BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
is selective breeding for humans okay

My opponent resorts to insults and accusations. He does not seem to fully understand what selective breeding is. Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other animals and plants for particular traits. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent says breeding between humans. He lacks the knowledge of the concept. He is looking for the term Eugenics which defines : Eugenics (/juH0;G2;dA8;ɛn=8;ks/; from Greek eu, meaning "good/well", and -genēs, meaning "born") is the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population. His argument is that Eugenics is not ok for humans. Eugenics is not ok because it is another form of genocide. You essentially kill off a race. However it is still in use today. Even in the USA dealing with Abortion and Birth Control. It is evident in China today where one sex may be more desirable than another. Chinese people may prefer boys over girls so they use this method. This is just one example of infanticide, however- many cultures in several countries practice infanticide if the child is deformed or otherwise would be a burden on the family (i.e. they are impoverished) As for "traditional" eugenics- There are incidences in both Canada and the United States where both racial and mental/physical handicap. This continued well into the 1970's and the people were not informed that they were sterilized (another form of eugenics). In one case, a group of people were given a standard IQ test. If their score fell below a certain standard, they were sent to a doctor and told that their appendix was being removed. During surgery, they were sterilized. This happened in Canada. Finally- Genocide is the ultimate form of Eugenics and occurs throughout the world even today.
There is no God.

My opponent did not address any of my points nor did he, without an empirical or a priori doubt, prove that a god(s) are non-existent. He concedes to my former argument. He can even be caught conceding to me here: "I completely understand your agnostic stance which says we do not have the proper evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god(s)." His quote of the great Greek philosopher can not be applied to all gods (for example, Spinoza's deist god who does nothing for a reason, or any god who is not personal, or any god who is not benevolent). My opponent only addresses the traits claimed to be possessed by the Christian god. His questions are irrelevant for a god who is not personal or benevolent. I'll answer his questions very quickly though, in a logical fashion. 1. Regression fallacy 2. A god or group of gods that exist do not need to be benevolent. 3. A god or group of gods do not have to be personal. Thank you and I hope for an address to my empirical and a priori concerns next round from my opponent. Regards, Vi Veri
There is no God.

Id like to start the debate with a quote by Epicurus: "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" This will essentially be the main argument for why no god(s) exist. Let me break down this quote to simpler terms: Why is it that religious people claim their god is willing to prevent evil but yet the god never acts upon evil or abolishes it completely? He means that no people of one religious faith have any advantage over a completely different religion. In conclusion, that must mean that neither of said gods exist. He then asks why, if the god is all powerful, doesn't he/she/it just abolish evil once and for all. Then he asks, if the god is both able and willing to abolish evil, where does evil come from? Here is the biggest point of all: If this god of yours is supposedly all powerful, able and willing, then why does this evil exist? It would be more fair to say that no god exists if you lack proof of your god's ability to stop evil or will to stop evil when you claim he/she/it does stop evil and always will. I completely understand your agnostic stance which says we do not have the proper evidence to prove or disprove the existence of god(s). Also, I feel obliged to ask you a few questions. 1) If a supreme being created us, what was the origin of said being? It's existence would have to be due to the existence of an even more complex being that would of created him. 2) If a supreme being exists then why is there pain and suffering in the world? I understand the fact that humans have free will, but what about when bad and uncontrollable things happen to good, religious people? (ANY Natural Disaster, Being Born into Poverty, Being Born into Starvation, Holocaust etc.) 3) If one or any god is truly all-powerful, then why is there statistically no difference in what happens when you pray to it/she/him? (http://www.nytimes.com......)
There is no God.

Let us begin. Instigator (pro side) conclusion: "There is no God. " Let me restate my opponent's first claim to why there is no God: "There is absolutely no proof to support the existence of any god. " My opponent made a clear knowledge claim when he stated that there is *no* God. And since my opponent made a knowledge claim, he is outside the realm referring to belief (atheism and theism argument) and has stumbled into the realm of uncertainty and certainty arguments. The gnostic claims to know, and the agnostic claims to not know. Let me bring up Russell's teapot, or the "Celestial Teapot. " Bertrand Russell suggested that between Earth and Mars there was a china teapot revolving around the sun, and it was so small that none of our most powerful telescopes could ever find it. Now, Russell suggests, that his assertion cannot be disproved. I could even bring up the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and The Dragon in My Garage; all of which can't be disproved by absolute knowledge claims even though you can darn well believe all you want that there isn't or is a dragon in my garage. The funny thing about all of these is that they can not technically be disproved because there is no way to gain the empirical evidence in order to make a claim that it in fact does *not* exist or it in fact *does* exist. My opponent may be able to prove that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist through logic proofs based on descriptions of "god. " But, my opponent also stated, quite clearly, that "I challenge anyone in a debate over the existence of god(s). " So, I assert, that my opponent can not make a knowledge claim that there absolutely is(are) no god(s) in existence because he has not all the empirical evidence to to prove such a claim.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

Thank you for your response. I will quote my opponent and respond. “In some situations I feel it could be acceptable for students to use their cells phones in school. Such as lunch, homeroom before school starts, and after school. But I feel during classes it shouldn't be allowed.” Are you aware that by making this statement you essentially concede this debate? The resolution includes times such as lunch, homeroom, and after school. If cell phones are banned during classes but accepted during those times then the resolution is still affirmed. “Sure, they could make a rule that enforces students to put their cell phones on their desks during class, but does that mean all of the students are going to follow those rules?” It doesn’t just have to be that. Administrators can enforce even stricter rules than that. Of course, not all students will obey the rules, but strict rules will certainly deter inappropriate cell phone usage while still maintaining the benefits cell phones bring. “Trust me, I've had experience…” This is an argument fallacy from personal experience. None of what you argued can be proven nor can it be shown to be the general case of things. Therefore the entire argument can be dismissed. “Depending on the teacher, they would just tell the student to put it away, some teachers will take away their phones, and some will just look at the student and then look away and pretend they didn't see it.” Universal school rules would be implemented, so that it is not up to the discretion of the teacher. This means a student would be punished in the same way no matter where they were or what teacher caught them. “Let's not also forget about harassment, plenty of times I have seen boys take picture of the girls butts while they were turning around. It's sickening and it's sad that they have never gotten caught. And also students taking pictures of other students without their permission and posting it on social media can be a form of bullying.” Again, stuff like this can just be deterred through the implementation of stricter policies regarding cell phone usage. Conclusion My opponent doesn’t quite appropriately respond to my arguments. He drops many points regarding the benefits of cell phones and fails to argue that the negatives of cell phones outweigh the positives. He even goes as far as to concede that cell phones should be allowed to be used during certain times of the school day. Over to you.
Students Should be Allowed to Have Their Cell Phones at School

In some situations I feel it could be acceptable for students to use their cells phones in school. Such as lunch, homeroom before school starts, and after school. But I feel during classes it shouldn't be allowed. Sure, they could make a rule that enforces students to put their cell phones on their desks during class, but does that mean all of the students are going to follow those rules? No.The teacher can't watch every single thing the student does. So if the teacher turns his/her back on the students, or walks out the class for a second or just isn't paying attention to the students, they can have a good ole' time and play away on their cell phones when they should be doing school work. Trust me, I've had expierience, I've been a high school student before. In middle school there was barely any conflicts as far as phone bans because barely any child had a phone back in 2006, haha. But towards the end of high school is when the usage of cell phones amoung the younger community has become popular. In my high school cell phones were banned PERIOD. They weren't even allowed during lunch. Students did not follow this rule whatsoever. Whenever a teacher wasn't looking, kids were on their phones, in class. Playing games, texting, and sometimes even watching porn. Yes, the guys were watching porn during math class, sadly they couldn't express their swine- like behavior at home. It was a distraction and kids literally weren't getting their work done, and they got 0's as a classwork grade. As far as getting caught and punished again, it was obnoxious. I understand that telling my side from personal expierences won't be as convincing. But I'm just telling you from my perspective. But anyways, a teacher would see a student on his/her phone. Depending on the teacher, they would just tell the student to put it away, some teachers will take away their phones, and some will just look at the student and then look away and pretend they didn't see it. The harshest punishment you got for having your phone out was that it was taken away until the end of the day. Of course, after a student was punished, they still did it anyways so they didn't really "learn from their mistakes". I'm not being a party- pooper or anything. Yeah, it could be good as far as contacting your parents due to emergencies. That should be the only reason for a student to use their phones in class. Other than that they need to be banned. Let's not also forget about harassment, plenty of times I have seen boys take picture of the girls butts while they were turning around. It's sickening and it's sad that they have never gotten caught. And also students taking pictures of other students without their permission and posting it on social media can be a form of bullying. Cell phones should be allowed under the circumstances of lunch, and during lunch students, especially the boys, need to be monitered.
PC is better MAC

Alright. Well The reasons why I think PC is better than MAC. - Cost. Why pay so much for nothing more than a brand name? There's really no other way to phrase that. When you're talking about computers, you don't usually use the saying "you get what you pay for".. You can build a superb computer for a cheap cost and have it run better and longer than most computers now. - Compatibility. More software was designed for Windows based machines. - Faster. More short cuts to get things done fa
Short Story Debate

Chapter 2 - "What the hell is going on?" The massive bus roared through the pitch black night like a steel rhino on a solo stampede.The driver almost didn't see me, so when the bus finally screeched to a stop, I had a short sprint ahead of me. As I approached the front of the bus, the passenger access port swung open, creaking loudly. "Hurry the f**k up!", bellowed the driver, panic in his voice. "Hey", I shouted," don't speak to me like th..." "I said hurry the f**k up! They're not far behind us." "Who?" I asked. A woman stepped off the bus. She turned on a high intensity LED flashlight and pointed it directly at my face. The way she looked at me, it was almost like she was inspecting me or looking for something. "She's clean!." shouted the woman. "Get her on the bus Maggie!" retorted the driver. "Let's go sweetie", whispered Maggie," we don't have much time." "Wait!", I protested. "Where are we going and who are you running from?" "Them", said Maggie, pointing behind me. There where many, more than a hundred. I tried to focus my eyes, but all I could see was wave of bodies crashing into each other as they clumsily walked down Route 5A, toward the town of Burke. Maggie grew pale, she swung her flashlight towards the woods next to the bus. The bushes rustled, a deep groaning sound emanated from the dark forest. "Get on the f**king bus child!" demanded Maggie, her calm demeanor now clearly gone. That's when I saw it. Three men fell out of the bushes. They spilled over each other in an uncoordinated rush to reach the bus. The driver sprinted off the bus towards the three men and began swinging a massive logging axe like a Scottish Highlander. I covered my mouth in horror as the axe landed deep in the chest of forest walker. His sternum split open like rusty cellar doors, his innards spilling upon the cool ground. The driver struggled to pry his axe free, the forest walker still groaning and clawing. As the axe pulled loose, the walk fell forward. His face hit the pavement next to the bus and I could hear the skull split open like a rotten melon. Maggie walked over and stepped on the walker's head. His skull flattened without much effort. My stomach turned almost immediately. As the pink brain-matter pushed out of the rotten skull like toothpaste, my vision blurred and an overwhelming wave of nausea forced me to my knees. I vaguely recall the feeling of the pavement slapping my skull as I fell forward into unconsciousness. I heard Maggie's voice:" I got you sweetie. I got you......"
Short Story Debate

I will start a short story, and my opponent will add a new part. Which ever side gets the most votes had the best part of the story! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you are ever feeling lost or alone, there will come a time when you will see a bus. It looks pretty normal. It's white with a blue stripe going all the way around it, free from advertisements. For some unknown reason, you're going to feel like the bus is drawing you in. It's going to be really hard, but please please run as far as you can in the opposite direction. A few months ago, I was having a really rough night. I was going through depression, like most teenagers do. I called my friend Ava and asked her to come over. Ava is the kind of person who cares a little too much about other people and often puts her own feelings aside. We spent the whole night talking about life and our dreams, and I admit I was feeling better. But I knew the sadness would creep its way back into me soon. I suppose I should've listened to what Ava was saying to me, instead of being caught up in my own problems. Maybe that would've saved her. About a week later things were the worst they had ever been. I woke up from a nightmare at 3AM with tears on my face. I walked out to my driveway and sat down next to my mailbox. I was shivering from the cold, I didn't think about wearing a jacket. In my hand I had a pack of my mom's prescription pills. That night really felt like the end of the world to me. Shaking, I lifted up a handful of the pills to my mouth when I heard a vehicle coming down the road. I quickly stuffed them in my pocket and pretended to be checking the mail. The bus stopped right there. I guess I should have realized that buses don't come to rural areas, much less at 3AM. For some reason though, all logical thought left me. I got on the bus.
Debate Halting Problem

So this debate comes down to two things: Am I making an argument, and what about his argument?My "Argument":My opponent continues to strawman my position: I'm not making an argument. Making a statement saying that "I'm hungry" isn't an argument, but rather just a written sentance. Saying "I won't make an argument" fulfills the same thing. You prefer my interpretation of my argument because, well, I'm the one who made the stupid thing and one would hope I know what I'm talking about (I do know what I'm talking about, just to comfort those of you at home). Because I don't have an argument, I can't win the debate, which means you vote con.Hey wait a second, what about my opponent's argument?I've made literally no response to my opponent's arguments at all, which means that you're prefering his argument over mine simply because my "argument" is contested on whether it's valid or not. His is simply unrefuted and not responded to, which means that it's inherently superior to my "argument". But his attempt to cross apply my "argument" to refute his subpremise two doesn't even work since it doesn't do that. It's just true that if he's failing to show how the resolution is true, then he can't affirm it. All arguments intend to show either one of two things: how your side is right or how the other side isn't. His subpremise is still true. But even if his subpremise two is false, his argument still stands just fine without it. His subpremise one does enough work to show that if the resolution is false, then it's hard to show that it's not really false. If he can't do that, then it's impossible for him to fulfill his Burden of Proof (which is his first premise). So there's literally no reason not to prefer his argument over my "whatever-the-hell-you-wanna-call-it". Which means that, just based off of the quality of arguments (if you call what I did an "argument"), his is superior and, thus, he wins the debate. Because he wins the debate here, you still vote con.This means there's two different ways you negate the resolution:1. I never even made an argument, which means you have to give the win to Pro by default (which means you negate).2. Even if you consider what I said an "argument", his is still superior to mine for the three reasons I listed above, which means he still wins the debate (which means you still negate).
Debate Halting Problem

My opponent may say that they are not making an argument, but that doesn't mean that they aren't. Look at their last sentence."If I don't make any argument, then it's impossible for me to "win" the debate, which means you vote con."From this sentence we can see my opponent does have an argument. They are saying two things:If I don't make any argument, then it's impossible for me to "win" the debate.If it's impossible for me to "win" the debate, you vote con.Those seem to be premises of my opponent's argument. My opponent clearly has a better argument than I do.
Debate Halting Problem

My opponent mentions that debate winners are to be determined by the quality of arguments, not by the truth of the resolution. This is correct, and falsifies Subpremise Two of my argument.My opponent then explains how they will win the debate by not making an argument and demonstrates how this will allow them to win the debate. The problem is that my opponent structured their explanation as an argument which can be written in the Premise-Conclusion form.Premise One: If the user known as Zaradi does not make an argument, then they do not have better arguments than the user known as Surrealism.Premise Two: If the user known as Zaradi does not have better arguments than the user known as Surrealism, then the user known as Zaradi cannot win the debate.Conclusion: If the user known as Zaradi does not make an argument, then they cannot win the debate.The problem is that this is itself an argument, and so Zaradi has made an argument against the resolution. And, since they probed that my argument was flawed, they actually have a better argument than I do.
Debate Halting Problem

Role of the Ballot:The role of the ballot is to determine who does a better job debating the resolution by evaluating the arguments each side makes against each other. This is the only fair way to evaluate a debate because it better eliminates judge bias compared to evaluating a debate based on if the resolution is true or false. This mean you're determining the victor of the debate by who makes the better arguments, rather than who proves the resolution to be true or false. If Pro makes the better arguments, then he "wins" the debate, meaning you negate the resolution. If I make the better arguments, then I "win" the debate, meaning you affirm the resolution. Thus, my argument is simple: I won't make an argument.
Debate Halting Problem

I will present a simple argument to affirm the resolution.Premise One: If the user known as Surrealism fails to confirm the resolution, then the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Burden of Proof) [1]Premise Two: The resolution can either be true or false. (Disjunction Introduction) [2]Premise Three: If the resolution is true, the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Definition of the resolution) [3]Subpremise One: If the resolution is false, then the user known as Surrealism cannot prove it to be true. (Law of Noncontradiction) [4]Subpremise Two: If the user known as Surrealism cannot prove the resolution to be true, then they fail to confirm the resolution. (Definition of confirmation) [5]Subpremise Three: If the resolution is false, the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Conditional Syllogism, Subpremise One and Two) [6]Premise Four: If the resolution is true or false, the user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Disjunction Elimination, Premise Two and Three, Subpremises One through Three) [7]Premise Five: The user known as Zaradi will win this debate. (Modus Ponens, Premise Two and Four) [8]I thus turn over the floor to my opponent.SOURCES:[1]http://www.nizkor.org...[2]http://www.millersville.edu...[3]http://www.debate.org...[4]http://www.millersville.edu...[5]http://www.merriam-webster.com...[6]http://www.millersville.edu...[7]http://www.millersville.edu...[8]http://www.millersville.edu...
Debate Halting Problem

Accepted.I predict that the Con side (i.e. me) will win this debate. Which would make the resolution something along the lines of...Resolved: The user known as Zaradi will win this debate.I'll go ahead and throw in a few definitions while I'm at it so we can avoid semantical non-sense."Zaradi" - me. http://www.debate.org..."Will - used to express probability and the likliness of an action "This debate" - the debate we are currently having at this moment. The link to it is here http://www.debate.org... Good luck to my opponent!