BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is the glass half full or half empty is not an answerable question.

My purpose here is not only to engage another individual(koppin), but to instill in many(internet viewers) that inside of every debate (be it this one or any another) there is a system of rules and conditions that exist prior to the controlled argument in question which affect its outcome i.e.-"semantics".... Citing sources does little to prove the validity of any argument, and in my view, takes away from any individuals point rather than helping to improve it. Why do we need the help of the "tribe" to prove ourselves? Isn't this an attribute of any parasitic entity? A creator should stand on his or her own judgment. To the question before the court is: "Is the glass half full or half empty is not an answerable question"? and is false and can indeed be answered, and answered correctly provided we know the conditions that existed to the prior nature of the glass. The "paradox" my opponent claims is his or her way of stating an intention to win the debate. Winning the debate is not my intention but if this shows to be the case (in time) well I guess we'll just have to say kudos' to the free thinker's who cared to share their vote. The "real question" before the court is: "is the glass half full or half empty"?, and can this question be answered correctly? Yes, it can, provided one knows the rules that exist prior. That is to say, was the glass empty or full prior to posing question? Was the glass full and them consumed to the half way point?, or was it only filled to the halfway point to begin with? For example, lets start with a glass straight from the factory. Place it on a table. Test 1 is to Grab some water and fill it half way. This is a glass half full, it is in the actual process of being filled. Test two would be to fill the glass full, followed by drinking half or pouring half out, essentially remaining with a glass half empty. Again, it is in the process of being emptied. To conclude, "Is the glass half full or half empty is not an answerable question" is indeed an answerable question provided prior knowledge of the conditions that exist. If my opponent wins this debate based on a "play on words" if you will, he can have the victory, much the same as the Patriots last 3 Super Bowl wins, who had "illegally obtainable" knowledge prior to the contest? Can you find a flaw? Good Day'
Is the glass half full or half empty is not an answerable question.

Thank you for posting your next argument. INTRO =================== Before I begin I would like to state the obvious. I Forgot that I was Pro, so I posted what seems like a Con argument. Now instead of giving up I am still going to argue, but just be a bit more cleaver. My opponent says that he would rather "lose a really good game than to win a bad one". So I shall give him a good one. DEFINITIONS ==================== Just: rightfully http://dictionary.reference.com... ARGUMENT ==================== My opponent is probably thinking that I gave him an easy win. This is wrong. I said "I have just given an answer, it was not right, but I still gave one" This was a paradox. I will break it down and explain. "I have JUST (rightfully) given an answer, it was not RIGHT, (I said it was) but I still gave one." I have created a paradox, just like the one you gave. I then answer the glass question. I said, "I have JUST answered" Again with the Just. I will use this, as you say, in the next round (round 3). To prove something if it is needed. I wish first to see what you say about the glass. I will stop here for now, and wait for your unfair round three post.
The purpose of all things in motion is to seek balance

Ok, after a little explanation in the comments section... PRO " I disagree. I believe that a "whole" is the result of balanced parts. whole adjective \G2;h!3;l1) complete or full : not lacking or leaving out any part (http://www.merriam-webster.com......) In other words, 'whole' means 'complete'. It means having all necessary parts. So yes, something that is complete or "whole" does consist of multiple parts. If a part is missing, it is unbalanced (incomplete). Examples: A debate is 'whole' when both Pro and Con's arguments have equal representation. My perspective is 'whole' when I see both upside and downside, cost and reward, positive and negative. Atoms become 'whole' when they balance their electrons and protons by connecting with other atoms." Here is where you are wrong. Balance only exists in OUR dual-particle system/reality . Anything could have come out of the "whole/nothing" (which you agreed) which would have completey different meaning than balance because it is a competley different dimension of existence. You would not percieve it as balance if the setup did not manifest its existence. Therefore balance is not our end game, it is only a step until it further dissolves or manifests itself as the whole which is not balanced or inbalanced because it is complete & nothing.
The purpose of all things in motion is to seek balance

PRO: "#2 is more closely aligned with my belief. I believe there was once a perfect stillness and balance, and then something (God perhaps) splashed his hand in the ocean setting off massive chain reactions as a response to the unbalancing. These chain reactions, seen everywhere around us and within us, have been striving to get back to that equilibrium the Universe once was. The real question is, why did something, or God, unbalance the equation in the fist place? That I will not pretend to understand." First of all, if something is balanced, then it is not whole or "perfect" therefore proving premise #3, in which there is a WHOLE (not two seperate parts). We are merely a broken off concept from the whole as pairs in our enviroment.We could have broken off into quads or negatives, what would our enviroment look like then? There are infinite possibilites when dealing with the WHOLE thereby proving again the legitimacy of premise #3.
The purpose of all things in motion is to seek balance

Hi again. Ok, in order to credit your theory you need to base it off of one of these premises: 1: The universe was and is "whole" or "nothing" and therefore balanced but we don't notice. 2: Something new, reoccuring or lost "unbalanced" the whole or nothing and we are along for the ride to zero point. 3: "Balance" is irrelevant to matter but we have to factor it into our thinking because of the way we developed in our enviroment (Survival). Number 3 is basically my argument.
The purpose of all things in motion is to seek balance

I am arguing that anything in motion is ultimately seeking balance. In other words, balance is the purpose, or end game, of all movement. I view the Universe as a strictly physical Universe consisting of opposites (for every entity that exists, an equal yet opposite entity also exits). We can briefly debate my view of the Universe in the first round if you choose. I'm not big on "debate rules", so Con can use the rounds however he or she pleases. The BOP is on me to prove that all things in motion are ultimately seeking balance. I look forward to it!
The Bible and the Church Fathers teach the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist

I accept Merry Christmas & have a great new year. I am hoping you will give some definitions for who you include in the Early Church Fathers. For the Bible, I will be using the NASB, which I find to be the most literal, word for word translation. Also, are you wanting to include discussion from the consultations on Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry through the World Council of Churches
Smoking should be banned in public places

My opponent forfeited, but I will succinctly provide the basis of my case. Enforcement - Enforcing this ban would pose an arduous participation from law enforcers. Fiscal - Enforcing a ban would be costly. Public Capaciousness - Regulating the ban in all 'deemed" public domains is almost impractical. Copious amount of current smokers - Millions of individuals currently smoke. Enforcing this would appear difficult.
Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

"I have to mention that due to the mysteriousness of this issue, I urge that all possible accusations and justifications should be based on the fact of whether it is more likely that not. Nobody can know for certain about the nature of this issue. Therefore, we must presume the most likely argument to be correct."I have to submit this as a violation of the rules of this debate, constitution a new contention introduced after the appropriate period. The argument between whether or not the death should be considered justified/unjustified is significcantly different from a probability analysis of those two outcomes to be considered an entirely different debate resolution. It was certainly not agreed upon or made explicit either when this debate was agreed upon, nor was this contention brought up in the appropriate phase.Human Rights ViolationsThis, like the right to fair trial, is obviously not absolute, otherwise all armed conflicts would be considered in violation of international doctrine. And, again, a conclusion of a human rights violation cannot be made without a trial. In fact, to claim that a human rights violation occured, without going through the process of a trial to determine that, is itself a violation of the very internation doctrines my opponent is bringing to bear. I find it hard to believe that only Gadaffi has the rights here, and not whoever killed him.Video EvidenceI will concede and agree to my opponent's assessment of the video evidence. However, there is no video evidence of the actual death and to say that the conditions and implications of the video evidence we have extends to video evidence we don't, is purely assumptive."Crime"To call this a crime is, essentially, to assume the truth of the position being argued. I have presented my reasons why, until sufficient evidence surfaces, this should not be considered a crime. My opponent's insists that we should consider this a crime from the start, and argue from there. If Gadaffi's death was justified, then it wasn't a crime. Ergo, to start with his death being a crime would constitute conceding the debate before it started. This is not a tenable starting position for a debate, especially considering that my opponent has agreed to argue his position. SummaryWe have no evidence of the actual death. The evidence we have is unverified. The statements we have are contradictory. To establish the fact of a crime requires some sort of official, formal act, by way of investigation. Nothing like this has occurred. To evaluate liklihoods is out of the scope of this debate. The only thing we can do is the assume the most reasonable position: No crime can be said to have occurred without evidence of said crime. No person can be said to have committed a crime without a fair trial.
Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

Rebuttal of Opponent's ArgumentI contend that only C1 is relevant for this argument. What the rebels were fighting for, and whether or not there was a purpose in killing Gaddafi, have no bearing on whether or not his death was in violation of, or allowed by, any sort of international doctrine.As such, the only point of matter brought up by my opponent is that everbody has a right to a fair trial, which I agree. However, I agree with it based upon the stipulations I made in my argument (specifically, point #2 - that deaths during armed conflict are justified, which my opponent agrees).My Opponent's Rebuttals of my ArgumentPoint #1: My opponent has confirmed agreement with #1.Point #2: My opponent aggrees with the implication stated in #2 (that wartime deaths are justified); but disagrees that the condition (that it was a wartime death) holds. My primary purpose was to include this point for completeness.Point #3.1 - The Death may have been accidental. My opponent disagrees, citing a person who claims to be the killer. However, this ignores my reference in the previous round, where member of the NTC had quoted a forensic report citing accident. Gaddafi's death is not clear cut. There is certainly motive for claiming to be his kill: fame among Libyan Rebels.Point #3.2 - I will concede that this is unlikely and included it for completeness.Point #3.3 - Whatever the video evidence may imply, none has been verified and none actually depict the death. Careful editing can depict whatever the media outlet wants it to depict. This, combined with Point #3.1, can only lead us to conclude that the details of his death are ambiguous, at best.Points #4-6 - My opponent aggrees.Point #7 - This is the primary point of contention with my opponent. That we should assume a stance of "no crime" given the above. My opponent's restatement of my position is not entirely accurate. I am not saying that a crime should be assumed justified, but that, given an ambiguous situation, we should not presume that what happened was necessarily a crime to begin with. That is, to say it is a crime is an unfounded presumption.My point is that, to declare an event a crime, or to delcare a death a criminal death, is an official declaration that must be based on some sort of clear evidence. Without such evidence, there is no cause for ruling said death a crime. If it is not a crime then, in accordance with Point #4, we must accept it as either justified or avoidable, as a result of the logical rule of inference, modus tollens:If Muammar Gaddafi's death was avoidable and without justification, then his death would have been criminal.His death was not criminal.Therefore his death was either unavoidable or with justification.
Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

This is for Socialpinko's debate tournament.The resolution is: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trialCon (Lordknukle) argues that the execution of Gaddafi was not justified without a fair trialPro (Drafterman) argues that the execution of Gaddafi was justified without a fair trialKey Terms: Muammar Gaddafi- The former Libyan dictator and ruler who was executed by rebel forcesExecution- The ending of a human lifeRebel forces- The citizens that overthrew Gaddafi and his violent regimeJustified- Acceptable by an international doctorineFair Trial- trial that is conducted fairly, justly, and with procedural regularity by an impartial judge and in which the defendant is afforded his or her rights under the U.S. Constitution or thea ppropriate state constitution or other law Outline:Round 1: Acceptance (No arguments)Round 2: Main arguments/Main case (The affirmative is not allowed to rebut the negative during Round 2)Round 3: Rebuttals (No new contentions/arguments to be introduced. New facts and information is fine)Round 4: Same as Round 3 Round 5: Final Rebuttal and Conclusion (To balance out the last word advantage, CON is allowed two rebuttals followed by a conclusion, while PRO is allowed one rebuttal followed by a conclusion).Rules:1. No semantic arguments2.No Ad Hominems3.No logical fallacies. http://www.nizkor.org...4. A single violation of the aforementioned rules or debate outline will automatically result in the loss of one point. Two violations and over will result in the loss of two points.Good luck!
Resolved: The execution of Muammar Gaddafi by rebel forces was justified without a fair trial

SummaryThe "likelihood" consideration was not brought up in the appropriate point. I did not raise such a point, but rather argued a default position of innocence irrespective of likelihood. My opponent agrees that the circumstances surrounding the death are "mysterious." Even if we accepted the measure of "likelihood," how is this measured and quantified? How existing video footage makes us feel, emotionally, is hardly a basis. Actual reports of the death itself are conflicting. I acknowledge the existence of evidence for both, while my opponent has only referenced evidence which supports his conclusion? On what basis do we accept or reject any?I do not dispute that a crime can happen without a suspect. However, that is something that must be determined through official channels. My opponent cannt simply post Youtube Videos and then declare a crime has happened, and the declaration of a crime is necessary, here. Without it, the logical role of modus tollens previously mentioned requires us to accept that the death was justified.Members of the UN, and other organizations, have called for an investigation. That is precisely what is needed. Until such an investigation actually occurs, and some official designation made, there is no objective or acceptable basis by which we can say a crime actually has occurred.
Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent.... .

I begin by an assertion.Yes, it is very ironical but, it is the symptom of "cutting a tree and write 'don't waste paper' on it". Secondly i would like to clarify the meanings. 1)It is not WIN but WIN OVER.The definition you provided is not appropriate. 2)SUREST is not ASSURED but according to you it must have been MOST ASSURED. 3)The word opponent is not appropriate as a debate can be conducted among friends as well as for other reasons. =>The words WIN OVER means (what i want to say is) to make your contender agree with your view and express it publicly. =>"brings an intelligent aspect to the argument", are you purporting that there are other methods bringing non-intelligent arguments? =>"Furthermore, debate is one of the only impartial methods of contenting ", i appeal to any viewer to translate this for me..... .One of the only methods?!.... =>"because victory is based off of ones argumentative ability", this too needs checking. =>"However, other methods such as fighting are not "the surest" since it does completely show the winner of an argument, but instead, just who is a better fighter.", does not completely show or does not show?. When confronted to opposing views, one way is to directly to confront the argument and the other way is to win over the person by your kindness. Which do you think produced the desired effect?.
Debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent.... .

I find my opponent quite ironical and hypothetical as he or she is effectuating the use of a DEBATE when he affirms the resolution: "debate is not the surest way to win over your opponent". Apart from his or her ironical stance on the matter, I'd like to provide the basic framework for this debate. Win: to be successful or victorious in an argument Surest: assured Debate: argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner. As my opponent did not provide his or her own definitions, it shall be agreed by consensus that we use these definitions throughout the debate, unless my opponent later disagrees. Debate is a more efficient and effective method of winning an argument since it avoids violent methods and brings an intelligent aspect to the argument. Furthermore, debate is one of the only impartial methods of contenting because victory is based off of ones argumentative ability as well as ones knowledge on the stated resolution. However, other methods such as fighting are not "the surest" since it does completely show the winner of an argument, but instead, just who is a better fighter. I will provide more evidence/contentions in my next speech. Thank you.
You do not need Religion to have morals.

Hello dude and thanks for replying. I would first like to say that your argument on that morals don't come from human conscience is wrong, it is actually hard lined into are genomes and brains from tutoring from parents. No the whole 'this is just the concept of morality' is I believe wrong morality can be done for no gain purposes does walking across the road helping an OAP give you something? Of course not. Also bad things can be done with no gain too. For example bullying, in this case the bully gets nothing from bullying the child except from the feel of humiliating them. Both of these things make the human brain fell better about themselves whether its good nor bad. Now alt of morality in a country is based on views of a developing society, and the whole 'terrorists fighting for their freedom' thing, Just. No. Anyway the legalized killings of these terrorists are long-term morals to protect people from terrorist attacks or wars and such they may seem bad in the short term but in the long term can prevent lives lost. Also I am slightly concerned that you view morality as a motivation for gain. Morality isn't always for gain, its for right or wrong the view of what's right or wrong is the whole concept of morality. And rape isn't wrong either?! If you have any good morals you would know that using physical force to have sex with a women is immoral and against the women's rights. It seems that you believe that because I don't have a gain in heaven or pain in heaven I'm not entitled to saying I have morals as theists do. The fact is its sad if you just get your morals from religion for only gain or avoidance of pain, which is just painfully worrying. Society has decided over the years what's classed as right or wrong and so have I i know that murdering an innocent person is wrong, just because I having nothing to gain from not doing it doesn't mean I will do it.
You do not need Religion to have morals.

My opponent argues that morals come from human conscience but this is a completely false statement. Morals come form strict regimented rules and regulations that are always in the form of . Utilitarianism contradicts itself as do all non-religious sources of morality but the burden of proof is on Pro to assert any of these which he has failed to do. Murder isn't wrong, it's simply a legal term for killing that isn't legislated. Rape isn't wrong either. My opponent disregards the ethical outlooks of murderers stating "obviously these should not be taken seriously" which is not only discriminatory to murderers but also baseless. Why is it right for the government to order legalized killings of terrorists but not right for the terrorists to murder for their freedom? Tell me, please. My opponent stats that religion was a sort of control system by giving rewards for 'good' and pain for 'bad' but this is the entire concept of morality. Without a system where the people doing 'bad' receive an unstoppable, eternal form of suffering and the people doing good the opposite, there is absolutely no motivation to be 'good' whatsoever. In addition to this, there is no possible way to differentiate 'good' from 'bad' without religion as these concepts only exist within the constraints of a religion.