BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

I am saddened that none of these contradictions are legitimate.There are two ways to percieve my opponents question "Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?"Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law? So we have 3 conclusions, that my opponent wanted me to specify whether science or mathmatics follow scientifc or mathmatical law, whether science or mathmatics follow scientific or mathmatical law, or that his sentence doesn't make any sense. Given the first conclusion, his question is not yes/noGiven the second conclusion, his question is not yes/noGiven the third conclusion, his question is about as strong as "Does everything provable by Y or X follow W or Z?" If you said yes, what would you be saying yes to, exactly? It wouldn' be an appropriate answer. Therefore, this isn't a logical sentence.All of my opponents contradictions based on a single definition from dictionary.com is silly. First of all, he is appealing to authority, (Why not ask "do you like milk?" and say later that the question meant "Is the answer to this question no?") and even then the authority is weak. The definitions are listed in order of frequency and are used most commonly according to where they place on the list. You did not specify what you were talking about, so I was left to assume. Given that, I was most likely talking about the horse as in animal rather than the horse as in heroin. The same can be said about beavers. I most likely did not contradict myself.As for my opponents claim about dangerous substances, I will use an example rather than a definition. Is heroin a dangerous substance? Yes, it is. (Plus it is a key point to one of my opponents definitions) Is heroin in a world where no life exists dangerous? No. Therefore, dangerous substances are not always dangerous.
I will not contradict myself.

I did not violate rule number one. Even if I was asking 4 different question hidden in a single question. The key word here is "single question", I only asked 1 question which implied 4 different things. There is no rule against this. Therefore, because my opponent refused to answer the question with a yes, no, or explanation why neither is totally correct he is in violation of rule number 2. Also, my opponent still is contradicting himself. Even though the definitions may be at the bottom of the list. They are still definitions of the term. They still apply to the term, depending on the context. In this case, the contradictions, I pointed out above (1, 2, 3), are still valid as defining the beaver as a top hat and the horse as heroin still make sense in the context of their respective questions. The frequency in which they are used is irrelevant as my intent was to define beaver as top hat and horse as heroin. I have mentioned a substance illegal in the United States, heroin. Heroin is always dangerous (3). My opponent has touched a beaver (1). Therefore, my opponent is contradicting himself. (1--a contradiction) "3. Have you ever touched a beaver? No" and "10. Have you ever worn a top-hat? Yes" Top-hat, according to dictionary.com, means a tall, cylindrical hat, worn by men. Beaver, according to dictionary.com, can mean to be a top hat. Therefore, my opponent has touched a beaver. (2--another contradiction) "4. Are horses always dangerous? No" and "7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States? No" Horse, according to dictionary.com, is slang for heroin. Heroin is a substance illegal in the United States. Therefore, I have mentioned a substance illegal in the United States. (3--the third contradiction) Furthermore, there is a contradiction in question 4 itself. Horse is slang for heroin. Heroin is always directly dangerous to people if consumed and indirectly dangerous to people because of the marketing and the gang activity involved around the selling of heroin. Therefore, horses are always dangerous. Furthermore, I now want to show another contradiction present in my opponents answers. "9. Are dangerous substances always dangerous? No" Dangerous is defined by dictionary.com as "able or likely to cause physical injury." Able is defined as "having necessary power." A substance is defined by dictionary.com as "physical matter or material." My opponent here is stating that matter which has the power to cause injury does not always have the power to cause injury. A dangerous substance is always dangerous because it has the potential to cause injury.
I will not contradict myself.

My opponent asked me this question: "Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematical law?" But this, as I have said, is not a yes or no question. It asks me to specify if scientific law verifies science or mathmatics or if mathmatical law verifies science or mathmatics. This violates rule 1.Or my opponent was asking me 4 different questions, cleverly hiddin within a single sentence.Does everything provable by science follow scientific law?Does everything provable by science follow mathmatical law?Does everything provable by mathmatics follow scientific law?Does everything provable by mathmatics follow mathmatical law?This also violates rule 1. You are allowed to ask a total of 10 questions, not a total of 10 senteneces. Since you did not revise the question and instead challenged me, you do forfeit the debate.As for his other his other contradictions, they are not conclusive at all. According to dictionary.com, horse being used as slang for heroin falls all the way to the bottom of the chart, at number 17. The charts are ordered in sequence of frequency, so I most likely did not contradict myself when asked about horses. [1] The same applies for beavers. [2]1. Just to further clarify, you are human, correct?Yes2. Do you emit waste?Yes3. Have you ever worn a visor?Yes4. Do you read?Yes5. Do you like mathematics?Yes6. Se li posib pou ou pou w konprann sa a?Wi7. Does a woodchuck chuck wood?No8. Can you understand foreign languages?Yes9. Are dangerous substances always dangerous?No10. Are you telepathic?No(Let it be noted my answer to #6 means yes)[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...;[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...;
I will not contradict myself.

I would like to point out a broken rule. Rule number 2. My opponent failed to answer this question with a yes or no answer because the question can be answered with a yes or no. I asked "Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematical law?" My opponent could say "yes" implying everything provable can follows scientific or mathematical law. Or he could say "no" everything provable by science and mathematics does not follow scientific or mathematical law. I also want to point out a couple contradictions: "3. Have you ever touched a beaver? No" and "10. Have you ever worn a top-hat? Yes" Top-hat, according to dictionary.com, means a tall, cylindrical hat, worn by men. Beaver, according to dictionary.com, can mean to be a top hat. Therefore, my opponent has touched a beaver. "4. Are horses always dangerous? No" and "7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States? No" Horse, according to dictionary.com, is slang for heroin. Heroin is a substance illegal in the United States. Therefore, I have mentioned a substance illegal in the United States. Furthermore, there is a contradiction in question 4 itself. Horse is slang for heroin. Heroin is always directly dangerous to people if consumed and indirectly dangerous to people because of the marketing and the gang activity involved around the selling of heroin. Therefore, horses are always dangerous. Now ten more questions, 1. Just to further clarify, you are human, correct? 2. Do you emit waste? 3. Have you ever worn a visor? 4. Do you read? 5. Do you like mathematics? 6. Se li posib pou ou pou w konprann sa a? 7. Does a woodchuck chuck wood? 8. Can you understand foreign languages? 9. Are dangerous substances always dangerous? 10. Are you telepathic?
I will not contradict myself.

1. You are human correct?Yes2. When you look at a solid object laying on the floor, does it move?Yes3. Have you ever touched a beaver?No4. Are horses always dangerous?No5. Is it possible for 1=0?So as long as both numbers are equal in terms of what they define, yes.6. Do you have a beard?No7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States? No8. Do semantics matter in this debate?Yes9. Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?(This is not in the form of a yes or no question. Ask an additional question next round or forfeit.)10. Have you ever worn a top-hat?YesAnd rephrase of q. 2 as my opponent asked2. Do you walk or otherwise transport yourself from place to place?Yes
I will not contradict myself.

1. You are human correct?2. When you look at a solid object laying on the floor, does it move?3. Have you ever touched a beaver?4. Are horses always dangerous?5. Is it possible for 1=0?6. Do you have a beard?7. Have I ever mentioned an substance which is illegal in the United States? 8. Do semantics matter in this debate?9. Does everything provable by science or mathematics follow scientific or mathematic law?10. Have you ever worn a top-hat?And rephrase of q. 2 as my opponent asked2. Do you walk or otherwise transport yourself from place to place?
I will not contradict myself.

1. Are you alive?Yes2. Do you move from location to location?(This question doesn't make any sense. I ask you reword it next round and post it after your initial 10 questions. If you refuse, my answer is this:) Yes3. Are you human?Yes4. Do the laws of time and space apply to you?Yes5. Can you travel in time?Unless you are refering to the natural flow of time in which I participate, No.6. Do you have two parents?Yes7. Do you live on the planet Earth?Yes8. Do you have an animal?Yes9. Do you like sports?Yes10. Have you sustained any serious injuries?Yes
I will not contradict myself.

(that's much better....it should work now.)1. Are you alive? 2. Do you move from location to location? 3. Are you human? 4. Do the laws of time and space apply to you? 5. Can you travel in time? 6. Do you have two parents? 7. Do you live on the planet Earth? 8. Do you have an animal? 9. Do you like sports? 10. Have you sustained any serious injuries?
I will not contradict myself.

Rules:1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round.2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct.3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5.4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over.5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins.6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, CON wins.7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate.8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate.9. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses.10. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
Islam should be banned

My opponent has stated that Islam is evil, but hasn't given a reason why. As an atheist, I have friends who are Muslim, and they are the polar opposites of terrorists. Only some brands of Islam, such as Wahhabism, are hateful. In fact, some brands of Islam, such as Sufism, emphasise peace and spirituality above all else. I believe that banning an entire religion is a base infringement on human rights. Freedom of religion is a key part in a democracy. My opponent, in calling for a total ban on Islam, is wanting to control and suppress thoughts. I believe that this makes him only somewhat better than Islamic State, who brutally kill in their attempt to control religious views, or the Soviets, who banned religion entirely. Furthermore, banning a religion doesn't end it. If I, for some terrible reason, wanted to end Islam, a ban wouldn't be the way to go. Look at the example of the USSR and its satellite states, who banned religion. Yet in all former Eastern Bloc states except the Czech Republic and Estonia, the majority of the population is religious. I await my opponent's response. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado

(to my opponent) nice analyzation of the resolution. Now onto business.... First point: I would like to apologize for my very vague statement, when I said child I meant teenagers. Now my opponent brought up a very intellectual point in the factor that we need to raise the standard of living in this country so that kids in the cities aren't forced to live a life of crime. In order to cause this standard to upgrade, we must make stricter gun laws not make an economic recovery plan. Let it be known that our government has been working on economic recovery for centuries. When we make stricter gun laws we could make it more difficult for teenage kids to get their hands on guns. Second point: My opponent proved my second point. Lets look at exactly what my opponent states, " James Holmes' guns were all registered to him. All of the guns were legal. He cleared the background checks. There was no evidence that he was going to go on a shooting rampage. He didn't have any psychological problems in the past which would have prevented him from purchasing these firearms. But, if he had an incident that hinted at psychological issues before he attempted to buy those guns, he would've been turned down and the disaster would've been averted. Nobody knew his mental state was going to detiorate the way it did. It's just one of those things that is unpredictable and unpreventable. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate, but there was nothing anybody could've done to prevent this tragedy." My opponent highlights that James Holmes got all of his weapons legally. Allow me to also highlight that James got these weapons legally but also walked in and shot these innocent bystanders with no hesitation or difficulty. we must, I repeat we must use this as reasoning to make the process harder. If we don't even make the attempt to make it more difficult how can we expect a change? I suggest that my opponent gives a detailed process on how events like this can happen less often. I agree evnts like his will happen no matter what we do. But would we want 2 or 3 events like this a year? or rather 2 or 3 events like this a month? Third Point: My opponent states that people are going to do what they can to stay safe whether that means holding their weapon in their cars or pants. Gun laws becoming a tad stricter does not mean a no gun zone. It means more regulations to stop possible events like this from happening. The con side is not against weapons, the con side is only against the abuse of weapons. Once again thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic. This is definitely an interesting topic, I now give the floor to my opponent.
Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado

To my opponent, I too look forward to this debate. I'm going to just get to it and counter my opponents arguments for more gun control. Your first point made is a very true statement, this is not the first incident of gun violence, and sadly it will not be the last. No amount of gun control will stop crimes committed with a gun. Moving on to the children getting hold of weapons, when you say "The very factor that guns are able to get into even the hands of a child" are you talking about a gun left out in the open and an unknowing 5 year old pick it up? Or are you referring to teenagers living in the cities getting guns from a dealer and committing crimes? With the first scenario, no law will prevent those kinds of incidents. Unfortunately it's either the stupidity of the parent leaving a loaded firearm out of its case at a level a child can reach, or some sort of distraction causing the parent to leave a loaded firearm in the open. Those are just careless accidents in the privacy of one's home. With the second scenario,we don't need to focus on preventing kids in the cities from getting guns, but instead try to raise the standard of living in this country so that kids in the cities aren't forced to live a life of crime. If we can put together an economic recovery plan, not as many people will be forced to resort to crime. Now, with your second point. Yes, the shooting was senseless and horrible and nothing like this should ever happen again. But the sad part about reality is that something like this is bound to happen again. James Holmes' guns were all registered to him. All of the guns were legal. He cleared the background checks. There was no evidence that he was going to go on a shooting rampage. He didn't have any psychological problems in the past which would have prevented him from purchasing these firearms. But, if he had an incident that hinted at psychological issues before he attempted to buy those guns, he would've been turned down and the disaster would've been averted. Nobody knew his mental state was going to detiorate the way it did. It's just one of those things that is unpredictable and unpreventable. It's incredibly sad and unfortunate, but there was nothing anybody could've done to prevent this tragedy. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... With the final point, yes, you can enact stricter gun laws and tell people that there is less reason to carry firearms. You can tell people that statistically speaking that they are safer than ever before. This doesn't mean that they will listen or believe you. It comes down to a fact of feeling secure. If people feel safer with their Glock, Beretta, Sig or any other handgun resting in its holster under their shirt, then they are going to wear it wherever they go. I appreciate that you are taking time to debate this topic, as I find it an interesting one. The ball is now in your court.
Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado

1st let me just say that my heart goes out to the victims and their feelings in this horrible incident that should have never happened but sadly did. Next, I want to tell my opponent thank you for your interest in the sport of debating and I have a feeling that I will enjoy this debate. Now that I got all that out of the way, please allow me to construct the basis for my arguments. In America we have many debates over this very topic. To make it clear, I honestly feel that Gun laws should be changed and I have three reasons why. If my opponent feels that I need more I will be happy to provide more reasonings but lets look at these first three reasons and their analyzation of the resolution. 1st contention- This is not the first incident this country has had a problem with guns. there have been a number of occasions where guns have taken the life of an innocent bystander. The very factor that guns are able to get into even the hands of a child shows that gun laws arejust too loose. I understand that there will always be problems with guns here in America, but why not attempt to reduce the number of incidents with guns? 2nd Contention- The current problem in Aurora Colorado ought to be an example. The factor this murderer had the ability to just walk into the theatre, murder 12 people and injure 50 others like it is nothing ought to say something to the government. We as the moral characters we are should see that very tragic event as an example there is a problem with gun laws. 3rd Contention- Stricter gun laws cause for less reasoning to carry guns everywhere. We have all heard of the argument that guns are tools for defense. The only problem with that argument is that guns are also tools to attack. If we make it an obligation for stricter gun laws we will wind up seeing less reasons to have these "tools" for "just in case". Thank you for taking the time in seeing my arguments I invite my opponent to start his arguments for this debate.
Gun laws should remain unchanged despite the recent events in Aurora, Colorado

Recently, in Aurora, Colorado, James Holmes walked into a movie theater showing the latest "Batman" movie. With him was a shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle, two handguns, tear gas, a gas mask, and body armor. He killed 12 and injured more than 50. Now, I've seen multiple news anchors insist that gun laws should remain the same despite the shooting. Even though it seems that what I feel and these news anchors feel is the majority opinion in the United States so what I'm wondering is: is there anybody that feels differently, and why?
The argument from incoherence is a sound argument for the non-existence of God.

Resolved: The argument from incoherence is a sound argument for the non-existence of God. 1. Anything with incoherent attributes cannot exist;2. God has incoherent attributes;3. Therefore, God cannot exist.Clarifications:For the purpose of this debate, "God" is going to be defined as having the basic general attributes given to the Judeo-Christian God which are, but not limited to [1]: Eternal Good Grace Holiness Immanence Immutability Just Love Mercy Omnipotence Omnipresent Omniscience Righteousness Self-Existence Soverignty Transcendence. By "incoherent" I mean that the attributes are contradictory--much like a square circle or an invisible pink unicorn!Structure 1. Acceptance/clarification2. Arguments3. Rebuttals4. Rebuttals/Closing - No new arguments permitted. Referneces1. http://www.blueletterbible.org...
The instigator will probably forfeit no rounds during this debate.

Main Entry: 2forfeit Function: transitive verb Date: 14th century 1: to lose or lose the right to especially by some error, offense, or crime 2: to subject to confiscation as a forfeit ; also : abandon, give up — forï¿½feitï¿½able \-fə-tə-bəl\ adjective — forï¿½feitï¿½er noun http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] That is all.
The instigator will probably forfeit no rounds during this debate.

Nothing my opponent can do will actually be a "forfeit," since anything the system calls a forfeit will in fact be largely a preplanned (and flawed) metargument toward the debate. And therefore not a true "forfeit of a round," i.e., choice to not use the round for the purpose of winning. No one would likely make such a resolution and give 5 minute rounds without such a plan. It is therefore improbable that no rounds will truly be "forfeited" by the instigator.
The instigator will probably forfeit no rounds during this debate.

I will prove that I will forfeit at least one round during this debate. FACTS 1. The time to argue is only five minutes. 2. After I start this debate, I will go to bed. Anecdotal evidence says that most debates are accepted within 12 hours of their release. In 12 hours and five minutes, I will still be asleep (I sleep for a long time). It is therefore statistically unlikely that I will manage to avoid forfeiting round 2. Since this is probably going to be my last post.