BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My (Labrat228) win ratio should be higher.

As of 10:01PM EST my win ratio is 33.33% We will continue the debate as if it stays 33.33% the whole debate. I Pro will argue that my win ratio should indeed be higher. 1) The following debates are debates that I should have won. http://www.Debate.org... My opponent argued for my side, and then forfeited his next and final round. http://www.Debate.org... I was winning this by about 7 points... until last week. http://www.Debate.org... I supplied far more arguments, many of which my opponent was unable to refute. My opponent also forfeited his final round. http://www.Debate.org... My opponent was convinced by me during the debate. She told the audience to "Vote 4 Labrat228 he's a better explainer and deserves to win!" And then forfeited her next round. http://www.Debate.org... He forfeited every round but his first one, which contained 1 sentence. http://www.Debate.org... Forfeited every round. The above debates are the more obvious wins by me, if you would like to check out the rest please go to http://www.debate.org... which also contains some well deserved losses. Good Luck Opponent.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN.

"The Kalam Cosmological Argument is failed, and should NEVER BE USED EVER AGAIN." I will argue PRO, namely that the KCA is failed, unrecoverably, and should not be used to support the claim that God exists. CON agrees that they will defend the KCA from all known forms of fallacy, including special pleading and circular reasoning, and faulty premise.I have seen the KCA used repeatedly by those who wish to argue for the existence of God. However, the KCA has fatal flaws, and arguing against it repeatedly and in venues which external evaluation of claims made and public observance of the validity of one side or the other is utterly tiresome. This is a conversation which if done right should only need to be done once on any given venue.Rules: 1) First round is acceptance*, second round is argument, third round is rebuttal and additional supporting arguments, fourth round is pure rebuttal and closing.2) CON may go first; if con uses his first round for argument, CON agrees his last round shall be a blank post.3) Responses shall be directed towards the previous rounds(s) only.4) No direct "vote pandering". An argument ought stand on its own, without appeals to emotion or ad hominem.5) No "sneaky ****erism". This is defined as making declarations to win an argument rather than making an attempt to investigate whether a claim is actually valid or supported by reason. The winning argument here is to be determined as that argument which stands up to reason, not which argument/person people subjectively like more. In accepting, CON agrees that any votes which do not reflect an objective evaluation of the arguments (subjective votes) are invalid and to be ignored or retracted.6) No extended arguments, except if mutually agreed upon.7) BoP on CON for all premises to any KCA which CON attempts to defend, and for defence against any charges of special pleading.8) Shared participation is encouraged; while there can only be one formal "PRO" and one formal "CON", any independently supported argument may be advanced.
Abstract reasoning and God

If I can use abstract reason to come to a conclusion about God, and it is a logically coherent argument free of fallacy, can I not consider that argument proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of a God? At least, until it is shown to be flawed? My opponent will either argue that this claim is false (an abstract "proof" of God is not beyond reasonable doubt) or that it is correct but that I must present an argument that meet this criteria for my claim to be of any significance. abstract terms: ideas or concepts; they have no physical referents Ex: success, good Round 1 will consist of my opponent declaring which of the two arguments he will take
Abstract reasoning and God

Well, I'm sorry that XDM forfeited what promised to be an interesting final round. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. There are two reasons why you should vote con. 1. Pro failed to make an argument meeting his own standards, as he admitted in round 3. Therefore I win by default. 2. Pro failed to provide a convincing argument. As I have shown in rounds 2 and 3, his argument is as full of holes as Swiss cheese. Thank you to everyone who watched this debate and voted!
It is silly to filter swear words whilst allowing words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation".

This doesn't remove the inherent volatile nature; for instance "we're f**ked" (profanity) has a stronger emotional connotative value than "this is bad" (statement) which also has weaker emotional connotative value than "we're screwed" (slang). You've not shown that they aren't offensive or vulgar but instead that they can be used in ways that may or may not be "as offensive" (context sensitivity). The entire idea behind vulgarity (swear words) is emotional and not objective.. "The main purpose of swearing is to express emotions, especially anger and frustration. Swear words are well suited to express emotion as their primary meanings are connotative. The emotional impact of swearing depends on one's experience with a culture and its language conventions. A cognitive psychological framework is used to account for swearing in a variety of contexts and provide a link to impoliteness research. In support of this framework, native and non-native English-speaking college students rated the offensiveness and likelihood of hypothetical scenarios involving taboo words. The ratings demonstrated that appropriateness of swearing is highly contextually variable, dependent on speaker-listener relationship, social-physical context, and particular word used. Additionally, offensiveness ratings were shown to depend on gender (for native speakers) and English experience (for non-native speakers). Collectively these data support the idea that it takes time for speakers to learn where, when, and with whom swearing is appropriate." (http://www.degruyter.com...) A second source (http://books.google.com...) helps explain what expletives are and how they work in society. Sadly I'm out of space for the quote I'd like to use.
It is silly to filter swear words whilst allowing words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation".

Swear words aren't always intended to offend. For example, in the following sentences: "If Global Warming gets any worse, we're fvcked." vs. "If Global Warming gets any worse, we're screwed." Or "There is nothing wrong a man putting his dick into another man's a$$hole." vs. "There is nothing wrong a man putting his penis into another man's anus." Or "Cow shiit can be used as fertilizer." vs. "Cow dung can be used as fertilizer." Or "The recent economy has been a biitch to deal with." vs. "The recent economy has been a pain to deal with." In each of these cases, the swear word is not intended to cause direct offence. It is merely used for emphasis. Now consider these: "If a woman gets raped, it's her fault for dressing inappropriately." vs. "If a biitch gets raped, it's her fault for dressing like a slvt." Or "There is pus coming out of my penis." vs. "There is pus coming out of my dick." Or "I want to ejaculate on a prostitute's breasts." vs. "I wanna jizz on a hooker's tits." In each of these cases, the offense is caused by the sentiment and not the swear words. In fact, I would say that the swear words often lessen the offensiveness by "crossing the line twice". http://tvtropes.org... It is my opinion that, while swear words can definitely be used as direct insults, the context and not the word choice is what ultimately defines how offensive something is. http://www.youtube.com...
It is silly to filter swear words whilst allowing words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation".

I propose that the direct intention of the language should be considered. For instance speaking of bodily fluids may cause offense however they are not necessarily offensive by nature however almost all swear words in general context are meant to cause negative emotional reactions. To that end it could be said that it is far better to filter words that are specifically designed to enrage and defame than it is to filter words that are common in topics or required for discussions.
It is silly to filter swear words whilst allowing words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation".

The three words I listed in the title could potentially cause more offense than calling somebody a cvnt, yet they're still allowed. It's not like swear filters even work, as we can either mis-spell words or use asterisks to bypass the filter. I submit that swear filters are both ineffective and redundant, and should not be implemented on sites where discussion of sexual/bodily functions is permitted.
It is silly to filter swear words whilst allowing words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation".

I limited our posts to 2,000 words because I hate reading walls of text. Swearing is not the only form of expression regulated by social taboo. For example, how many of us would be comfortable discussing masturbation with total strangers? How appropriate is it to walk into a room full of strangers and announce our political opinions? Or to use words like "rape", "penis" and "ejaculation" in polite conversation? With or without swearing, we frequently break social taboos. We also frequently discuss emotionally charged subjects. Are these innately less volatile than a single curse word? I'm not convinced. Many people have an equally strong reaction to non-curse, taboo words. This also doesn't change the fact that swear filters don't actually filter swear words; they just force us to change their spelling to bypass the motherfvcking filter. See what I just did? I slipped "motherfvcking" right into my sentence. Sure, I substituted that "u" for a "v", but everybody knows what I meant. Filtering the swear word did nothing whatsoever. In conclusion, I maintain that swear filters are both silly and arbitrary, and that we should either eliminate all taboo words/phrases or eliminate none of them, instead of picking and choosing.
Illegal Immigration

I'll like to bring up 2 points. 1. I affirm the resolution because this is my position in this debate. Resolved: Illegal Immigration Does more harm than good. 2. His arguements are all for Pro. Thus without further ado, I'm sorry to say, he has lost this debate because he has agreed to Pro's position. His position is illegal immigration does more good than harm, but his arguments prove the opposite. Thank you. I await your rebuttals or reply.
Illegal Immigration

1. Burden on tax-based resources, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. 2. Difficult prosecution and justice when perpetrators flee the country. 3. Disparity between legal immigrants who follow the rules and those who don't. 4. They risk death when traveling the desert to reach the borders. 5. Those that successfully cross the border inspire those left behind to do the same. 6. Continued growth of the demand for cheap labor and low wages. 7. No government reimbursement to offset states illegal alien maintenance costs. 8. Potential negative effects on working and middle-class citizens. 9. Millions of U.S. dollars sent outside the country. 10. Paper Fraud. 11. Fake document mills. 12. Imbalance in immigration quotas. 13. Interstate human trafficking. 14. Population health risks due to unverified pre-entry immunizations. 15. Increase in road traffic and usage, injurious or fatal accidents. 16. Congestion of tax-based public parks and recreation. 17. Overcrowding and financial burdens on public schools. 18. Continued law-breaking rationalization for those who employ illegals. 19. Growing number of uninsured illegal aliens who can't pay for claims. 20. Monopolization of Spanish language in various segments of society. 21. Unbalanced ethnic diversity. I will expand on these arguments in the last round, I await my opponents arguments
no debate

"In all honesty, I was hoping to use this for a real debate with Preacher Andy, but you jumped in and I have learned a lesson. NO this was supposed to be re-titled and so for a future debate. So I am not debating you just ginving an explanation." Incorrect. You have been refuting me and opposing hence making this a debate, therefore, you are evidently wrong in this debate and thus PLEASE VOTE CON. Thank you.
Capitalism vs. Socailsm

Based on the teachings of Adam Smith and expanded on by the likes of David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and James Mill the free market has been the greatest creator of individual wealth and social development the world has ever seen. The free market system has been a beacon of freedom elevating the lives of everyone who lives under it. Often criticized for being "greedy" or "unfair" a capitalistic society rewards people based on their contributions to society by giving everyone an equal starting point and allows everyone to advance as fast as they can. Nobody is freer than people who can live their lives without government interference. Capitalism thrives on open markets and free trade this is outlined in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" where he said "Were all nations to follow the liberal system of free exportation and free importation, the different states into which a great continent was divided would so far resemble the different provinces of a great empire. As among the different provinces of a great empire the freedom of the inland trade appears, both from reason and experience, not only the best palliative of a dearth, but the most effectual preventative of a famine; so would the freedom of the exportation and importation trade be among the different states into which a great continent was divided." This passage is looking at the system that was mercantilism showing that there is a better way to increase the wealth among all parties trading in a consensual system with what is today known as free trade. This theory was expanded and better described by Milton Freedman in a video made about the global trading community as you can watch it here. The hands of the free market allow for everyone to live a higher standard of life no matter who you are.
Zealotry is the single biggest threat to the planet and to mankind

I used both stupid and ignorant, if you can't tell what I was meaning by that already, then you're just slow and lacking adaptation. You never see me complaining about how people write, or what they mean, because I get them every time; I have a natural talent in communication with anyone, because I do not waste my time worrying about trivial things as to make myself appear as if I am doing something constructive by wanking off some completely unnecessary concerns over another's typography. I even used stupid in context, as you can clearly tell what I was alluding to by reading everything which encompassed it. Just like you don't understand stupidity; you don't understand zealotry. You just hate and show no analysis towards what you hate. There's no effort in what you do - only emotion. Maybe if you would get out beneath those flames, you could finally see the clear blue sky after letting what is inevitably so to unpardon your daily activities. If you are scared about your child being affected by those other girls, then you are just being emotional and reactionary, as there's a much bigger picture behind all of this that does not end at zealotry - it ends at fear and indifference; which gives birth to envy, control and the god-shaped hole.
Zealotry is the single biggest threat to the planet and to mankind

Actually I know what intelligence is and if you had used that word yourself, I would have understood what you meant. Instead you kept throwing out the word "stupid," which was ambiguous and I kept asking you what you meant by "stupid," and it sounded like you were using it subjectively. I have no idea what you're trying to get across in your last argument. Maybe you are trying to make a point that intelligence, or lack of it, is the biggest threat. If that's the case then it would have made this debate much more interesting, at least for me. But you just kept saying everyone was stupid. Anyhow, in closing this out, I think zealotry is the biggest threat the this planet and mankind. Intelligence, or lack of it, have their own pros and cons. But when zealots gain positions of power and influence, then combined with their stubborn refusal to reason, make rational decisions, or to consider anything outside of their beliefs, they can cause actions that start wars, kill millions of people, destroy resources, and pollute the world. As they raise their children and teach others to be equally zealous, they threaten to propagate this danger for future generations.
Zealotry is the single biggest threat to the planet and to mankind

You clearly do not know what intelligence is, if you call any of them "intelligent". Anyone that gets caught up in emotion and delusion are primates with no sense of awareness, but still know how to use and abuse the brain as any psychopath would. Want to know truly intelligent people that do harm? Serial killers. They are the true example of sheer intelligence, cunning and absolute destruction. They kill people based entirely on the need to kill - a psychological filling that stems from power and control. Intelligence - high intelligence - causes some men to see other men as toys, which causes the scariest and deadliest psychological traits to surface.
Zealotry is the single biggest threat to the planet and to mankind

Con, first some housekeeping..... Looks like this is our last round (Round 4) of debate, so let's use the last round (Round 5) for some closing statements. I wasn't clear about that...or anything for that matter...at the beginning. This is my first debate. I'm still struggling with the "stupidity" idea because I don't know what context you're using it in. As I said before, there are some very smart people that are extreme zealots. You're touching on race, and I would argue that racism is in fact a form of zealotry. But I disagree that cases of zealotry has stupidity, delusion, and fear in common. And I can't think of how mere stupidity is a threat to society per se (well, actually George Bush is both a zealot and extremely stupid). But if you couple it with zealotry, then it is. So what do all cases of zealotry have in common? This: Rigid, un-waivering, un-compromising BELIEFS. Again, emphasis on BELIEFS. And when zealots put themselves in positions of power and influence to act on their zealotry, well we all know the result. Zealots BELIEVE that the world should be according to whatever religious book they subscribe to, they BELIEVE that their political party is "right and good" and the others are "wrong and evil." They BELIEVE that climate change is not real, cooked up by those that are "wrong and evil." They BELIEVE that skin color indicates a persons character. BELIEFS are not scientifically testable. They are uncompromising positions. And zealots filter everything coming in, and will twist it to support their BELIEFS. I have to say that I'm surprised and disappointing by the lack of interest on this topic. I don't think it would be difficult to demonstrate by historical analysis how zealotry - rigid adherence and unwavering allegiance - by those with power and influence has not systematically ruined a great deal of humankind and the planet. "From the beginning of time men used God to justify the unjustifiable." - Salman Rushdie "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." - Carl Sagan "It is the certainty that they possess the truth that makes men cruel." - Anatole France "The only thing more dangerous than an idea is a belief." - Sarah Vowell "Give a man with a death wish and a bottle of whisky and a loaded gun, you get a dead body. Give a martyr a quote from scripture and a pocked full of prayers and you get a room full of corpses." - Kevis Hendrickson
Zealotry is the single biggest threat to the planet and to mankind

So I think that what you are saying is that people are stupid first, and then they become zealots? I would be interested in why you think that, but I'm not sure it's relevant to my argument. If you're saying instead that stupidity is the biggest threat to the planet and to mankind instead, then OK I'm open to that depending on what your definition of stupidity is. If it's the strict definition, then I would argue that zealotry causes stupidity because fanatical rigid and unwavering beliefs cause some people to make bad decisions, cloud their judgement, etc. But I think maybe you are suggesting that "stupid" means people that have a certain view of things, maybe different than your own. Am I wrong? Strictly speaking, "stupid" people rarely make their way into positions of power and influence that can effect world events. Zealots can....and do. That's why I think it's the single biggest threat. The George Bush example is an obvious one, but one has to look no further than the Middle East to see more profound effects. And don't think for a minute that it couldn't turn into something worse, like a dirty small scale nuclear event because it could. It's because the people in charge are not only highly influential, they are also zealots in that they have strong beliefs and are unwilling, or maybe unable, to compromise or see things differently. or maybe even to reconsider and question their beliefs. When I say zealotry is the biggest threat, I mean that we put people in positions of power and influence that are unyielding in their beliefs, often regardless of public opinion. Our society (politicians, media, religious leaders) promote this, and we raise our children to be the same way. We admire those who are steadfast and certain, even if they march us right off a cliff. And the term "belief" is key here, because zealots with strong beliefs are not interested in other views or possibilities that may call their beliefs into question; they are only interested in ideas and information that supports their beliefs, and everything that the see goes through that filter. This is why politicians on opposite sides of the political spectrum can take the exact same set of data and form two completely different interpretations, each of which fits their own set of beliefs. This is also true of devout religions people, which you see all over the place on this Debate.org website. One can put an orange in front of them and they will insist that it's an apple, if that's what their belief system tells them it is. After all, there was no evidence of WMD in Iraq...but Bush was "certain." All of the evidence against it, the ideas about alternate forms of action, etc. were irrelevant. Middle Eastern zealots have beliefs about the West, and there is only one answer for them. And we are raising future generations the same way. And that, to me, is very dangerous.