BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Automation has made the existing market system untenable.

Premise of the argument is to address the Labor Lump Fallacy and show that in our current time the rate of automation has out paces the number of jobs created or displaced by automation and further that this makes the modern market system as we know it obsolete and unmanagable. My opponent will argue to the Opposite that the current Market system will remain Viable for the foreseeable future.The rounds will be structured as follows.Round 1: Acceptance & Introduction.Round 2: Opening Arguments ( no rebuttals)Round 3: Rebuttals And question to the OpponentRound 4: Counter rebuttal and Question answers.Round 5: Closing argument.
Lesbians are very high (statistically) for domestic violence; nobody knows why.

Turn your attention to a CDC study: http://www.cdc.gov... On the second page, there is a chart on the: Lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner of Straight, bisexual, and gay males and females. Female| MALE Lesbian 44% | Gay 26% Bisexual 61% | Bisexual 37% Heterosexual 35% | Heterosexual 29% 44% of lesbians and 35% of straight women This will conclude my first argument. or a 9% difference Now this is the CDC, so we know these numbers are on point.
Lesbians are very high (statistically) for domestic violence; nobody knows why.

1) First of all this is a purely factual debate like one might debate "are the lights on or off" and this doesn't have squat to do with anything else related to LGBT issues.Yup2) Second either if the opponent can win the argument either if he proves beyond reasonable doubt that either A lesbians are not more statistically high for domestic violence but also could win by stating a very logical reason to why, which would state that someone does in fact know why and I would lose.You are debateing statictis as stated above, not logical.3) 3rd this being purely statistics it could be a difference of .0000001% and be a coincidence with me losing to that being the answer "it is a coincidence" or if its a 3% and up difference we could conclude it is likely more than a coincidence and TBR needing to provide another explanation or disprove the statistics to win.Arbatraty at best. You stated "very high", 3% is not "very high". I will leave that to the judges.4) All I need to prove is that there is a minute difference in the domestic violence statistics to win and that there is no logical explanation.All over the board again. Nope, you need to prove "very high". No moving goalposts. 5) This also is under the mutual understanding that "very high" means higher than relevant others not simply just a number that we consider large or small. (The wording could have been a little more specific.)That is YOUR fault for choosing the words. Don't blame me.Present your argument.
Lesbians are very high (statistically) for domestic violence; nobody knows why.

First of all this is a purely factual debate like one might debate "are the lights on or off" and this doesn't have squat to do with anything else related to LGBT issues. Second either if the opponent can win the argument either if he proves beyond reasonable doubt that either A lesbians are not more statistically high for domestic violence but also could win by stating a very logical reason to why, which would state that someone does in fact know why and I would lose. 3rd this being purely statistics it could be a difference of .0000001% and be a coincidence with me losing to that being the answer "it is a coincidence" or if its a 3% and up difference we could conclude it is likely more than a coincidence and TBR needing to provide another explanation or disprove the statistics to win. All I need to prove is that there is a minute difference in the domestic violence statistics to win and that there is no logical explanation. This also is under the mutual understanding that "very high" means higher than relevant others not simply just a number that we consider large or small. (The wording could have been a little more specific.) CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!!!
cause+effect=logic

an atom has an opposite for it to exist.. the opposite of duality is non duality, and there goes duality we is the balancing point between me and you life being nature, there is no, before life.. chaos is logic.. storm winds caused trees in the forest to break and fall.. the tide swooped my wife away from my arms and she was never seen again.. we watched sun light melt the ice around an apple above our table an example of logic is mathematically valid.. but like with morality, there is non in fantasy, so an example of morality has to have accured to explore its truth imagination is false... there is no necessety of motion in fantasy, it is illogical logic is the opposite of logical and illogical.. logic is now, not truth of false
cause+effect=logic

no effectless causes can exist.. a cause causes or, cause and effect is 1, the chicken is the egg stomach ache is pain.. i know you cant close your eyes and read on, unless you have transparent eye lids or something and yet if the bus didnt hit the guy it wouldnt have mattered whatever caused him to go out on the road there.. you are sure that if he didnt get hit by the bus he wouldnt have died from getting hit by a bus a hypothetical of logic is whatever i say it is becuase its not true.. i am causing it with my words.. this is also why morality can not be equated as a fictional example.. logic has nothing to do with the god claim as far as i see.. god claims are illogical or fantasy... sense is logic, i dont sense god.. if you did sense god, i bet you would include cause and effect as logic love=positive emotion+returning at energy logic IS cause AND effect.. cause and effect exist as one, like beginning and end.. no causeless effect can exist, and no causes that dosnt cause sure then the person died right before the bus hit, the bus was esentially not the cause of death.. notice even thou its a false example i am right because i am just building on your example like with math in a way .. i dont agree about the chicken and egg non certainty thing.. egg=chicken+lay chicken=egg+hatch chicken=egg=nature chaos is simply a non intended cause.. random is the opposite of specified logic is not a concept... reasoning is of the mind, logic is true as i see it, reason is the concept or mental simulation of logic.. i contend reason is the opposite of logic and there is no logic in fantasy everything that exist has an opposite for it to exist
Ban all reality shows

Reality shows should not be banned. When people sign on to be on a reality show they sign a contract. The FCC regulates what can be shown on free-to-air broadcasting stations. TV shows are prohibited from showing nudity, and some profane language. They are also not allowed to exploit children and rigging of any kind. Reality shows on television do not break any of these rules and that’s why they are able to be shown. They are legal and should not be banned just due to you disagreeing with their content. Many reality TV shows fall under the content rating TV-14. This is defined as: "Parents strongly cautioned; may be inappropriate for children younger than 14 years of age. Contains moderate to realistic violence (including some blood-letting), moderate sexual references (including censored and/or partial nudity and heavily implied scenes of sexual intercourse), moderate language (including bleeped-out obscenities), and moderate sexual innuendo."They only show content legally suited for television. Reality shows are a source of income. Not only do the makers and producers of the shows get paid, but the participants are many times either getting paid or competing for a prize. In reality shows like Big Brother, Fear Factor, and The Amazing Race the participants are all competing for money. In shows like The Bachelor, American Idol, Average Joe, and The Apprentice participates are all competing for a prize. The contestants on these reality game shows if they win will be given a large amount of money or a prize that they want. The contestants voluntarily choose this and who are you to say that they should not be allowed to make money this way. Other reality shows where people life are being followed like Jersey Shore, Keeping Up with the Kardashions, and 16 and Pregnant, all parties involved consent to being filmed and put on TV. In many cases they are being paid or reward other ways for being on the show. They are making money completely legally and they are allowed to do that without the government shutting them down. On reality TV shows like The Biggest Loser participants’ goal is to lose the most weight. These shows take over weight people who want to get in better shape and put them in a show to compete for it. In many cases the competitors who lose the most weight are reward with prize money. In the US the winner can get a quarter of a million dollars. The Biggest Loser has also come out with video games centered on losing weight. In conclusion reality shows are completely legal and benefit the people involved. People who watch the shows are entertained by them and continue to watch them. Just because you disagree with what they are showing does not mean they should be banned. (1)-http://www.citytvweb.com... (2)-http://en.wikipedia.org... (3)-http://www.realityshows.com... (4)-http://en.wikipedia.org... (5)-http://en.wikipedia.org...
Does God exist

I'mma go over every POINT my opponent made in the last round. see who can spot the fallacy in his debate methods. i'mm breeze this. cause he contributed nothing. ********************************** 1. days in genesis Factually not fact. (can't support that claim) scientifically know it was not (as I said. not scientifically.) third gen star (not a fact based on any evidence, experiments, or observation.) remnants of previous stars (assumption not fact) early universe was not dark. 300 000 years after decoupling (nice number.) light after waters and earth existed. (Of course. matter was not created prior to light energy... obvs) 300 000 billions prior to, {my opponent uses those numbers as facts... and His standard atheist model of creation which is not 100 years old as Fact.} 2. hindu's, don't believe in Jesus ... (yes they do.) Read some Hindu scripture. Islam joseph... (joseph is not a portion of a religion. he was a member of a congregation.) You say every religion claims it is right and others go to hell if they reject this religion. (that was wrong. They only claim any contrary beliefs are condemnable. and factually. I do not have to support this Because it is obvious, easily researchable and all contrary information is easily disclaimed, that all religious principals are 100% the same.) born in India believe in krishna. and me too... :S I'm Christian a because.. cause I was born in Canada.. I am a mythologist as much as any former mythologist. yet my opponent is not Christian. **** 3. personal experiences do not count. delusion. Allah talks to no one according to standard Islamic belief. .. > yet my opponent used it as an argument point. 4. atheists Never reached out to God before. {my opponent contests} how can they then say they even tried? 5. suggest otherwise about what?***! [my opponent asks] about the topic of discussion. 6. My opponent contents that, ..."he never heard of someone who believes aliens started religion"(*?) by asking, "who does?". indicating skepticism, [a debate is founded on Fact not faith.] and or TRolling behaviour. 7. Asians, Europeans, south Americans and middle easterns all have giant lizards in their history and culture. i never said the king had a pet. i said the people say he did. lapse in cognitive skills. 6000+ year old trees. 80 000 years. typo? 9 000+ ;:) **************************4 It is in fact I, who is debating with a Troll. my opponents behaviour was the DEFINITION of TROLLING.
Does God exist

I don't even need to reply. My opponent is 100% incapable of backing up anything he said. genesis wrong, year appeared billions of years ago. Factually not fact. the generation of our sun; not fact; and how it formed; not fact. heavens and earth forming at the same time.. again not fact. he loaded his first paragraph with nonsensical banter. We do not know the earth was not in darkness. quantum mechanics is a theory not based on facts. the era of decoupling is not science (science is observed). 300 000 years ago was a number you pulled out ur butt. saying light cannot come from matter, (water + earth [gaseous and metallic elements]) is not fact. every religion si the same. Fact. read some would yea. Personal experiences, do in fact count. but we all agree, that they do not count as proof for an atheist, because God will never reveal himself to or enlighten one so arrogant as an atheist. talking about delusion. HA the irony is that you bring it up. Fact: every atheist blackmailed God. fact. Zero science indicates God is not real** *** you asked a question so I answered you. How did you possibly not know what I was asking you? were u even reading? And the alien piece, was ironic humor regarding the conspiracists who think aliens started religion. Are you really gonna go through all the effort to craw out ur arse to have this, "Who says that religion s were started by aliens? - " debate? wanna go? STart a debate on it. If this is how you have debates and make ur arguments no wonder The last list of crap I had to file out was so fundamentally Idiotic. And like I said. Evidence suggests dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. and as Reproval of ur concockted BS, I didn't say the Babylonian king HAD a dragon, I said it was said he did. You F- Idiot. ahhh... trees older than 6000 years... ahahahahahahah, "and this Rock - is 10 BILLION YEARS OLD!" ta da! said the geek. I didn't even need to reply. My opponent is 100% incapable of backing up anything he said. and he didn't even know where he can get evidence. His argument was, "he is Arrogantly what he pretends to be "ignorant" and lies to suggest he is knowledgeable out of spite."
I was told that molesting children is wrong

I was told that molesting children is wrong People told me that molesting children is bad People told me that molesting children is wrong People told me that molesting children is immoral People told me that molesting children is harmful People told me that molesting children is a sin To these accusations, I give the answer If it is bad, That will not stop me If it is wrong, That will not stop me If it is immoral, That will not stop me If it is harmful, That will not stop me If it is a sin, That will not stop me Your words are just empty talk They cannot stop me from molesting a child I will only stop molesting children when I die And that will not be soon, So we can say for sure I will molest more and more children I will molest more little girls, I will molest more little boys I will molest toddlers I will molest children of different ages This world is not strong enough to stop me They would have the ability to stop me If they had the proper will But they are creatures without will I am second to none in this world I will be stopped by no one I will molest more children
Joseph Stalin was more evil than Adolf Hitler

From my perspective, even as a Communist I think that Joseph Stalin was much more evil than Adolf Hitler. The reason I became a Communist was not because of Stalin. I have always been deeply influenced by Vladimir Lenin's and Karl Marx's idea. I have never looked up to Stalin as my inspiration for this ideology. Who were they: Before we start this debate, I think it is important to clarify who both of these individuals were. Joseph Stalin: Joseph Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from 1920s until his death in 1953. Stalin was promoted as the general secretary of the Central Committee in 1922 after part taking in the Russian Revolution in 1917 (1). Before Stalin was able to reach his rule, he was an armed robber, a hired killer and a thief (my own knowledge). Adolf Hitler: Adolf Hitler was the chancellor of Germany from 1933-1945 and a dictator of the Nazi Party from 1934-1945. Hitler was subsequently responsible for the World War II in Europe and the Holocaust (2). Sources: [1]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Argument Point 1: It's true that Hitler did set up concentration camps which killed a lot of war prisoners and most importantly Jews. But I could argue that Stalin has committed human violation crimes which were much worse. For instance, Stalin has been setting up Gulags which were Soviet forced labor camps for war prisoners. Gulags were primarily located in Siberia, and the laborers were supposed to work in all kinds of conditions, no matter how cold it was or how sick the laborers were. Stalin has always claimed himself as the greatest ruler of all time. He has even tried to arrest a man, Gregory Zhukov who has protected and saved many Russian colonies during the World War II (1). Source: [1]: . http://www.thetoptens.com... Point 2: Stalin has caused the Ukrainian famine which killed over 2.4-7.5 people resulting in starvation. The famine was a cause of economical and political issues. The famine has begun in 1932 and ended in 1933. Mainly, it was caused by Stalin because the people spoke against his rule. The Ukrainians tried to start their own Independent Movement and speak out against Stalin. Source: [2]: . http://www.historyplace.com... [3]: . http://en.wikipedia.org... Point 3: The summary Stalin has approximately killed over 20 million people, including 14.5 million who starved to death. And one million were executed due to political offenses. 9.5 million were sent to labor camps, and none of the people returned from these camps alive (4). Source [4]: . http://www.moreorless.net.au...
Joseph Stalin was more evil than Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler is often thought of as one of the most cruel leaders in history. The westerner world has characterized him as the most brutal leader of his age. North east of the nazi regime rested the Soviet Union. Led by one of the cruelest and most brutal rulers of all time. Stalin rose to power by piggy backing off of the influence of Vladimir Lenin. After becomeing the leader of the Soviet Union, Stalin proceeded to push Russia into national socialism. Socalism, being a political perspective is by no means evil. Although, Stalin soon used his power as a totalitarianist leader to brutally execute tens of millions. Stalin actually signed documents requiring his to police/military to kill a minimum amount of people per day. The daily quota of executions Stalin demanded -regardless of a crime - soon caused the numer of deaths under his orders to far surpass that of Hitlers. ( http://www.nybooks.com... ) It is often claimed that Hitler is the ultimate evil of the last thousand years because he attempted to purge a race from the earth. The truth is he used the jews as a lightning rod for all of germanys problems, thus unifying his counrty against one enemy. Wheareas; Stalin killed to create fear amongst his people and solidify his position as the undisputed and terrified leader of the USSR. This technique has been used for centuries by the wolrds most brutal and feared dictators. Joseph Stalin was responsible for 3-60 million deaths far surpassing that of Hitlers. The only reason this topic is even under debate due to the fact that Stalin opposed the Nazi forces. If he had not fought against the same enemy as the allied forces he would easily be known as the the most diabolical man to walk the earth.
you are more evil than I am crazy

org for creating this wonderful medium with which we can use. Now I'm going to refute my opponents points. 1. First, you cannot prove that, and you have the burden of proof. Seeing as you haven't proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt, you have lost this point. Also, this is just an accusation, seeing as there is no way for you to "see" into my mind and determine with what intention I tickle you. There is only one person who can say with conviction what I am thinking, and that person is me. I can tell you now that I do not intend to cause pain or inflict mental damage upon my good friend. However, believing that argument is up to you. 2. Yes, you explained your username. Let me post that argument that you used: "4. My last point is that I am not crazy. .. All though I like the crazy bunny because he looks funny and its a funny message and my name is crazypenguin because I like penguins and without the crazy its just bland old penguin, so that is my point that I am not crazy! " Let me mention now that this argument is not really an argument but rather a run on sentence, and it doesn't really prove anything, other than the fact that you claim to like penguins. You claim that I do not have a good reason to make my username Burningpuppes101, but does it really matter? My choice of username will not make me evil. Also, my reason for making my username Burningpuppies101 was an act of rememberance of that day. I think that what our usernames are should not reflect on what we are like as people. 3. I do not see how tickling someone will cause them physical harm. I can see how stabbing someone with a knife would cause them hard, but tickling someone in the side does not cause physical harm. Even if I did accidentally poke crazypenguin too hard, I would immediatley say sorry and ask for forgiveness. However, I have not done that. Also, my opponent hasn't offered any proof for any of the claims he has made. Since he has the burden of proof, he has lost this point and this debate since he has not proven anything. 4. I just disproved all of you claims. 5. I know what rape is, does that mean that I am pure Evil? ?? Does that mean I have raped someone? ?? This argument makes no sense. Plus, tazering is a inside joke between me and him. 6. I'm not trying to prove that you are crazy. I am trying to disprove his statements. I do not need to prove that he is more crazy than I am evil. I just need to prove that I am not indeed more evil than my opponent is crazy. Conclusion: My opponent has still failed to disprove my statements, seeing all he has done this entire debate is throw accusations at me, and hope that I will forget to refute one of them, and he will claim it as a vicotry on his part. However, HE STILL HAS NOT PROVEN ANYTHING, AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON HIS SIDE. I got to go, so for my arguments, look to my first speech.
you are more evil than I am crazy

Now to refute the refutations of my opponent: 1. What I mean to say is that is my opponent is evil by using those words because it has a negative impact on the other person as my opponent said:"wicked " which is exactly what my opponent had in mind. 2. Whatever the reason you have for putting that name I already explained my username to you. Your username has a reason to it but is it necessarily a good one?..... 3. Lets stop at "does not do mental or physical damage." As I explained before it does cause me physical damage. For example when he tazered me quite badly this one time and I was writhing on the floor and a close friend commented me as a "Tickle me (my name)" or a spazzing person (no offense to people who like Tickle me Elmo's). Another time when he used both his hands and jabbed them in my sides, it hurt a lot and i had two red marks on the side. EVIL 4. Summing up his arguments, I have 3 ways to prove he is evil 5. My way to prove that what I say is true is all in my opponents arguments, when he said what tazering is I took it tha now you can believe me that he is pure EVIL. 6. I am not crazy becuase other than have my username which i already explained. Otherwise there is no implication or any sign that I am crazy. Thank you,