BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a more philosophical approach, rather than a political approach, (by using these terms, or their synonymous forms, you have thus forfeited this discussion), as this debate still can go ways in, but will not do well in answering itself. It deals with something that is on a grand level, which can only be figured out so much before you start realizing that you have to look for more pieces before you continue on locating the correlations between the universal paradigms (e.g bees behaving like electrons), therefore it would be best to discuss this on a powerful level of analysis, instead of a petty level of answer-ability. There is no such thing as "First round for acceptance, when there's a button that has the word "Accept" prior to it, thus this is to say I am a real thinker, not a sheep that follows ludicrous rules like this one. Feel free to express yourself as a thinker, as this is not about points - this is about "points", real points, the type that isn't a virtual affair. Nothing on this site means anything, when it's founded upon trolls and nitwits that +1 each other; this debate is about using our brain, our heart and our mind together to ask bigger questions than we did before, without wanting an answer; without complicating what is most certainly simple. If you accept this debate, you are saying you will take this as a philosopher, not a good-for-nothing politician which begs the question and places the burden of proof on someone that makes consensuses, not statements - this is to say that politicians are already intellectually illiterate, hence they place the BOP on a question and a consensus, rather than baseless claims and answers - all the while ignoring the words "philosophical", "philosophy" and "philosopher". Argument: It's to reflect on how they have yet to hunt their inner animal down. Do you know why some hunt their own men? It's because they lost their humanity; they are hunting it down in a different way - there's an interplay between subconscious issues and conscious issues / conscious actions and subconscious actions - one taking over for the other. When the physical body is dying, the metaphysical part of the body takes over hence why we dream right before death and experience mirages in the middle of a desert or paranoia causes you to hallucinate. When the metaphysical body is dying, we become psychopaths, but in that psychopathy, we are still acting and facing issues that foreshadow our hidden character physically, which is the metaphysical; the emotion, the drive, the personality and the color, by draining the life out of everything on the outside to compensate for the life they had lost on the inside. This is to say: If you can't survive on the inside, you will shelter yourself from it by living on the outside. If you can't survive on the outside, you will shelter yourself from it by living on the inside.
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

You keep insisting that the Universe contains Imaginary items, which it doesn't.Leaving aside the fact that I'm not stupid, a scoundrel, etc. , your ad hominem attacks are apparently considered logical fallacies. You're not only no genius, you're nuts.The opposite of Reality isn't Imagination, it's Unreality- Lies, Falsehoods, Wrongness,like your arguments.
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

You are a sitting suck. You're on quack. Then what is imagination? What is fear? What is all the things that seem like they exist? But exist no more than a fractal state? The Universe is limited, but unbounded because of the imagination. When you have yet to make a choice, the whole Universe is ahead of you - make but one choice, you'll limit yourself to a very narrow strip of the Universe. Infinity in itself is finitely explanatory. Light indeed does, I'm afraid you have given me all the evidence I need to prove your idiocy. It's like the stages of human consciousness; dark > light You have a lack of many things, not just intelligence. You're the one projecting, hence you're the one who does not understand the Universe, hence you said yourself that light does not come from the darkest of origins within the Universe. I have knowledge - evidence is the showing of that knowledge. Not all knowledge can be shown, as not all knowledge can be taught, but internally taught by the observer.
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

You'd better point your gun/ finger somewhere else- I'm no sitting duck.You won't find any Imaginary Numbers in the Universe- there isn't any square root of -1. Albert Einstein stated that the universe is finite but unbounded, & L. Ron Hubbard stated that Absolutes have to be considered logically unobtainable.There's no such thing as an infinite series of numbers. Light obviously doesn't come from the darkest part of the universe.If there ever had been a Big Bang, it would probably have been the Brightest thing ever.Stupidity would be a Lack of Intelligence, which is Impossible.I'm not projecting- you are.If you reject BOP, how can you ever win this argument?DUH !
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

You're a sitting duck at this point. Accusation based on deflecting their own ignorance. No genius needs a BoP for themselves - they only need a BoP for others. Why? BoP is only for idiots - even then, it's very inaccurate because if the receiver cannot understand the evidence, then whence cometh the evidence? You're projecting again. The Universe has to do with mathematics, therefore it has to do with Riemann's Hypothesis. And yet, they are still numbers, as imaginary as they are, being infinite as any other genuine number. Projecting. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. What matters about age, when all light comes from the darkest parts of the Universe? It's a range from inevitable to infinite. Stupidity is not a state - it's a result.
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

If you're a genius, I'm a duck- & I'm no duck.You sound like you have Severe Paranoia. Claiming that Burden of Proof is crazy is utterly ridiculous. You obviously have no understanding of what you're writing about.Riemann's Hypothesis has to do with complex mathematics, not the Universe, & is apparently a theory that hasn't been proved.There obviously can't be any square root of -1 That's why "numbers" like that are called Imaginary Numbers.I won't argue with your statement that you know nothing.Your statement that I'm young & foolish is interesting- How old is Vajrasattva? How foolish? How old & foolish am I really?
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

Burden of Proof is basically this system which was built for a purpose at one time, but no longer has any value in a world full of politically correct zombies that no longer understand the difference between what is a lie and what is a truth, so in today's era, if you're going to use BOP in either case, you might as well play chess with a pigeon because in today's era, people do not think for themselves and will bore your head in with "sources" that came out of their selfless arse. The subconscious and the conscious experience are an interplay between genuine matter and imaginary matter. Might I advise you study Riemann's Hypothesis, as this formula states that the Universe is consisted of imaginary numbers that replicate themselves likened to real numbers. This explains why we have an imagination and a reality that both seem very real to our experience. It also explains why ignorance and fear seem to never end. Reincarnation does not occur via life/death - it occurs via physical/metaphysical. When we sleep, we enter the metaphysical world, which is us experiencing reincarnation over night. When we die, we do not reincarnate - we die and the energy that stayed in our bodies like electricity stays in a light bulb will leave and return to the Universe. There's no "I" - only "Information". Ideas come to us; we do not come to them. We know nothing - we have access to a tool that is connected to everything. This is not our experience - this is the Universe's experience. Electrons and bees behave the same way while serving different purposes. The Universe has a self-similarity design. You clearly do not know what you're talking about hence the beginning "I don't understand" response. There's no multi-verse - there's only multi-versions. You're discussing with a genius. I'd suggest you to leave. You are too young and irresponsibly foolish to be discussing something at this caliber with a "I don't understand" to top it all off. Then you go off on wild tangents without a remote understanding of the Universe. How embarrassing.
My Profound Explanation On Animal And Man Hunt!

To tell the truth, I really don't understand what your point is.What do you mean by BOP?What does "hunting animals/ men" have to do with "hunting one's inner animals/ men" ( whatever that means) ? There's no such thing as "death" . Reincarnation makes sense- "death" doesn't.Scientist say that matter/ energy can't be created or destroyed. Where were you & what were you doing before the physical body was born/ conceived?Where will you be & what will you be doing after the body is no longer operating? "Life is real, life is earnestbut the grave is not the goal.From dust thou art, to dust returneth was not spoken of the soul. " Bees, of course, don't behave like electrons.Quantum Physicians apparently state that particles don't exist-"Reality" (?) is a Smear or Interference Pattern of Probabilities (the Multiverse) .
Separating Children From Their Families at The Mexican Border

Should separating children from their families at the Mexican border be allowed? No, It shouldn't. Using children as a way to get something that we want is inhumane, Moral-less and strictly cruel. The children have done nothing, Caused no harm so why do we think we have the right to use them to "prove" a point? The children cry for their parents as they are being separated. They are scared, Confused and lonely. Our government has no right bringing innocent children into our controversial politics. #familiesbelongtogether
should amreica change to wind energy

It seems i have misread about this debate leading to me thinking i was Con but to prevent the fun spoiled, i continue as PRO :D (Hoping Con didnt read my previous rounds :P) "well i thinkt that america should use Nucleaur power plants. They can provide about a whole city in about one pice of coal." Wrong, nuclear plants doesnt even use coal to produce energy. The radioactive crap that comes out of it after the fusion is also dangerous. And are you sure you want to take the risk of an accident and having the whole area flooded with radioactivity? "It will take about 7 windmills to power a city." I could say 7 solar panels would power a city, yet it cant be confirmed as true. No proof = false "Wind Energy, the definition is "Energy received from the movement of the wind across the earth. This energy is a result of the heating of our oceans, earth, and atmosphere by the sun." Why are you telling me this? O_O Meh, time to change role and tell why we want solar energy (remember, i dont want a country full of only solar energy) 1. Solar energy is clean Solar energy is clean meaning it wont emit CO2 or any other gasses that worsens the greenhouse effect. 2. Cost effective Even though its expensive, the cost gets worked away because the required thing for it to produce energy is sunlight, which is always avaible. You dont need to buy the requirements for it to produce unlike nuclear plants and coal fire boilers. I stop here for now, your turn.
should amreica change to wind energy

well i thinkt that america should use Nucleaur power plants. They can provide about a whole city in about one pice of coal. It will take about 7 windmills to power a city. This isa ll i want to say as off what my deabter said. Wind Energy, the definition is "Energy received from the movement of the wind across the earth. This energy is a result of the heating of our oceans, earth, and atmosphere by the sun."
should amreica change to wind energy

Meh, so you as instigator wants a contender to start first? :P Fine by me. You mention that US should change to solar energy and since you didnt say more about it, i assume you want to scrap all other kind of energysources and use solar only. I will list all the reason why that wouldnt work. 1. Solar energy cant produce enough energy for daily demands. The fact that its production is limited proves that it wont work by only using solar energy. 2. The cost The price of solar energy like solar panels is expensive. We all know that US has a huge debt thats still unpaid. How do you want to provide solar panels everywhere in US if you cant even buy enough of it? Im stopping here for now, we still have a few more rounds to go ^^ Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Religion should be abolished

Pro forfeited the last round; nevertheless, I will add a couple more points to counter the opening round statements. First, pro failed to give a single one example of a “social dispute,” and simultaneously pro asserted the “basic need religion” provides could be substituted through “education,” although this appears at first glance to be a non sequitur argument. Had pro continued with the debate one question I would have put forward is if education already provides a valid substitute for religion, then why not encourage education rather than abolish religion. In the end, it is hard to sustain a counter-argument, especially since there is no definition of “social dispute. ” Social dispute is not a sociological term, nor does it appear in standard dictionaries, including the urban dictionary. A related term, social problem encompassed a broad array of global issues, among these aids, global warming, and world hunger to name only a few. However, due to the two forfeitures, Con cannot pursue opposition in this debate any further.
Religion should be abolished

Pro forfeited the last round but I could like to make a couple rebuttals since BOP is on the other side. Pro claims that “most social disputes” are due to religion. Pro provides no evidence for this claim. While there might conceivably be a case that SOME social disputes occur because of religion. Moreover, it is impossible to untangle cases where religion is the major dispute but not exclusive to the problem itself. For example, even the War on Terrorism provides what appears on at first as a case where religion is the primary conflict. But even there, other issues are involved perceived intervention and interference by western countries, the west’s stance of promoting regional stability, as well as practical issues about protecting markets and open access to natural resources. Or another issue recently in the new: the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. While religion plays a role, there are other issues historical, political and geographic issues as well. Let that stand as Con’s rebuttal. Con will wait on Pro to advance a new argument.
Religion should be abolished

I am not religious. Some of my family are lapsed Catholics. While I do believe there are some bad characteristics in most religions, the problems, prejudices, and hatreds would continue to be there--but in some other form, politics or something else. Therefore, I do not believe that religion should be abolished since it would not end the problems mentioned by my opponent. Good luck. This is my third debate, well really only the second since I didn't put the time in right on one of my debates.
Liberals are generally more pessimistic about success than conservatives or libertarians.

First off, thank you SOOO much for starting this debate. It seems that you are categorizing all liberals into having the exact same beliefs. The fact is, THEY DON'T. But, to address the democrats you are talking about, one has to look at the intentions of what those liberals are saying. You You are looking at the situation as a middle class citizen that probably has had no real struggles in life, and if you have, they didn't last long. 1)"Sure, liberals will say that success is sometimes possible without help from government, but only for the privileged few who are fortunate enough to be handed the necessary resources." -Success does not come without help. This is in all circumstances. You cannot climb to the top without others to climb on top of. Everyone needs to be ‘handed the necessary resources'. And everyone is, just in different ways. Every wealthy businessman had the means of reaching the top, and grabbed it. Liberals want that for everyone, and they only want to stand as the mediator, and give the lower class those same opportunities. Or, at least, the resources necessary to reach those opportunities. 2)"…there is no doubt that liberals are far more pessimistic than conservatives or libertarians when it comes to success." -If liberals were so pessimistic about people reaching success, then certainly, they would not waste their time making an effort to change that. They would see it as a situation where no matter what they do, that person does not have the capability to succeed. But, liberals are indeed, OPTIMISTIC, and believe that the people that do not have a multi-millionaire father and a secure lifestyle to begin with can still aspire to be better than they started off with. They just need a little push. If you have ever seen the movie ‘The Pursuit of Happyness', you can see that many of businessmen that Will Smith encounters are very doubtful, and I can bet that many of those characters are very liberal. Yet, Will Smith's character was still given a chance. If you propose that all liberals are pessimistic, then you are also proposing that all conservatives are optimistic. I STRONGLY disagree with idea that either Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, or even my conservative mother are optimistic about people's abilities, but instead, want the upper class to strive and consistently ignore the lower class's needs.
Liberals are generally more pessimistic about success than conservatives or libertarians.

In this debate I am claiming that liberals generally have a very dim view of people's ability to succeed in life. They are constantly pointing to how the U.S. (which most consider the land of opportunity) is not accommodating to those who work hard to get ahead. Liberals are so certain that people aren't getting a fair shake that they feel it necessary to support all sorts of government policies that aim to "even the playing field." Sure, liberals will say that success is sometimes possible without help from government, but only for the privileged few who are fortunate enough to be handed the necessary resources. Whether they are right or wrong, there is no doubt that liberals are far more pessimistic than conservatives or libertarians when it comes to success.
This is a pessimistic world we live in

Negativity is found in all walks of life. There are murders and rapes happening on an almost daily basis. The corrupt and greedy are often in positions of power. There have been incidents like the holocaust, the cruelty of slavery for blacks and Egyptians. Plagues have killed billions. The world is full of such adversities and and few, if any, positive aspects of the world can even measure up to these adverse phenomena. The default experience that the world gives us is a negative one. In order for positive aspects of life to be experienced, one must either be lucky (such as being born into a privileged family) or suffer through negativity in order to achieve it (such as struggling through one's career), and even then it is not guaranteed. Another example is how time seems to speed up when having fun, and slow down when experiencing the opposite. Why can't our perception of time be the opposite of that? Because we live in a negative world."I believe that the world we live in has some forms of pessimism, but the world itself is not pessimistic. Lots if people in the world look forward to things in life and are not always so pessimistic about their life."People do look forward to things in life, however, this proves my point because one must look to the future and hope that they are able to experience what they look forward to. Until that time (assuming it even comes), they are stuck in the now which, more than likely, is full of adverse aspects which make them desire that which they must look forward to.
This is a pessimistic world we live in

World defined as; the system of created things (1).Pessimism defined as; an inclination to emphasize adverse aspects, conditions, and possibilities or to expect the worst possible outcome (2).These are the definitions I want to work with, please debate with these definitions in mind.While I acknowledge that the world posses positive aspects, adversity is the predominant factor of our lives and the world.I ask con to present initial arguments.Sources(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
I am more insulting than you

Chapter 1:You have a question mark on your back because you don't know who is feeding to you in the rear. Also, I heard your mother sucks penis behind the Pita Pit for spare change and food stamps, as your fat slob of a dad is too busy scarfing down Cheetos to even care about that endangered whale you call a mom. They went to counselling, but even the best therapist in New York couldn't heal those salty wounds. They always discussed how you were better off as a cum stain on your whore of a mother's bed sheets that she stole from the lost and found bin. They also always wished to have a boy, as they didn't want to deal with your dripping blood stains that would be sure to come. You also never had a prom date, as you were only good for being a cum dumpster for some scruffy looking dude in a Metallica shirt. Your face looked like chewed up meat in high school, now you look like Shrek fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down. You are so desperate for penis, and you would take it raw on your period to get off because of your filthy ways. PS. The last time you tried to use a douche, it pointed and said "what's that?!" and ran away it was so scared of that Dungeons and Dragons death trap you call a vagina. The PoemMy opponent decided to call herself anomalousTo hide the fact she's wide and fat just like a rhinocerosHer face is so awful that she has to remain anonymousAnd prays every day to look less like a hippopotamusIt's sad, she's fat but she can't even fightPlus her tits remind you of misquito bitesShe looks good....to those with eyes closed really tightAfter this she will cry and want to leave the siteTurn a frog into a prince? You would be lucky to kiss a toadI home a semi smashes into you the next time you cross the roadIt must feel like crap having noone to holdBut what do you expect? Your breath that smells like onions and moldYou probably salivate at the thought of getting cream piedBut every time you queef the people across the street die
The legal drinking age should be lowered to 16.

Yes, that is true. And having teens or even younger aged children drink small amounts of alcohol is not morally bad, but it can affect the brain and the body. "Difficulty walking, blurred vision, slurred speech, slowed reaction times, impaired memory: Clearly, alcohol affects the brain. Some of these impairments are detectable after only one or two drinks and quickly resolve when drinking stops. On the other hand, a person who drinks heavily over a long period of time may have brain deficits that persist well after he or she achieves sobriety. Exactly how alcohol affects the brain and the likelihood of reversing the impact of heavy drinking on the brain remain hot topics in alcohol research today. We do know that heavy drinking may have extensive and far"reaching effects on the brain, ranging from simple "slips" in memory to permanent and debilitating conditions that require lifetime custodial care. And even moderate drinking leads to short"term impairment, as shown by extensive research on the impact of drinking on driving." (http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov...) I want to thank you for this debate. You had well rounded arguments and points.