BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on

I had truly hoped that this debate might be a bit more fun and spirited. But in the end it seems that my opponent has simply given up and accepted that his position is self refuting. This debate began with FanboyMctroll's claim that "any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on."And we have now ended it with him saying clearly, “I can't cast doubt on this debate.”He claimed that I am “essentially debating nothing.”I would point out that I have laid out a fairly clear argument of self refutation since the inception of this debate, which FanboyMctroll has made no effort to rebut, nor explain why he finds it be to fallacious. Lastly, FanboyMctroll has said clearly in his last round that he is forfeiting the debate.Given the self refuting nature of his claim, the fact that he flatly admitted he cannot cast doubt on this debate and the fact that he clearly said “I’m forfeiting,” I would ask that you therefore vote for Con in this debate.FanboyMctroll is clearly not able to cast doubt on any fact or topic. This has been shown clearly through evidence, argument, and even by his own admission.Thank you.
Any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on

I can't cast doubt on this debate, because I started this debate and I'm not casting doubt on myself, the whole point of this debate was to show that any view or fact can have doubt to it. My opponent is trying to argue "It is what it is" argument, that's like saying the sky is blue, ok and?? My opponent is essentially debating nothing and is trying to cast doubt on me for debating this. This is the most pointless debate ever, and so I'm forfeiting because there is no point in discussing nothing. This is like trying to tell a sociopath that they are crazy. They will never understand that because it's beyond their realm of understanding, they think they are normal. You can argue until the cows come home but the argument is pointless. It's like telling a religious person that religion is BS, if they are religious they won't believe you anyways, people are set in their ways. That's what this debate is like " I know your debate but what am I" Pointless
Any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on

I see that FanboyMctroll was, unfortunately not a fan of my topic choice.The topic at hand, which he must attempt to cast doubt upon, is: "FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on any fact or topic.” This debate has two outcomes as I see it: 1) FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on the topic at hand, thus making my case for me. 2) FanboyMctroll is unable to cast doubt on the topic thus proving my case. I can tell you sincerely that I did not choose this topic to be a smarta** (though I’m sure it could look that way). The point here is that FanboyMctroll made a claim of absolute certainty in an attempt to claim that certainty is an impossibility. His position is self refuting. This is evidenced by the ironic fact that the only way he can prove his point is to argue against his own proposition. As I said in the first round: “In order to defeat his claim definitively I need only show that there is at least one fact or topic which FanboyMctroll is unable to cast doubt upon.” I believe that I have accomplished this already. If FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on my chosen topic then he will be making the case against himself. If he is unable to cast doubt on the chosen topic then his proposition will be proven false. The one thing that is clear here is that FanboyMctroll's stance is self refuting. This means that FanboyMctroll is not able to cast doubt on any fact or topic. I look forward to his response and sincerley hope that he does not actually "go find a crack pipe."
Any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on

First off I’d like to sincerely thank FanboyMctroll for this debate. It’s an interesting topic and hopefully we’ll both have a fun and engaging time. The concepts of doubt and certainty are at the core of everything we discuss here on debate.org, so I think this is a fascinating and fitting exercise. FanboyMctroll proposes that he can cast doubt on any fact or topic. He is arguing the Pro side of this proposition, and I will (obviously) be defending the Con side. I do not believe he has the ability to cast doubt on any fact or topic. In order to defeat his claim definitively I need only show that there is at least one fact or topic which FanboyMctroll is unable to cast doubt upon. The burden of proof will be on FanboyMctroll to demonstrate that he is able to cast doubt on any fact or topic. As he stated in his opening round, this will be done through the means of an example topic. He has been gracious enough to allow me to choose the topic which will serve as an example for this debate. As he put it himself: “name me any topic you want to discuss or believe in and I will cast doubt on it and show that it can be disproven.”I will reserve my own arguments for the next round and allow FanboyMctroll to attack the example topic on his own terms first. And so, I give you the following topic which FanboyMctroll must now attempt to cast doubt upon. The topic is: FanboyMctroll is able to cast doubt on any fact or topic.
Any fact or debate view I can cast doubt on

I can disprove or provide doubt for any debate, point of view or fact you provide. Everything has 2 sides of the story to it and every topic can be disproved or challenged. For example, you get caught speeding, I can take it to court and challenge it by stating "When was the last time the radar was calibrated"? As it might not be reading the speed correctly therefore I was not speeding. Another example might be an incriminating e-mail that is sent, I can argue that I was hacked and I didn't send it. Or incriminating pictures, I can argue they were photo shopped. So name me any topic you want to discuss or believe in and I will cast doubt on it and show that it can be disproven. Even scientific data can be altered to a certain point of view by the author. Therefore there is nothing that is certain. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit. Debate a topic, anything you like and I will show you how I can refute it.
The Necessity of Affirmative Action in the United States Today

The opponent to this argument believes that it is more important to maintain a more racially diverse environment rather than a higher qualified environment. However, the policy of affirmative action lowers the standards of a school, business, or any other institution. With the program, one will gain admission or acceptance based primarily on their race rather than their actually ability. This will lower the success rate in the organization and lead to a decrease in overall ability. For example, at University of California, black applicants that received a score of 4,800 out of a possible 8,000 points were admitted. However, white students needed to obtain at least a score of 7,000 ("Perspective 2"). Unfortunately, with the enactment of affirmative action, the less-qualified individuals would gain admission. These individuals would not be ready for the rigor of the organization, and in turn, the school would decrease in performance. That is why it is evident that people should be chosen or accepted into a job based on merit not by race or gender. The main purpose of affirmative action is to help women and minorities gain entry into institutions. However, these groups of people are not benefiting from the program, rather, citizens with privileged backgrounds are ("Arguments for and against Affirmative Action"). This shows how affirmative action has proven to take the wrong effect on the nation. "Perspective 2." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 23 Oct. 2013.
The Necessity of Affirmative Action in the United States Today

In 1968, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare required colleges and universities that received federal funding to establish affirmative action within the institution. Later, in 1973 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission required all employers to establish affirmative action. The purpose was to allow the hiring or admittance of women and minorities into programs. Supporters of affirmative action would agree with this decision. The opponent of this argument acknowledges that minorities with the same qualifications as whites are less likely to be admitted into schools or jobs. However, affirmative action has led to an unfair discrimination. After the requirement in 1968 and 1973 was enforced, the program has promoted the hiring of less qualified applicants. This has created an uprising of reverse discrimination. In 1978, the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case brought this issue upon the U.S. Supreme Court. A white man, Allan Bakke, was rejected two times by the medical school that accepted less qualified minority applicants over him. The school"s affirmative action program required 16 of the 100 spots to be held specifically for minorities. This allowed for less qualified individuals to be admitted. This case outlined the effects of the affirmative action program. It denied qualified individuals to receive admittance because of their race. This goes against the purpose of affirmative action. The rising issue led to the 1997 enactment of Proposition 209 in California. This banned all forms of affirmative action in the state. Federal courts ruled that race can count for one factor in hiring but it cannot be a fixed amount. This is the best solution to the issue because affirmative action programs promote unqualified individuals acceptance and reverse discrimination. "Affirmative Action: Timeline." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2013. Stewart, Chuck. "Affirmative Action: Overview." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 21 Oct. 2013.
The Necessity of Affirmative Action in the United States Today

Affirmative action is a policy that uses race, color, religion, sex, or national origin when considering "opportunities in education, employment, housing, and government contracts among certain designated groups, such as"minorities" ("At Issue: Affirmative Action"). Although it was designed to promote opportunities for minorities, affirmative action should not be upheld because it creates a reverse form of discrimination for groups that are not part of minorities. According to the foundation of the nation"s government, the constitution, the policy of affirmative action should not be upheld. "The 14th Amendment guarantees to "any person," not just minorities, "the equal protection of the laws"" (Walpin). The constitution clearly states that each citizen is granted the right to equal protection. Affirmative action is an example of reverse discrimination. Affirmative action should not be maintained because it bases the opportunity on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, rather than qualification. In the Richmond v. Croson (1989) case, the court state that "a Nation of equal citizens in a society where race is irrelevant to personal opportunity and achievement" is created by the disapproval of affirmative action (Walpin). This statement shows how affirmative action can result in allowing unqualified individuals to obtain certain positions. Based on the facts that affirmative action does not follow the constitution"s equal protection and it promotes unqualified individuals, the policy should not be supported. "At Issue: Affirmative Action." ProQuest. 2013: SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 16 October 2013. Walpin, Gerald. "Race and the Law at the Supreme Court." Wall Street Journal. 5 October 2013: A.13. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 17 October 2013.
The Necessity of Affirmative Action in the United States Today

Affirmative action, or "policies that take factors including "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin into consideration" in order to benefit an underrepresented group "in areas of employment, education, and business"" [1] should continue to be the policy of the United States. It benefits Americans as a whole for the three ideas that affirmative action brings. However, before the reasons of why affirmative action should be upheld, a few statistics must be considered of the position economically that minorities hold. [For the purposes of making this position clear, only African-American and Hispanics will be evaluated]. According to the Bureau of Labor, African-Americans are unemployed at a 6% higher rate than whites, while Hispanics are unemployed at a 3.5% higher rate than whites [2]. Even after employed, African Americans make only $0.75 to each white dollar, while Hispanics earn even less: $0.72 to each white dollar [3]. After considering these statistics, it is quite apparent that minorities earn less money than whites, and as such it is necessary to help them into an equal position. This disparity comes from past wrongs committed against these ethnicitys that have hampered these minorities to grow economically such as whites have. Citing Supreme Court Justice Sandra O"Connor after the Grutter v. Bollinger case, "The Court expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today." [4] However as of now affirmative action is still necessary, and should be upheld in American policy such that equal rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment may be observed, namely, the right to having the same opportunities regardless of race and ethnicity. This is a reality that the United States must continue to work towards. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.bls.gov... [3] http://www.bls.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ability to control other's perception of time is the strongest super power

Pro has presented two arguments in favor of his proposed ability. Unfortunately, these points fail on multiple points and fall short of affirming the resolution. I will rebut these contentions and, in so doing, prove the superiority of my own position. Rebuttals 1. Perception vs. Reality: Pro claims that control over the perception of time is equivalent to actually controlling time. Of course, given that perception refers only to cognition, this ability resides totally and completely within the mind. Influencing how one understands the flow of time accomplishes little more than temporarily confuse one's thoughts and does nothing to alter time itself. As such, causing an individual to believe time is flowing normally when it has stopped (for 10 seconds, which is the extent of Pro's ability) simply freezes their body in place while their mind continues to operate normally. Total control of time, on the other hand, is not so unimpressive. It represents power over an entire dimension and is not limited by distance, duration, or human senses. This power would allow for any form of time manipulation imaginable, including immortaility, time travel, and Pro's own ability. Therefore, my opponent's power is not equal to time control, but rather one of innumerable abilities encompassed within it. 2. Powers in Battle: Once again, Pro argues the merits of perception control. Unfortunately, he misrepresents his own ability. In Round 1, Pro defined his position as "the ability to control the perception of time in others." As his battle scenario involved altering one's own perception of time, this strategy is void. Furthermore, given that Pro's power is limited by range, a time limit, and is unlikely to influence one who exists outside of time, he is left with no alternatives. On the other hand, mastery over time offers one numerous options in disposing of enemies. To start, familiarity with the future grants immediate knowledge of potential threats, while access to the past allows them to be dispatched without confrontation. Such an ability essentially guarantees that any adversary would be eliminated before they were even aware they were in danger. In addition, total control over the time stream offers the opportunity to simply blink opponents out of existence, expedite their aging, send them elsewhere in history, or simply freeze them in time. Closing Pro's case, while unique and seemingly complex, has proven itself to be both limited and self-defeating. He has chosen to defend a form of perception control which pales in comparison to control over an entire dimension. Until he presents an explanation, exception, or example which proves otherwise, his stance is defeated.
Ability to control other's perception of time is the strongest super power

Why? because while time has indeed stopped, my perception of time is that it keeps going: in essence: you're controlling my perception to THINK time is still going, while in reality it has stopped. See how that works? in the event that it doesn't, let's go through a scenario. If you're like any human i know, assuming we did battle, the FIRST thing we'd both do is use our power. You would probably stop time for an easy win. However, who's to say i cant warp my perception of time before-hand. What do i mean? well, if you stop time, yet i modify my perception of it, then in reality, time (within my range) is warped, so control is slightly lost in that space during my time limit, but it STILL allows me to see you. Especially if i speed up time in my area. Now, that will only last for a few seconds, but if i activate it again RIGHT before my time limit ends, then i can effectively keep my ability going. Now, that will provide me an advantage against even someone with control of time. Making time perception control above time control. i REALLY look forward to my opponents counter argument (i can tell this will be fun :) )
Ability to control other's perception of time is the strongest super power

As a comic book fan, I look forward to discussing this topic. Resolution My opponent has taken the stance that the ability to control the perception of time in others is the best ability a fictional character can possess. In opposing this resolution, I shall argue in favor of a different power and demonstrate how it is either equal to or superior than that chosen by my opponent. To ensure fairness, our presented abilities will not be switched or altered beyond this round. They can, of course, be elaborated on based on the information we've presented in Round 1. For the sake of this debate, we will use the colloquial meaning of all terms in the resolution. Counter-Argument As my opponent has presented no arguments, I will use this opportunity to present and explain my chosen power: the ability to control time itself. Represented to a limited extent by characters such as Hiro Nakamura [1], Tempo [2], and Zoom [3], manipulation of time allows for numerous impressive feats. These include, among others, total control over time travel, speed, aging, and the time stream on a localized or grand scale. Given that this ability necessarily encompasses my opponent's choice while having none of its limitations, I eagerly await Pro's arguments. References 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Ability to control other's perception of time is the strongest super power

Hello, this is my first debate that I started. This will be an experiece for me and I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate In this debate, I will argue that having the ability to control the perception of time in others is the best ability a fictitious character can posses. Con will argue for a diffrent power. Limitations on this power are: 1)Range: up to a certian range can the percieved time be stopped 2)Time: For the character who posses this power, this power stops real time (for the opponent within range) for 10 seconds. I look forward to the debate
Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

ARGUMENTS What is moral? Morality is defined as: a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) What is right and what is wrong can be described as what brings well being (right) and what brings harm (wrong) In order to measure morality, I propose a system known as the moral triangle, which is compromised of three corners, the intent of an action, (the intention of bringing well being), the consquences of an action, (whether an action results in the well being or harm of others) and the rights/values of an action (whether someone violates someone's human's rights by an action, or advances their human rights.) (Source of the moral triangle: ) Now to apply the moral triangle to Voluntary Euthanasia. Intent The intent of voluntary euthanasia is to extend mercy by ending one's physical suffering. Mercy is a value in our society, for it decreases suffering, which adds to the well being of someone. Since the intent is merciful, and the intention of the physician is to increase the well being of someone else, the intent is morally good. Consquence The ultimate consquence of voluntary euthanasia is ending one's suffering by terminating a person. According to utilitarianism, suffering is the greatest evil, and well being is the greatest good, and actions that result in suffering are morally wrong, while actions that result in the well being of others are morally right. Since euthanasia results in the end of suffering and the end of harm, euthanasia is good according to utilatarianism, as well as other consquentalist theories of morality. Not only does voluntary euthanasia eliminate suffering, but it frees up space and resources for other patients, those who have hope to recover. Because of these positive consquences, the consquences are morally right. Rights/Values. While voluntary euthanasia results in the death of a paitent, this is not a violation of the human right to live, because a person gave consent to dying in order to end their suffering. It also advances the paitent's right to die. Our society values personal freedom, and Voluntary Euthanasia advances people's personal freedom by advancing the right to die, one's right to decide their deaths. Because of these reasons, human rights are not violated, but rather advanced, thus Voluntary Euthanasia is morally right under the Rights/Values section of the moral triangle. Conclusion In conclusion, the intent of Voluntary Euthanasia, which is to extend mercy by eliminating suffering, is morally right, the consquences of Voluntary Euthanasia, which is eliminating suffering and increasing well being by freeing up medical space and resources, is morally right because it decreases harm and increases well being, and the rights/values of Voluntary Euthanasia is morally right because it does not violate any rights, but rather advances human rights. Therefore, according to the Moral Triangle, Voluntary Euthanasia is morally right overall.
Resolved: Voluntary Euthanasia is Morally Justified

IntroI am challenging That1User for Round 2 of Lannan13's February Beginner's Tournament. The resolution holds clear: Pro shall argue that voluntary euthanasia is indeed morally justified, and Con shall argue that it is not.The burden of proof is equally shared between both debaters.Definitions Voluntary Euthanasia - the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of people with incurable diseases or injuries in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy with the person's consent. Morally Justified - to provide or be a good reason for (something); to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable.StuctureRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: CasesRound 3: Rebuttal of CasesRound 4: Rebuttal of RebuttalsRules1. No forfeits2. No trolling or semantics3. Second round is arguments only 4. Maintain a civil atmosphere5. Breaking any of these rules results in a lossThanks to That1User and good luck!