BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Criminals are born, not made.

Actually, I don't mean these kind of crimes. I mean raping, murdering etc. Are they happening because of hunger or unemployement? Do the society or the environment force the people to commit crime? I don't think so. There is a term that can explain this. It is Atavistic Crimes and also some people are lack of some hormones that lead them to commit crime. I think just saying "The society, the country, the people forces them to be criminal." is easy way. As I said, I don't mean all crimes based on genes, but these that I mentioned before can not be ignored.
Criminals are born, not made.

I accept the challenge. No one is born as a criminal. It is their unavoidable circumstances that compell them to be criminal and even no one desires and aims to be criminal. The society, the country, the people forces them to be criminal. People are qualified but they are jobless beacuse no one give jobs based on their qualification. People are hungry but no one cares. These all circumstances made them criminal n it is obvious to be criminal if she/he doesn't have access even for basic needs..!
There is no God

This may seem a strange debate for me to accept as I am also an atheist however I will prove that there is a God in that he is a human creation rather than he is an almighty being that created humans. Humans have created this figure God as a way of categorising unknown quantities and events. Since we have created Him and all other Gods that people worship and have produced texts and extensive studies into his character they exist in a form. With this form being a generation of the human imagination and a production of entertainment media. We would not know of a God if we had not created him i.e. he would not have an existence. But people have created god-like figures therefore the have an existence within the human mind.
There is no God

Yes I am. By showing that he was created by humans and that humans hold a knowledge and understandment of him I can prove that he has an existance. If there is no God as you are suggesting then he would not exist. The debate then becomes a debate about what exostance really is which isn't a starnge debate at all. And it is still a debate about god because as long as I can use my theory of existence to prove god exisits I win the debate. So far I havn't heard any rebuttal.
Promoting world wide democratic principles should be a higher priority than promoting sovereignty.

I thank Nails for his arguments and wish us both good fortune in the tournament. Arguments: Sovereignty as a principle does not instantly equate bad. It simply means that some group has lawmaking authority. For example, America has popular sovereignty [!] which basically means that the government is controlled by the people, while the people do not directly have lawmaking authority they have some semblance of control over those that do have this authority. These people could not remain in power without the population's consent. This is in effect both sovereignty and a type of democracy. Sovereignty is only a bad thing when abused by those in power. Examples of these would be Cuba and North Korea, no one will argue that these countries are overall good ones. ~ A nation where sovereignty is given to a small group or individual benefits a country in times of crisis. It does this by making it so that when decisions need to be made in regards to things such as the security of that nation internal dissent is not a factor that can effect decisions. For example, a neighboring country has been threatening to invade your country for years. Ever since these threats started people have taken both sides of the issue, those that would support military action in the event of an attack and those that would prefer a diplomatic solution be pursued in the event of an attack. In a democracy this might pose a problem when the neighbors come knocking. However, a nation with sovereignty can choose the course of action that is believed to be most beneficial without dissenting opinions being factored. ~ I will post my rebuttals and strengthen my arguments in following rounds as I do not have much time other than this to structure an argument. [!] http://tinyurl.com...
Miley Cyrus absolutely would win in the Asian v. Miley Cyrus case anyway.

_ There are indication that Miley's picture is illeagal in any US laws ( http://www.law.cornell.edu...... ), ( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk...... ), _There are no significance evidence say that Ms.Cyrus picture was racist or just merely a naive joke. _Slanted eyes is not a sign of Asians, not all Asians have slanted eyes, by believe so the Asians who sued her were actually very stereotypical. So, let's go one by one ( Perhaps my English could be crappy but forgive me ) For the firt point, I would say that she wasn't only accused for just 'discrimination' but was also accused for 'libel'( Maybe 'insulting' is better ). I guess it definitely isn't exactly on the constitution, but the purpose of the constitution is to protect human rights and recording them in 'standards of justice'. Meaning, based on the logics of classic standards of principles of law, she can enoughly be judged guilty. For the second point. Following your logics about court cases, there can never be crimes with 'intention'. For example, there's a murderer. And if he says "I killed him accidently" or "I killed him for fun(naive joke)" Then, do you think the judge would say " Okay.. manslaughter."? And how can you ever call it a naive " JOKE"? For the third point... Let's assume that some other singer did the same thing with 'blacks' He painted himself black and permed his hair like African. He holds an African instrument with him So he's accused for the same thing. Are you going to say "Not all Africans are black, because there are many of them 'brown', or albinos, or even some artificial caucasians like Michael Jackson"? I kind of exaggerated, and you're correct that not all Asians have slanted eyes. However, I'm pretty sure that if you make a mathmatical diagram of the slope of Asian eyes and Caucasian eyes, there would be visible, not just visible, but such great difference. You might say it is a stereotyping for 'them' to think so. But. those people 'knew' that Whites have stereotyped so they accused Miley Cyrus for the 'intention' of doing it. So technically, it's not stereotyping but the own pride. I didn't know about this case AT ALL so thanks for this thingy.
Miley Cyrus absolutely would win in the Asian v. Miley Cyrus case anyway.

_ There are indication that Miley's picture is illeagal in any US laws ( http://www.law.cornell.edu... ), ( http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk... ), _There are no significance evidence say that Ms.Cyrus picture was racist or just merely a naive joke. _Slanted eyes is not a sign of Asians, not all Asians have slanted eyes, by believe so the Asians who sued her were actually very stereotypical.
Miley Cyrus absolutely would win in the Asian v. Miley Cyrus case anyway.

Thanks for quick reply. I thought you wouldn't really post anything because it has been a long time since you started the debate. "First of all my friend, what's your evidence that she actually insulted someone, or insulted any races or remarks of anybody? I didn't know closing your eyes while taking a picture is against this country's law." - I think I explained something like that in the previous post for the second point. 「For example, there's a murderer. And if he says "I killed him accidently" or "I killed him for fun(naive joke)" Then, do you think the judge would say " Okay.. manslaughter."?」 "I didn't say that can never be crimes without "intention.", but rather can anybody prove that she has that intention in her? I don't know." - You didn't say that can never be crimes without intention, right. But you wrote "There are no significance evidence say that Ms.Cyrus picture was racist or just merely a naive joke." The word "racist" you put there ususally is used for actions but is more used for general intentions or ideas. Namely, what you wrote basically meant "There are no significant evidence say that she had an intention" "If we flow with your logic, then I can say that most of the America cartoon artists are all guilty, they all painted African American with brown-black ink and give them curly hair, to Asians they draw them with slanted eyes, so should we arrest them all now? How do you know if that's a discrimination act or that singer is just want to show his love for Africa and African? If we say closing your eyes while taking pictures, then open your eyes while taking them is insulting the Caucasian?" - I totally admit that I had errors in my example. But the point of example wasn't on it but on the part the singer makes excuses. Forgive me for a confusing and visibly different example. Love? If what Miley Cyrus did was for love, she would have donated money for African foundations or something. When you were in high school, have you seen kids imitating what others do? Why do you think they do it? In most cases I've seen, it was in purpose of making fun of others. If you've seen the picture, you can see that her friends all pull their eyelids to make it look slanted. That's totally different with just closing their eyes. But your question about opening eyes becoming caucasian discriminationis still interesting. This world has been totally dominated by caucasians. And this world makes people think the normal criteria of human beings as caucasians. I'm kind of sure that if it was an ancient times, Asians who saw rare caucasian might have made fun of them by pulling their eyelids, noses, and putting makeup totally white. Sorry for many errors, and thank you again
Miley Cyrus absolutely would win in the Asian v. Miley Cyrus case anyway.

"For the firt point, I would say that she wasn't only accused for just 'discrimination' but was also accused for 'libel'( Maybe 'insulting' is better ). I guess it definitely isn't exactly on the constitution, but the purpose of the constitution is to protect human rights and recording them in 'standards of justice'. Meaning, based on the logics of classic standards of principles of law, she can enoughly be judged guilty. " First of all my friend, what's your evidence that she actually insulted someone, or insulted any races or remarks of anybody? I didn't know closing your eyes while taking a picture is against this country's law. "For the second point. Following your logics about court cases, there can never be crimes with 'intention'. For example, there's a murderer. And if he says "I killed him accidently" or "I killed him for fun(naive joke)" Then, do you think the judge would say " Okay. . manslaughter. "? And how can you ever call it a naive " JOKE"? " I didn't say that can never be crimes without "intention. ", but rather can anybody prove that she has that intention in her? I don't know. "For the third point. .. Let's assume that some other singer did the same thing with 'blacks' He painted himself black and permed his hair like African. He holds an African instrument with him So he's accused for the same thing. Are you going to say "Not all Africans are black, because there are many of them 'brown', or albinos, or even some artificial caucasians like Michael Jackson"? I kind of exaggerated, and you're correct that not all Asians have slanted eyes. However, I'm pretty sure that if you make a mathmatical diagram of the slope of Asian eyes and Caucasian eyes, there would be visible, not just visible, but such great difference. You might say it is a stereotyping for 'them' to think so. But. those people 'knew' that Whites have stereotyped so they accused Miley Cyrus for the 'intention' of doing it. So technically, it's not stereotyping but the own pride. " If we flow with your logic, then I can say that most of the America cartoon artists are all guilty, they all painted African American with brown-black ink and give them curly hair, to Asians they draw them with slanted eyes, so should we arrest them all now? How do you know if that's a discrimination act or that singer is just want to show his love for Africa and African? If we say closing your eyes while taking pictures, then open your eyes while taking them is insulting the Caucasian? Jewish, Pakistani, Indians, Iraqis, all this people from these countries that we usually call the Middle East are actually Asians, but we don't see them having slanted eyes, so they don't have their own pride as being Asians? the defendant is found "not guilty".
Libertarianism

Driving a car near someone's house is physically affecting individual's person(health). I don't see line anywhere in definition. I gave a concrete example in which my teacher should have said where the line is. Well, for example, murdering all pigeons of the planet is not violating NAP at all. But I like pigeons, I want to protect them. My opponent has not answered what is alternative to democracy. It is possible not to put any NAP related laws at all, but somebody has to regulate country's money. And what about laws like laws about owning intellectual property (songs, books), is counterfeit allowed in my opponent's proposed state? Lets address the idea of abandoning the state all together. People oriniginally entered a government (at least in John Locke's mind) in order to have police - to punish criminals, and army - to protect them from outsiders. If there was no police, no one would be able to prevent strong stealing from the week. If there is no military, other countries would easily take away(steal) anything they like, or expand their territory, and there is no way group of civilians can stop the army. Yes, people would CHOSE to obey, because their other option would be to die. That is even worse than having a choice to obey or go to prison. Why my teacher considers forcing trough authority of state to be worse then forcing trough authority of owning all resources? I am pointing out that by accumulation of power in big companies, power of their owners would rise all the way to the totalitarian state. Point of helping smaller companies is maintaining the balance of power. Because, Coca Cola is poison. My teacher said "informed choices". Who would inform them, if all media is private and doctors profit from having more sick people? Concept "inherently entitled" is meaningless, based on fallacy. I think in USA people do not have a right to healthcare, but we in Serbia do have right to healthcare guaranteed by our constitution. Forcing to provide a service would not make anyone slave. People still own themselves, even when they do not own (in capitalistic sense) their property. In my last statement of Round 2, I explained why charity will not work. If poor have no money, they can not afford the healthcare in capitalist society.
Libertarianism

Aggression is defined as any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner. They are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self determination and the principle of self ownership. You draw the line against aggression as per the definition. If Con disagrees with this, he must explain why aggression ought to be allowed. Democracy should be abandoned in favor of upholding the NAP. No action should be legal if it violates the NAP, and no action should be illegal unless it does. This includes government mandates through force. Some libertarians advocate abandonding the state all together. Democracy relies on tyranny of the majority and inhibits personal autonomy and individual rights.Capitalism means people are free to work where they choose for a price they choose. That is freedom. It doesn't mean you will be equal to your boss; it means you are free to quit if you don't like your boss. Forcing anyone to do anything through the authority of the state is the opposite of freedom.Con advocates inhibiting liberty to give small businesses a better chance for success. This is not good for the market or freedom. If it's true that bigger companies always prevail, then big companies would never go out of business (which they do all the time) or that new companies would never emerge and become big themselves (which they do all the time).People are responsible for their own informed choices. Just because I am exposed to more Coke ads than small Cola company ads doesn't mean that I have to buy Coke. Even so, why shouldn't Coke be able to advertise more if they have the funds? Why does Con want to penalize Coke for their success and inhibit free trade? Maybe Coke sells more than their competitors because they have a superior, more in demand product. Coke should be able to buy all the ad space they can and not be penalized for doing better business than others.Health care (nor any other professional service) is not a right. It is not something that you are inherently entitled to. If any professional provides you with a service, she has the right to charge you anything they want. If you cannot pay, you cannot force them to provide the service to you. That would essentially make them slaves.Many medical professionals and agencies would likely be established for the poor in a libertarian society. Charities and pro bono work would help. Supply and demand supports the notion that insurance agencies and the health care industry would adjust rates to provide more care and maximize their own profits. Con hasn't proven that people are either entitled to health care, or that the poor would inevitably have no acces to care in a capitalist society. So far he only has a crony capitalist society (what we have now) to draw examples from where state regulations manipulate the market.
Libertarianism

Problem with NAP: If I punch someone, I did a harm to him. If I spill my drink on someone, I did a harm to him. If open factory near his house that pollutes air, I did a harm to him. If I drive a car that pollutes air near his house, I did a harm to him. How do we agree upon where to draw the line? Note that people care about different things with different intensity.Is my teacher suggesting that we should abandon democracy? What is alternative?What makes my teacher think that pure capitalism will increasingly(with time) violate individual's freedom when individual who is poor will need to obey in order not to get fired? - For example, I made complete dominion over my dogs just by feeding them only when they complete tasks.drought principle - Sometimes big corporations that sell stuff make their products, in some location, so cheap to the point where they are making deficit. Smaller corporations that sell same stuff go bankrupt faster, and as soon as they are, the big corporation makes prices go up to the point far above they were in the first place.Eventually, just by drought principle, big corporations would eat up smaller ones. Advertising problem - better advertised products would beat products with better quality. "Would" is not even the right word. This is already happening, only in pure capitalism it would be to much greater extent.For example coca-cola and hamburgers are poison. And yet people worldwide consume it, only because it is well advertised.Quality of products would increasingly(with time) drop.Healthcare - Poor would not be able to get healthcare. People can never have too much money in pure capitalism. It is much more profitable to give additional money to workers with good performance, in order to stimulate them to work even better, than to donate to some random beggar.
Libertarianism

The most fair criteria for governance is assuming the moral validity of the non-aggression principle (NAP). It states that aggression against one's person or property is inherently immoral. As such, the only legitimate authority we have over one another is to ensure the enforcement of the NAP. This task can be accomplished through the state (government). However, abuses of government authority may result in subsequent tyranny that violates the NAP in itself, and subjects the population to things like tyranny of the majority (democracy) or even total authoritarian control (communism, fascism, etc.). The power and role of the state must be kept to a minimum as libertarianism suggests. This principle protects people's freedom and avoids institutionalized tyranny created by systems of oppressive government, that can ultimately allow those in power to abuse their authority to harm and/or control the populace. There are many reasons Con should become a Libertarian.Libertarianism protects people's individual freedom. Everyone is different and values are subjective. Libertarianism does not allow a group or individual to impose their beliefs or uphold them over another's freedom to have and express their own beliefs. The NAP is the criteria: if something does not violate another's physical person or property, it is fair game and none of anyone else's legal concern. Libertarianism is fair. It does not rely on theft (taxes) but voluntary trade. You get what you pay for or what pepole are willing to give you on their own terms.While it's true that libertarianism (capitalist economics) embraces hierarchy, the reality is that people are not equal. Everyone has different knowledge, strengths, experience, skills and personality traits that make them better or worse equipped to do certain things. Furthermore the value of our individual skills is not equal and are determined by things like supply and demand. As such, to embrace hierarchy is completely fair as it does not force everyone to accept undeserved mediocrity. It allows those who excel in certain areas to flourish and be rewarded for their choices and work ethic among other variables. Similarly, some people just have bad luck. That's unfortunate, but punishing everyone on the behalf of another's bad luck is definitely unfair. Libertarian economics reward productivity and punish inefficiency, as they support total accountability to the individual enterprise without relying on bail outs for mistakes or corrupt practices. This suggests that libertarian economics will help facilitate a productive and progressive economy. Culture thrives in rich societies where people are not distracted by worry of basic survival. The arts and certainly the sciences largely depend on successful capitalist enterprise. Libertarianism minimizes corruption. By minimizing the power and authority of those in power (government), there is more transparency and less opportunity for foul play.So, why NOT libertarinism?
Libertarianism

Accept only if you really are libertarian.Scenario is following: I don't know what libertarianism is (I may check up about it during the debate); My opponent is libertarian, and he is trying to convice me to become one too. I will be trying to refute my opponent's arguments, furthermore, I may try to convice my opponent that he should not be libertarian.Voting: If neither debater surrenders, debate will remain tied (no one will vote).
God Exists

Hey buddy. My first point/argument (I apologize if I'm going against your wished order, please correct me if so ) is that the most proof I get from believers in god is that when we look around, there is so much beauty and that this must have been made by the work of man. I argue that no, everything happens for a scientific reason whether it be a Dna function or a microscopic organism that caused all this life in our earth today. Another point I make is that, If God forgives all sin, except the act of not believing in him himself, "Whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God"s wrath remains on them" (John 3:36), Then why, in the part on ones most darkest moments, does he not reach out? I'm not talking about if you prayed to get good test scores and it shows up as an A+, but if you wee to be found homeless and hungry, that I bet no morsel of food will just fall from the sky. I'm sorry if the last point wasn't what you wanted, I just didn't know if you meant "Creator of All that Is" or "Creator and Father of all That is" or something along those lines. I'm sure these points are "Okay" either way, though.