BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Impossiblity Exists (Inspired by a True Story)

Opening arguments will be made in round 2. "My opponent is free to copy and paste his argument into round 2, however no arguments made in round 1 will be acknowledged. Thus, I will not refute his round 1 arguments in this speech. Contention 1: Logical Paradoxes1. The Liar's Paradox [1]"A man says that he is lying; is what he says true or false? [When] we answer this question, difficulties arise. If we suggest that what the man says is true, then we end in contradiction: if the man’s claim that he is lying is true, then he is lying, in which case what he says is false. If we suggest that what the man says is false, then we are no better off: if the man’s claim that he is lying is false, then he is not lying, in which case what he says is true. Both answers give rise to logical contradictions; it cannot be the case either that what the man says is true or that what the man says is false. " It is impossible for either answer to be correct, and thus logical impossibilities exist. 2. The Debate. org Double-Win Paradox (Okay, this may not be official, but it works, so just go with it). If all things are possible, then we may both win this debate. However, debate. org will record a win for one of us and a loss for the other, unless of course the voting ends in a tie, in which case we are both awarded a draw. However, there is never a scenario where we will both be awarded a win. Thus, is must be impossible for two people to win the same debate. Contention 2: Impossible Shapes. http://www.google.com...http://www.google.com...Neither of the above shapes can possibly be made into real 3D figures, thus it must be impossible to do so. Contention 3: Concepts Exist1. Concepts are thoughts that we conceive in our mind.2. We think and conceive things in our mind. Humans have the ability to see images in their head, or to speak to themselves in their mind; this is how we contemplate our life's problems. We are also able to entertain ideas within our mind, to conceive thoughts.3. Thus, concepts exist. The burden of the Pro as agreed upon in accepting this debate is to prove that the concept of impossibility exists. As long as we have the ability to think, we can conceptualize what impossibility would theoretically be like, that's why we even have a word for impossibility. ConclusionWhile proving that impossibility actually exists, as done with my first two contentions, would be nice and a reason to vote Pro, acknowledging that the concept of it exists as done in my 3rd contention is sufficient for me to win the round. Even if impossibility doesn't exist, the idea of it does. I urge a Pro ballot and wait eagerly for my opponent's response.1. . http://www.logicalparadoxes.info...
Impossiblity Exists (Inspired by a True Story)

The debate between TheHost and BlackVoid http://www.debate.org... has inspired me to debate the same topic a I find the resolution interesting.In accepting the debate you accept the burdens and definitions provided below.For clarification, the burden of the Pro is to prove that the concept of impossibility exists. It is burden of the Con to simply prove the Pro's arguments false.The first round is for acceptance. Opening arguments will be made in round 2.Impossibility [1]: the quality or state of being impossibleImpossible [2]: incapable of being or of occurringExist [3]: to have real being whether material or spiritualBeing [4]: the quality or state of having existenceExistence [5]: reality as presented in experienceExperience [6]: the act or process of directly perceiving events or realityReality [7]: the quality or state of being real1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...5. http://www.merriam-webster.com...6. http://www.merriam-webster.com...7. http://www.merriam-webster.com...There were some critics of the lack of definitions, so I decided to define the words in the definitions just to be clear.I look forward to having a fun and challenging debate.
Impossiblity Exists (Inspired by a True Story)

though my opponents, suggestion may have been a good one, will not be reposting my round one argument, as it would waste most of my character limit, and it would not address his argument for this round. I will start by refuting his opening statement that two people cannot win the same debate. simply because a website does not allow something to be recorded, does not mean it is impossible, nor does it mean it is impossible to be recorded as such. it simply means that those programming this website do not want it as such. next i will address the pictures given as an example to us in part two of my opponent's argument. the first picture is of a three dimensional triangular figure, that is oddly reminiscent of the Mobius strip. http://mathworld.wolfram.com... it is a three dimensional figure made simply by taking strip of paper, giving it a half turn across the shorter axis, and connecting the ends of the longer axis. it looks impossible, but it's not. neither is the triangular figure. granted the actual construction of the object would be awkward, and difficult, and it would probably not stand upright for very long, but it would not be impossible. as for the other image, simply view it as a wire construct and it's creation as a three dimensional figure becomes entirely possible. granted probably not in the way the original creator had in mind, but that shape does have the possibility to become a 3d object. as for the concept of impossibility existing within our minds, that is unfortunately, also refutable. the idea of the impossible is simply an illusion created out of fear of the unknown. we fear what would happen should we think outside our normal comfort zone, what would happen should we actually break the boundaries of what we have come to know as real and true, and so our mind blocks our ability to comprehend it. fear creates the illusion of impossibility, and illusions are not real, therefore they do not exist. in summary, impossibility, even as a concept, is merely an illusion and therefore, unreal.
No homosexuality

Rebuttals: 1) Why should we go by what's written in the bible? I don't believe in god as there is no evidence for his existence and lots of evidence against it. You can't say something is wrong just because it's written in some book! The majority of the population don't believe in a christian god. 2) The 'who's going to play the mums role' is a heavily debated one however you're forgetting If two homosexual men adopt a young child, it is unlikely the child will have ever experienced a mother before and therefore it won't make a difference. Most motherly roles can be carried out by men apart from maybe breastfeeding which can be done with a bottle (this is actually safer than direct breastfeeding). 3) Your child will certainly know right from wrong just as a child from a mum and a dad would. You point here doesn't make any sense?! 4) We weren't 'put' on this earth, life gradually evolved. We evolve to survive and sometimes it works like for examples when giraffes split from short necks to long necks the long neck giraffes survived as they could reach leaves higher up so the shorter necked ones died out. Sometimes though, neither split is favoured for example blue eyes or green eyes. Nowadays however we work in a different way. We wouldn't kill off someone with a mental disability because we live in a society where however you're born you are equally accepted and that is the way it should stay. 5) It's actually more like twice as likely not three times but is that surprising when people like you tell them the way THEY FEEL, something they can't change is wrong? If we lived in a society where we accepted eachother it would be miles better. Thank you and I look forward to your rebuttals.
No homosexuality

The bible clearly states homosexuality is a sin. The urge or temptation to be with the same sex partner is directly from the enemy. If a 10 year old girl is tempted to defy her parents or commit another sin, it is no different. now who did God make? Adam and eve? or adam and steve? To have a kid it calls for a male and a female not male and male or female and female. Whos to play the moms role? whos to play the dads role? what are your kids (if you adopt them) suppose to say at school to friends? oh i have two moms or two dads? your child wont know whats right from wrong. and even if we were talking about that theres many other reasons as well. we were put on this earth to reproduce! theres no such thing as being born "homosexual" gays and lesbians are two to three times as likely to commit suicide than a hetero.
Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend

Good day to you all, ladies and gentleman. In today's case, I shall prove the resolution which states "Resolved: A corrupt girlfriend/boyfriend is better than no boyfriend/girlfriend" is false beyond the notion of a doubt. Before starting, I'd like to thank my opponent (whomever that may be) for taking up this debate and I'd ask that the voters vote based on who debated better rather than their own personal opinion. With all of that being said, let us proceed. =================== CONTEXT: =================== We're discussing what is in general =========== DEFINITIONS =========== Corrupt: • adjective 1: willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. 2: evil or morally depraved. 3: (of a text or computer data) made unreliable by errors or alterations. 4: archaic rotten or putrid. (1) Better: • adjective 1: more desirable, satisfactory, or effective. (2) Due to these definitions, I trust that there will be no confusion as to what the words mean as well as a useless battle over semantics. Due to laziness, I'm only going to present one contention for the time being, but I'll probably present more in round 2. ===================================== CONTENTION: Corruption is contagious. ===================================== The first and most obvious contention to my case is the fact that a corrupt boyfriend/girlfriend can bring about corruption in his/her partner. For instance, a teenage partner who is involved with a corrupt teenage boyfriend/girlfriend will likely be inclined to participate in acts of underaged drinking or illegal drug usage, if they see their corrupt boyfriend/girlfriend participating. In actuality, this is a more advanced than normal peer pressure (which merely involves wanting to fit in with friends) as it involves the possibility of getting some action and feeling good about oneself. Needless to say, this doesn't merely apply to teenagers, but to experienced adults as well (and for the same motives discussed above). Since this is 4 rounds, feel free to use one round for a quick cross examination. If not, I'll probably do it anyway in round 2. ======== Sources ======== #1. http://www.askoxford.com... #2. http://www.askoxford.com...
Apple (Iphone) is better then android

Hey cowboy, dont add arguments too fast. Android is no doubt better than ios. Ios is too complicated. Android gives the user to have full freedom with the device(ROOT) plus you cant get emulation on ios. But you can on android. What I mean is, You can play a ton of other non android games through emulators. But incase of ios, you need a jailbreak device for it. Moreover, On android, you can change the by-default keypad or many other widgets and replace them by your choice. But on ios, thats not possible. You get a variety of models and devices showcasing android OS for example like samsung, HTC, etc.
More Gun Control is needed in the United States.

Guns. To some people it's a tool that is used to defend themselves and their family. To others it's a collectors piece that is very valuable. And to some it's something that causes death and misery. The rights that America is built around includes "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Now i intend to show that putting more restrictions on firearms is not only pointless but also that it violates the rights that every american has. This makes a lot of sense if you think about it. Criminals are less likely to attack someone if they believe that they are armed. Put yourself in the criminals shoes for a second if you are in a state like Alaska, where citizens are allowed to carry a weapon without a permit or license, you would probably be a little hesitant to rob or mug a person because chances are that the person is carrying a weapon. Weapons make a great deterrent 9 times out of 10 if you just show someone that you have a firearm that they are going to stop what they are doing and leave. There is always that one that will try and continue what they are doing whether that be robbing a store or mugging you on the street if you have the firearm on you then you have a way to defend yourself and that is what firearms are for. Simply put a firearm is a tool that is deadly and should be used only if you are in a situation where your life or another life is in danger.
More Gun Control is needed in the United States.

So to continue guns are a tool, a item that makes people feel safer while walking at night or in dangerous areas. Guns are a strong foundation for which this country was built around. Now in order to keep the debate going i am just going to counter some of the arguments my opponent could of used. First of all according to a study by statistician named William Sturdevant the general public is 5.7 times more likely to get arrested for violent offenses and 13.5 times more likely to get arrested for non-violent offenses then concealed carry weapon permit holders. Pretty much this confirms that a majority of gun owners are responsible law abiding citizens who just wish to protect themselves and their family. Source: http://concealedguns.procon.org... Secondly the school shootings like Columbine and Virginia Tech could have been aided if just one person had a concealed weapon. I'm not sure if you noticed this but most of these shooting sprees all take place in gun free zones. This to me means that criminals are going to go where they are less likely to come across someone with a gun such as schools, movie theaters, restaurants, and colleges. Lastly it's impossible to completely get rid of crime. It's always going to be apart of this world. Putting heavy restrictions on guns or even banning them all together will not get rid of crime but it will make sure that the general public will not be able to defend themselves which in turn makes the criminals job a lot easier. Look at cities where you can't have a concealed weapon like Chicago, Illinois, that city has one of the worst crime rates in the country and yet you cannot "legally" carry a concealed weapon. What does that tell you?
terror against freedom

I will not watch these youtube videos I will let the people decide. My opponent main argument is that Islam is terrorism which is not.There are many cases where Christianity people committed acts of terrorism. July 27 2008 Christian sympathizer Jim David walked in Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee where he went to the children play and began shooting randomly killing two children and injuring seven of them. July 27 1996 Paul Jennings Hill a christian terrorist well known for the bombing the Olympic park. He killed one spectator and injuring 111. There are Extremist in every religion,that are willing to do evil things in the name of there religion.My opponent is labeling some terrible indeed actions caused by Muslim Extremist but that is not the majority of the population.
terror against freedom

My opponent says Islam is terrorism which is not. Islam is a religion that has 1.6 billion people. I must ask are all those peoples including mothers,fathers,sons,daughters,and family are considered terrorist for simply following the religion. On terrorism there has been over 150 thousand terrorist attacks since 1970.Lets say that all of those attacks were committed by people of Islam. Those terrorist represent most likely 0.00009% of people that follows Islam.You have a better chance getting struck by lightning in your lifetime then experiencing a Muslim committing a terrorist acts in your life. You are labeling Muslims as terrorist that apply terrorism but actually 5/12 (42%)Nobel peace prize holders are Muslims.That is very important that shows Muslims belief made more people become Nobel peace prize holders. These are why Islam is not a terrorism. Sources : http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov... http://www.start.umd.edu...
terror against freedom

I will be debating on why Islam should not be banned. I will define terrorism Terrorism-The use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area to try to achieve a political goal. Source-http://www.merriam-webster.com... According to the FBI 94% of terrorist attacks in the United States between 1980 and 2005 were non Muslims. Also the majority of Muslims in Pakistan have no opinion on Isis. Also on Lebanon 94% of Muslims dislike Isis.Generally Muslims say that suicide bombings are nearly or not justifiable including 92% in Indonesia,and 91% in Iraq. 68% of Muslims in Nigeria are worried about radical extremist. We cant just ban a religion. We are infringing on the first amendment on freedom of religion.Every religion has terrorism.Lets look at Christianity terrorism. In 1994 Drs. John Britton and James barret were shot by reverend Paul Jennings. I must ask every religion will have extremist. So Should we ban all religion so there victims can escape and not worry about it?. Sources: http://www.pewresearch.org... https://www.fbi.gov... http://occupydemocrats.com...
My brother in Christ is wisely seeking counsel to help him grow in his faith. He has good questions.

Today I'm going to tackle freewill. I believe in the position called libertarian free will. I think that man has the ability to genuinely choose or choose otherwise. The purpose in the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil was not to test our obedience but rather to actualize human freedom. The tree fulfilled it's purpose the moment it's roots hit the soil. God was not guilty of setting man up for sin because that wasn't the point in the tree. For freedom to exist then choice must exist. Why does there have to be choice? Relationships require choice. There is no such thing as a forced relationship. God is love and loving us is what God is about. He wants to have a relationship with us. To do that we have to choose it. We know we have choices because God gives us commandments and instructions. He gives us ultimatums. He is angry about our disobedience. None of those things makes sense in a setting were everything is foreordained. The next question is why do bad things happen? For the same reason. We have choices. If we have real choices then there will be real consequences. If God has four pieces of fruit; an apple, banana, pear, and a peach. If he says we can pick one and we pick the pear then He, necessarily, lacks control of the pear by His own choice and restraint. If God honors most of our free will decisions then when we choose evil the world is likely to become a very ugly place. God is Holy and Righteous, Loving and Kind because He honors our freewill but, we are guilty of the evil that comes of our decisions. He is not the one who misused our free will we are. We did not give ourselves freewill, He did. He is good and we are sinful. The trouble with sinning in an ongoing way is that we can create such a mess of freewill choices that we severely limit what God can do to help us. Other peoples freewill also enters into the equation. It can get to the point where God can forgive us and restore us to Him but the consequences of our actions are pretty much unavoidable and at full force. Again the reason for this is that God honors our freewill.
My brother in Christ is wisely seeking counsel to help him grow in his faith. He has good questions.

I feel that the first thing we might try and understand is that God is love. As it is written: 1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." From my perspective it's vital that I keep this at the center of my thinking and attention. This comforts me when I run across something that I worry about that God did or said. It reminds me that logically God has to have good intentions. So, the next question might be what is God's love? I feel it's the following words found in 1 Corinthians chapter 13:4 "Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8 Love never fails..." If you think about it, the fruits of Holy Spirit could be seen as a description of God as well. What are the fruits of the Holy Spirit? The Word of God says in Galatians 5:22-23 New English Translation 22 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law." The feeling of fear can really interfere with our walk with YHWH. Preachers, politicians, husbands, wives, and parents all think fear is a good tool to maintain their power and relationships. It appears to work. It gets the job done to a slight degree for a short period of time, but it's not worth the damage it does to the other persons heart and mind. Fear will never be as powerful as love. Fear will never give a person the physical strength to carry out a task the way love can give a mother the strength to lift a car off a trapped child or a father to run into a burning house to rescue his kids and end up burned alive himself. The Scriptures say: 1 John 4:18 "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love." Now finally, someone might ask; "How do you know that God loves you and the above words aren't just platitudes?"; the answer to the question can be found in the month of Nissan (April) 33 A.D. on top of a hill called Calvary. John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Love became a man. I'm going to end here and let you respond. I know that this isn't what you asked but I feel there might be a need for some foundational work. I'm not accusing you of being ignorant of your faith but rather you sound like your in pain and living in fear. God did not mean for this to be the case for you brother. I will answer your questions though, please don't worry about that.
My brother in Christ is wisely seeking counsel to help him grow in his faith. He has good questions.

Brother I would love to hear some of your questions again. I'd like the opportunity to share some thoughts about them if you'd be willing. Your desire to ask sincere questions in order to grow in your faith is a good and Godly thing not a bad thing. God is not afraid of the facts. I'm not a Presbyterian but I think I've got some valuable insights to offer.