BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human nature does not make libertarian socialism impossible to work in practice

I have two possibilities here. I can either simply negate my opponents arguments, or I can submit an argument of my own. I shall attempt to do both. I will begin by pointing out that although my opponent has made several important points regarding human nature and has claimed that several aspects of MAB and RA can make libertarian socialism a good choice, he has not provided any arguments directly connecting the two. I look forward to the connections he can draw between the two in future rounds.My argument for this round will be focused on human nature as well. I will agree with many of his contentions:I agree that evolution has led us to be cooperative beings and that in many cases we are inclined by our nature to go for MAB and RA. I would also like to bring up some aspects of human nature. C1: There is scarcity in the worldScarcity, a fundamental principal in economics, occurs any time demand exceeds supply. This happens quite often. In fact, scarcity occurs most, if not all of the time. The fact of the matter is that we have limited resources so supply will almost always exceed demand. Several examples of scarce resources in the world today are food, water, and oil.http://en.wikipedia.org...C2: Competition is inherent because of scarcityLet's take a look at food. There will always be a scarcity of food because there is always a very high demand and a limited supply. This leads to competition for this limited resource. This is why it is part of human nature to compete for limited resources.http://en.wikipedia.org...(biology)C3: Human nature is at odds with libertarian socialism because of competitionVirtually all human conflicts are rooted in competition. There is the obvious economic and biological competition for goods and resources. War is often a competition for land and the resources that land contains. Based on his definition of libertarian, I do not think that my opponent is arguing for one large society, but rather letting smaller groups form as they may when a national government is removed. (Please correct me if this is not your intention.) Each of these smaller groups will have these virtuous traits such as MAB and RA inside of them, but there will be competition between the various groups, much as there is competition between nations today. This competition would lead to violence, etc. thus bringing down the system. I look forward to my opponent's response and encourage him to use specificity to paint a picture of the way such a society would avoid this problem and others.
Human nature does not make libertarian socialism impossible to work in practice

The scope of this debate will be to discuss whether or not human nature means that a system of libertarian socialism cannot "work" in practice.===Definitions===Libertarian socialism will be defined as the following:Libertarian refers to having no formal government, meaning that the community or society is organized voluntarily and there is no institutional monopoly on the use of force within that society. Socialism refers to the means of production being owned in common by the members of the community collectively and equally. Production runs with use in mind as opposed to profit. The means of production may be managed in a number of ways with either direct democracy or immediately recallable elected council boards being among the possible options.To work in practice will mean that a relatively adequate standard of living is possible in the long term in a given society.Human nature will refer to traits inherent to human beings which are (A) existent independent of any societal organization and (B) not possible to change.===Resolution and BoP===The burden of proof to defend the resolution will fall primarily on Pro as instigator. Con's burden will be to deconstruct and refute Pro's case or they may provide a positive argument in favor of their position if they choose. The resolution for this debate deals with whether or not there are irreducible conflicts between human nature and libertarian socialism which would make it impossible to "work" in practice. Pro will argue against any such reason to believe there are conflicts like these while Con can either argue that there are.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance or, if they choose, my opponent may introduce a preliminary argument here.
The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

I would've posted sooner, but I was a bit distraught at the lack of actual effort put into my opponent's last round that I had to take a breater and refresh my mind with other things before I could come back to here. I'd also like to point out that while my opponent's last rounds seems impressive with the massives amounts of text and bolding in it, he posted a total of nine sentances of his own. Needless to say, I'm a little dissapointed. Regardless, we shall continue forwards."I would like to here[sic] these other theories."You want other theories? You shall have them. Three theories that have the potential to oust the Big Bang theory, coming right up!1. The Incredible Bulk [1] 2. Time's Arrow [2]3. The Nows have it [3] As I am fully providing other possible origins of the universe that answer back for the Big Bang, this can't be used as evidence against me. "Wrong here are some sites that say otherwise..."I'd absolutely love to point out that my opponent isn't actually making any arguments against this. He clearly misconstrues posting sources as the same thing as posting arguments, which isn't the case. If this were true, all of our rounds would just be different sources with different arguments for our side and against our opponent's side. It would make debate rounds so unreadable and so undigestable that no one would ever be able to vote! We have to come up with our own arguments, using our own words, and not just say "No, you're wrong! Look at what these guys did!" *copy/paste a bunch of URLs* "There! See!?"Insofar as my opponent actually isn't posting an argument of his own, I refuse to refute this until he makes his own argument. If he doesn't make his own argument, a deduction of the conduct point would be an appropriate response.In so far as he doesn't actually post an argument against this, it still is clearly taking out his argument for supernatural evidence (i.e. hauntings and the like). Thus, my syllogism still flows perfectly and unrefuted. Because my syllogism still stands, you still vote for the pro debater.I do hope for better argumentation from my opponent in the rounds to come.Sources:[1] http://discovermagazine.com...=[2] http://discovermagazine.com...=[3] http://discovermagazine.com...;
The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

So my opponent attempts to show physical proof that the Big Bang theory confirms that God must exist. This, of course, only begs the question as to was the Big Bang the start of the universe? There are plenty of other theories that caused the creation of the universe and life that exist outside of his arguments. I never state anywhere that the Big Bang was the start of the universe. He merely asserts that it was. So since we can't confirm that this was the start of the universe, this argument holds no ground. I would like to here these other theories. I never said you said it I said it was an example.He then tries to say that the miracles and supernatural occurances provide us with physical evidence. But again, this is all supernatural occurances, as my opponent concedes, which is not the same thing as physical evidence. As we humans exist in the physical world, not in the supernatural, supernatural occurances do not count as physical evidence. They are two entirely different realms. Wrong here are some sites that say other wise http://dsc.discovery.com..., http://members.shaw.ca..., and http://www.uark.edu...With his arguments against my premise three refuted, it takes out the vast majority of his last rebuttal. This also means that my syllogism flows, for the vast part, uninterrupted.He tries to put an argument against premise six, saying that because humans are not supernatural, then the premise is illogical. But as I clearly have pointed out through the conceded premise five, if we have no direct physical proof to God's existence, one would have to be supernatural to definitively claim that God doesn't exist. It logically follows. But this would be contradictory with the entire premise of atheism, as my 7th premise points out, which makes the entire theory self-refuting.So, the debate breaks down pretty easily:1. The vast majority of my premises have gone conceded.2. His arguments against premise three all fall.3. I'm logically proving that if atheism is true, then atheism can't be true, thus making it self-refuting.So state that atheists are Gods but you go and say God doesn't exsist therefore you contradict yourself. We can comfirm hauntings.hauntings are SupernaturalGod is Supernatural Therefore we can explain GodYou just ignore my arguements and say mine are blunt. WTF.
The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

So my opponent's arguments only really adress the arguments coming out of premise three. He tries to claim that 3, 4, and 5 all say the same thing, but this is vastly false. 4 is the conclusion of what is implied by 3. Five occurs if 3 is true. They don't say the same thing at all. Insofar as you concede 4 and 5, I only need to refute his arguments for 3, and the vast majority of his last round goes away. So my opponent attempts to show physical proof that the Big Bang theory confirms that God must exist. This, of course, only begs the question as to was the Big Bang the start of the universe? There are plenty of other theories that caused the creation of the universe and life that exist outside of his arguments. I never state anywhere that the Big Bang was the start of the universe. He merely asserts that it was. So since we can't confirm that this was the start of the universe, this argument holds no ground. He then tries to say that the miracles and supernatural occurances provide us with physical evidence. But again, this is all supernatural occurances, as my opponent concedes, which is not the same thing as physical evidence. As we humans exist in the physical world, not in the supernatural, supernatural occurances do not count as physical evidence. They are two entirely different realms. With his arguments against my premise three refuted, it takes out the vast majority of his last rebuttal. This also means that my syllogism flows, for the vast part, uninterrupted. He tries to put an argument against premise six, saying that because humans are not supernatural, then the premise is illogical. But as I clearly have pointed out through the conceded premise five, if we have no direct physical proof to God's existence, one would have to be supernatural to definitively claim that God doesn't exist. It logically follows. But this would be contradictory with the entire premise of atheism, as my 7th premise points out, which makes the entire theory self-refuting. So, the debate breaks down pretty easily:1. The vast majority of my premises have gone conceded.2. His arguments against premise three all fall.3. I'm logically proving that if atheism is true, then atheism can't be true, thus making it self-refuting.
The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

1 and 2 don't need refuted.Here's an understanding on what God is http://www.doesgodexist.org...3-5 (they're technically the same)He states that there is no proof of God outside of the Bible, well he is wrong. God created the universe. Many people say he didn't well lets look at it this way. Explosion according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com... violent release of energy caused by a chemical or nuclear reaction. This is otherwise an accident. According to the second law of Thermodynamics http://answers.yahoo.com... that matter can't be created or destroyed, which means the big bang couldn't have happend without someone or something to start it.Then there are miracle. You know unexplained things that happen.We can comfirm hauntings.hauntings are SupernaturalGod is Supernatural Therefore we can explain God6. We have defined God as Supernatural. Now you say atheists are Gods. But they are just normal human beings therefore they can't be God and your arguement here is illogical.7. This further's the fact I stated in 6. (are you thinking out loud.)
The Belief of Atheism is Self-Refuting

Alright. Religion debate. Fun...I really don't know why I'm doing this. Whoever accepts this is probably going to get an easy win, as I horribly suck at these kinds of debates. But my mind has been taking me to weird places as of late, and at the current moment I find the concept of atheism to be quite stupid.I'll try to phrase my thoughts in a syllogism, that I will defend and explain in the next round.To start with, I'll define atheism as the belief that no god exists, i.e. a god cannot possibly exist. With any sort of differentiating probability, we leave the realm of atheism and enter into agnosticism, which isn't what I intend to debate. We will also specify the God to the characteristics of the Judeo/Christian God. Anyway, onto the syllogism:1. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.2. God is a supernatural being.3. If God is a supernatural being, then there is no direct physical evidence to His existence.4. If there is no direct physical evidence, then we cannot confirm nor deny God's existence.5. If there is no physical evidence, one would have to be a supernatural being to confirm that God does not exist. 6. If atheism is true, then atheists must be gods.7. Atheism is the belief that no God exists.8. Atheism is self-refuting.Some ground rules that I hope will be unecessary for me to type out:1. First round is acceptance. No new arguments in the final round. General stuff.2. In the event of a forfeit, give all points to the victor. I put this in here since I'm likely to get my a.ss kicked, and will need to figure out what will happen if I forfeit.3. No semantics. Please, we all understand what the resolution really means. If I have to go through the resolution and define every syllable, I will. But I would rather not do that.With that all done, I await an opponent. Feel free to ask for clarification on rules or definitions in the comments.
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Well, I extend all of my arguments. I'm not going to go over the first two points again, because it could get confusing. I'll wait for my opponent's Round 4 rebuttal. However, I'd like to focus in on my third point: My opponent has given you no reason whyerception of thought has to be real. Since it can be illusory, you can vote PRO just on that. I'm not conceding my other two points, but I feel like this is the strongest point right now. Remember, if I can carry through any one point, I should win.
"I think therefore I am," is fundamentally flawed.

Yeah... We're trying to get him to become a better debater. And even though I made that debate just so because he wanted someone he knew to challenge him, I'll accept. I don't think I need to define any words, so I'll let you do that. However, I'll ask that you provide justification as to why that is the definition we need to be using. If I don't like the justification, I'll provide a counter definition. Otherwise, I think we all know what words basically mean. However, I will provide one piece of framework: In order for the individual in question here to exist, it cannot be an illusion of the individual, just as a painting might exist, but the people in a painting don't. So, I'll make the first argument. "I think therefore I am," is a statement meant to prove an individual's existence to him or herself. The logic follows that if one thinks, then one must exist. You can't have the ability to think without existing. This is flawed logic for several reasons. If any one of these flaws flows through the debate, PRO should win. 1.) There is no reason why I can't still be illusory, even if my thoughts are real. Could they not be someone else's thoughts, and I just be an illusion receiving those thoughts? Think of a dream. Certain characters in this dream might have thoughts. They might have the dreamer's thoughts. This does not make them real. 2.) This statement does not actually prove the existence of the thought. Even if I'm perceiving this thought, there is nothing that makes this thought real. If the thought is not real, then how can the person perceiving the thought be real? Think of a dream again. A character can have thoughts, but neither are actually real. 3.) There is nothing that makes it so the perception can't be illusory. If the perception of thought is illusory, then this logic for proving existence automatically falls through. Good luck. I'll elaborate where I need to after you make your argument.
States ought not use nuclear weapons

This is my first debate so bear with me please. "The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nation." I agree with Robert McNamara and so I affirm the resolution: Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons. Definitions from dictionary.com : States:The territory, or one of the territories, of a government. Ought:Used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like Value: Morality Morality is the study of right and wrong or good or bad behavior. Value Criterion: Humanity Humanity is being civilized and being aware of how certain actions affect other people. Contention 1: Security: Secret terrorist could hack into that states nuclear systems and set the nukes off or somehow smuggle some into enemy hands. Contention 2: Economy: It would be too expensive for anyone, including the U.S., just for one nuke, it is over $20,000,000,000! Contention 3: Safety: Something may go wrong in the nuclear system, and it most likely will endanger not only the innocents lives of that state, but some of the border of a neighboring state. To conclude my opinion, there is no reason as to why states should have nuclear weapons for it brings great danger to the lives of many. I now stand open for Cross Examination.
This poem captures the notion of the holy

con says "It is when 2 bold faced liars quote others unprovable facts, which are spoon fed to them, or searched up online and declared as fact because someone else said it. Have you ever watched a Presidential Debate? Talk about instant gratification, there it is. " I happen to agree with con con says "Holy is not being the arch angel, however many holy folks believe they are. Holy is a nice way of saying "I know what the Lord (whoever that is) will decide for you, so just listen to me and you can be holy too" I think con has not read the poem-if you has please quote some lines this poem is about the holy but holy of a very different type to what con is saying in the poem holy is used as a pun for something quite different to the religious type of holy-which con seem to think it is here is a hint for con just as what the holy is in this poem "oh I did behold betwixt those puffy pulpy folds a gleaming hole that from the holy orifice did stream lights to light the myriad worlds to inflame the universe in gleaming striations "
This poem captures the notion of the holy

A real debate? what is that? It is when 2 bold faced liars quote others unprovable facts, which are spoon fed to them, or searched up online and declared as fact because someone else said it. Have you ever watched a Presidential Debate? Talk about instant gratification, there it is. This actually is a real debate, because it is between you and I, 2 humans debating the facts. The essence of your debate is that a poem, written by an idol of yours, is proof of what is holy. Holy is not being the arch angel, however many holy folks believe they are. Holy is a nice way of saying "I know what the Lord (whoever that is) will decide for you, so just listen to me and you can be holy too. Woop de dooooooooo! I will know the Lord when I see him, and it is most likely not you.
This poem captures the notion of the holy

Hi con well I say this is poem captures the notion of the holy because it encompasses Otto's idea of the numinous in your reply if you dont quote lines from the poem then I will assume you have not read it quote " I did cry I did sigh oh the shuddering of my flesh that transported I into insensibility swooning into a tempest of resonating quavering of ineffable interminable bliss oh the utter insensibility in that outpouring of luminescent beatitude" and this " raptures did quiver in my limbs and shudder in my flesh at the multiple loveliness of that infinitude of gorgeousness into paroxysms of delirium I did swoon into an ineffable eternity of bliss my soul did soar oh the utter incompressibility of that of thrilling tingling tat plentitude of overabundant delight " and "I did melt I did dissolve in the lightning flashes of that dazzling splendor of that translucent incandescent holy thing in an irruption of illumination in that rush of irradiance in that plenitude of overabundant dazzlement in that holy thing the wholly other did I gaze upon" again "that fiery hole did hold in this overplus of awfulness in this unfathomableness of beatitude in the incomprehensibility of this dazzling overplus of wholly otherness the flesh of I did shudder did tremble" in these lines are the mysterium tremendum facinations of the numinous the wholly other