BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Funding a massive border barrier is wrong.

I'd like to start by saying I don't believe we need a wall from sea to shining sea. I think this is something we can both agree on. This is also something trump has also agreed to (1). I don't think comparing mid evil walls to a modern barrier is entirely appropriate. While a wall isn't the end all be all of illegal trafficking it is a reasonable deterrent. It is going to take time to get over, Around, Or under a wall. Time that can be used to help border agents stop the flow of illegal traffic. Even in middle ages it was people who stopped people. As far as it being a monument: that might be true. However if most illegal immigration occurs through overstating visa's then who is this wall actually targeting? The wall is targeting smugglers and human trafficking. It's targeting cartels and people we wouldn't let in the country even temporarily.
Funding a massive border barrier is wrong.

We should not fund a massive border barrier. It is tactically unsound. Neither walls, Nor motes, Nor knights with shiny lances are sound protection plans for our nations border. We'd be better suited hiring more sets of eyes and utilizing the technology we've developed in the past centuries. No, Not an efficient method of protection at all. Making it more of a monument. A monument to a campaign promise. America doesn't need a monument depicting our position on immigration. We already have one and she's known as Lady Liberty.
It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god

It has been a pleasure debating him :)My opponent's quotes are in bold. "'There seems to be a cut off, but it is clearly inferred that the first definition stands'. That is awesome, its like the inferred assumption that there is a divine creator that is in control of the natural order of things. Thats[sic] the type of attitude everybody had back in the day. "Yes, but it's standard debate procedure known to anyone familiar with this site. However, I guess that my opponent would be correct in stating that specifying that this is not the case for a debate would make it not the case for the debate. "It seems as though there are a lot of questions from Con that maybe he should have asked for clarification before the debate again No Rules means No Rules. "It is not my job to seek clarification on such matters, but the instigator's job to provide clarification if he wants to prevent a semantic argument"Losing a debate because of split hairs or semantics is up to the voters. If the voters believe that No Rules means I am free to express definitions whenever I want, and any rule that says the first to call it is right, cannot be enforced because there are No rules. Con should have asked for clarification of what No Rules meant, as it seems to be a concern to him. " Once again, I don't need to ask for clarification. If my opponent actually did mean to put certain rules in place (such as no semantic arguments), he should have clarified. As I previously stated, if there are no rules, there are certainly none preventing my semantic argument. Furthermore, if he uses this "no rules" basis to justify his redefinition of terms, then I can of course do this too (define them back to my orginal definitions; note that since I have the last round, I would still win). Like I said previously, it's a poor escape route. Also, I would ask my opponent to put quotation marks around what he's citing next time. He quoted . http://public.web.cern.ch...without quotation marks. However, he did seem to cite this as "Origins Project at ASU in Tempe, Az Lawrence Krauss. " I found it to be confusing. As I have found this debate to be highly enjoyable, I would suggest that my opponent be more specific and not state "no rules" at the beginning of his debates. I think if he does this and stays a bit more on topic, it will make for many more interesting debates in which he will be much more likely to win.
It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god

Of course I don't get to define what my opponent means by the words, but I did define words for the context of this debate. If my opponent thinks my definition of known doesn't stand then I suggest that he read the DDO tutorial thread [1]. "A poorly worded debate resolution is open to semantic. Semantics occurs if one uses a word that has multiple meanings, and the opponent twists the meaning around so that the definition favors him or her. An opponent might also take a figure of speech, and argue against the literal meaning.""Your opening argument should give enough context to define what the words in the resolution mean. That context might include a whole opening argument, a description of the general area of debate, or specific definition""To avoid an opponent using semantics on you, it is important to define your terms before the debate. The general debate custom is that whoever defines the terms first. . ." There seems to be a cut off, but it is clearly inferred that the first definition stands.I suggest my opponent be more specific in his wording in his next debate resolution.Though it is irrelevant, known is an adjective in the sentence "It is Not[sic] illogical to suppose the Non extistance[sic] of a known god :)"My opponent states the following: "The definitions of my words are seen in the words themselves. They are defined in action thru example :)" My opponent provided no examples or context in his opening statement. "I'm not required to define and layout definitions right away about certain words. There are No rules :)" Yes, one is supposed to layout definitions and specifically explain the contention he/she is trying to defend. Since I defined it first, my definition stands. My opponent should have been more specific if he did not want me to use a semantic argument against him. He did not specify what he meant by no rules either. "No rules" could simply mean that he had no additional rules for the debate or guidelines such as "no new arguments in the final round" or it could mean, as someone pointed out in the comments, that it can just be a nonsense debate. Really, there's a difference between "there are no rules" and "no standard ddo or debate procedure apply and you can do whatever you want." Regardless of the debate, the same categories are used in voting. I don't think my opponent will get very far with his "no rules" justification. If there are no rules, then there are certainly no rules prohibiting me from using a semantic argument.My opponent states: "The terminology "Known god" , is used meaning[sic] to exclude unknown gods . . ." If this is what he meant, he should have explained in his opening statement. He did not however, and my argument still stands uncontested. Once again, as interesting as I found the rest of my opponent's argument to be, he failed to refute my contention: It is illogical to suppose the non-existence of a god that is known to exist. This is the definition of "known" that was specified for the debate. In conclusion, he has dropped my arguments and conceded. I win. [1] http://debate.org...
It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god

My opponent has provided no definitions or rules, therefore I will start my opening argument with some definitions.Definitions[1]:logical (adj)-1. Based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions; reasonableBased on this definition of logical, illogical can be taken to mean that which goes against that which is proven (known statements, events, conditions, etc.)known (adj)-1. Proved and publicly acknowledge to be; apprehended with certaintyArgumentMy opponent has asserted that "It is not illogical to suppose the Non existence of a known god." I contest this. Based on the definitions for this debate, it is clearly illogical to suppose the non-being of a god that has been proved to be.Thank you.[1] thefreedictionary.com and google dictionary; definitions combined
Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom

You too LovesHisMom 1. Scientific You stated that My client violated Newton's law by pushing the Earth out of orbit. Well, as you can see in the video, he only pushed Earth a couple hundred Meters. And, since it was no where near Mars, and since Mars is around the edge of the Goldilocks Zone, (the zone around the sun where it is possible to hold liquid water), my client didn't push the Earth out of the Goldilocks zone, so it is still able to support life. He also eliminated some of the warmth due to Global warming. You also stated that he is breaking Newton's theory by driving a light speed car that runs on a flashlight. Light, and heat from the light source can produce electricity if done correctly. Just take a look at Solar Panels. Mr. Face could have an engine POWERED by the light/heat of the flashlight. But you probably wouldn't know. 2: Law You state that my lint, Trollface, lies to a gamer about the "Super Upgrade". Well, maybe the player can stop BEING SUCH AN IDIOT and don't check the shop until he has enough money for it to be raised by $500. Just because mr. Face wants a fair deal on a product doesn't mean he's lying. Thank you.
Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom

Nice to debate you again, yomama12. Argument 1: Breaking Scientific Laws Trollface has violated scientific laws. 1.1: In this video, he violates Newton's laws of motion by pushing the earth out of orbit. http://m.youtube.com... 1.2: Mr. Face does this again with a light-speed car. According to Newton's second law of motion, F=M X A. There is only a flashlight at the end of the car to make it go the speed of light. An activated flashlight adds absolutely no real acceleration in real life, so the acceleration is 0. Anything times zero is zero, therefore the real force on Mr. Face's flashlight-powered car is zero. However, it still goes, so it violates Newton's second law of motion. http://m.youtube.com... Argument 2: Breaking Legal Laws 2.1: In this video, defendant Face is shown stealing and lying. http://m.youtube.com... 2.2: lying is a crime [1]. In the online game Trollface Launch, Mr. Face promises the player a supposed "Super-Upgrade" if they rack up 1,000,000 dollars. What he really does, however, is he denies the player any Super-Upgrade, raises the price by $500 every time the player checks the shop, and says things such as "Stop dreaming!" and "Trololololol!" Therefore, he is breaking his promise, which is lying. Sources: [1]- http://gbr.pepperdine.edu...
Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom

"That does not mean that I give up. Let me remind you that this is a court case, which means that if I prove defendant Face guilty of anything, I win. " It means you give up on ONE of the topics. "That means that you admit that Mr. Face is guilty" Like you said, it doesn't mean you win. "That means that you admit that Mr. Face is guilty" I do not agree with such, besides, if I did, then you would agree that Mr. Trollface is INNOCENT based on you conceding with the Earth argument. So we are all tied up. Besides, it's up to the voters to decide. "That argument is about how we should not try to stop trolls, not about why defendant Face is innocent. Therefore, it does not help you" Actually, yes it does. Mostly because it shows that there are many people like Mr. Trollfact that do stuff like this, and they don't get punished, do they? Why does Mr. Trollface get singled out?
Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom

1: Scientific: 1.1: "My opponent has agreed with me on one of the topics," That does not mean that I give up. Let me remind you that this is a court case, which means that if I prove defendant Face guilty of anything, I win. 1.2: "...I do concede on the speed of light" That means that you admit that Mr. Face is guilty. 2: Law: 2.1: "What do you mean by this?" I mean that I tried getting enough money for it to be raise d by $500, but I still could not get the super-upgrade. 2.2: "Trolls are all around the world... But nothing.. will stop them. Not even a court case." That argument is about how we should not try to stop trolls, not about why defendant Face is innocent. Therefore, it does not help you.
Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom

"I will concede on the earth part." My opponent has agreed with me on one of the topics. Although he conceded on the Earth part, I do concede on the Speed of Light. Law: "I tried that, but it did not work." What do you mean by this? "Mr. Face does not want a fair deal. He never gives you the super-upgrade at all. Because he promises you the super-upgrade, even if you do not believe him, he is still lying." Trolls are all around the world in anything you can think of, Hell, some are even on this site! But nothing in the world will ever stop them. Not even a court case.
Court Case: Trollface vs Loveshismom

1. Scientific I will concede on the earth part. The speed of light, however, is at least 299792.458 km/sec [1]. That would be impossible to travel at in a car, and would obviously defy Newton's second law of gravity, no matter what you did that involved a flashlight. http://www.speed-light.info... 2. Law 2.1: "Well, maybe the player can stop BEING SUCH AN IDIOT and don't check the shop until he has enough money for it to be raised by $500." I tried that, but it did not work. "Just because mr. Face wants a fair deal on a product doesn't mean he's lying." Mr. Face does not want a fair deal. He never gives you the super-upgrade at all. Because he promises you the super-upgrade, even if you do not believe him, he is still lying.
Banning social net. sites at school

I'll post a brief argument. Throught history, suppression of free speech has been a factor in support of tyranny. In addition, if you personally have problems with social networking sites causing issues with school studies, then can't you address that on your own? Is it really necessary to say "I need a higher authority to ban twitter, because I can't control myself". Must we ban all things that are causing problems in your life? The drug war, for example, is not working out too well. Neither did alchohol probibition.
Banning social net. sites at school

I agree, that banning social networking sites will NOT make common playground problems go away (bullying, suicide, etc.). In fact, as a high school student myself, I've never even seen hard core cyber bullying. The only reason I agree with the banning of social net. sites at school is because students don't get any school work done if they have access to sites such as Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, etc. I have been a victim of internet distractions myself, and although my school has not voiced any more complaints about these sites, I can see a YouTube ban in the near future.
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

"But, I completely disagree with your opinion that theft is the only alternative to a handout, and inevitable." - Handsoff's post in Round No. 3 "In other words, the poor will steal from the rich anyway, so let's keep the act of theivery civil (or legal). Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove in this debate." - Handsoff's post in Round No. 2 Without a system of government, my argument is that in the ensuing chaos citizens would enter into a frenzy of looting and destruction. While we love to think better of ourselves and our neighbors, just take a look at the looting that took place in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. In 1906, following the earthquake of San Fransisco looting took place as well and the army had to be called in. The inevitability of looting, thievery if you would, in a system without government Handsoff himself admitted was what he was trying to prove. And therefore clearly history goes to show that these ARE injustices people would commit personally.
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

Better. But, I completely disagree with your opinion that theft is the only alternative to a handout, and inevitable. What ever happened to hard work? Did that option elude you? Of course, many people would, and do, wish they could just take what they'd like from their "more fortunate" fellow citizens. But they do not. That would require too much nerve, as I demonstrated in my previous examples. But once concealed behind the curtain of the voting booth, there is nothing to fear. Voters are free to enlist their government to commit these exact same injustices. And, as I claimed in my opening statement, many vote to do so.
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

"Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally" - The topic of debate. "In other words, the poor will steal from the rich anyway, so let's keep the act of theivery civil (or legal). Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove in this debate." - Your comment According you you, you were trying to prove "the poor will steal from the rich anyway" Therefore the "injustices" they commit ARE INJUSTICES THEY WOULD COMMIT PERSONALLY. That the injustices are kept legal is irrelevant so long as you concede that these are injustices they would commit anyway. That was the point I made and that was the point you conceded. On an additional note, your support for "national defense and law enforcement for the protection of personal rights and property" further indicates that you agree. Left alone, without police and the military, the voters would have perpetrated these injustices personally. Without a government they would loot, rape, and murder without restraint. Ergo, the only "injustices" they enlist the government to commit are injustices they would commit personally.
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

Wow, Moondragon. You must have taken on this one half-hartedly. You're usually a very good debater with illogical ideas flawed by your emotional desires for a socialist utopia. This time you're just debating poorly. You did not support your attacks well here. First of all, I didn't say that people formed a democracy with the intent of committing injustices. Only that the system allows them to do so in the voting booth and without any accountability. Then, in a complete about-face, you say that America WAS created to commit these injustices in the voting booth, to avoid the otherwise inevitable person-to-person injustices. In other words, the poor will steal from the rich anyway, so let's keep the act of theivery civil (or legal). Thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to prove in this debate. I was also waiting for a liberal to admit that socialism, welfare and wealth redistribution was just legalized stealing. I've been waiting for that one for years. Thank you. Finally, you close by telling me to read up on my history, and that I am somehow in favor of having NO GOVERNMENT. You know that is not the case. I am for very minimal government-- almost exclusively for national defense and law enforcement for the protection of personal rights and property. In other, words, got protection people like you and your kind who can stip me of my property and freedoms by filling in circle on a ballot. Unfortunately the government fails me in that regard. There is nothing on the books to stop you. I think you should just concede this debate. This is not your usual performance. It's obvious that you're chasing your tail on this one.
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

"Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally." Despite your best attempt to generate a topic of debate that does not so much qualify as a topic of debate and more a topic on which you can rant, I'll take the matter up for debate nevertheless. Since you've done such an abysmal job of manufacturing the topic and position, allow me to clarify. You believe people form democracy (according to your first line on the voting booth) in order to commit injustice against other citizens against whom they would not have acted against otherwise. My 2 counter arguments are as follows 1) Democracy in America was formed to PROTECT other citizens against injustice, and does so successfully 2) These injustices would have taken place regardless and it is because of democracy that these injustices do not. In fact, these ARE injustices they would commit personally. 1) Read up on your study of American History. The Electoral college, the selection of Senators through State Legislatures, the establishment of a strong federal government following the Shays Rebellion are all reasons for the formation of the present day government of America. The system as a whole was designed to keep Order in order to protect the wealth and property of the upper class from the underprivileged, armed, and rather discontent masses. 2) The premise that these voters would have required a middle man and would only act through a secret ballot is absurd in the extreme. In American history, before the establishment of our present government, we had the as mentioned Shays Rebellion. Let's look at this logically for a moment, Imagine for an instant there was NO GOVERNMENT. Your neighbor has food, water, and luxuries. You and your 12 unemployed buddies have nothing. According to Handsoff, you and your 12 buddies needed a government to rob (and murder) your wealthy neighbor because this would not be an injustice you would commit personally. Looking at Louisiana during Katrina where there was an absence of government, I must strongly lodge my disagreement.
Many voters enlist the government to commit injustices they would not commit personally.

The anonymity of the voting booth is a powerful anesthesia for those who want to limit the freedoms of there fellow citizens and/or seize their property without consequence. It allows them to do so with no accountability whatsoever. Once they leave the voting booth they find themselves among fellow citizens who also hold their political views close to the vest. Society warns that it's not good manners to talk politics in public. Might shame have something to do with this phenomenon? As etiquette goes, it would be considered impolite to ask your neighbor how he voted, much less ask him to defend his vote. It's this cloak of anonymity that allows one to secretly vote to enlist his government to confiscate freedoms from his fellow Americans in ways he would never attempt on his own. For example, most people who would vote in favor of outlawing drugs would never dream of confiscating their neighbor's marijuana plants (even if they were assured of their safety). Most would sense that it was not their business as long as their neighbors weren't hurting anyone. Another example would be in the case of wealth redistribution. One would not dream of walking, palm out, up to a wealthy person saying "I'm underprivileged. Where's my cut?" or "That man over there doesn't work, and you're paying his rent this month." Although these actions sound absurd when carried out directly from one person to another, there is a way to accomplish them without having to justify them. Enter... the middle man. Ah the beauty of a democracy! In a democracy the voter is granted free reign to choose from a menu of injustices enumerated before him on the ballot (or in the campaign promises of his candidate). The kicker is this: the acceptance or rejection of these injustices will be based purely on popularity. No need to consult the gods of right or wrong. Just fill in the circle that promises the best outcome for you based on your personal biases and/or economic circumstances. Congratulations. You've accomplished, what you dare not do otherwise. And nobody has to know about it.