is trying to say. He did not respond to the points I made but has only made a series of unrelated points. I have tried to summarize his points as best I can, separating them when I think he is making a separate point. My responses follow. ARGUMENTS The earth is almost flat.No it isn’t. It is spherical. And this point that my opponent is making has nothing to do with the debate. Matters of science are relative to the observer, and the equipment available at the time. This is true, but it does not mean that truth is relative. It only means that what scientists believe is relative to the observer and the equipment used. It does not make an ontological statement. I already explained this in the last round. Either my opponent skipped over it or he read it but chose to ignore it. Christians say that Jesus was God. Muslims and Jews say no. Different religions believe different things. Again, this means that people believe in different things. It does not mean that the truth itself is relative. My opponent is making an epistemological claim, not an ontological one. How many times do I have to explain this?????Before the word murder was invented, there was only emotion. Just because humans only felt emotion before language does not mean that truth is relative. Again, that’s confusing epistemology with ontology. CONCLUSIONI’m not sure what to make of my opponents posts. I think he may be trolling. He is clearly presenting statements that are way off-topic. I already explained the main mistake he was making in his first post. And yet, rather than admit that and then present different arguments that avoid the mistake, he simply made the same mistakes again by reiterating his first post but with different examples. He falsely inferred from facts about what people believe, why they believe it, and how, to his claim that truth is relative. Again, you can’t infer from epistemological claims to ontological ones. VOTING Here is my own evaluation of the debate. If you disagree with me, please explain why: Arguments: pro Con confused epistemology with ontology and inferred from claims about people’s beliefs to claims about the reality of the world. Pro explained this well. Beliefs do not entail existence. Spelling/Grammar: tie Although Con had unconnected points, he had no spelling or grammar errors, and neither did Pro. Conduct: tie No poor conduct was used on either side. Sources: tie I used one source. My opponent did not use any, but none were needed anyway.
Absolute Truth

>> Americans believe that the world is spherical, A square is a two dimensional object, so this is logical. Ancient writings speak of the four corners of the earth. Circular in the two dimensions is more logical. Study the ancients, the blind men feeling the elephant. A cube would be an odd belief that none would take seriously. To believe the earth is flat is actually correct. It's ALMOST flat. The invention of Latitude and Longitude was designed for the flat earth, and was modernized recently to take into account the miniscule curvature of the earth. The earth exists under a dome. It's obvious: all stars are equidistant from the observer. This was the commonly held belief of the ancients. In a similar fashion, Newton understood gravity to the 99th percentile, his calculations hold true today for most situations. However, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity explained the remaining 1% All of the above are true, some are more true, but that does not make the others false. Matters of science are relative to the observer, and the equipment available during his time. >> Just because somebody believes something does not make it so. Certainly. Every individual and every culture has REASONS for their beliefs. Take religion. Was Jesus equivalent to YHWH? The Jews and Muslims say no, the Christians say yes, the early church fathers said he was the SON of GOD, not GOD the SON as the counsel of Nicaea states. Nuances are a quick Google search away. What does a church need to be a non-profit in the United States. No correct mentality of a god, simply fulfill the requirements of a 501(c)(3) organization. According to Evolutionary Psychology, homo sapiens evolved in a pack of ~40 individuals. If this pack had a serious disagreement they would dissolve into separate packs. One would be hard-pressed to find a "pack" with serious divisions. In any location. Before the word murder was invented, before language was invented, there was simple emotion. Think of a wolf pack. Is it "wrong" for a wolf to murder? In MOST situations killing is acceptable.