BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Will exists

FRAMEWORK: Every reasonable epistemic framework presumes some basic level of trust in our sensory faculties. Without that trust, we're left with epistemic nihilism -- most if not all knowledge is founded upon our perceptual experience of reality. Unless there's definitive evidence overriding the validity of our perceptions, we have no choice but to assume that those perceptions are accurate reflections of reality. == Free Will == We're all constantly experiencing the existence of our own free will. At this very moment, you can freely, consciously, and intentionally *choose* to avert your eyes away from the screen. Or you can choose to keep reading instead. Con's advocacy claims that no matter what you choose, it was all pre-determined by the mechanistic forces of the universe, and the mental experience you *literally just had* of making the choice was 100% illusory. But of course, that's nonsensical. Think about every decision you've ever made. You *know* that you made those decisions. You distinctly remember making them. It's something you've done over and over and over again throughout the course of your life. Upon examining the totality of one's perceptual experience, it becomes overwhelmingly self-evident that free will exists. Con needs to come up with some incredibly convincing evidence to refute that perception. Until she does, we should be fully confident in the existence of free will. I have the entirety of human experience on my side. It's Con's job to show why we should dismiss it all as an illusion.
There are no good women on DDO to debate

Accepted. I intend to keep the first round fairly concise--and seeing that Pro has the BoP here, they will be the one obligated to support and defend the resolution. Even if I show that there's only one 'good' female debater on here, I have, by default, won this debate. Argument: Though females are considerably lesser in numbers on DDO, this isn't to say that the females who actually do frequent the site are automatically poor debaters. For a small minority, there's 3 female debaters that have made the first and second page of the debates leaderboard. With the user Danielle being #1: http://www.debate.org..., followed by Zarroette: http://www.debate.org..., and then myself. (See debates leaderboard p.1-2, and just so you know, Thett3 and Ore_Ele are men with their profiles set to females, so they don't count.) I also have no idea what sex Maikru actually is, so I'll leave her/him out as well. So, thus far I've proved that 3 females have made it to the top end of the leaderboard, which fully discredits if not totally obliterates Pros resolution here. My stats, so far, are 84 wins, 7 losses, and 10 ties; and the vast majority of people I debate are male.
The Bible is not compatible with Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution

Full Resolution: The Bible teaches a seven, 24-hour day creation week, and the accounts of Genesis as history. Therefore the Bible contradicts the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution.I would like to debate a Christian who believes that the Bible does not contradict such theories. Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: ArgumentRound 3-4: Rebuttals (Note: When citing Bible verses, NIV or KJV are fine)
The Bible is not compatible with Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution

Originally, I thought the Bible didn't contradict the Big Bang. However, very soon after starting the debate, I realized I was wrong. I wish I could continue this debate but I would be making claims that I don't believe myself. So, unfortunately, I forfeit and give you this debate. You put on an amazing argument and even managed to teach me things. Maybe one day we'll be able to do another debate that I can actually put some research into. Thanks fot such an awesome debate.
The Bible is not compatible with Big Bang/Abiogenesis/Evolution

Genesis(G) Timeline vs Big Bang Timeline(BBT): FIrst: G: The heavens, Earth, and waters are created. BBT: The heavens - presumably the time of the actual big bang, the earth - 4.54 billion years ago, waters - pre-existed earth created by helium fusion in stars. Second: G: Light, day and night. BBT: Light - about 10 seconds after the Bang, Day and Night - caused by earth's rotation, started somewhere about 4.54 billion years ago Third: G: Heaven BBT: Nothing corresponding to this in the Big Bang. (Because Heaven isn't on earth.) Fourth: G: Dry Land, vegetation, plants yielding seeds, fruit trees. BBT: Dry Land - between 4.4 and 4.0 billion years ago, vegetation - 450 million years ago, plants Yielding Seeds - 319 million years ago, fruit Trees - later than that Fifth: G: Sun, moon, and stars. BBT: Sun - 4.6 billion years ago, moon -- 4.5 billion years ago, stars -- 150 million years after Bang Sixth: G: Aquatic animals, and birds. BBT: Aquatic animals - more than 665 million years ago, birds - 150 million years ago Seventh: G: Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the earth, humans BBT: Cattle - 2 million years ago, creeping things - 500 million years ago, beasts of the earth, humans - 2.5 million years ago I don't see any contradictions, do you? God, this all powerful being, created a huge universe in a short period time. We, humans, are so puny that we can't even comprehend God's greatest. So how could we comprehend the Big Bang. Maybe for us, all we can find out about creation is the result of the Big bang. Sources: http://www.space.com... http://debatingchristianity.com... https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu... http://burro.astr.cwru.edu... http://why-sci.com... The Bible
Customer service people are full of it, usually

Full of It- completely wrong, false, or worthless(http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...)The majority of customer service people are actually very kind and down to earth. A lot of people are employed by grocery stores every year and the customer service desk is generally a high position- Generally the customer service desk is run by a department head or assistant manager. Both positions require some promotions and time with the company. Stores like Walmart and Target are customer oriented businesses so they tend to promote and hire people that genuinely like people. The customer service people are usually genuinely interested in the customer and want to fix their problems. Another way you can be sure that the customer service people are genuine is that they rarely call over a manager. Anytime a worker is actually flustered by a customer or disoriented they call over a manager to take care of the customer's problem. The team aspect of the store ensures that workers remain happy. Worker's are oftentimes happy just for the opportunity for employment and money and view dealing with difficult customers as "just part of the job". Money automatically makes workers more happy to deal with customers. This doesn't mean they won't genuinely try and help the customer at all. They understand that they are an integral part of the store and helping customers not only ensures the success of the store, but also their individual success.\Conclusion:Customer Service people are actually genuinely nice people. Pro has not fulfilled his Burden of Proof.
Customer service people are full of it, usually

Here's the problem. I would like to clarify. I don't condone responding to unruly and unrealistic customers in a nasty way. What I do believe is that someone who is insulting one, countlessly, should be told off. Most big chain stores favor the customer over the employee, unfortunately. Now this is not a call for unions, rather I think big stores should be reformed. Too many people harass cashiers in places like Walmart, Target. They have to put on this facade of politeness, and 90% of the time the people working are not happy. They keep it to themselves, not having the courage to say what they want to tell the person.
Actions taken by husband in bride-kidnapping video evidence a Rape or nontraditional rape occurred

The author might state that these definitions are based entirely on the victim"s response; however, the law is not based of her beliefs but instead on the legal systems and its officials which have determined that force, threat and consent are characteristics of rape. Whether the author agrees or not, is irrelevant. (162.2.4) although these definitions and laws have been determined by male officials, it does not mean that it is not accurate. Could it be then that every decision made by a male on a female subject is erroneous because he is not a woman? And if the law provides no definition of rape apart from the woman"s conduct, which other conduct should the law use in order to define rape without allowing sexism to be present? In response to your response of Premise 2, the "husband" and "bride" had a relationship previous to the kidnapping and the bride states that she knew they were going to get married eventually; therefore, she had consented in marrying him already previous to the kidnap. The reason she is asked to be taken to her mother is not because she was not consenting to the marriage but instead to the way it was happening. Again, the mens rea applies to a defendant in a criminal act and not to the victim. In which way was the "bride" committing a criminal act if you state that "it is only when her mens read is placed under a significant amount of duress"? Although the bride was forced into the car when she was being kidnapped, it does not necessarily state that she was forced while the act of sex which is the main argument. The argument is not whether she was kidnapped or not, it is whether there was an act of non-traditional rape. Being forced against your will to get into someone"s car, does not always constitute the basis for the commencement of rape or the beginning of non-conceptual force towards rape. The amount or type of force used is one of the characteristics of non-traditional rape, however it does not mean that the "husband" forced the "bride" into the act of sex. Again, because there was forced used at the time of the kidnap, it does not meant that there was force used at the time of the act of sex. In response to your response of Premise 4, from a western perspective, you are correct in stating that "an established prior relationship, or consent of future marriage, does not allow for the husband to take away her free will to choose on any given moment" however, this is not the case in Kyrgyzstan where its citizens see tradition as more important than religion or the law. Further, westerners, believe that the "bride" has been coerced to believe that her tradition should be respected taking away her choice of free will, but Kyrgyzstan tradition see it as the necessary next step in life. In conclusion because the bride is completely aware of the situation and because she is aware that it is an ancient tradition, it can be concluded that Rape or nontraditional rape did not occurred. Furthermore, she gave her consent when she agreed to marry the "husband" prior to the wedding.
War has a definite beginning but no definite end

I affirm the following resolution"war has a definite beginning but no definite end" due to the fact that the impacts of the post fighting can create everything from economical instability to horrible effects on the environment. Definitions: War- a state of hostility, conflict or antagonism - Webster dictionary Environment- the circumstances, objects, or conditions by which one is surrounded Contention 1: Economical impacts At the institute for Economics and Peace they found that during WW2 unemployment fell to about 1.9% and that 20% of Americans at the time were soldiers, but what happened was that the federal government was spending about $408 billion dollars, which during the time was about a third of the GDP. And they also found that during the height of this spending in 1944, the federal government was spending about $1.6 trillion, 79% of the GDP. During that time we spent so much money that after the war the amount of money we owed was about 120% of our GDP and ever since haven't been able to pay it back. Though this war did help us get out of the Great Depression now we owe more money than we could ever pay back. And this is just from one war. When countries get in to wars it doesn't just end were the fight stops but the citizens of the countries involved have to pay. Contention 2: Eviormental issues War has a huge impact on where people can live, safely and securely. With creations of nuclear and chemical weapons, it is not safe for people to live in heavy populated cities or in rural areas. Dr. AM Mannion from the university of reading in the United Kingdom writes about how there are two types of effects of war on the environment, direct and indirect. Direct is more sudden than indirect can sometimes be resolved faster. Direct is like when a bomb is dropped and it destroys the landscape and buildings or damages communitcation networks and settlements. Things of that nature. Even though the direct effects can be easyly resolved sometimes it has lasting effects that leads to indirect effects. Indirect effects are worst than directs effects. These type of effects can lead to livelyhoods being disrupted and people being displaced. These effects are like, he destruction of people's homes and things where they are displaced and have to go and move to refugee camps and places like that. These effects take a huge toll on families, communities and even cities. So that is why I urge a pro ballot because fighting isn't the end of the war, it is truely over when people and communities have what the fighting took away from them. Thank you.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

"I pointed out that people have lost debates after forfeiting before, usually because their position was really bad or the person was disliked. Neither of those apply in this case." Actually, they do. Your position cannot be defended. I CAN win. It may be unlikely, but it is possible. "My opponent has conceded. Let us assume my opponent wants to win this debate. If he does what he feels will make it most likely that he wins the debate and he's now resolved to arguing the debate rather than forfeiting the rounds he MUST believe that argument is a better path to victory. However, since the argument at hand is that my opponent can't forfeit every round and win it becomes quite obvious that my opponent knows the topic is accurate." No, I need to argue to prove my point. If I just forfeit, I would be taking a dare. This isn't dare.com, it's debate.org. I'm arguing that I could win. I must argue for this to be an actual debate. I can win, it is just unlikely. "Further let me point out again the silver bullet. The new Debate.org will cancel a debate if argument 1 isn't posted by both parties. By virtue of this fact, if the first round is forfeited then my opponent would not win, in fact, he cannot win. Considering this, due to software limitations, the topic is completely accurate regardless of what my opponent says or does." Remember, I forfeited Round 1, and it was not canceled. A forfeit entails me not posting an argument for a round. I forfeited because I did not use an argument. So this topic is not accurate. He dropped all my rebuttals to his case. You flow them across, and I win this debate. Thank you.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

I pointed out that people have lost debates after forfeiting before, usually because their position was really bad or the person was disliked. Neither of those apply in this case. My opponent has conceded. Let us assume my opponent wants to win this debate. If he does what he feels will make it most likely that he wins the debate and he's now resolved to arguing the debate rather than forfeiting the rounds he MUST believe that argument is a better path to victory. However, since the argument at hand is that my opponent can't forfeit every round and win it becomes quite obvious that my opponent knows the topic is accurate. ---- Further let me point out again the silver bullet. The new Debate.org will cancel a debate if argument 1 isn't posted by both parties. By virtue of this fact, if the first round is forfeited then my opponent would not win, in fact, he cannot win. Considering this, due to software limitations, the topic is completely accurate regardless of what my opponent says or does.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

I FORFEIT THIS ROUND, however I will still post some arguments. So far my opponent has made the following claims: 1. He is not hated. 2. The topic isn't offensive. 3. His arguments are valid. 4. If I reply, I would prove his point. 5. If I don't reply I can't win. 6. If I miss the first round, the debate is canceled. 7. Ad hominems can win him this debate. 8. If I post elsewhere, I am not forfeiting the round. 9. I'm cheating. 10. I posted an argument. Okay so I'll turn, refute, or cause the points to be dropped, in order. 1. Drop. This point is not relevant to this debate. I can still make better arguments than him, and as long as I forfeit, I can win this debate. 2. Drop. This point is not relevant to this debate. I can still make better arguments than him, and as long as I forfeit, I can win this debate. 3. Drop. People who are well respected, and noncontroversial can often make good arguments and still lose. 4. Refute. I simply must prove that I can win. I don't have to demonstrate it. That's a dare, not a debate. I must post if we are to have a debate. I can still win if I don't, crazier things have happened. 5. Refute. There have been debates where well respected debaters such as PoeJoe have lost a debate in which his or her opponent has forfeited all their rounds. Also, I have been accused of being a member of a voting bloc. Now while I still deny this, it is a possibility, and I could use the voting bloc to vote me to victory. I also could theoretically use multiple cell phones in order to vote for myself. 6. Drop. Missing a round isn't forfeiting it. Forfeiting a round would mean not posting an argument. "I forfeit this round" is not an argument. It is possible. 7. Drop. That is a conditional affirmation. Just because you can win does not mean that I can't. I can win this debate, you can win this debate. 8. Drop. Although this is true, I don't need to forfeit to win. I need to prove I can win even if I forfeit. Like I said, I don't have to demonstrate the point, that is a dare, I have to prove it, that is a debate. 9. Refute/Drop. I am not cheating. The rules never said I couldn't do this. Also, people break listed rules in a debate all the time. They still win. 10. Drop. So? I can do that. I have to prove a point, not demonstrate it.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

Even if you weren't arguing previously you certainly are now. You haven't forfeited a round yet, not really. Poor show. You know you can't win if you did it so you're fighting tooth and nail when really you're suppose to let the voters whims let you rise or fall, but I think you know which way those whims would go had you actually stayed out of it. Clearly you know that you can't actually forfeit every round and win. That's why you can't resist defending yourself because you think arguing is going to help. By the nature of the debate, defending yourself shows your weakness. Poor form. Clearly you see your only path to victory as defense and therefore you've lost.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

"Posting your debate somewhere else doesn't exempt you from actually having the debate. I could post a series of youtube clips and say that I forfeit the round. You clearly don't. You're cheating. You're not really forfeiting any of the rounds. This proves one thing, you can't win by forfeiting all the rounds. -- I can lift 100 pounds without touching the weight bar? Really? -- Yeah, just let me put on my gloves. Faker. You should have just let the debates properly expire and been legit about it." You simply said forfeit. I am arguing semantics. I win this debate, but I forfeit this round. That's legit.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

Posting your debate somewhere else doesn't exempt you from actually having the debate. I could post a series of youtube clips and say that I forfeit the round. You clearly don't. You're cheating. You're not really forfeiting any of the rounds. This proves one thing, you can't win by forfeiting all the rounds. -- I can lift 100 pounds without touching the weight bar? Really? -- Yeah, just let me put on my gloves. Faker. You should have just let the debates properly expire and been legit about it.
My opponent cannot forfeit every round of this debate and still win.

My opponent offers the counter argument "I forfeit this round". That argument is extremely weak but is not a proper forfeit as everybody should properly understand. My opponent did this because he now understands that it is not possible for him to forfeit every round and win. So he didn't forfeit. He did this because he realized he couldn't properly forfeit the argument and still win because there seems to be a new Debate.org "feature" which cancels the debate if you don't actually post at the very least the first round of debate. In the comments section (where he's inclined to post his arguments) I noted this feature and he agreed that he couldn't actually forfeit every round and still win and he agreed. I noted: "Actually, judging from another debate if you miss the first round it'll cancel the debate. I had somebody accept and expire on another debate it canceled it. If that holds true then I am absolutely correct." He replied: "Damn, you're right. That sucks. However, I could do something else." -- By noting that "you're right" he's conceding the argument. He can't forfeit them all and still win due to technical limitations of the software. This "feature" makes it impossible that my opponent can forfeit every round of this debate and still win. If he actually forfeited the round the debate would have auto-canceled and not resulted in a win. ----------- Similarly I reiterate my previous stance. I won't lose because people like me, some don't some do, but I'm not despised which is about what is required lose a three round forfeit. Next, I propose there's some biases which makes a person more likely to vote for one individual over another. For example, in a debates defending gay marriage against some people I managed to win the debate by over 100 points (most debates don't even have 100 points given). Typically people on this site do tend to vote in favor of liberal, atheistic, pro-gay, pro-choice, pro-tolerance arguments if they have made the minimal threshold of logical sense. My arguments far exceed this minimal threshold. This said, I'm extremely open minded and a very reasonable and personable person. My opponent has an avatar of a John McCain head photoshopped onto a baby. He supports John McCain in the upcoming election and believes that global warming is a hoax, and supports the war in Iraq. -- I'm not arguing that one should take biased positions and vote via ad hominems. Rather, people should vote for the best argument. I'm pointing out that my opponent will have biased votes against him and therefore will not win the debate. So, the fact that *OTHER* people would vote in my favor on the basis of such things means that I'm right on sheer argument and you should vote in my favor. The fact that ad hominems would successfully win me the debate without merits, suffices to suggest that I should win the argument on it's merits. Further, since I should win with and without merits suggests I should win period and thus the votes should be cast in my favor.