BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Across cultures darker people suffer most

Before I go on with my argument I would like to ask you to revise your text once in a while. Your grammar is becoming worse and worse as we go on. Moving on now, in your previous argument you argued whether it is or isn't okay for them to suffer. Not whether or not they do or don't suffer. You have gone off on a tangent and therefore I refuse to say anymore on the matter. Dark skinned people don't suffer the most and I have proven it in my text. I would like to ask the judges to view my final argument as showing how incompetent my opponent is on the current matter. He tried his best, but no cigar.
Across cultures darker people suffer most

You're just validating my point that it is culturally more acceptable to have lighter skin. Darker skin is seen as low class and therefore negatively perceived as less attractive. You can't say that slavery Is right because it was the 'tradition' or cultural norm at the time. You can't say hating Jews is okay because it was the accepted In Germany during ww2 that they were untrustworthy and was therefore the norm. I feel that dark skinned people aren't given room to complain because colorism within races isn't percieved as, as valid as racism between races. It leaves darker people low down within their race, a race which is already seen as less in society.
Look at you're religion before accusing anyone.

Just think about this okay Wako Texas criminal acts by Christians, Another instance hmm A camp in Texas with a bunch of Christians and a So called pastor who was having sex with under age girls, Um another instance a White American male name Timothy Mcveigh who blew up a federal building in Oklahoma City, Um here where I live in Hartford Conn a Christian pastor raped a 10yr old girl and got her pregnant, Um What about Catholics WOW having sex with young boys and even in the Vatican a sting operation done by CIA and FBI agents where they were prostitution going on with young men. Ever sat there to think about it. Look it up in on Google.com 9/11 secrets before you actually think that a Muslim had anything to do with that attack. I am an American and I say it proudly but I don't like pointing out fingers without knowing the facts. With this said THERE ARE CORRUPTION IN EVERY RELIGION ... and EVERYONE WILL PAY FOR IT...
Look at you're religion before accusing anyone.

I am now confused about my position in this debate, it seems at first you were blaming people and their associated religion for their awful crimes, You claimed Muslims are blowing people up in round 2. in round one you blamed Christian Pastors for prostituting young Children, Whilst these are true events in themselves, the people themselves are not acting out orders given or instructed by their religions. In round three you seem to take a view that religion is not to blame, and some people judge a person because he might be affiliated to a certain religion by his dress sense or hair style. This is also true but see no reason to construct any type of rebuttal towards it, as I am not defending every Joe publics opinion. Also in your round three you seem to turn things around and blame America for wrongly accusing people of religion for crimes they are them selves committing. Again I see no reason to construct a rebuttal to this claim as you have provided no proof for me to believe this is the case, other than your personal opinion. I take it you are blaming America for the 9/11 attacks. I rest my case.
Look at you're religion before accusing anyone.

I believe I missed something when I posted this debate up, I am not trying to blame religion at all and I know everything that is going on in the Middle east and in America is completely wrong. I just don't like how us Americans always try to be right or try to cover up crimes by committing crimes and then have the nerve to cover up by putting the blame on others. If someone is a Muslim, A Christian, A Catholic don't blame that person for everyone else ignorant acts is what I am trying to say. So there for is why I said Look at you're religion before accusing anyone. It could be any Religion, I never said a specific religion. I believe in God and I went and cut my hair very short and left my beard and I get a kick out of people looking at me funny and whispering, I even had a Latin couple at a grocery store say to one another in Spanish ad I quote "Lets hurry up before this guy decides to blow up the store" I looked at them and laughed and said to them "wow I am Latino my self and I can't believe what you just said about me" Then every time I saw them in the store I would look at them and laugh.. to this date people still look at me and judge me assuming that I am something that I am not..
Look at you're religion before accusing anyone.

Firstly I can sympathise with you that such acts such as walking into a movie theater and shooting innocent people is completely wrong, as is strapping a bomb to yourself as a suicide bomber is also, but I do not think religion has ordered anybody to commit such an act, I would instead suggest that it is a misrepresentation of the purpose of religion, Instead of blaming the religion maybe we should blame the people themselves, because I see no argument from you to suggest that religion has ordered anybody to blow themselves up or shoot movie goers or to sexually abuse young children, As I said in my round 1, instead of people acting out a religious instruction they are acting out their own thwarted perceptions and desires. Of which no known main stream religion defends or condones.
Look at you're religion before accusing anyone.

I accept, What excactly are we debating, I will assume that religion is held under scrutiny ( Correct me if I'm wrong.) to be deemed bad because of a few people which have misrepresented the actual purpose set out by religion. I will defend that no main stream established religion orders people to blow up buildings or sexually abuse young children, but rather that it is people themselves acting out thier own desires which are not instructed in thier own religions.
A Watched Pot Never Boils

Thank you Con for taking this debate. I affirm that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop, because standard stovetops never get hot enough to boil iron or steel (iron + carbon). If a pot is watched, the watching has little to no effect on the pot's temperature. The highest setting on standard stovetops' burners "ranges from 300 to 500 degrees Fahrenheit." http://www.ehow.com... The boiling point of iron is 4,981 degrees Fahrenheit. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com... The boiling point of steel would be similar to that of iron, because steel is mostly iron with a carbon component. Even if one were to leave an iron pot on a standard stovetop for an indefinite amount of time, on the highest burner setting, one could never watch that iron pot boil, because the temperature would never get hot enough to do so. Sure, the contents inside the pot, like water or oil, would begin to boil while one watched it happen, but the pot itself would never boil on a standard stovetop. I affirm that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop, because iron doesn't boil, watched or not, at the highest temperatures of a standard stovetop, ever.
A Watched Pot Never Boils

*There are no round rules other than the above rule. Full ResolutionA watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop. ProHas the Burden of Proof and 3 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop. ConHas also 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that a watched pot never boils on a standard stovetop; Con will be showing that a watched pot DOES boil by refuting Pro. *Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Otherwise. .. *Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument. Definitionswatched - looked at or observed attentively, typically over a period of time. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...pot - a container, typically rounded or cylindrical made of iron or steel, used for cooking. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...never - at no time in the future; on no occasion; not ever. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...boils - reaches or causes to reach the temperature at which it bubbles and turns to vapor. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...standard - such as is regularly used or produced; not special or exceptional. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...stovetop - the upper surface of an apparatus for cooking or heating that operates by burning fuel or using electricity, including the burners. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
I created a Government type, I think it's fine, however, you may not.

I cannot see how the division of power could lead directly to corruption? The idea I have propose divides the power completely between multiple people. However, each council depends on each other. You cannot have a Military Council without a Foreign Affairs Council. You cannot have a Foreign Affairs Council without an Intelligence Council. The government is comprised of many, not of one. I agree heavily with your argument, I can see some mistakes in my work, but what I cannot see is why it cannot work. Out of countless nations and governments I have studied, I can only see, that if there is but one ruler, there is corruption. If there are few rulers, there is corruption. But under no pretense have I seen, that a nation ruled by the many, over the many, has become "too" corrupted. It really depends on what you mean by corruption, for this can mean many things. Too much money, too much power, using that power for bad. Really having too much of anything is corruption in government. I have proposed an idea that takes that power and distributes it throughout the government, so no one man has the power to take another mans power. Direct Reaction to Your Argument: I can see, I can hear, and I can feel. And I see that people can do along just fine without the involvement of money. I can hear the people weep as they lose their homes because they cannot pay the bills. I can feel the burden of taxes and the government's constant surveillance. Anarchy, could work in a sense, a society with no rules, no ruler, non enforcer of such rules. However, in order to have freedom, you must have law. We can all work together, and rightfully so. We can come together without a specific leader or government entity watching over us "protecting" us. However, can we really control ourselves to the point where we feel that we have to do this an do that without anyone telling us otherwise? Do you really think all will participate without rules, without law? Probably not. A common enemy is a good way of uniting a people, to do great things, but it is the fact that it takes an "enemy" to do such that. I head your words, they are brilliant within themselves, and they outline what a society should be, however, may not outline what a society can be.
I created a Government type, I think it's fine, however, you may not.

How would it protect itself from being corrupted? It can't simply because in this my friend you have instituted positions of power which will always lead to corruption, you have created an entity the people dont want an entity, looming. The people want to be the entity alot of what your saying is brilliant but I fear that it lacks the simplicity this issue requires what makes a nation strong? Unity. Where does unity come from? Not a council who decides things for you with each individuals interests in only one area. It must be designed so that every council member is there for one purpose, all purposes. If I may purpose an idea, I have implemented in my societal simulation a council in every state, elected men and women and rather than having a "baby-sitter government" all the states and councils would depend on eachother for security and family of country. the collective force for the betterment of ourselves would be our guiding force. Then, you institute education systems unique to your students and make that clear that teaching eachother is the goal. I know what your thinking, what happens if an army is erected to lust for power, simple money is that same lusts life blood but if our states carpenters build for everyone and all the agriculturilists in turn for the roof over their heads grow food for everyone and the tailors and cobblers and steel workers all do for others for the simple truth of quid pro quo or this for that. We would all have some no one too much no one too little. I would be willing to bet that if all of your neighbors feed house and provide for you and your family under only the condition that you have to give work back that the majority would be more focused on progressing intellectually than mindless fighting. Then With the release of oppressions an attempt at war from the few that inevitably will, will have an entire country of brothers and sisters who love eachother to answer to. Money is foolish, barter could not work because as i said before positions of power... A true society of equals our elected walking without security as to say i have no reason to fear the people i love. Basically unite them against a common enemy, ignorance and needless suffering. Thats just a chapter or so anyway, i'd really love to hear what you think. Thanks for refuting paradigms i will see you when we are the best we can be not perfect never perfect because that would leave us with nothing to aim for but the best that we can be for now.
I created a Government type, I think it's fine, however, you may not.

on the contrary my friend I believe your system would work wonderfully with different inputs and ideas you make me hopeful and I disagree with anarchy and having no leader but are we so uncivilized that we can not band together and vote on issues when things go awry I mean why does it have to be an authority that governs us why can we not make many small political councils that govern state based on the decisions of the people through votes there is a way that we can move past the infancy of our civilization an decide for ourselves how to be I only fear that it is not designed for the majority to understand that they hold the power over home and country all people have the ability to be great some of them never got the chance to show it what if we unveiled the potential of man united with complex in depth thinking for issues that takes time then we would all be the government of course there will always be bad people but I have to believe that our people would stand together unoppressed against any such foe after this debate I would really love to collaborate on some ideas with you, yours is just the kind of mind necessary to devise practical wholesome solutions to the many issues lurking in my mind I believe it would work in fact I think its close to what the world needs with a little refining and structuring on a minute level it could be near perfect.as an act of good faith I forfeit this too closely resembles my own model for me to be entirely against it
Soothsaying for financial gain should be outlawed

Thanks for the debate, Brian, and good luck. Pro's Arguments: 1. Self-professed fortune tellers cannot really predict the future. 2. Women use their husband's money to pay fortune tellers. 3. Fortune tellers act within shady but legal means. 4. The government has a responsibility to protect a husband's money from his wife. Rebuttal: 1. Pro asserts that fortune tellers cannot really predict the future. However, he has absolutely no proof that this is true in every case - even if many don't predict lottery numbers. Furthermore, as Pro's third argument points out, these swindlers are always acting within perfectly legal means and are sometimes more straight forward than Pro gives them credit for. For instance, if one advertises themselves as a tarot card reader, then said person isn't advocating that tarot cards can accurately predict the future but rather that they know how to do tarot readings which is in fact a perfectly legal if only "for fun" activity. 2. Obviously it is not only women who attend said fortune tellers, and clearly Pro can in no way prove that those who do visit fortune tellers do not use their own money. 3. Again, since fortune tellers act within perfectly legal means and do not perform a job that causes direct harm upon an individual, then there is no reason to outlaw this industry. In order to retain legal status, for instance, many fortune tellers have to advertise along with the slogan "For entertainment purposes only." In other words, there are no guarantees and an up-front distinction that whatever is said holds no real or legal bearing. Those who choose to believe in this practice do so at their own discretion, and are not tricked or manipulated into anything without fair warning. In other words, individuals are responsible for their own gullibility as well as keeping tabs on their own money. 4. Pro has not provided any reason explaining why it is the government's right or responsibility to determine how people spend their money (on legal things) and why. Further, he has not explained why this should be illegal at all. His only argument is that women use their husband's money (which I've refuted) and that fortune tellers are swindlers which I've also refuted. Conclusion: Many professions can be considered swindlers including lawyers, doctors and more. Let us also consider religious professions - Priests get paid to preach the word of God even though they cannot prove that God exists or that they know what God is saying. Yet despite this, if people choose to believe in the message, then they do so at their own discretion and any money they non-forcibly donate to the church is fair game. Now, if Pro's argument is that women should not be able to steal their husband's money, then that would be a whole other issue. However the resolution does not mandate that women do such thing (steal) in regard to paying fortune tellers, so that argument alone is not enough to merit points for the Pro.
Soothsaying for financial gain should be outlawed

Soothsayers such as fortune-tellers, astrologists, tarot readers and clairvoyants prey on vulnerable and impressionable women by claiming to be able to predict their futures using totally spurious, irrational and scientifically discredited techniques such as reading tealeaves and interpreting the movement of the stars. Of course, these paranormal mediums' abilities have no merit or substance whatsoever – if they really were able to see into the future they would live in the lap of luxury on the proceeds of their lottery jackpots and winning bets on the results of sporting events. Instead of this though, these mystic con-merchants go about swindling gullible ladies out of their husbands' hard-earned cash. I'm sure any right-minded person would agree that that sort of behaviour is both deceitful and dishonest. Furthermore, these miserable tricksters purposefully make their predictions vague and open to interpretation to ensure that it is impossible to take legal action against them when their felonious forecasts transpire to be incorrect. Because these supernatural swindlers' deliberate deceptions are tantamount to fraud I affirm that legislators have a duty to protect gentlemen's money from suggestible spouses' susceptibility to psychic scams by completely outlawing soothsaying for financial gain forthwith. Thank you.
Life is a waste of time and effort (mostly)

When an endeavor is evaluated to find out whether it's worthwhile to attempt, you weigh the profits versus the costs. The life expectancy of a human being in japan (which has the highest), is 82.6 years [1]. Out of which a third goes to sleep [2] another third goes to work and almost another third to various errands, so at a rough estimate only a tenth of the life of the average human is dedicated to enjoyable activities [3]. In addition, the only reason for someone to accept stress/effort in the present is by knowledge of future rewards that will outweigh the current pain. Or vice versa, the present pleasure outweighs the future price. However, since in the end, everyone dies, no possible reward can be worth the price of dying. And I am not only referring to the nonexistence part of dying, rather also to the very real pain of loss, and despair that awaits the living dead. the people whose sole goal left in life is awaiting its end. In conclusion, I argue that life is a doomed endeavor that shouldn't be attempted. Con now must provide a goal/reason that can outweigh death. Sources: [1]: http://www.un.org... [2]: http://archives.cnn.com... [3]: http://www.bls.gov...
The Word "Omnipotent" Can Be Shown To Be Oxymoronic

Well, since DAT is either incapable or unwilling of responding to my arguments, I'll just outline the two points that give me the easy win. 1) The contradictions arising around omnipotence have nothing to do with the term. Using the example of the rock too heavy for God to life, the contradiction that arises which my opponent takes to be oxymoronic is NOT something wrong with the terminology, but rather is contained in the logicality of what the two notions ARE. For example, given that "All rocks are green" is true, it cannot be the case that there exists a brown rock, because we have already assumed "all rocks are green" is true, and to entertain the notion of a brown rock negates what we have already taken to be true. Likewise, if we are given that "God is omnipotent" and assume it is true, then it cannot be the case that there exists a rock too heavy for him to lift. It's very simple really. 2) Omnipotent cannot be oxymoronic without a contrast. The fact of the matter is that without a contrast like "deafening silence" or "mournful optimist," the term omnipotent cannot be an oxymoron because it does not contain two opposite statements. To be an oxymoron, my opponent must show an implicit opposition in "all powerful" or "universal authority." ************************************************************************* Throughout the debate, my opponent has relied on the reader misunderstanding my argument instead of making one of his own. Readers, my argument is crystal clear. The problem with omnipotence is with the introduction of logically incoherent propositions like "square circles," "four-sided triangles," or "rocks so heavy God cannot lift" - NOT with the term "omnipotent." I'd await a rebuttal, but we all know my opponent is both unwilling and incapable of delivering one. He's more interested in trying to secure some kind of theological mystery, even if he has to deliberately misuse language to do so. NEGATED.
The Word "Omnipotent" Can Be Shown To Be Oxymoronic

Even the most plebeian reading of my opponent's argument proves that he does not understand the concept. **************************************************** Omnipotence is the power to do anything. The omnipotence paradox is a flawed argument. A "solution" to the omnipotence argument (like the rock too heavy for God to lift) is not a thing. Think of it like this: Omnipotence = power to do X. If what you propose X consists of cannot exist, then there is no X to place into our above understanding. So in the case of the rock too heavy for God to lift, the proposition is meaningless - it's exactly the same as if I said that God cannot create a square circle. It's not because he lacks the power or because the term omnipotence is contradictory - it's because square circles simply aren't things. They don't exist. ************************************************ My opponent has made no argument, instead relying on a poorly constructed pseudo-intellectual interpretation of something he doesn't understand in the first place. It's all very sad, but I encourage him to actually make an argument. NEGATED.