BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rape and murder are proof of evil.

I never accused you of accusing me of supporting rape or murder.Now you argument can be summed as such:1- Rape and murder exists.2- Rape and murder are evil.C: Therefore, evil exists.I call this argument question begging. The second premises is an extraordinary claim that requires as much proof as the conclusion. Please construct logical steps that leads to the second premise.I remind you that the burden of proof is onto you. You need to provide rational and valid arguments or proof for you resolution.Thinking that unicorns exists doesn't mean that they exist.
Rape and murder are proof of evil.

My opponant needs to show me exactly where I accused him/her of supporting rape and murder. I just said that because rape and murder exist, and they are evil, that they are conclusive proof of the existance of evil. No backtracking allowed. If you think rape and murder are evil, you think that evil exists. You can in no way have it both ways. Stop trying to be Mitt Romney and make up your mind. Muah!
Rape and murder are proof of evil.

So my opponent challenged me on the light of the argument in this thread, read it for more context:http://www.debate.org...First, I do not support murder or rape. In fact, I do believe in objective morality personally as a theist. However, that is something for my opponent to prove. If my opponent switches her anti-theist views from the thread above, I hold the right to switch my views for the purpose of this debate as well.As we can understand from the debate's title. my opponent is referring to absolute or objective evil. So this is basically a debate about objective morality. My opponent needs to demonstrate the feat of proving that evil actually exists. Meaning that rape & murder are always morally evil regardless of what other people think, emotions, or personal opinions.Of course, the burden of proof fully resides with my opponent. My only obligation is to undermine her arguments. The problem is my opponent calls her resolution "facts", which is problematic since subjective claims are not fact, different cultures, societies, religions etc... have different views on what is evil or good. Furthermore, rape and murder must also be considered evil within the animal kingdom. Yet, a lion would believe that sinking it's fangs on a zebra is good because it fills it's belly. Sure, it is bad for the zebra, it is good for the lion, but it is not evil. Why shouldn't the same thing go for humans?Calling something evil is a construct by societies. The Nazis believe that they are right. If the Nazis won and indoctrinated children, the majority of the next generation will believe that the Nazi Reich is good. Therefore, the Nazi Reich will be good in eyes of the society.Furthermore, morality can be simply attributed to evolution. Even if that is the case, murder and rape are not evil. Even if you evolved a morality that is against murder and rape, what about others who didn't? Maybe future generations will evolve to believe that murder and rape are good. Also, what is wrong with survival of the fittest?
Rape and murder are proof of evil.

Definition of FACT (1)3 : the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence> 4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>b : an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage> 5 : a piece of information presented as having objective realitEvil not existing is more of a fact as I have presented unchallenged arguments.(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
No Game No Life is a superior anime to Death Parade

I'm humbled. I was able to win my first debate, what an accomplishment. Once again, I'll just thank my opponent for creating such an intriguing topic. To think that I would be able to convince my own counterpart to agree with me, wow! There's no doubt, both animes are amazing, but my opponent and I alike have reached the ultimatum, that Death Parade is just more personal, more deep, more inspirational. While both series offer interesting stories, I have to praise Death parade for its originality, a trait becoming less and less common nowadays. I now have no doubt in my mind, that DP has a better storyline, better protagonist, a soundtrack out of this world, and is more relatable than NGNL which is what gives it a huge edge in terms of "superiority." Well to the viewers, thanks for viewing! Vote con, it's in the interest of both myself and my opponent that you do so! If you haven't already, check out Death Parade and No Game No Life, you'll be glad you did! Links to death parade: Dub - episode 1 = Sub - episode 1 = Review - GrArkada = Links to No Game no life Dub - episode 1 = NOT AVAILABLE Sub - episode 1 = Review - GrArkada = Be sure to watch the reviews, the reviewer is very talented and is regarded as the best anime reviewer in all of You tube. (WatchMojo)
No Game No Life is a superior anime to Death Parade

To my opponent: You simply have to click text, change it to rich text, then copy and paste the picture. You can also upload pictures to your account by clicking on your profile, where you can store pictures.After a long and hefty thought, I've agreed with my opponent. Indeed, NGNL is inarguably smarter and funnier than Death Parade. But at the same time, Death Parade offers change, offers a more realistic onlook on people, focusing on people's life, especially on the story of Jovi-whatever-it-was-called. Both offer a variety of games, and although I do find NGNL's still yet more entertaining, I do agree that Death Parade's game show different types of people and their reactions. It is especially the games of heaven and hell that make Death Parade all-the-more interesting than NGNL, in which NGNL's characters are smart, and you're excited for their plans, and when they do reveal their plans, they are brilliant, but Death Parade offers a look into people, into yourself. Indeed, especially the last episode, it made me cry as well. Well, I'm just babbling now. I'll let my opponent win. Vote for my opponent. Good debate. Perhaps sometimes we'll debate about a more serious topic.
can women be sexist

so it is being respectful to women when we do the hard work men should be respected to but being nice to a girl is nice all over the world women get looked at like dirt and get killed but men are the ones who are killing the girl think of it has u were a girl and the next day u have to be put in front of the people u know and love and die because of any reason and think the person killing is a man does not matter right.
Abortion should be illegal

Okay. I feel it would be acceptable to define "gay" as "something attributed to homosexuals". Now, under this definition, abortion would not be gay. Here is my logic: P1: "Gay" indicates of pertains to a sexual attraction to those of the same sex. P2: In order to get an abortion, one must be pregnant. P3: In order to be pregnant, one must have sex with someone of the opposite sex, which goes against P1. C: Therefore, abortion is not gay. Now, while some lesbian couples have used donated sperm to become pregnant, it is highly unlikely that they would have an abortion unless it threatened their life, since they completely volunteered to get pregnant in the first place. Therefore, a truly "gay" abortion is highly unlikely to occur. I await my opponent's response.
Abortion should be illegal

Okay, I will take this debate. Let me put some definitions to be used in this debate (if you have a problem with any of them, we can sort it out in the comments): Abortion: the induced termination of a pregnancy before birth Point of viability: the point at which a fetus could live outside of the womb on its own Miscarriage: an accidental termination of pregnancy, which could be due to a variety of causes I am assuming the first round of this debate is for acceptance, so I'll allow you to post your arguments next round. I will respond to them next round.
Abortion is generally immoral

you made some very good points, i assume that rebuttals are not allowed this round so I will include them in round 3 argument #1 cases of rape or incest woman who becomes pregnant due to an act of either rape or incest is the victim of a horribly violent and morally reprehensible crime. Although pregnancy as a result of either rape or incest is extremely rare, there is no getting around the fact that pregnancy does occur in some instances. In the case of rape or incest, forcing a woman made pregnant by this violent act would cause further psychological harm to the victim. argument #2 an argument specifically for pro I can see on your profile that you are pro death penalty. If it is immoral to kill a fetus but moral to kill an adult then you must believe a fetus is more important than a human. argument #3 fetal ownership Premise One: Individuals own their bodies, and everything that is growing within them. Premise Two: Fetuses grow within the bodies of their mothers. Conclusion One: Females own their fetuses. Premise Three: Individuals may destroy that which they own. Premise Four: Females own their fetuses. Conclusion Two: Females may destroy their fetuses. If you don't agree that women own their fetuses, then you must believe that it should be illegal to remove tumors. both tumors and fetuses are living, growing masses of cells. (you must believe this if you believe a fetus is alive) both are growing so you cannot differ between the two here tumors can be either benign or malignant. Therefore, you cannot say tumors and fetuses are different because tumors will kill you but fetuses will not.
Libertarians Should Not Indentify As Capitalists

It is truly an honor to be debating someone of his fine caliber. The question is whether or not libertarians should identify themselves as Capitalists, supporters of Capitalism. I contend that libertarians should not, for both etymological and tactical reasons and also just to communicate more effectively. We live in a most unlibertarian world. The libertarian is an ardent opponent of the status quo in the United States and other "western"countries. Therefore, if it can be shown then that the word Capitalism is generally used to mean this status quo and supporters of Capitalism are thought to favor this present condition, or at most relatively modest reforms to it, then a libertarian's identification as a Capitalist is confusing at best and misleading at worst. This, in fact, can be shown. [1][2][3] In fact, apparently our "Capitalist system" is under attack. [4] Now, if Obama is supposedly going to destroy American Capitalism that would seem to imply that what exists currently IS Capitalism. Furthermore, libertarians have limited resources and need to use these scarce means efficiently. Libertarians could: a. Convince others that what we have now is NOT Capitalism and that "Capitalism", in the sense of a free market, is the solution or b. Convince others that the solution is the free market. As long as the result furthers the libertarian agenda, the path of least resistance should be taken. [5] Next, let's examine the word Capitalism itself. What the libertarian favors is a free market and in the free market Capitalism is just one equal factor among many. It would make just as much sense to call what the libertarian favors Laborism or Landism, but this is not done and for good reason. Let's examine a similar word: Mercantilism. Now certainly there would be merchants in a free market. But libertarians never describe themselves as Mercantilists. Indeed, Mercantilism is understood as a system of government granted privilege that benefits the merchant class. Following this construction, Capitalism should be understood as a system of government-granted privilege to the Capitalist class. In short, there is no reason to use the term Capitalism when libertarians can use the much more clear, straightforward term Free Market. Response to Wjmelements: Wjmelements lists a number of individuals that deviate from the libertarianism of the standard-bearers I selected at the beginning of this debate. For the purposes of this debate, they are not libertarians. Wjmelements contends that Kevin Carson should be removed from the list of libertarians because he agrees with me that libertarians should not identify as Capitalists. This, however, is no challenge to Carson's libertarian credentials. In fact, I included libertarians who consider themselves to be strong proponents of Capitalism: Rothbard, Read. 1 . http://www.gallup.com... 2 . http://answers.yahoo.com... 3 . http://www.fff.org... 4 . http://www.libnot.com... 5 "We should encourage the flower of liberty whether its petals be red white and blue, or red and black. " - Karl Hess
Libertarians Should Not Indentify As Capitalists

First, we must define capitalism. The term capitalism originates from the term capital [1], which, in economics, refers to the means of production not consumed in their use, unique from labor and land, in that land isn't man-made [2]. "Capitalism" developed from "capitalist," which referred to a person that owned such capital [1]. "Capitalism" was originally used as a term to mean "having ownership of capital," and communists used the term to describe the greedy class ideology of the bourgeois [1]. Regardless of the communist publications that used the word, it became more popular as a term to describe the system in which economic capital, the means of production and distribution, is privately owned [1][3]. Next, I shall address the resolution itself. The resolution is not, "Not All Libertarians Should Identify As Capitalists," in which it would be my burden to dismantle the definition of libertarian socialism. Neither is it "Libertarians should not identify themselves first as capitalists. " Instead, it is my opponent's burden to demonstrate why no libertarians should identify as capitalists. Lastly, I believe that for the purpose of this debate, the following names should be added to the shortlist in defining libertarianism: Robert Nozick Friedrich Hayek David D. Friedman Ludwig Von Mises In addition, Kevin Carson should be removed because of evident bias on the topic at hand [4]. With that, the burden of proof lies on my opponent, and as such, he is to present his case first. Source: [1] . http://www.spiritus-temporis.com... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Libertarians Should Not Indentify As Capitalists

Many libertarians today identify as supporters of Capitalism, by which they mean a free market. This is a tactical error. Libertarianism is a doctrine strictly opposed to the current economic system in the United States, which is commonly called Capitalism. As such, libertarians should not identify as Capitalists if they do not wish to confuse and dissuade many potential converts and allies. Definitions: Unfortunately, libertarianism can be a very difficult word to define accurately, so that it includes all of the famous libertarian scholars but does not include those that are widely-regarded as statists. Nonetheless, here is a very incomplete list of libertarians, so that we are on the same page: Benjamin Tucker Brad Spangler Kevin Carson Leonard Read Murray Rothbard Samuel Edward Konkin III Sheldon Richman Capitalism is purposefully not being defined as the purpose of this debate is to determine what definition of capitalism the libertarian should commonly use or even whether it should be part of his vernacular at all.
Libertarians Should Not Indentify As Capitalists

==Strategy for Americans Over 40== Because Americans over 40 favor the term "capitalism" over "free market" and associate it with freedom and anti-communism, using the term "Capitalism" can help with libertarian recruitment. I did not argue that the term "Capitalism" should be used across the board, as my opponent portrays by mentioning the youth. For the youth, the term "capitalism" should be avoided, but this one case is not reason for the libertarian to abandon the word in its entirety. ==Strategy for Republicans== Using the term "capitalism" relates the concepts of political and economic freedom to Republicans, and they are very open to the term. My opponent's objection that the term capitalism would only attract too many Republicans and produce a "pot-smoking Republican" label is minor in relation to the benefits of recruiting Republicans. Most of the Republicans that would be recruited would likely not be pot smokers themselves, so my opponent's concern is also illegitimate. My opponent's other concern that using the term "capitalism" would cause a confusion between libertarians and Republicans is non-sequitur. ==Supporters and Libertarian Capitalism== It is assumed that the libertarian cause is attempting to recruit, and in recruiting, seek not just to change the name, but the beliefs of their targets. Otherwise, the Libertarian Party would grow to contain 70% of the population and they'd have no ideological backing. Therefore, it is necessary for libertarians to take time to define their economic beliefs. Taking the "path of least resistance" is simply not an option. Still, it becomes necessary to use words in presentation, and if "capitalism" gives the audience the best connotations, it should be used. Using the term "free market" is not a Northwest Passage that allows the libertarian to avoid detailing his economic views. As already presented, and conceded by my opponent, "free market" is as misunderstood as "capitalism. " Using the term "freed markets" would require the same explanation as "free markets," as the definition of "free" is vague in modern perception. ==Free Market as a Better Phrase== There are imaginable circumstances, presented before, where capitalism is a better term than free market. The fact that free market is a better phrase in multiple circumstances is not a reason to abandon the term capitalism across the board. ==Non-strategic Situations== My opponent does not address my Poll case and my Debate case, each of which are enough to negate the resolution by counterexample. ==Conclusion== In the context of strategy, there are conceivable situations in which one would prefer the term "Capitalism" and it would be foolish to avoid it. Outside the context of strategy, there are un-contended situations in which libertarians should identify as capitalists. Therefore, the resolution is negated. Thank you.
Light is not matter

Light is simply not matter. It is energy. In order to be a form of matter, an object must take up space and have mass. C1) Anything that has neither mass, nor volume is not matter C2) Light has no mass or volume P1) Light has no matter All forms of light in the spectrum are forms of energy. Energy- the ability to due work I have never stated that sources of light have no matter, but rather that light itself is not matter. A lamp has matter because it is a solid. A solid is one of the four states of matter. The others being plasma, gases, and liquids. Since photons have no mass, they travel freely without being stopped by friction and gravity. Since light does work by moving, and has no mass, it is a form of energy. Also, consider this: Light travels at over 186,000 miles per second. If it had mass, wouldn't it be able to damage everything it touches? Even if the damage is small, light would have a force that gives an impact on substances. I believe that light is made up of waves as well. Waves have no mass, waves transfer energy, and waves can travel through matter. If photons and waves are not mass, but still have speeds, than light is simply energy. Sources- 1] http://chemistry.about.com... 2] http://physics.stackexchange.com... 3] https://www.grc.nasa.gov... 4] http://physics.about.com... 5] http://simple.m.wikipedia.org...
Light is not matter

I accept. As Pro has not provided definitions, I shall define the terms:Light - "a source of illumination, especially an electric lamp." [1]Matter - "physical substance in general, as distinct from mind and spirit; (in physics) that which occupies space and possesses rest mass, especially as distinct from energy." [2]BoP is entirely on Pro to show that *all* sources of illumination, esp. electric lamps, are not made up of matter. Sources1. Google ("define light")2. Google ("define matter")
Light is not matter

I challenge the *trustworthiness* of your evidence. The resolution says "light is NOT matter", which means it knows for certain that light isn't matter. If the resolution said light is *probably* matter, then it would not run into the trilemma. I maintain that it's impossible to know anything for certain, with or without evidence, without running into Munchaussen trilemma. Since Pro uses science, Pro must *justify* that science is "right" objectively, which has not been done. Thus, Pro has not fulfilled their burden of proof. The resolution remains resoundingly negated.
Light is not matter

Evidence trumps everything. To say that being unsure of something prevents running into Munchhausen trilemma is true. However, I do not rely on defense in an argument. I would much rather go for the throat and attack other arguments rather than defending a "maybe" situation. Is there any sort of proof suggesting that this evidence isn't logical? Assumptions cannot be made, otherwise, this feels more like an opinion than an argument. (Implied arguments) Con: "We cannot be sure if this evidence is logical" Pro: "Is there anything suggesting it isn't logical? " I am using science to prove that light IS matter. You have reasoning, but you cannot debunk my claim since you cannot prove otherwise. Therefore, my evidence remains unrefuted.
Light is not matter

RebuttalsEpistemic Nihilism" 'Light MAY be matter' is a great example of equivocation. You could agree with me, or you could not. That statement is also illogical. Light cannot be "kind of matter, but kind of not". It either IS matter or IS NOT matter. There is no middle ground."Bare assertion fallacy. I demonstrated using epistemic nihilism that it is impossible to be *ULTIMATELY SURE* that light is or is not matter. To assert that light "is not" matter would run into Munchhausen trilemma. Pro entirely drops the Munchhausen trilemma. "I have provided scientific reasoning for why light is not matter."But epistemic nihilism challenges the *soundness* of scientific reasoning, since it's only limited by entirely subjective human comprehension. You have *entirely* dropped epistemic nihilism -- so I ask you, did you even *read* my arguments?DefinitionTo assert that sources of illumination are not matter, one has to show that *no* source of illumination can even be *classified* as matter. In addition, you again assume the soundness of scientific studies, but since they're limited by human comprehension, it is impossible to know for sure without running into Munchhausen trilemma [1], and you have the *full* burden of proof to show that light is not or lights are not matter. ConclusionPro is constantly assuming the soundness of science, but I have shown why scientific studies cannot be certain and will run into Munchaussen trilemma. Pro has entirely dropped Munchaussen trilemma and the stance of epistemic nihilism, thus has not fulfilled their entire burden of proof.
Light is not matter

The way in which I word "Light" is an implied definition. It's your responsibility to understand the meaning of this debate. I created this debate and decided the topic, therefore you cannot just simply switch the topic to "All sources of light are not made up of matter." "Light MAY be matter" is a great example of equivocation. You could agree with me, or you could not. That statement is also illogical. Light cannot be "kind of matter, but kind of not". It either IS matter or IS NOT matter. There is no middle ground. I have provided scientific reasoning for why light is not matter. Also, I must debunk your definition. A "source" can mean several things. For a river, a source is defined as: "the original point from which a river or stream flows". In other words, the start of a substance. This applies to light as well. Especially- particularly; exceptionally; markedly: So "especially an electric lamp" is just an example. A source of light could be from electrical energy or the starting point of the light energy; neither have matter. Sources: 1] http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 2] http://dictionary.reference.com...