BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Freewill Does NOT Exist and is an illusion brought about by our limited minds

Let"s start off by asking what is free will Free will the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. -https://www.google.com... Ok let"s see what is discretion Discretion the quality of behaving or speaking in such a way as to avoid causing offense or revealing private information. -https://www.google.com... Now discretion (also tied into free will) sounds as if it is a filter for one"s behavior and communications with others. If we accept the thought that free will doesn"t exist, then we shouldn't hold anyone accountable for their actions or their words. You also say "limited minds" as if it can be measured and if it could what would it be based on? IQ, awareness? You and your mind is only limited to what you choose to accept and/or believe. So many people world wide(religious and non religious) believe in reincarnation and with that ideal along, deja vu can be explained, why some kids die at a young age can be explained, point is that people put limits to their own minds sometimes with a fear of something and in most cases based on the other people around them, so even society can limit the mind. The mind will never be completely understood because scientist and others that study it, is only proving things that are physical, but thoughts, emotions, consciousness are not physical even dreams and that"s just some things in the mind. Now world systems manipulate free will by putting people into financial slavery to the point where no one can own anything with high value like land, but those are illusions because someone that knows the law of the land can get out of paying land taxes thanks to the finding fathers. Cause and effect from human society limitations. I agree that the human mind cannot accurately calculate the reactions from the laws of physics, but why is that? How do we predict something who"s pattern is unknown? Most limitations are illusions brought upon by society theories of human limitations. For example - In the 1950"s no one believe that any human could run a mile under four minutes, that was society own limitations but a man named Roger Bannister did not subscribe to that believe. Roger trained and forced his will to make his body submit to what he believed he could do. In 1953 he finish the mile with a time of 3 minutes and 59.4 seconds. Because of that act, now no one sees a four minute mile as a limitation but as a milestone. Their been many more people who have broken the limitations placed on them by others and give people the courage to know they can also do it. Cause and effect is not only you dropping glass and it breaks, there"s cause that you do that may take along time for the effects to fulling play out. I find it to be a good thing that these unpredictable acts cannot be measured because if it could then you would have those that try to manipulate it to get out of the karma like effects. There are so many other things that are illusions, but not free will.
Freewill Does NOT Exist and is an illusion brought about by our limited minds

Free will, as in the definition given, is the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by certain factors. This idea is flawed because all agents themselves are constrained by at least the known forces of physics. In physics, for every action there is a reaction. We call this cause and effect. Since everything in existence today is an effect of a previous cause, than it follows that everything in exists today is constrained. All things are the result of a cause, and that initial cause was also the result of a cause. Following this out thoroughly, everything is an ongoing effect. When it come to freewill many people like to argue that humans (minds) are agents that can make choices without constrained factors. This is not a straw man argument for what my opponent believes. I bring this up just to state that even human must still abbey the laws and forces of physics and that choice itself is constrained. That is, every action, movement and thought is still constrained by the laws of physics on a quantum or general level. The particles in ones body still have restraints on what they can do, limiting over all what humans (minds) can do. This limitation is absolute because, as stated before, these particles are the result of an ongoing effected. The fact that human minds are limited and cannot accurately calculate the complex reactions that the laws of physics "create"; especially, on a large skill and for long duration, the mind believes that there is freewill without it existing, For without these limitations one would know what would happen next and would conclude freewill does not exist. A conundrum does occur in this hypothetical. If we could undo these limitations and the mind was able to know what would happen next, could we then chance the outcome? This question only give credence to why we have limitation and that limitations are real. Once we except these limitations of our mind we realize that freewill is an illusion and doesn't exist. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States would be better of it were Democratic

I did not say anythng about either Socialism or Communism? No therefore you have presented a Straw man Arguement. I said Democracy, Like Switzerland, Or Canada or Scandanavia, If you look on the Democracy index those are the most Democratic nations, And al are far from socialism or communism, Unless you wish to start up that tedious argument about what sort of economy Sweden has, It is very much a market economy and may be classified as Social Democratic. So what does Communims have to do with any of this, What an absurd mistake you have just made.
The United States would be better of it were Democratic

As being a person on the right, Ill gladly debate it. Socialism and communism are proven to not work. America is very clearly a capitalistic/very little socialist country. The Free Market is the best idea as it is horrible when a government controls what you can and cannot do. (Unless it interferes with someone elses lives" In USSR, People would be arrested for making their own hats and selling them due to the controlled market model.
Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

Resolution: Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.I think we are both intelligent enough to understand the resolution without definitions.Rules: Debater must have typing experience.Debater must have internet access.Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.Don't be a douche.Obey the "rounds" structure.Must insert one witty quote per round.Please no lawyering, waging source wars, dictionary assaults (semantics), or fallacies. Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)"Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten-dollar haircut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair." - Sam EwingI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner.Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Let the game begin!
Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

Well, my opponent couldn't get a true rebuttal to his argument, so I will just make a closing statement. It has been proved that with no government intervention in the economy, recessions are frequent and are much more volatile. It is like having the Great Recession every 3-5 years. This is not an exaggeration, look at my sources from last round. Plus, Ron Paul want us to get back to the times when corporations were unfair to their workers, and when products were dangerous to consumers. This is bad policy. We should of learned from the recent recession. Plus Obama's policies have evidence that they will improve this economy, and is pro-small business, and for tax cuts for corporations that invest in American jobs with their funds. I included a picture of job growth since Bush left and Obama became president. Plus, Ron Paul's sharp cuts to spending would throw us back into a recession, and I proved this last round. Instead of a "free market" that benefits the few, Obama is wanting to get into a market that promotes broad prosperity."The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music."
God Loves You

you have violated the terms agreed to and you have forfeited the debate. Repeating the round 1 guidelines which were to be agreed to in accepting this challenge.......... "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments.
God Loves You

I accept. I will be taking the position that there is no reason to believe in a personal god rather than an impersonal one. Also if there was a personal god there is no reason to believe that he would be loving rather than malevolent. The full Burden of Proof is on Pro here and since he is affirming the resolution he must give verifiable and empirical proof that god loves me. If Pro happens to prove that god is personal and loving I will take the position that I could be satan or a demon. If god does not love satan or demons he does not love me. So pro must prove that god is personal rather than impersonal, loving rather than malevolent or neutral, and I am a human being rather than satan or a demon. Pro has an impossible Burden of Proof.
God Loves You

The Con postion for this debate is "God does not love me". "God is not there", or "there is no proof that God is there" are unacceptable arguments for this debate and will be automatic forfeiture. If you cannot argue that God does not love you without saying "there is no God" or "there is no proof of God", Please do not accetpt this challenge. If Con, in the debate or in the comments, says "you can't know God is there" or "God is not there" or "there is no proof of God" or any such denial or negative statement about the existence of God, Con agrees to forfeit the debate and Pro will not be required to supply any further arguments. Can can ask questions, but a rhetorical question that allows only for denial of God's existence is disqualiying and forfeits the debate. Con must argue how he knows God does not love him or her, and not argue that God is not there.
God Loves You

My opponent seems to have misunderstood me.... I completely believe there is a god and I never said there was not. I just said he might be impersonal, malevolent, or just not love me. I never forfeited and I would like to see the quote that Pro is referring to that violated the rules... Also please make your case next round since the burden of proof is completely on you. This round has been wasted which is bad for you...
The future presented in Fallout 3 is possible.

Ugh...I'm going to say this again, I'm honestly tired of all of these people who accept my debates and then give up without even saying "Pass" or anything. It's a main reason I don't use this site anymore is because people either just accept a debate with no intent to finish, accept to troll, or accept, see a wall of text, and then give up. And yes, I know what you might say, "Oh, Lulzy, quit whining, you're making debates in the "Games" section." To that, I say, "So?" I'm in the Games section making debates and making long responses to them, so there has to be people out there who will feel as strongly about some of this.Anyway, enough of my my ranting, I'll get back to my debate.-ahem-Argument One: MutationsThrough the general gameplay of Fallout 3, the player will encounter characters that, without a doubt, are not human. These creatures can range from anything from robots, to super mutants, to Fire Ants that ACTUALLY breathe fire. You're also likely to come across things like Rad-Roaches, Rad-Scorpions, and the wasp creature whose name I cannot remember. All of these creatures are the result of mutations caused by the massive amount of radioactivity in the areas that they inhabit. In most cases, nothing very surprising happens with mutations, minus the fact that the mutated specimen is significantly larger than it's not nuclear counterpart. For example, I as a human am 5'11". If you stood a Radroach up in game next to me as my real high, the Radroach could easily be about as high as my neck area, whereas the Radscorpion would be even larger. My aim is to prove that mutations in general are possible, not these mutations in particular, so here goes. If you go back to the Chernobyl incident in Ukraine, you can take a look at the area surrounding the ex-nuclear facility now and see that animals have returned, and apparently, so have some people. However, it wasn't always so nice to return. In fact, during one point soon after the reactor meltdown, there were pictures taken of animals mutated, such as a dog that appears to have changed physically to the point where there is a body, but only the back legs seem to show.Whether you as a judge choose to argue the validity of the picture mentioned, which can be found here: [1], the fact stands that this is possible, and can happen in Fallout 3, especially if you consider the fact that, according the scientists, the meltdown of Chernobyl is equal to the power of 20 Hiroshima bombs, what would happen if that number was increased to a number high enough to decimate the entirety of the United States, and make it an uninhabitable Wasteland.Ending: Since I typed this in a hurry before boarding a plane, I unfortunately cannot give anymore arguments right now. I give it back to Con in hopes that they reply.1 - http://www.sickchirpse.com...
The future presented in Fallout 3 is possible.

I made this debate for a few reasons.1. I recently got into the Fallout universe itself, and not just the universe presented in Fallout: Equestria. (Though the universes are roughly the same, save for the fact that many objects in Fallout: Equestria are the ponified versions of themselves.)2. I want a debate that will hopefully end with me knowing more about the Fallout Universe, whether or not I lose this debate is an issue to me, I just want to learn.3. Most of my past debates have been done about topics that I would know quite a lot about and that my opponent would not. Since Fallout is a much more played and dissected game, I figure that SOMEBODY out there would be able to do this debate.Rules: 1. This debate is primarialy about Fallout 3, please don't use other Fallout games as a basis for a new argument. (You can use a previous Fallout game as support for your argument, however.)2. I will provide the terms in R2, as R1 is ONLY for acceptance, if you begin to make your points on R1, You will forfeit ALL POSSIBLE POINTS.3. No immature name calling, please. I can't beleive I have to make this rule, but it's here. If you suddenly revert to insults and whining, you forfeit. Period. This is meant to be a fun debate about a game. Don't complain about your source being invalid. (Feel free to argue that it IS valid though.)4. Please don't start the debate asking me for the definiton of "An Ebuna Seed" or something off topic. If you do that, again, you forfeit.5. Have fun, like I said before, it's a video game debate, don't be salty.
sould abortion be legal

I've never finished a debate (I think) in one day. =====Counterarguments===== My opponent's argument basically lies on one major point: that a fetus has the potential to become a human being. Of course, I totally agree with this statement. However, this being a viable argument against abortion, I am against. And I will show you why: 1. As I've said before, would this make masturbation illegal? This point has gone unrefuted, and it serves as a major problem for my opponent. Some people would say masturbation isn't a viable point because only the sperm is there, no egg is present. But I ask of them, why does it matter? Sure, having an egg and a sperm together is a step closer to having a fetus which leads to having a baby - but does this exclude the notion of masturbation? No, because masturbation would just be a step behind or farther. Masturbation STILL has some of the prerequisites for a human being, just not as much as a fetus. My opponent fails to show why our reasoning should stop right at the fetus, and not on masturbation or anything before that. 2. It can be made implicit in my opponent's argument that killing a fetus will remove it's possible future experiences as a human. Not only does my example of masturbation make this a problem, there is yet another point to be made. If we are to judge one's importance based on the amount of future experiences they can have, then this means that old people are less valuable than younger people. Obviously, a simple difference like age is ridiculous when considering such moral evaluations. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has shuffled around his argument a couple of times. At first, he stated that abortion is murder. I showed that murder applies to humans, not fetuses. He then argues that a fetus is still an organism, but I showed to him that we kill and eat organisms everyday (many times for trivial reasons). Finally, he argues that a fetus will eventually become a human, but he has failed one of my earlier points about masturbation (which I have brought up again).
sould abortion be legal

So I still haven't proved that its a human its a life form but it is a potencel human you know eventually it will be a human heck its the early stages of "Human" beings yet you know this but denied its existence all your doing is hiding in definition you know it is a human yet all your doing is being blind its going to be a human and every person knows I know it you know it and all your doing is using big words to hide it that life form you so call is going to be human not a cat or a dog but it will be human and the women whoms so resonsable for it knows it the fact about being human is just a stupid conjecture. this last definition "human" development .Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm cell, and the female gamete, the oocyte, fuse to give rise to a diploid cell, the zygote. In pregnancy the 3 stages are commonly referred to as ZEF - meaning Zygote, Embryo, Fetus. In medicine, pregnancy is defined as beginning when a fertilized zygote becomes implanted in a woman's uterus. This occurs when the zygote then becomes embedded into the endometrium (lining of the uterus) where it forms a placenta, for the purpose of receiving essential nutrients through the uterus wall. The umbilical cord in a newborn child signifies the remnants of implantation.
sould abortion be legal

=====Counterarguments===== "this is not used about crime but about responsibility. " ----> Responsibility? So if a kid procrastinates, which means he is irresponsible, should he be punished by law? Or what if I oversleep? The law should be concerned with protecting it's citizens from other citizens, not to try to be a nanny. 1. Life Organism My opponent argues that since a fetus is an organism, then abortion should not be legal. I have two objections to this: A. Life forms aren't necessarily human beings. A plant is an organism. An insect is an organism. Cattle are organisms. So everything I kill a mosquito I should be imprisoned? Everything I eat a salad I should be arrested? Every steak I touch should give me 15-25 years in jail? Preposterous. B. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of a human being. Not all life organisms, such as a fetus, are humans. Thus, abortion should be legal. =====Conclusion===== My opponent has not shown how killing a fetus is murder. He has not shown how killing organisms should be murder or should take importance over the rights of a mother.
sould abortion be legal

Objection! For one ----> Erroneous analogy. Robbing a bank is a crime. As I have shown earlier, abortion is not. this is not used about crime but about responsibility. For two "It's not a baby. It's not a human being. It's not a person. It's a FETUS. It's a MASS OF TISSUE. Kinda like a tumor that grows fast." fetus- In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo embryo- An "organism" in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form. Organism- An individual form of "life", such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life. LIFE FORM meaning its alive
sould abortion be legal

I haven't debated in awhile, and I'm bored. So let's go: I affirm that abortion should be legal because it should be the woman's choice (her body). Additionally, it is NOT murder therefore making the priority the woman's body. Note that definitions of laws and such will be kept under the jurisdiction of the United States. I don't intend to argue about abortion cases in other countries and it doesn't seem my opponent does either (though I doubt the definitions of murder are vastly different amongst most countries). =====Counterarguments===== "because abortion is killing some one,in the law it is a crime," ----> Killing someone (murder) is defined in US Law as intentionally causing another person's death without legal excuse or justification [1]. Note the usage of "person". A person is defined in U. S. law as either a human being [2] or a corporate, business, etc. The second definition is irrelevant to this debate. Once again, note the usage of "human being". In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being [3]. Thus, legally abortion is NOT a murder so this claim is FALSE. "and just because it is not born yet does not justify taking a life. " ----> Does masturbating become murder? If so, OH THE TYRANNY! "Most abortions are teen abortions most for teens wanting to have "fun" and not think about the cause and effects of what they are doing. " ----> Please show me the statistic for this claim. Even if this is true, so what? "Just because some teen who doesn't want the burden of being mother shouldn't have the right to kill a baby. " ----> It's not a baby. It's not a human being. It's not a person. It's a FETUS. It's a MASS OF TISSUE. Kinda like a tumor that grows fast. "they must learn that its there fault in the first place,thats like some one robbing a bank and not think your gonna go to jail for it. " ----> Erroneous analogy. Robbing a bank is a crime. As I have shown earlier, abortion is not. =====Conclusion===== I argue that since a fetus is not a human being, then the mother's right should be considered paramount. My opponent has failed to show how abortion is murder. ---References--- 1. . http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com... 2. . http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... 3. . http://www.eileen.250x.com...
sould abortion be legal

i strongly disaprove of abortion because abortion is killing some one,in the law it is a crime, and just because it is not born yet does not justify taking a life. Most abortions are teen abortions most for teens wanting to have "fun" and not think about the cause and effects of what they are doing.Just because some teen who doesn't want the burden of being mother shouldn't have the right to kill a baby.they must learn that its there fault in the first place,thats like some one robbing a bank and not think your gonna go to jail for it.Now if it was a raped victim then maybe but there is always adoption and same for the teens that want to have "fun". This is my case