BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Universe is Real

To Pro's first statement, I would like to say that a character in a dream would be able to post a debate response in a universe inside their own dream. The same goes for the voters voting. Next I would like to say that Pro's response was unprofessional in that instead of attempting to begin with evidence for the reality of the universe, (which, by the way, refers to THIS universe, not any universe in a universe in a universe, etc) he began by crude, immature, and unprofessional mockery of my side of the debate. The only real [in the universe in which we reside] attempt of evidence is his comment that since any imagination requires an imaginer who must be real. "Your aguments [<--spelling mistake] are mute anyway, because the imagination require an imaginer. So something has to be real for the imagination to exist, and something is real (the imagination won't count because it[']s not a thing) therefore there is a reall [<--spelling mistake] universe. This just isn't a[insert a space here]part of the universe." Pro treats my arguments as if I am saying that the universe is imagined. I am saying no such thing. I am saying that there are an infinite amount of possibilities, including, but not limited to, being a part of the imagination. Since every variable is an unknown variable, there are an infinite amount of possibilities. Some can be conceived, some cannot. To debunk your statement, I will give a possible scenario in which nothing is actually real. There is a group of scientists/historians in the distant future, let us say in the year 90 000 000 AD (CE if you prefer). They are running a simulation in which John Smith turned right at 7:37 on Mar 10, 1973. In their world, he turned left. In the simulated world, it is a fact that John Smith turned right. The same group of scientists/historians runs their own simulations in the belief that their universe is real. One of these simulations is that John Smith turned left at 7:37 on Mar 10, 1973. In their reality, he turned right. Their simulation is the universe which is simulating them. It is an infinite loop of simulation in which there is no real universe ultimately doing the simulation, therefore nothing would be real. Round 4 is just rebuttals to the opponent's new points in Round 3. Since Pro has forfeited Round 2, and I introduced no new points in Round 3 because of his Round 2 absence, Pro cannot have any rebuttals. A rebuttal to this is not allowed as this is a FINAL rebuttal, and no rebuttals can be made to points in Round 3, as there were none. Because of Pro's lack of professionalism, lack of proof that the universe is real or not, and lack of spell check, vote Con.
The Universe is Real

I'm sorry, I can't seem to do this debate because i'm not real but a figment of the imagination. If I were real i could do it, but I really can't. And there is another problem. Voters can't really vote because they aren't real. If they could, then that is my proof that the universe is real because the voters would have to be real to really vote. So they really can't vote Con now can they?Your aguments are mute anyway, because the imagination require an imaginer. So something has to be real for the imagination to exist, and something is real (the imagination won't count because its not a thing) therefore there is a reall universe. This just isn't apart of the universe.
The Universe is Real

The definition of real which I will be using is that of the Oxford English Dictionary: "Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed" This means that dreams, electronic signals, etc. do not count as real. While the electronic signals of the dreamer or computer are real, the world they create is not. I will begin by listing a few possibilities in which we and the universe in which we reside do not exist: First, and most conceivably, it could be possible that some person or thing in a universe outside our own is dreaming up our universe, and we are nothing but a figment of the imagination. Next, it could be possible that the real year is 89 027 827 and humanity in the name of history has begun to run simulations on the distant past in which minute details have been changed to record the differences on the modern day. e. g. John Smith turns right at 7:37 on Mar 10, 1973, instead of left. My opponent, in his rebuttals, may use the Renaissance-era statement by Ren" Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" [I think therefore I am]. However, since the amount of possibilities for a completely unknown variable is infinite, it is entirely possible that the computing power is available to simulate every atom of every neuron in every man's brain, and all electric impulses that make that simulated brain function. Since one can only see if he is thinking himself, it could be possible that only you can think, and all other beings act as facades of thought to save computing power. It could be possible that the earth is a desolate wasteland and Mars is the center of life. At amusement rides, Martian children step into a booth in which a lifetime as a "human" on the neighboring planet earth is simulated just for gags. The problem is, reality cannot be proved. It cannot be proved if this is all just a dream, historical simulation, amusement park ride, or anything else, because tests cannot be run outside of the universe. All scientific tests, such as those on the existence of electrons, quarks, protons, neutrons, gamma rays, etc. , can be run, but only inside our universe following our universe's laws of physics. One cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of anything without exiting the realm of that thing, which physics prohibits us from doing. This is the same reason why the existence or nonexistence of God is unprovable. It is said that he resides outside of our universe, and since we cannot exit that universe, we cannot scientifically prove or disprove the existence of such a god.
The Is the glass half empty or half full? expression is illogical

I'm going on vacation tomorrow morning, so this will probably be the only and last round that I get to post (unless my opponent and I miraculously finish this tonight). I realize that forfeited rounds are usually indicative of automatic lost debates; however, I'm fairly certain that I can negate the resolution just using one round. Therefore I'd like to apologize in advance to my opponent for only participating in 1/3 of the debate. I encourage him to re-challenge me if he'd like to see this debate all the way through. For now, I will attempt to refute Pro's claims using just one round, with either several arguments. 1) The term "half empty" means half way to empty. For instance, if I was drinking a cup of water and then drank half of it, I would say "The glass is now half empty" i. e. the glass is half way to being empty. So, if the glass being full is represented mathematically using the number 10, then the glass being half way to empty would be 5 (half of ten), thus the expression is not illogical. 2) Pro writes that half of a full glass is half-full. Then he offers this analysis: "A half empty glass is still empty (because 0 cups is an empty glass, so 1/2 of a glass = 0 cups in the glass. " However, this is incorrect -- If a glass is represented by 1, then 1/2 of a glass wouldn't equal 0; it would equal half of one (.5). So, the phrase mathematically makes sense by my opponent's own standards. 3) On a completely different note, if my opponent wishes to eliminate semantics all together, then surely he wishes to simply address the MEANINGS behind the phrases and not the actual phrases itself. In that case, we can use common knowledge to imply that the phrases half empty vs. half full when used in this context (as it appears in the resolution) references the choice of being optimistic (glass half full) vs. pessimistic (glass half empty). In that case, we don't have to define "empty" literally in mathematical terms using the number 0. We can use the number 4, for example. And full can be represented by the number 8. This works, as half of 8 is 4. So, if the glass were half full, i. e. half of 8, then the glass would be 4 a. k. a. empty. If the glass were half empty, it would be 4 x 2 (also 8). It would not be 4 divided by 2, because then it would be half OF empty. Again, I have proven therefore that the expression is not illogical. If in future rounds my opponent argues that "empty" cannot be represented by any number or mathematical faction other than 0, then he is being hypocritical in the sense that he has ignored the very parameters he put forth in this debate regarding this discussion not being about semantics. In saying that empty must equal zero would be ignoring the very context of which the phrase is intended: optimism (full) vs. pessimism (empty).
The Is the glass half empty or half full? expression is illogical

Howdy folks! Thanks for taking a look at my debate. I would deem this my first real debate, since the one I did very long ago was... ahem... bad. Enough of an introduction, onto the debate. The topic of this debate is whether or not the expression "Is the glass half empty or half full?" is logical or not. As pro, I am arguing that the statement is an illogical litmus test (see definitions at the end of argument), and that will be explained in my arguments later. Con will argue that the statement is in fact a logical litmus test. To whomever may want to accept this debate: Please do not argue semantics. What I mean by this, is do not say, for example "pro used the imperfect tense of so and so verb rather than the past participle, so therefore I automatically win." Please stick to debating the actual topic. If you would like to consider taking this debate, but need clarification or whatnot on what exactly I mean, PM me or drop a message on the debate. My main points that I will prove in this debate: The expression "Is the glass half empty or half full?" is an illogical litmus test because it is actually comparing two completely unlike things. Here's a mathematical perspective: You have two glasses. A full glass would have one cup in it, and an empty glass would have zero cups in it. Now, a half full glass would have one half cup in it (because 1 cup is a full glass * 1/2 of a glass = 1/2 of a glass), however, a half empty glass is still empty (because 0 cups is an empty glass * 1/2 of a glass= 0 cups in the glass). Therefore, a half full glass is actually half full and a half empty glass is actually completely empty. Because the two objects of comparison are completely different, using the expression "Is the glass half empty or half full?" as a litmus test is illogical. Definitions: Litmus test - Any kind of social indicator used to classify someone either favorably or unfavorably ( http://en.wikipedia.org... ) Logical - According to or agreeing with the principles of logic ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) Illogical - not logical; contrary to or disregardful of the rules of logic; unreasoning ( http://dictionary.reference.com... ) I believe that sums up my argument for round one. I will be providing more arguments as the debate progresses, however I wanted to state my main one in this round. Thanks to all those who read this and good luck to my opponent.
The Death Penalty

How are 8 victims spared. If you have the guy in custody then you keep him there. If you have enough to put him to death you have enough to make him rot in jail. You fail to view this on a bigger level, around the world innocent people are killed in countries for nothing more than their sexual orientation and this is viewed as okay or normal there. And in the world 98 countries have completely abolished the death penalty, some of these countries include Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Switzerland and the UK http://www.amnesty.org... Would you say their citizens are out of control because some of the lowest crime rates and homicide rates in the world happen to be in these countries. The power to kill is just simply not in the hands of the state.
The Death Penalty

If someone has enough nerve to take the lives of others, then they too should have their life taken from them. Those are the people that simply do not deserve to live. Life is our most precious possession. this is exactly what Capital punishment does. Capital punishment lets all murderers know that they will have to abandon their lives if they take the life of someone else. More than 20,000 people are killed each year and to let the animals (you can't even call them humans) survive is unjust. The stricter our state is with its punishment, the more people will know not to commit murders. American citizens need to know that chastisements are proportionate and fair. For each killing that occurs, 8 possible victims are spared. We can't risk the chance that execution does not save the lives of potential victims. Since the United States does not have an official religious code to interpret right from wrong, we have to depend on our criminal laws. If the laws are not strict enough, as the Death Penalty is, it is too enticing for our criminals. Therefore making it easier for criminals to kill. Harsh, severe laws provide an important measure of society's values and morals. How can the government be "soft on crime"" How can they let others kill innocent people? We have to enforce the Death penalty, because once again, life is the most precious thing one can receive.
The Death Penalty

Okay, so for this please site any sources that you may use and Spend the first round to just state your opinion, the second to rebuttal and the third to conclude. Please do not quit on me. The death penalty is just plain wrong. Why should the loss of a life result in the death of another? Or in the case of many lives, why should death = death? What is the point of killing someone when they can just spend the rest of their life in prison. I understand the cost of putting someone there but if the state can't afford jails then why put laws in place in the first place? Additionally, who is it up to to decide what is punishable by death. In some countries it's mass murder, others speaking out against the government, others being gay, and even in some watching Desperate Housewives will get you filed for treason and executed. Who decides what is suitable and why do they have that right? Let's say the judge decides, in what country is the judicial system without error? As long as the capital punishment persist innocent people will die at the hand of the state. Every court system makes mistakes and after you've killed someone you can't just say, "Opps, jk my bad." It's done. There's no going back. Now, let's look at what happens when we give the state the right tot kill. The holocaust happened. The state had the right to kill these people and it escalated and no one questioned them because they were allowed to do that. For the record, as soon as the war was won Germany officially banned the death penalty and even refused to try the Nazi war criminals. Now look at Germany, it's a European Power House. The death penalty is inhumane. In saudi Arabi a person can be publicly stoned to death and it isn't the only country in the world to do that amongst other horrors such as: hanging, electric chair, injections, fire line, etc.. the Universal Declaration of human rights states that no one should be subjected to cruel, tortures or inhumane treatment or punishment. I would say that all of these methods meet the criteria. Some may argue that injections are painless, I say how do you know the physical, let alone the emotional, pain and stress of dying? Did you ask someone? No, because they're dead and can't tell you. In conclusion the death sentence is morally and politically wrong and should be banished world wide. source: the universal declaration of human rights (please see article 5) http://www.un.org...
If you believe in god, Then you have no free will, None

Why should I or anyone pay any attention to what YOU have to say? YOU are only in love with YOU and only YOU a supreme egotist who in which has no idea, None, As to what in the world he is talking about. YOU have no idea as to what true suffering is as YOU babble on into true extinction of YOUR mind. YOU don't feel me. Nor do YOU feel for anyone else. YOU only have feelings for YOU with two feet in YOUR grave not wanting to wake up from it, Not ever. Poor little YOU. YOU got hurt. So YOU want to drag everybody down with YOU and bring everybody to YOUR lowest point, Which really isn't all that low on any cosmic scale. YOU babble on and on and on about this "god" that you have no idea what it is that YOU are squawking about because YOU cannot test nor can YOU demonstrate YOUR posturing because NOBODY else has. So who really gives a god damned about what YOU think and dream up from YOUR imagination that YOU expect everybody else to believe in what YOU believe without a single shred of proof? Because that's exactly what YOU have stated and nothing else.
If you believe in god, Then you have no free will, None

Never mind. You have turn this debate into you wanting me to be your psychologist in which I am not. I've seen far far worse than you and you truly have no idea, None, As to what true suffering is as you hide behind your badge of religion as well as you are completely brainwashed and YOUR god in which you cannot even prove even exists. I also do not in any way appreciate you trying to convert me (which will NEVER happen because I am educated and intelligent), Into your sad pathetic vomiting 100% pure evil and hateful religion in which your god has claimed at least 1 billion lives on the battlefields alone all in his supposed "good" name. It is clear that you haven't even touched your bible from page one. But then again, Your god as stupid as in print clearly shows with his super ego god complex, Would never be stupid enough to use text as a form of communication, The worst form of communication possible. So a clean break is best because after all this debate is supposed to be about god and free will in which you haven't even touched, Because you with your beliefs you have none.
If you believe in god, Then you have no free will, None

Since you did not pay any attention whatsoever to what was posted in the first argument and you went on rambling on and on about 0% of nothing, I am going to completely ignore what you had to say. In the first RD, Unquestionably was proved that this god of YOURS, In which you cannot even prove even exists, Is nothing but evil an hate and does not in any way allow free will unto YOU if you believe. You did not counter it. Thus YOUR god's evil and hate and no free will since you believe in this holy terror stands. I also didn't mention that drab of dimwitted dullard snot meat sow of braided pubic hairs in which you cannot even prove exists, Christ a true sneezerag and clearly a false prophet, Which has nothing whatsoever to do with this debate is marked for deletion, You did.
Vi_spex is not a troll.

Now I am going to assume that your opening statement is equal to that of the title of the debate. That being Vi_spex is not a troll. Since you have not given any form of definitions I shall take the opportunity to do so now. "Troll" - In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement. (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) (. http://www.netlingo.com...) Vi_spex - I am, again, assuming that you mean the user Vi_spex found here . http://www.debate.org... That is all, now for my opening statement. I shall be arguing that the user Vi_spex is in fact a troll.
The Confederate Flag is racist

There are a few fatal flaws in your argument, first of all when this country was formed slavery was an institution and we were killing and displacing Native Americans left and right , this country was formed to protect our liberties but this didn't include slaves as you will see in article 4, section 4 of the Constitution, further more this debate is all about whether or not the flag is racist. Slaves don't have to be black,or a race other than those who enslave them.....starting in the early 1600's England began capturing Irish (white) people and selling them as slaves to all their various colonies including America. This didn't start coming to an end until the Irish rebellion in 1798, and until this point the majority of slaves were white! Slave labor was not chosen on the basis of race but rather where they were the cheapest and most readily available. What made Africans so readily available you ask? African slaves were not simply knocked on the head and dragged back to the ships. The vast majority of African slaves were captured by rival African tribes. Some were kept as their own slaves and some were sold to other countries. Most civilized countries were guilty of using slave labor at some point including the United States of America so why the hypocrisy? There is also hypocrisy regarding the unions stance on race and equality. Though they may have been in favor of abolition they didn't regard blacks as their equals as evidenced in a statement made by Abraham Lincoln that I quoted in round 2, and race is the key topic in this debate not slavery. The Dred Scott decision was made by the U.S. Supreme Court just 4 years before the civil war took place which ruled that a slave was still his or her masters property even if he or she ventured into a free state. Have you ever noticed that the time when talk of abolition started happened to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution? Perhaps it is mere coincidence , but I think not. The significance of the industrial revolution in relation to this topic is that it mostly took place in the northern states and by the time the south seceded the north's economy was primarily industry based nullifying slave labor as a necessity. The south on the other hand had a primarily agriculture based economy. The main thing that I would like everyone to take away from all this is that race and slavery were viewed much differently the world over. Everyone was guilty of it but society has changed and so have views on race, this includes the south as much as some would love to denounce us. Race does not have to be an issue in modern day America. It is an issue only because it is being manipulated for political agendas and it is driving us apart. It is to the benefit of liberal politicians to do so because they can use it as a tool to push for agendas that will get them votes.
The Confederate Flag is racist

It would seem as though you are at a loss for words sir. Please tell me what part of your argument I didn't undermine. Just because you said it doesn't make it so. If you can read everything that I wrote and maintain the stance that the Confederate flag is racist, delusion must have a strong foothold. I believe the only issue that I didn't cover in my last post was the fact that the kkk uses the Confederate flag. They use the American flag as well, do you share their beliefs simply because they use it? They also burn crosses, this does not mean that Jesus is cool with what they do. I have three reasons why I display a confederate flag, none of which has anything to do with racism. Reason 1- I am a proud southerner, Reason 2- Out of respect for those who fought, which happens to include my ancestors, and last but not least Reason 3- I display the Confederate flag as a clear sign that I do not support what is going on in the U.S. government and our society.