BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Contender's choice.

And I am pro, for "Flag burning should be tolerated by the U.S." "Flag burning should not be allowed under the government. The American flag is a symbol of America and what it represents, so it should be treated as such." The question that first needs to be answered is, what does America represent? I think a good place to look would be our Constitution, which was set as the frame-work for this country. The first amendment to our constitution, is, in my opinion, the biggest amendment to grant civil liberties in the Document. One section of it states "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Freedom of Speech, as interpreted by The Supreme Court time and time again, includes more than just the spoken word, but also the printed word, and the symbolic word. Burning the US flag falls under the latter. If the Flag represents America, and America is founded on our Constitution, and our Constitution says that people have the right to express themselves politically, wouldn't the whole thing fall apart if the (arguably) strongest non-verbal, non-violent political statement was made illegal? "Whatever you do to the flag, you are doing that to your country, so to speak." Not at all, a flag is a symbol of a country, a country is well, a country. "So to burn the flag would be saying, "I want to burn/do bad things to my country". If you really feel that negatively about your home, you should find a new home." To burn a flag would indicate that you are angry, yes, but it is a way to demonstrate anger peacefully (although in a distasteful manner.) Try using that line on the people who decided that Americans would be better off if they didn't have a ruler who lived an Ocean away. Try that line on anyone who fought for the civil rights of African Americans. When there is a cause that is worth fighting for, it is worth fighting for, no matter how many good mannered people it may offend at first. The good folks who wrote the Constitution realized this, and so they knew that political speech must be tolerated. ""I'M GOING TO SHOOT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS!" Obviously he would be arrested, fined, etc. for an act of treason. What is different about burning the flag to imply, "I want to do this to America!"?" Saying that you're going to shoot various government officials on the street corner, while probably not making you too popular with folks like the FBI and Secret Service, is perfectly legal, because, at least at that stage, you show no actual means to commit such an act. In this country, its okay to say unpopular things, because this country believes in freedom. Burning the flag, while most always done in anger or extreme dis-satisfaction, isn't indicative of a desire to injure or kill anyone or anything. Burning a flag is a symbolic act, and while not at all a popular one, one that must be protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In essence, I would like you to provide a rebuttal that explains to me why the First Amendment should be ignored.
Contender's choice.

OK, so I am Con for "Flag burning should be tolerated by the U.S." U.S. = The government of the United States of America Flag burning = setting fire to the American flag Flag burning should not be allowed under the government. The American flag is a symbol of America and what it represents, so it should be treated as such. Whatever you do to the flag, you are doing that to your country, so to speak. So to burn the flag would be saying, "I want to burn/do bad things to my country". If you really feel that negatively about your home, you should find a new home. Regardless, let me use an example: a man stands on the street corner and screams "I'M GOING TO SHOOT VARIOUS GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS!" Obviously he would be arrested, fined, etc. for an act of treason. What is different about burning the flag to imply, "I want to do this to America!"?
Contender's choice.

As you can see, this debate is 5 rounds. In the contender's round 1, he/she will propose 3 different topics of debate that COVER VARIOUS FIELDS. (I don't want 3 debates about abortion but worded differently, for example. Then in my round 2, I will choose one of the debates to well...debate on. In the contender's round 2, he/she will choose a stance on the choice (PRO or CON) and choose whether to go first or second. If he/she goes first, to keep the number of arguments per person equal, he/she must include the opening argument in the response, and cannot post an argument in the final round. (Either forfeit or spam, or something.) However, if I am forced to go first, the debate will proceed as normal. So if all goes as planned, we will each get a normal 3 rounds to debate.
9/11 was not a inside job

I keep seeing people that say 9/11 was a inside job which could not be further from the truth. I will argue that 9/11 was not a inside job and conspiracy to rest. My arguments against the conspiracy about 9/11: 1. There was no controlled demolition 2. Our government had no reason to cause 9/11 3. Why would they use thermite which cuts steel without announcing it, then switch to explosives? To tip people off? 4. Our government was not prepared for the attacks does not mean they were involved. If my opponent would like to add his/her own arguments please do so
9/11 was not a inside job

Regarding conspiracies I agree with my opponent that the U.S. "fertile grounds for conspiracy theories".' Elvis still exists and some folks will die with that believe. Did the U.S. in fact do 9/11 I do not know for certain or can make such of a conviction, I am an expert on nothing. Do I want to believe the Gov. did it. No. Did a select few make money off of 9/11 and the wars that ensued. Yes. Is the war on terrorism similar to communism. This would be a whole new debate but, as communism elevated the Govs power so is terrorism. It creates a George Orwell environment. If anyone lives in NYC what is with all the cameras, is it really just too spot terrorists and other unlawful behavior? Then if it is then why didn't the cameras spot the car bomb fella in Times Square years back before he began to detonate the failed explosives. A vendor notified police. Though the NY times did state the camera recorded it. http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.youtube.com... Does the official 9/11 story add up to being true and well thought out to be a conclusive statement of the event? I liken to state no. Does the Gov. lie? Of course, it is sometimes for the common good that the Gov. lies as a virtue and does not tell the people everything. Is all the facts leading up to 9/11 and preceding 9/11 just a pure coincidence regarding the warnings, the law changes, the building damage of the towers and pentagon, the manner the buildings fell, the war games that morning, the wars in Iraq and the Forgotten War or in sum, the wars on instability , the thermite discovery, first hand accounts…? Most of all, Thanks for the debate IveGotUrOuts.
these bible verses contradict each other

"Oh no! These Bible verses seem to go against each other, so that must mean that the whole Bible is flawed!" Let me help you out here. No, these Bible verses don't contradict each other. It may seem like that at first glance, but take a closer look. In John 3:13, the word 'ascend' doesn't necessarily mean 'to go up'. The word ascend comes from a Latin word which means 'to climb'. While, in 2 Kings 2:1, the scripture states that he was "taken up", he didn't go up on his own, or 'ascend'. No one can go to Heaven on their own, as Elijah was taken up by God. This is hardly a contradiction.
these bible verses contradict each other

John 3:13states, "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."2 Kings 2:1And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal.2 Kings 2:11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
these bible verses contradict each other

"Ascend" means to rise, in a way, yes, but not in the way that you're thinking. 'Ascend' means to "go up", but it means to "go up on your own". Also, notice how this word isn't used in the second and third verses. "it is only those trying to make the verses make sense that cause one to say there must be more to ascend than is plain to us." I'm not 'trying' to make the verses make sense at all, because that's not within my ability. These verses are stated in a certain context, and that context can be found clear if you look a bit harder. In actuality, these verses compliment each other rather than contradict each other.
the US should preemptively attack n.. korea

"you can't deny that you're placing your trust in an unstable, irrational madman."See, the problem with this logic is that a large portion of world leaders with nuclear weapons consider President Trump to be an unstable, irrational madman , does this justify them launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Washington D.C. just in case?I believe that Kim Jung Un has no intention of launching a preemptive strike on the U.S. based on his past actions and the fact that he has no ideological reasons for doing an action that will certainly result in his own demise. He's a narcissist not a jihadist."so you're okay with him having hundreds of nukes, and if NY or LA gets nuked, such is life"What makes NY or LA more inherently valuable than Tokyo or Seoul? I live close enough to NY to be killed by a thermonuclear bomb if NY was hit, but selfishness should not be the main motivation for this type of decision."you might not like him having nukes but unless you're willing to stop him, it's hard for you to say it's really not okay with you."I never said I wasn't willing to stop him, I believe we should be funding research into technology that is better at disabling/shooting down nuclear weapons or even just better stealth bombing technology. I just don't believe that killing 10s of millions of innocents is required to stop him.Finally, I believe launching a nuke at north Korea would set a terrible precedent and every other country would immediately be thinking "Am I next?" or "The USA did it and got away with it, I guess I can too." this type of widespread paranoia couldn't possibly be better than the status quo.
the US should preemptively attack n.. korea

" they have had nukes but they haven't had nukes with the potential to hit the USA. "Yes, but they have had nukes capable of hitting all of South Korea, who they have been openly hostile to for more than half a century, I believe that if Kim Jong Un was suicidal he would have nuked South Korea by now. Given this evidence I don't believe Kim Jong Un is suicidal and trying to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. would certainly be suicide." so i take it you think kim is just bluffing, and that he will continue to do so even when he has hundreds of nukes? you're so confident in that assessment that you're willing to sacrifice millions of americans' lives? "I'm simply confident enough that I don't believe it is worth sacrificing millions of Japanese and South Korean lives and potentially starting a thermonuclear world war WHILE there is potential for a peaceful resolution. This isn't the first time the U.S. has dealt with a "crazy" communistic dictator with nuclear weapons and we managed to end it last time without millions dying. I believe cooler heads can prevail again.
the US should preemptively attack n.. korea

they have had nukes but they haven't had nukes with the potential to hit the USA. this is mostly about self interest. sacraficing a current population of people to prevent a likley harm to future population, us. or, we wait and sacrafice one of our populations when they are itching to fight to take him down. so i take it you think kim is just bluffing, and that he will continue to do so even when he has hundreds of nukes? you're so confident in that assessment that you're willing to sacrifice millions of americans' lives?
the US should preemptively attack n.. korea

North Korea has had been holding South Korea Hostage for 50 years with traditional ordnance and has had nuclear weapons for at least 5 years, consistently saying that they will destroy them "any day now" and still haven't done it. This leads me to believe that the Kim dynasty has absolutely no intention of actually using any of these weapons and is simply using them as leverage for trade negotiations. It would be a terrible idea to actually nuke North Korea for a multitude of reasons. Namely it would make us look terrible considering the fact that it would almost certainly cause the destruction of AT LEAST both Koreas and most likely Japan if not more. I believe the proper response is to simply capitulate the Kim dynasty until we develop better technology for counteracting/disabling North Korea's nuclear missiles and traditional bombardments.
the US should preemptively attack n.. korea

the US should preemptively attack north korea it's inevitable that they will eventually perfect their rocket technology and get more nukes. we should strike sooner than later because it's better than waiting till they have more power and leverage, as they are not fit to have hundreds of nukes and be able to take the world hostage. it would cause one of the worst humanitarian problems ever, but it's better than losing LA and NY to nukes.
Psychological Egoism is correct

In my opening, I said that I would defend two contentions: (1) that there are no good reasons to think psychological egoism is true, and (2) that there is good reason to think psychological egoism is false. I gave an argment in the first round for that second contention, but Pro did not respond to it. I'll just point out in this round that the argument stands unrefuted.Concerning the second premise I explained why there are no good reasons to think psychological egoism is true. Pro didn't really respond to what I said there, but in this round, he attempted to support psychological egoism by appealing to something I already acknowledge in the first round. I said, "There's no doubt that people often behave according to self-interest, but psychological egoism makes a stronger claim than that." All Pro really argued in this round is that people do act in self-interest. That is not under dispute. But psychological egoism is the view that people always act out of self-interest. All of our acts are self-interested acts, according to psychological egoism. Pointing out that people do act in self-interest is not sufficient to show that psychological egoism is true.Pro hasn't given us any good reason to think psychological egoism is true. The best he's been able to do so far is to show that people do act in self interest, which I have agreed to. He needs a bit more argument to support the resolution of this debate.
Psychological Egoism is correct

Excellent response! I will only be arguing against your assertion that there are no good reasons to think that psychological egoism is true. To make my argument I will explain what I think is a good definition of self-interest in this context and argue in favor of that definition. I think there are two goals that are should be used to determine if an action is self-interested: continued existence and pleasure. A self-interested action is on that a conscious being judges (consciously or subconsciously) as promoting one or both of those goals based on the value said being places on each. So I am saying that the key factor here is expectation or prediction, not the actual result. Obviously people make decisions that they expect to further those goals, but due to lack of information and/or errors in logic, they are proven wrong. The second part of my argument will delve into why I think it is fundamentally natural for conscious beings to behave in such a way. I think that it fundamentally natural behavior is more likely to succeed in furthering the continued existence and prosperity of humanity, because humanity is the product of a natural evolution and that there is copious evidence that such behavior has proliferated humanity and made it less susceptible to extinction. Taking a step back, for perspective, we should delve into the issue of life and define its nature. From Wikipedia: Life is a characteristic distinguishing objects having signaling and self-sustaining processes from those that do not,[1][2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate. So life, by definition, is a characteristic of an object that attempts to preserve it"s existence. Because conscious beings are alive and, as far as we know, must evolve from non-conscious beings that were also alive, self-preservation is a natural, hard-wired, tendency of humans. The other very relevant definition of life is an object which not only self-sustains but tends to proliferate objects similar to itself through reproduction. These two characteristics of life are what led to the evolution of the phenomenon called "pleasure" which is observable in all entities with a central nervous system. Brains evolved to the point where they experience pleasure from certain conditions. These conditions were "selected" by evolution because they tend to promote a living object"s continued existence and/or reproduction. Non-conscious animals there is no ability to communicate with natural language or perform abstract reasoning so their evolution is much slower and more constrained. I think this is the case precisely because animals lack the ability to derive pleasure from a wide variety of events that humans can. In other words, the search space that evolution can explore with non-conscious life is a small subset of the space which it can explore with conscious life. The process of evolution can delve deeper into what is possible. I would like to elaborate further but this seems good for now.
Psychological Egoism is correct

I am going to simply give someone's description of psychological egoism and ask that you argue against it: All forms of egoism require explication of "self-interest" (or "welfare" or "well-being"). There are two main theories. Preference or desire accounts identify self-interest with the satisfaction of one's desires. Often, and most plausibly, these desires are restricted to self-regarding desires. What makes a desire self-regarding is controversial, but there are clear cases and counter-cases: a desire for my own pleasure is self-regarding; a desire for the welfare of others is not. Objective accounts identify self-interest with the possession of states (such as virtue or knowledge) that are valued independently of whether they are desired. Hedonism, which identifies self-interest with pleasure, is either a preference or an objective account, according to whether what counts as pleasure is determined by one's desires. Psychological egoism claims that each person has but one ultimate aim: her own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target " such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare. Psychological egoism is supported by our frequent observation of self-interested behavior. Apparently altruistic action is often revealed to be self-interested. And we typically motivate people by appealing to their self-interest (through, for example, punishments and rewards). http://plato.stanford.edu...
immoral=writing my own moral code, i see myself as moral in altering the truth

1 = something = banana = apple is a very interesting concept. it's very true. however strange. However, I will argue that you do not "SEE" yourself as "moral" by writing your own moral code. You see yourself as proud and conceited. You would thus, "see" yourself as scientifically aware of social sciences, and the implication hey have on society on a grand scale; as that is the application of ethics. but no, moral is not what you would see yourself as. AS Moral is defined and prescribed to have set parameters and aspects. A use of variable aspects and boundaries defies the definition of "Moral". thank you.
immoral=writing my own moral code, i see myself as moral in altering the truth

Morality: has defined parameters. Virtues: have defined parameters. Immorality is something contradictory to prescribed morals. Morals are scientifically factually what leads to prosperity, equality and security. anything contrary to Morals, which are already set within unchanging parameters which are applicable tot he Term Morality, scientifically promotes social inequality, insecurity, inconsideracy, and inhibits prosperity.
You will lose this debate

Now you are just being negative toward yourself. You probably want to me or the voters to feel bad four your self that is low. And again you are using contradiction to what you said earlier. You say voters will not go to the one who uses "filthy tactics" then why do they "usually win" To finish off I would like to say that my con has said nothing but a few sentences. He assumes voters will not vote for mine or his tactics. The Con has called this unfair and admitted to me outwitting him. So I will win this debate.
You will lose this debate

So would you prefer that I assumed what the definitions are. Then not cite my sources. That my Con is known as plagiarism. I will quote exactly what you said now," Filthy tactics would usually work but this is a pure "who will lose" debate" So you say that Filthy tactics usually work so my tactics then in your opinion usually work. So again you are saying due to my tactics I will most likely win. Also you said that this is a pure "who will lose" debate and there is no rules about being pure. I would also like to add my tactics are not filthy they are smart if they "usually work" then it is a common tactic so you are saying that most debates are filthy. I would hope that this insults debaters everywhere. If voters usually side with my tactics what will stop them now. P.S. plagiarism is illegal
You will lose this debate

I challenged you to start first and you failed to accept so you just whined about how it was and I quote "unfair". The definition of unfair is- marked by injustice, partiality, or deception (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) A synonym of unfair is cheating. The definition for cheating is to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) So in this case you saying I am "unfair" or in other words "cheating" then you are saying I not only thwarted you but I outwitted you. So you are already verifying that I am winning if I outwitted. The results of this debate are inevitable even you are admitting defeat.