BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

So my opponent makes a false assertion that I look like a creepy guy. How can you prove that this is me? There is no evidence. When I said that this debate was not for the serious, I meant that it wasn't for people who would insult me for what I say. Some would be mean to me because they think I am crazy. You have literally disrespected me twice. First with the "nude goose" argument, and then with telling me I am a creepy guy with buck teeth. I'm offended by this. Also, my opponent never gives proof as to why the Founding Fathers agree with them. They are dead. My opponent has clearly disrespected me in this debate, and has no provided one good piece of evidence or reasoning as to why I am not a Goose. He literally knows I am a Goose, so only uses me memes as sources. If he is going to lie about what I look like since he has no proof, he shouldn't be believed. I, on the other hand, know what I look like. My opponent has failed several times to refute my evidence. Also, it would be pretty unfair for you to post an actual argument in this last round because a) I cannot refute it and b) your lack of even trying to prove that I am not a Goose and your concession stating that I am an intelligent Goose makes you lose. Vote Pro, the non-offensive and logical debater. Don't vote for Con, he only continues to lie and prove me correct. He has conceded. Con cannot win now.
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

Okay, I am forced between two options of how to respond: 1. Memes. Good for goofy debates. 2. Creepy. I have an idea that sounds weird. I will do both. 1. Memes Pro said this is not a serious debate, so I'm sure this will be fine. To start, you are lying. http://www.quickmeme.com... Even the president knows you are lying, which says a lot. http://www.quickmeme.com... The great founding fathers agree with me. You also need to change your trousers. http://cdn.memepix.com... Next, you don't even look like a goose. http://www.sharenator.com... You look more like this: http://www.memes.com... 2. Creepy This is short. It's just that I'm watching you.
I am a Goose wearing a red suit and a monocle.

"I first must point out that Pro is a intelligent goose; he has intelligence similar to a human. Intelligent nude geese are accepted in human society, but the fact that Pro felt the need to cover up himself shows he feels like a human. It is then a shameful act on his part. " So you basically concede in this debate by saying that I AM an intelligent goose. I already told you that I have a birth defect and am different from other Geese in terms of intelligence. It's not a shameful act, I don't want people like you to be this disgraceful. I just don't want to be made fun of. You have not rebutted my case and didn't provide one good reason as to why I am not a Goose, only that I'm a shameful Goose. Even so, your logic is flawed. At first, you state that I'm an intelligent Goose, and then you state that I act like a human, so I am a human. That is illogical and does not refute my argument. I already told you about my birth defect. I understand the world better than any other Goose. Did you even read my argument? You only claim for me to be a human because you think it's just so absurd that a Goose is this smart. Although, you are only asking me to concede, not rebutting my arguments. Besides, you have already conceded, so this debate is over.
A Theistic God - On Balance - Does NOT Exist

A Theistic God - On Balance - Does NOT Exist Debate Stipulations:Round 1) Acceptance Only - NO Statements or RebuttalsRound 2) Opening Statements & Arguments - NO REBUTTALSRound 3) First Rebuttals - Further ArgumentsRound 4) Second Rebuttals - Final ArgumentsRound 5) Final Rebuttals and Closing Statements - NO New ArgumentsTerms:Physical :material existence [1]Supernatural :outside the natural order [2]Reality :state of being real; exists independently of ideas [3]Theistic God :A personal God; intervenes in human affairs e.g. answers prayers [4]Objectivity :intentness external to the mind; external reality [5]Subjectivity :taking place in a person's mind; introspective [6]Ontology :nature of being; the existence of a thing [7]Epistemology :study of knowledge and justified belief [8]On Balance :probably the case Definition References: [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...[3] http://dictionary.reference.com...[4] http://www.pbs.org...[5] http://dictionary.reference.com...[6] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [7] http://www.britannica.com...[8] http://plato.stanford.edu...
A Theistic God - On Balance - Does NOT Exist

May the Watch-Maker Help You Keep Time I laughed so hard at that. Thanks Pro, I’ll try to make this short. Conclusion Pro opened this debate up with the problem of interaction, various questions about the epistemology of the supernatural and amputees. I answered these, first by explaining what an idealistic God is. Everything is from his mind, so there is no interaction problem. Pro responds to this by asking how can I tell the difference between some type of simulation. I answered this by stating it’s not mutually contradictory and if it was, we’d be at dualism. So either it’s irrelevant or false. Pro never went any further with this and kept restating it as if went unaddressed. He kept accusing me of using dualism which is obviously false. It’s a fallacy of composition. I’ve explained what I meant by claiming the mind and brain are the same, but not identical to the physical. Most of his dualism argument stem from the misunderstanding of idealism. He never satisfactorily answered premise two. He claimed zombies are irrelevant, however I showed this was wrong many times. It was eventually dropped. He argued from mind-body correlations, however he never satisfactorily answered my rebuttal to it. Along with many other arguments. Pro attacks my premise 3 with nothing but assertion. He dropped his questions about the supernatural, but claimed he was re-asking it, although I’ll let the voters decide if that’s a good reason. In the amputees section, I said I wasn’t bound to accepting every claim of healing. Pro mainly gave his opinion of this argument without offering any reason to think it’s either false or likely false. I feel that Pro didn’t adequately refute the argument from Idealism. He mainly had us go around in circles, ignoring the gist of the argument. My argument still stands, whereas Pro’s doesn’t. I too suggest that DDO’s voting guidelines be followed.
Omnipotence is Not Disproven by Paradoxical Questions

Once again, I agree with very much of what you are saying. This is some the reason I specifically stated that I would not use the argument that an omnipotent being is beyond logic. (Too easy, and just ends the argument. ) The point of my argument is that such a thing as a "square triangle" or the "smell of yellow" cannot exist conceptually using our current definitions. The nature of each concept is paradoxical in that, there is a direct contradiction between the intended definitions which renders it impossible to form the idea. This is not referring to ideas that are too complicated or difficult to conceptualize, but rather, those that form undeniable paradoxes. If no idea can be formed, then the concept does not exist as a tangible thought. Hence, there is nothing in mind that can be subject to being either possible or impossible. Any meaning that such a statement could hold only exists in the literal words used, but then, words have no meaning in of themselves. In order for an omnipotent being to create a "square triangle" or the "smell of yellow", the being would have to literally redefine those words so that an idea could be create that IS subject to possibility or impossibility. Language cannot be relied on to determine a valid concept. For instance, if a spoke word means two completely different things to two different people (i. e. another language), then an omnipotent being could not satisfy both people at once. If one relies on literary use to foil omnipotence, one may as well use gibberish: "foowhith teapol dcrt, can an omnipotent being do THAT! ?". For an omnipotent being, nothing is impossible. If anyone was to hold a singular concept in their mind WITHOUT the use of language (basically visualizing it), then we could not come up with a concept that such a being would find impossible to accomplish. The strong requirement is that the concept is not pictured in fragments, but as a whole. No one can conceptualize a square triangle given the current definition of those words.
Omnipotence is Not Disproven by Paradoxical Questions

Omnipotence is a concept of the mind; a human invention, which could never exist in a physical, changing world. When this concept is trialled by logic, it's shown - in an albeit quite complicated way - that omnipotence doesn't truly work in a system of concepts either. There are, as I will argue, paradoxes that highlight the impossibility of omnipotence as a working concept. (I hope you don't mind my strong leaning towards a concept that works in relation to other concepts - clearly, I can conceptualise omnipotence, because you've just defined it and we're having a debate about it, but that doesn't make it in my mind possibly real. ) To disprove something is usually impossible. Bertrand Russell used the argument that you can't prove there isn't a China teapot floating around in space between Earth and Mars, but that doesn't mean you should believe there is - you just have to accept the possibility there may be, and then recognise the chances of it are almost nothing. Paradoxes can be a little different, and can actually show (not suggest, but actually blow out of the water and defeat) that a statement is logically self-contradicting. I'm not entirely certain how the burden of proof can be on my opponent, since they only need to demonstrate that I've failed, but I'm sure that will become apparent. My final introductory point will be that many bad paradoxes don't mean that every paradox is bad and won't work. To take the example of question 4, I heartily agree this paradox does not work and does not disprove the existence of an omnipotent being. Of course something of infinite power cannot create 'infinite plus 1', as there's no concept for this. But that doesn't mean that other paradoxes are also wrong. I hope to show very clearly that concepts that work in isolation, such as that of an omnipotent being (oh, and good luck to us in agreeing on the definition of that! ) do not necessarily function as they're described to when applied to real situations.
Omnipotence is Not Disproven by Paradoxical Questions

There are questions/statements such as: "Can an omnipotent being create a square triangle?" "Can an omnipotent being make an object smell like yellow?" "Can an omnipotent being create an object so large that even it cannot move it?" "Can an omnipotent being create a being more powerful than itself?" The purpose of these questions is to refute the concept of true omnipotence through paradox. Questions like 1 & 2 are self-contradicting or create logical paradoxes. Questions like 3 & 4, submitting either a "Yes" or "No" answer demonstrates a limitation in an omnipotent being's power, thus, disqualifying it from being so. I will argue that these statements do not disprove or invalidate the concept of omnipotence. I shall not posit the argument that an omnipotent being can defy logic. Burden of proof is on me for my claim. Definition: Omnipotence: The quality of having unlimited power. Round #1 is acceptance Rounds #2 and #3 shall not follow a specified structure.
god exists

"you must show why god does not exist as most people throughout history have believed in him." You are the one making the positive assertion therefore you have the burden of proof! If i sais i could fly it would not be your responsibility to disprove me no matter how many people believed me. "nd how can you say that jesus didn't do miracles? its a fact!" and please show me how this is a fact. you cacnnot just assume it is. "and the bible is correct cause god says it is correct! " This is a circular argument. god exists cause the bible says so and the bible is correct cause god says so. you give no evidence for either of your claims. "and of course there is a difference between rigt and wrong! how come we have laws adn punish bad people?" how does this mean there is a difference? all it means is that people think there is a difference.
god exists

"I will start the debate by asking how we got here?" this is not an argument. it is merely an argument from ignorance. you do not know how we got here so you think it must have been god. but please show me why the universe needs a cause and why this cause must have been god? "how is there something instead of nothing?" Again no argument. merely a god of gaps argument. you do not know or science has not yet explained something so you must think it was god. "do you have a better answer then god?" I do not need an answer as you have the BOP. it is not up to me to show why there must not be a god as you are the one making the positive assertion. "jesus did miracles, rose people form the dead, and came back to life himself. how could he fo this if he was not the son of god?" You must show historical evidence of why the bible is correct in it's depiction of the life of jesus christ. You cannot assume the bible is correct. "and also without god there would be no right or wrong. there is obviosly a difference between right and wrong so where did it come from?" You have also not shown why there is a difference between right and wrong and why if there is that it must have been because of god.
god exists

I will start the debate by asking how we got here? how is there something instead of nothing? do you have a better answer then god? and have you ever read the bible? jesus did miracles, rose people form the dead, and came back to life himself. how could he fo this if he was not the son of god? and also without god there would be no right or wrong. there is obviosly a difference between right and wrong so where did it come from? i will let you refute my arguments. good luck.
Ps4 Is better than the Xbox One

First off, the NSA is not watching you through a Ps4. That image is just from a TV show. I doubt the NSA watching you theory is actually correct. Why in the world would the NSA be watching us? See, there is nothing confirmed about it. Unless you give actual facts I believe that the NSA is not watching us. To continue my argument, the Ps4 has also 55% more sales than the Xbox One. Plus a lot of reviews from real people say that the Ps4 is more appealing than the Xbox One.
Ps4 Is better than the Xbox One

If you grab an Xbox One and smash it into pieces, very few people will cry. PS4 on the other hand is a delicate cause of misery for those who happen to damage theirs in even the slightest manner.Misery aside, let's look into the reality of NSA snooping and internet connection.http://www.bbc.co.uk...https://www.theguardian.com...Government watches you when you 'please yourself' to that hot girl character in your games. They know what you play, when you play and send subliminal messages to you and maybe are eveN playiNg against you, if they notice you don't support their party they make you lose to increase misery in your life and as soon as you begin to show signs of shifting political views towards the center (towards their party) they let you win a few more times. Xbox One has no NSA snooping and isn't rigged.http://www.youtube.com...;
Ps4 Is better than the Xbox One

I believe that the Ps4 is a lot better than the Xbox One. First off, the Ps4 includes a lot of capabilities that the Xbox One does not. For example, the Xbox does not have a recorder and you have to go out and buy a screen capture. Unlike the Xbox, The Playstation does. With this you can record Live Streams, record basic videos, or just record clips. It is really a great thing. Sadly, the frames per second is not the best and could be better. This is only round one and I will continue this in the next two rounds. Note: Please only focus on the Xbox One and no other Xbox consoles. Thanks.
Emulators For Video Games Are Illegal

There are many gamers and developers alike that argue that using emulators to download and play video games is illegal, unethical, and a form of piracy. I would like to argue that while using emulators to download ROM's in order to play said games is illegal, it is normal and legal to use an emulator to download ROM's only for video games that have been officially discontinued by both the manufacturers and the retailers. It is also not considered a form of piracy as most people think. Emulators themselves are not illegal to use, as many of the games that people play on the Nintendo Wii, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo Wii U, PlayStation 3, PlayStation Vita, Xbox 360, Xbox One, and mobile devices all use emulators to play those old games. But downloading ROM's is though. Even though that is the case, this is different as the video games that are being downloaded for the sake of this debate are video games that have been discontinued long ago, such as NES, SNES, and N64 games. I am trying to argue that games that are still continuing such as the Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 are illegal to emulate while those that aren't are legal to download. Emulating in its very nature is not illegal as many mobile developers are able to make emulators of older games and "sell" them on smart-phones and tablets without getting in trouble by the mobile companies or the companies that owned those games. Why? Simply because emulators are not illegal and are perfectly legal to use. And if downloading ROM's are certainly illegal, then why aren't those that show tutorials or videos to brag to others not have their videos and accounts taken down? Why aren't the game developers intervening to take legal action against them? And what about those that admit to such "crimes" and even unintentionally have evidence of committing such "crimes"? Why aren't they getting arrested and charged? As for piracy, emulating video games is considered piracy because you are basically getting them for free without the developer's consent and using material that was already copied. Yes, it may be piracy, but that applies only to video games that are still being supported through retailers and the manufacturers, and not with the games that aren't. If it is no longer sold through stores, how can it be considered stealing if there is no longer any opportunity to steal it in the first place? One may also argue that emulating is not only illegal, unethical, and piracy, but also violates the copyrights given to the video games. But since they are no longer supported and were already copied in the first place by the people who originally emulated it to be emulated by others on the internet, how does the copyright even matter by now? And if one has already owned the copy before emulating it, then the copyright is technically void as they have already paid for the video games.
Emulators For Video Games Are Illegal

My opponent makes three general points in the previous round: 1) He says that I have adequately explained why emulator developers and people who download ROMs do not get sued, but have not adequately explained why Youtube videos involving emulators don't get taken down. 2) He says that brand loyalty is not important in the video game industry. 3) He says the topic should include Canadian law. (1) Youtube walkthroughs Video game companies don't sue Youtube channel owners for the same reasons they don't sue people who download the emulators: it's a better business decision to try to tap into the demand for emulated games, rather than pursuing litigation tactics. The DMCA in the United States certainly entitled copyright holders to issue takedown notices, but I've never heard of someone who made a "walkthrough" of a game getting a takedown notice. Most developers benefit from "walkthrough" videos because it's free advertising (showcasing gameplay to those that don't have the game) and it benefits people who *do* have the game by providing them useful advice when they get stuck (so they don't end up hating the game as being "too hard"). My opponent's refusal to provide sources makes this point difficult because I can't check into his specific examples and why the developers claimed they were issuing a takedown in those cases. It's not a general practice though. (2) Brand loyalty Brand loyalty is hugely important in the video game industry. In the "console wars" between Microsoft and Sony (Xbox One versus Playstation 4), a huge contingent of gamers were going to jump ship from Xbox because Xbox was going to: (1) have an "always online" feature that *required* you to log into your online account in order to play your games [with no "offline" play allowed at all], and (2) was going to implement measures to prevent people from playing used copies of games. The fan-base absolutely revolted. Everyone was going to buy a PS4. Microsoft quickly backed off and got rid of these new features. My author from last round -- Professor James Conley -- also reiterates that brand loyalty is important in the gaming industry. The fact that companies do not respond to *every* user demand (on random online forums) does not prove that they don't care about brand loyalty. (3) Canadian law It's fine if we include this. As my opponent says, Canadian law is the same as US law in almost every regard.
Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

It's hard to debate while not agreeing on the definition of ambiguous words, I will use the terms defined in the 1st round.I will also interpret your word theory in the sense of hypothesis and your word fact for the scientific meaning of theory.A good explanation, while not necessarily true, is called a theory (fact in your terms) when it has a great (but not necessarily absolute) explanatory and predictive power.We may never know with absolute certainty if macroevolution is 100% true, still it is a theory (fact in your terms) because it is consistently used to make prediction about biological findings.The planets rotating around the Earth stopped being a theory when it failed to explain the phases of Venus. The new theory, heliocentrism, can account for Venus' phases, and thus geocentrism is now a discarded hypothesis.If tomorrow we find evindence of more than one ancestor, or we get findings that, after torough examination, contradict macroevolution, it will cease to be a theory (or at least it would become a controversial or weak theory).
Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

Okay, so I guess it is possible that macroevolution is true, but that does not mean that it is true. Take the Sun and planets rotating around the Earth. It was an okay explanation, but not true. This is why I said it was a theory, not a fact. It might be a good explanation, but that does not mean that it is necessarily true. Overall, you showed that macroevolution was feasible.
Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

Pick any animal. I"ll pick whales for you. You have a continuum around them of similar animals, by both morphology and molecular biology. By looking at the diagram in http://evolution.berkeley.edu... you can go from whales to hippos in some 20 million years. You can do that with many living extinct or living animals. Of course also for bacteria and fungi and plants and viruses. You may find some isolated beings here and there, but it"s mostly a continuous flow from one species to the other.
Macroevolution is a theory, not a scientific fact.

We can observe microevolution, certainly. If we use microevolution to assume macroevolution, that might be extrapolating the data a bit. The more you assume, the more uncertain the idea becomes. For example, is 100 degrees Fahrenheit hot? It probably is, but it depends on where you are from. What about 99? 98? The more you decrease the temperature, the shakier the idea is until we reach 0 degrees Fahrenheit, which is pretty cold.