BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

First of all, admitting to playing Devil's Advocate is not a cause for losing a debate. It doesn't make my points any less valid. Now, my opponent's arguments seem to rely on three primary assumptions: 1. That the slave owns himself 2. That a hard life is always an unhappy life 3. That the above two assumptions invalidate his/her opponent's arguments. First of all, a child technically owns his or her self. But he (or she) is, at the same time, subject to the will of his or her parents. Therefore, there are situations where being subject to someone else's authority is acceptable. But why is this acceptable for a slave? Here's my answer: what does it hurt a slave to deny him or her this right? Well, if a slave has never experienced slavery, you're doing them no harm to not give them something they've never experienced. Let's say that 99.9999% of the human population experienced romantic love. Let's say that you are asexual. You've never felt attraction for someone else. You may want to, but: what would be easier, never having experienced love at all or experiencing it and then losing it forever? Which one would bring less pain? My point is, it's easier to be deprived of something when you've never experienced something. Such is the case with freedom. As for having a happy life, many poor people are happy in their circumstances. Have you ever heard of the Hedonic Treadmill? It's a way of describing the paradox of people being equally happy despite their circumstances. A person may be happier than another for a while if he or she has more things, but ultimately he's no happier than the poor man is. Finally, there's the matter of cost-benefit analysis. Either way, at some point or another slaves will die, even if they're not slaves. But if you're a slave on something like a pyramid or the Great Wall of China, it's worth it, as what that slave built lasted for a VERY VERY VERY long time. I thank my opponent for this debate and I wait for him to post an argument in the last round. Links: http://www.investopedia.com... http://curiosity.discovery.com...
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

I am disappointed by my opponent's admitting to being the devil's advocate, and his repetitive arguments. On subject of the builders of the ancient wonders: were the lives truly theirs or were they just the belongings of the "master"? with the Israelites, they wanted to go back because their fate was certain back in Egypt, I don't agree that they wanted to go back to being slaves. What happens when the "master" breaks a bone or inflicts a mortal wound? The answer is the slave dies a painful death, never truly having experienced an actual life. Is the transition not a good one? One big point that I would like to make is that the slave never truly experiences a life, they are just souls trapped in a body, a body controlled by a different man. My opponent has compromised his argument by admitting that he does not support it.
Slavery is Often a Good Thing

First of all, my opponent should keep in mind that I am merely playing Devil's advocate here. By no means do I actually support slavery. That being said, I will begin with my rebuttals. Yes, the builders of the Ancient wonders were mistreated and considered garbage. However, had they not been slaves, they would've done nothing important with their lives. They would live 25 or 30 years, had children, and died. Their lives would have no significance. However, serving as slaves, each one of them contributed to the construction of something great, something that would last for millennia. Things that rival today's most daring engineering projects. Therefore, by no means was their labor in vain. My opponent seems to agree with me on the Israelites in the wilderness; they were afraid of the uncertainty that came with freedom. And such has been the case among many slaves in human history, including many Black Americans following their liberation from slavery.Yes, a slave can be beaten by his or her master. But when that's how they've been treated their whole lives, it's not so bad in their eyes. Yes, technically speaking, even slaves have their own thoughts. But the most comfortable thing to do is stay entrenched in a mindset that you are used to. Keep in mind that going from being a slave to being free is a very big transition. Frankly, there were slaves who didn't desire the uncertainty of freedom. I apologize if I'm beginning to repeat myself.As my opponent has the moral high ground in this debate, I am disappointed by his weak and overly cliche arguments.
Russell Brand Is an Immature Buffoon With Unrealisitc Idealogies

While I do not like Fox News, Russell Brand's criticism of the network is laughably idiotic. When he commented on the opening statement of Judge Jeanine Pirro when she said "ISIS is a fanatical religious terrorist organization". Those words were as accurate as it gets in referring to ISIS. Russell Brand said then that "Fox News is fanatical terrorist organization and is more dangerous than ISIS". He even went on to compare the Judge to Hitler and Goebbels. Now let me ask you something: Is that a fair accusation? I think that is a very slanderous, unrealistic, and idiotic statement considering Fox has never murdered anyone, bombed anything, or opted for the genocide of people they didn't like (which is a lot). Judge Jeanine also said in the statement that given the American people don't want boots on the ground and ISIS is a clear threat to Americans that the only viable option is to bomb them with aircraft. Now someone with common sense and a brain would see this as a realistic and actually smart thing to do considering most of the civilians in the towns and cities controlled by ISIS evacuated. But no, Russell "Brainless" Brand said "that is the very problem that made ISIS behave this way". Brand seems to forget that ISIS was an al-Qaeda affiliate, the very organization that attacked us on 9/11. Wrong again Russell let's move on. Recently, Brand criticized Sean Hannity for his Pro-Israeli stance on the current conflict in Gaza. While I think both of them behaved like children on this issue Russell resorted to mimicking Hannity and making fun of the way he looks and talks. I don't understand is he 39 or 6 because that isn't the display of a mature adult. Russell Brand went on to say "we perceive Hamas' actions as terrorist actions is because when they are attacked that is what they resort to". He also said "there is no proof the people in Gaza are being used as human shields". Okay, Russell let me correct you on a few things first. Hamas is a listed terrorist organization in over a dozen nation including Egypt, Israel's former enemy not to mention Hamas attacked first and broke seven cease-fires. There is video evidence of Hamas rockets behind schools and civilian residential buildings. To intelligent people that is using human shields. This man clearly doesn't do his research on these issues. He tries so hard to say how the world should be, but he knows nothing about how it works. He supports the legalization of all narcotic drugs including crack-cocaine and heroin. Marijuana is one thing but those other drugs will destroy your life. Brand says that these drugs "don't hurt anyone". I knew a kid in my grade who overdosed on crack-cocaine and died from it so yes it does hurt people because that kid had family and friends who cared about him. Russell Brand needs to grow up and stop trying to solve the world's problems when he couldn't even solve the problems of a year-long marriage with Katy Perry.
Russell Brand Is an Immature Buffoon With Unrealisitc Idealogies

See Con's argument in the comments section before reading this, please. Well, since this debate is about Russell Brand making ridiculous statements that have no merit to them I don't think an anti-capitalist view-point is related at all to this debate. Russell Brand is a very wealthy man and is wealthier than many individuals in the U.S and U.K. So if he is fighting against Capitalism that makes him a hypocrite because he made his money off of the system of Capitalism. Fox News is a conservative news network and that is just one viewpoint in society. It is a viewpoint that has been around since governments were just founded. There is no reason or evidence to believe that Fox News is a terrorist organization. Russell Brand is being childish calling them terrorists and Nazis because Fox News shares none of their views. He needs to grow up and realize that ideals for the most part do not work. He needs to check his facts before he goes wrongfully accusing someone of terrorism. He knows nothing of what the world is really like outside of his penthouse suite, and he needs to realize that sometimes war is necessary and justifiable to protect ones people.
Russell Brand Is an Immature Buffoon With Unrealisitc Idealogies

Terrorism means that you use tactics that strike terror into people. Fox News doesn't do that. Even MSNBC can't find someone who says that they are constantly in fear for their life because of Fox News. When I mean by "Fox News never murdered anyone" is that they have never physically murdered another human being. They have never bombed buildings or committed arson. There has never been a news story like "Fox News bombed so-and-so" or "Fox News murdered so-and-so. A belief in something like the death penalty is not murder. It's a belief which means its in your mind and you can't murder someone with your mind. Supporting something and actually committing the action are two very different things. They didn't do it nor were they a part of it they just supported it. I am not going into Afghanistan or the death penalty because they are two different subjects. President Obama initiated airstrikes against ISIS on Thursday with the promise that no soldiers would set foot in Afghanistan. That is exactly what Judge Jeanine suggested that we do. So is Obama a terrorist too? You and I both know he rarely uses military intervention and I am glad he recognizes ISIS as a threat. Especially when images like this are all over the internet. http://www.westernjournalism.com... http://www.catholic.org... Take a good look at these images, Con. How can you compare Fox News to these awful people who do these things to innocent people especially children? These are crimes against humanity, and this is nothing short of the actions of an animal."Fox News is more dangerous than ISIS" are the words he used. Come on man, use your common sense Fox News has never done anything like this and doesn't support this kind of action. The war in Afghanistan was fought for a good reason to fight people like this. The death penalty is for people who commit these awful atrocities. Russell Brand literally said that narcotic drugs aren't hurting anyone. I believe only Marijuana should be legalized and I think the jail penalties for drug possession are ridiculous and that no one should go to jail that long for such a very little thing. Drug legalization should be about lowering crime and reducing organized criminals income not about people getting to do more drugs. The Katy Perry thing was a joke, albeit a really bad one. However, these images above should show just how ignorant Russell Brand is and I hope someone is showing these images to him.
Possibilities are Potentially Now

i can at best reach the future with my imaginiation, thefore its false. as i mention before, i can never step into my imagination with my physical body, future is ahead of now you keep saying... as if... you can act all day long dosnt make ghosts true.. man.. after learning as i grow up.. no one needs to tell me i shouldnt put my hand on the stove even thou i have never done it before.. i know logic, so i know if i jump of the cliff i will splat on the ground unless reality changes as i jump of the roof... now is true, can never be false, matter is now, my perception of false is not matter i am certain of what i see.. paper thin arguments its just sensory experience, and it is real. try losing your eyes and watching the next sunrise i cant see false with my physical eyes.. i cant physically experience my imagination then i wouldnt be certain of what im reaching for... you are getting thinner and thinner man THIN, dont be a THIN KING i respond... to the light on my screen.. how would you reply if i dont send this message... i can drink my self drunk... and do stuff having 0 certainty.. dosnt make my physical experience false, i just have limits on my certainty of experience of wahtever..
Possibilities are Potentially Now

future is ahead of now, now is true. if i predict something with 100 percent accuracy i stil didnt know i dont know=i have to imagine it only the time of now is true, now is matter. an optical illusion dosnt make my eyes false, neither does it make me blind, i am certain when i see an optical illusion now is true, the physicality of my body can never be mental i dont have to expect that i will reach the glass of water to reach for it, i see the glass and take it i dont believe you will provide further argument, you might not, i dont know, i know my experience of now i see words on my screen and i respond to them, i assume that another person is reading them thou i dont know about the suns orbit now=reality loop 1 second or less=personal physical experience i press the buttons to respond to my mechanical reflection
Possibilities are Potentially Now

:: vi_spex said, "possibility has an opposite side, therfore it can not be true by default"But they have the *potential* to become true, or to become now. Now = Know = True. Do you deny the passage of time?:: vi_spex said, "now dosnt have 2 sides, me writing these words is not something that can happening, it is happening, but as you read it i remember i did write it."Now can be false; your physical experience of now does not equal true. Your senses can be mistaken; i.e., and optical illusion.:: vi_spex said, "beliefs inform actions, thoughts and emotions"Yes, and belief is required for meaningful action. You accepted this debate because you BELIEVED that I would provide further argument. You pressed the buttons on your keyboard because you BELIEVED that the letter would appear on the screen. Both of those predictions could have easily been false, had I not responded or if your keyboard became disconnected. You have beliefs.If you diagree, why did you press the buttons on your keyboard?:: vi_spex said, "belief is the opposite of life, know is life. being lost is not knowing i am now"watching television = death, turn my back = destruction. This is entirely irrelevant to this issue.:: vi_spex said, "hm i can see the sun when its up"Does the sun orbit around the earth or is it the other way around? One of them is obviously moving.Please answer these questions...1. Do you deny the passage of time?2. Why did you press the buttons on your keyboard?3. Does the sun orbit around the earth or is it the other way around?
Possibilities are Potentially Now

possibility has an opposite side, therfore it can not be true by default now dosnt have 2 sides, me writing these words is not something that can happening, it is happening, but as you read it i remember i did write it. beliefs inform actions, thoughts and emotions treated as if, act upon as if.. belief is the opposite of life, know is life. being lost is not knowing i am now hm i can see the sun when its up :)
Possibilities are Potentially Now

Hi again, vi_spex! Please accept this challenge if you *disagree* with the statements the below.I wish to argue that beliefs, although you deem them false, are acted upon as if they were true. In essence, possibilities should not be universally accepted as false, but rather a fair amount of them should be treated as "potentially true". I will also argue that you almost certainly would not still be alive today if you had no beliefs, as you claim.I have an opening question for you:Since we can see (physical experience of now) that there is relative movement between the sun and the earth, does the sun orbit around the earth or is it the other way around?I will try to use your definitions as much as I can:"belief=(is)imaginary=future=0" [1]"false=imaginary" [1]"belief=false" [1]"0=information=nothing" [1]"prediction=imaginary" [2]Other definitive statements:"possibilities are false, imaginary" [2]"belief=false, as i dont know is true=be lie" [2]"i have no beliefs" [2][1] DDO Debate and Debate Comments of "false=anywhere beoyond my personal physical experience of now" - http://www.debate.org...[2] DDO Debate and Debate Comments of " 'I believe God doesn't exist' is not Atheism" - http://www.debate.org...
Between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz should be selected as the Republican Nominee

Let's get down to the debate. Contention 1: Rand Paul outweighs Ted Cruz in standing up to the RNC. My opponent brings up Ted Cruz's attacks on McConnell, but I do say what has Cruz done? Rand Paul has openly gone out against Mitch McConnel when they squared off during the Patriot Act. Polls even showed that in this case the public supported Rand Paul 15% more than that of Mitch McConell's. (. http://www.politico.com...) Here Rand Paul even fillibustered the bill for over 13 hours. This is something that Ted Cruz hasn't even done. Yet Rand Paul attacked many people in this fillibuster one of which was Mitch McConnell for his support of the bill. (see video) . http://www.youtube.com...;As for Rand Paul still attacks on the Republican Brand he has written in his 3rd book, Taking a Stand, "Right now, the Republican brand sucks. I promised Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, that I would stop saying the GOP sucks, and I will (except for this last time)," Rand Paul has time and time again attacked the Republican brand for the simple fact of that it doesn't support the majority of Americans and he showed that they only care about the small interest groups. Rand Paul then gave his plan for a massive Republican Party reform. Contention 2: Rand Paul Speaks his mind. My opponent lashes out at Rand Paul for not being able to speak his mind on many issues. This, however, is where he is incorrect. On the issue of Abortion, Rand Paul came out and proposed the "Life at Conception Act," to the Senate. (. http://www.paul.senate.gov...) My opponent is also incorrect on his gay marriage issue as well. Rand Paul has come out in June on the issue of gay marriage stating that the government should get out of marriage all together. This protects the santity of marriage by increasing the separation of state and religion as it was ment to be. (. http://time.com...) On more than speaking his mind Rand Paul has done two great filibusters of the Senate. One was for the renewal of an executive position and the other was on the Patriot act. These both were over 13 hours a piece and Ted Cruz has come nowhere close to this kind of feat. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, fillibustered by reading Green eggs and Ham. (see second video) . http://www.youtube.com... already shows that Cruz is unable to produce an effective and thought provoking fillibuster. To increase my point on this let's look to the legislation both have produced. Rand Paul has produced a total of 116 bills. While Ted Cruz has done 92. (. http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com...) and (. http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com...)I will now hand things back over to my opponent.
Between Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, Ted Cruz should be selected as the Republican Nominee

Good evening, Debate Dot Org and good evening to my fellow conservative debater. I have noticed his support for Republican presidential candidate Rand Paul. Although I am also fond of Mr. Paul, I lean more towards Ted Cruz as the republican nominee for the 2016 election and am happy to elaborate on my reasoning as the debate progresses. The first round of this debate should operate for acceptance purposes and the remaining three rounds shall operate for debate purposes. Should there be any confusion on the debate topic's terms, I reserve all right to clarify them in any subsequent rounds and invite my opponent to seek clarification immediately in the comment section should he feel the need.
income tax = not unconstitutional

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." The Constitution itself says it's constitutional. All I hear is rhetoric that says it's not constitutional, so I thought I'd see what actual arguments back the rhetoric up. Sadly, all I hear is rhetoric and not much actual facts or concrete argument on most topics, but that's an other issue. fyi, i am more against income taxation as opposed to other forms of taxation, but income taxation is still legit.
income tax = not unconstitutional

The income tax is unconstitutional because it violates the "due process" cause of the bill of rights. When evaluating tax returns, the IRS assumes you are guilty until proven innocent. Also, tax investigations are carried out in such a way that the people under investigations are forced to testify against themselves. This is a violation of the 5th amendment. Those are just some arguments I heard recently. I didnt put much work into the argument because this isnt a real debate...
Gay marraige

First of all, I apologize for not posting my previous argument; I have been quite busy over the past week. As there is one less argument round between us as expected, if you would like to, you can post another argument in the comment space below. "Give me a break…" If you have indeed read my sources, then "give me a break" does not answer if they are indeed valid to you. I hereby ask if they are valid. If not, why? Perhaps the more appropriate question would be to ask: Why would anyone NOT accept homosexual relations? But to answer your question more explicitly, such relations are accepted by society as a whole. Man-kind has gotten past its fears of people that are different. But you seem to still say that these compassionate people are still kooks and weirdoes. Why? Such homosexual relations are not affecting you whatsoever, so why should they not be accepted by society? Should we also have a voting referendum for whether people should drink skim milk or low fat milk?? Of course not, as this is totally unreasonable, as what milk people drink by no means affects fellow citizens. The same applies to having a voting referendum for gay marriage; it by no means affects fellow citizens. "Because most people are more intelligent than you give them credit for." Are you suggesting that by being against homosexual relations is an intelligent decision?? This implies that homosexual relations are somehow malevolent, therefore the intellect of citizens derives this. If so, in order for you to win this point, you must define how homosexual relations are malevolent and bad. "AIDS come to mind? Dysfunctional households are much higher? Child adoption? That's child abuse in my opinion." The transmission of HIV from person to person does not only occur in homosexual relations. It may occur in heterosexual relations as well. If you are suggesting that, as this could potentially harm society, then you are also suggesting that we should ban all sexual relations with anyone and everyone, as there is a "potential" that a transmission of HIV may occur. As for dysfunctional households, I ask for a source to back that up. Anyways, I am sure that most homosexual relations, just like most heterosexual relations, coexist quite functionally within households. But even so, there may be dysfunctional households in all relationships. If you are suggesting that, as this could potentially harm society, then you are also suggesting that we should ban all households, as there is a "potential" for it to become dysfunctional at any given time. As for child adoption, that is another issue in itself. But by saying you are against child adoption, then you are obviously also against child adoption in heterosexual relations, correct?? I do believe I have supplied valid rebuttals against each of your arguments. I ask that you consider each of my points, and if you have any further rebuttal, please post it in the comment space, and I will rebut it further.