BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

1) "Have to" My opponent claims that when he answered Question 11, he did not know whether or not he had a desire to win this debate - "I answered question 11, however, I did not know whether this in fact would be the case. .. ". However, the correct answer to Question 11 would then be that he did not know whether or not he had to win the debate. I also highly doubt that my opponent had no desire to win this debate at the start of this debate. Is a desire to win not what motivated my opponent to answer the questions in the first place? My opponent also acknowledges that the desire to win and the impossibility to lose are separate. This is true. However, there always remained a possibility that my opponent would contradict himself, at both Question 11 and Question 23. There remains no reason for the different answers and obligations. Hence, contradiction. 2) "The thread" My opponent is correct in everything he says. However, there is a slight flaw: I am not the only one who said that Question 18 referenced a thread. He also made the claim. And he didn't just quote me; he would have used quotation marks. He restated and reaffirmed it. Perhaps I need to expand my quotation to make myself more clear: "18. Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government? No. Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as 'the thread'. .. " My opponent's defense is literally worthless due to his assumption that I quoted myself. He has nothing to defend the most blatant of all possible contradictions. By giving no reasonable defense, he has in effect dropped the contention, conceding the debate.
I will not contradict myself

I will now show how they are, in fact, not contradictions. 1) "Have to" In saying that I had to answer all questions without contradiction, I was following through on a desire to win this debate. This is why I was under an obligation to answer all questions without contradiction. My opponent pointed this part out very well. Back when I answered question 11, however, I did not know whether this in fact would be the case - this is why I specifically used the phrase, "As I type this". It was still, at that time, possible for me to accidentally contradict myself in my later answers, thereby losing the debate. It is not a contradiction to put oneself under an obligation to do something, and to express the fact that it may later prove impossible to fulfil that obligation. A desire to win a debate does not necessarily entail that one actually will win the debate. 2) "The thread" In round 2, my opponent wrote that: "Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as "the thread": . http://www.brawlinthefamily.com... " Clearly, this means that instead of my opponent typing out the URL every time, it would be referred to in the shortened phrase of "the thread". In other words, readers are directed that whenever they see the phrase "the thread", they should mentally substitute ". http://www.brawlinthefamily.com... ". Question 18, once again, was: "Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government? " It featured no reference to "the thread". However many times my opponent insisted, therefore, that question 18 would refer to the brawlinthefamily. com thread as "the thread", it in fact never did so. I was therefore correct to say, in my answer to question 29, that no thread was referred to in question 18. It was referred to in questions 19 and 20, and in an external statement, but never in question 18 itself. Thank you.
I will not contradict myself

Now, I have spotted two contradictions: Contradiction 1: "Have To" "11. Do you have to win this debate? "When combined with the word 'to' (as in the sentence, 'I have to do this'), Merriam-Webster defines 'have' as 'to be compelled, obliged, or required' and 'to feel obligation in regard to' "As I type this answer, no, I do not have to win this debate. For as I type this answer, it remains a possibility that I'll contradict myself in a later round. If that were to happen, then I would not win this debate. " "23. Do you have to answer all questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction? "I once again invoke the definition of 'have to' originally mentioned in my answer to question 11. "There are provisions within the rules of this debate for you to ask 30 questions, all of which I have to answer without contradiction. " First, my opponent claims that he does not have to win the debate. However, he then claims that he has to answer all thirty questions without contradiction. There is no reason to have to answer all thirty questions without contradiction, except for to have to win the debate, answering the thirty questions without contradiction being the requirement to winning the debate. Essentially, my opponent does not have to win the debate, and yet he has to win the debate. Contradiction. Contradiction 2: "The Thread" "Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as 'the thread'. .. " "29. Does Question 18 refer to any thread? Question 18 was: . .. No thread was referred to in that question. " Question 18 refers to a thread as "the thread," and yet in never referenced any thread. Contradiction. I will now leave my opponent to defend these contradictions.
I will not contradict myself

21. Do you believe that the government should enforce minimum working conditions? 22. Do you have to answer questions that I ask in this debate correctly? 23. Do you have to answer all questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction? 24. If a group of people unanimously vote for their government to levy an income tax upon them, then is it justified? 25. Should the government ban slavery in all cases? 26. Are you an anarchist? 27. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in this debate correctly? 28. Do you have to answer any questions that I ask in all this debate without contradiction? 29. Does Question 18 refer to any thread? 30. Can a person own an animal's hair?
I will not contradict myself

=== Responses to mongeese's comments on my first ten answers === "Logician, your answer to Question 1 is inadequate. If by hair, I do not mean "the hair on top of the head" (which I don't), what is your real answer?" That, almost certainly, neither answer would be completely correct in that circumstance. For unless the man has had all of his bodily hair artificially removed, by electrolysis or other similar means, then he either has or will regain hair on some part of his body. This means that if I answered "yes" I would have to change it to "no", and vice versa. This circularity would make it impossible to answer accurately. And if the man, for whatever reason, actually had artificially and permanently removed all of his bodily hair, then my answer would be no, for he wouldn't have any hair on his body to cut. "Question 10 is supposed to be an all-or-nothing. You either agree with all of the ideas, or you don't. Please re-answer the question." Thank you for that clarification. In that case, my answer to question 10 is no. === My answers to the second batch of questions === 11. Do you have to win this debate? When combined with the word "to" (as in the sentence, "I have to do this"), Merriam-Webster defines "have" as "to be compelled, obliged, or required" and "to feel obligation in regard to" http://www.merriam-webster.com... As I type this answer, no, I do not have to win this debate. For as I type this answer, it remains a possibility that I'll contradict myself in a later round. If that were to happen, then I would not win this debate. 12. Do you believe that the government should enforce a mandatory minimum hourly wage? No. 13. Is complete democracy by the majority (similar to Athenian democracy) justified? No. 14. Does the omnipotence paradox disprove the Christian god? No. 15. Do you base all of your beliefs on reason? No. 16. Is it ever appropriate for the government to regulate actions between two consenting adults in the bedroom? No. 17. Is an income tax justified? If you are referring to an income tax levied by a government, then no. If you are referring to an income tax levied by another company or individual, then maybe. It depends on the individual or company levying the tax, and on the individual or company from whom the tax money is being taken. 18. Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government? No. Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as "the thread": http://www.brawlinthefamily.com... 19. Does the following image appear in the thread? http://img510.imageshack.us... As I type this answer, yes it does. 20. Does the following image appear in the thread? http://i37.photobucket.com... As I type this answer, yes it does.
I will not contradict myself

Logician, your answer to Question 1 is inadequate. If by hair, I do not mean "the hair on top of the head" (which I don't), what is your real answer? Question 10 is supposed to be an all-or-nothing. You either agree with all of the ideas, or you don't. Please re-answer the question. 11. Do you have to win this debate? 12. Do you believe that the government should enforce a mandatory minimum hourly wage? 13. Is complete democracy by the majority (similar to Athenian democracy) justified? 14. Does the omnipotence paradox disprove the Christian god? 15. Do you base all of your beliefs on reason? 16. Is it ever appropriate for the government to regulate actions between two consenting adults in the bedroom? 17. Is an income tax justified? 18. Do you agree that the rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness (Property) ought to be protected by the government? Questions 18 and 19 refer to the following thread as "the thread": http://www.brawlinthefamily.com... 19. Does the following image appear in the thread? http://img510.imageshack.us... 20. Does the following image appear in the thread? http://i37.photobucket.com...
I will not contradict myself

So without further ado, my answers: 1. A man cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the man cut his own hair? If by "hair" you mean "the hair on top of the head", then no. The man is bald. 2. Is the answer to this question negative? Neither answer would be completely correct here. If I answered "yes", then I would have to change my answer to "no", and vice versa. This circularity makes it impossible to answer accurately. 3. Do you agree with all of your current positions on your "The BIG Issues"? No. I've been meaning to re-edit it for a while now. 4. Is it appropriate for anybody to discriminate based on who a person wishes to share a life with, if anybody? The question is imprecise. If you mean, "Is it appropriate for people to discriminate for whatever reason they choose", then no. If you meant to ask, "Is it ever appropriate. .. ", like in question 5, then yes. 5. Is it ever appropriate for any voluntary actions between two consenting parties to be regulated by a third party? Yes. 6. Should all carbon emmisions be regulated by the government? No. 7. Is Barack Obama usually right? No. 8. Is it ever appropriate for the government to restrict the rights of the working class? No. 9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually [more often than not] right? No. 10. Do you agree with the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence? There are a number of ideas expressed in the Declaration, some of which are superfluous to the main purpose of the independence of the USA, but expressed nonetheless. Can you detail, in an extra question in the next round, exactly which ideas you had in mind?
I will not contradict myself

1. A man cuts only hair of all men who do not cut their own hair. Does the man cut his own hair? 2. Is the answer to this question negative? 3. Do you agree with all of your current positions on your "The BIG Issues"? 4. Is it appropriate for anybody to discriminate based on who a person wishes to share a life with, if anybody? 5. Is it ever appropriate for any voluntary actions between two consenting parties to be regulated by a third party? 6. Should all carbon emmisions be regulated by the government? 7. Is Barack Obama usually right? 8. Is it ever appropriate for the government to restrict the rights of the working class? 9. Is Rush Limbaugh usually [more often than not] right? 10. Do you agree with the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence?
Sources for Medical Marijuana debate

Sources:1. "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition" (Docket #86-22) p. 56-57". US Department of Justice to the Drug Enforcement Administration. September 6, 1988. Retrieved 2011-08-12. 2. Sprague, Elizabeth (July 15, 2009). "Pot No Longer Focus of Anti-Drug Campaigns". CBS News. Retrieved 2011-08-12. 3. Stephen Sidney, MD, Associate Director for Clinical Research for Kaiser Permanente and Bruce Mirken, Communications Director for Marijuana Policy Project, stated in an Apr. 26, 2006 article published in the San Diego Union-Tribune: 4. The New York Times stated in a Apr. 22, 2006 editorial, "The Politics of Pot" 5. http://www.benefitsofmarijuana.com...;6. British Journal of Psychiatry 184: 110-117, 2004; Grotenhermen F. (2003)
Sources for Medical Marijuana debate

1. "IntheMatterofMarijuanaReschedulingPetition"(Docket#86-22)p.56-57".USDepartmentofJustice tothe DrugEnforcementAdministration.September6,1988.Retrieved2011-08-12. 2.Sprague,Elizabeth(July15,2009). "PotNoLongerFocusofAnti-DrugCampaigns". CBSNews.Retrieved2011-08-12. 3. http://www.time.com... 4. http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... http://www.psychologytoday.com...[5] Johnston, L.D. et al, Drug Use Among American High School Seniors, College Students and Young Adults, 1975-1990,Vol II, Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1991), p 31.[6] Jones, R.T. et al, "Clinical Studies of Cannabis Tolerance and Dependence," Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 282:221-39 (1976).[7]
Sources for Medical Marijuana debate

http://www.abovetheinfluence.com... [1]http://www.time.com... [2]http://www.nida.nih.gov... [3]http://archives.drugabuse.gov... [4]Insitite of medicineAlzheimer's Research Trust http://drugabuse.gov... [5]http://www.livestrong.com... [6]http://www.health.com... [7]Dad (doctor)
Sources for Medical Marijuana debate

Sources: http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org... Evans, D. A. Estimated prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease in the United States. Milbank Q. 1990, 68, 267-289 Iuvone, T.; Esposito, R.; Santamaria, R.; Di Rosa, M.; Izzo, A. A. Neuroprotective effect of cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive component from Cannabis sativa, on beta-amyloid-induced toxicity in PC12 cells. J. Neurochem. 2004, 89, 134-141. D.I. Abrams, C.A. Jay, S.B. Shade, H. Vizoso, H. Reda, S. Press, M.E. Kelly, M.C. Rowbotham, and K.L. Petersen. Cannabis in painful HIV-associated sensory neuropathy: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Neurology; 68:515. Haney M, Gunderson EW, Rabkin J, et al. (2007). "Dronabinol and marijuana in HIV-positive marijuana smokers. Caloric intake, mood, and sleep". Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 45 (5): 545–54. Ellis RJ, Toperoff W, Vaida F, et al. (2009). "Smoked Medicinal Cannabis for Neuropathic Pain in HIV: A Randomized, Crossover Clinical Trial".Neuropsychopharmacology 34 (3): 672–80 McAllister SD, Christian RT, Horowitz MP, Garcia A, Desprez PY (2007). "Cannabidiol as a novel inhibitor of Id-1 gene expression in aggressive breast cancer cells" (Free full text). Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 6 (11): 2921–7.doi:10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-07-0371. PMID 18025276. Lay summary – BBC News ( Salazar M, Carracedo A, Salanueva IJ, et al. (2009). "Cannabinoid action induces autophagy-mediated cell death through stimulation of ER stress in human glioma cells". The Journal of Clinical Investigation 119 (5): 1359–72.doi:10.1172/JCI37948. PMC 2673842. PMID 19425170. Lay summary – HealthDay http://www.safeaccessnow.org... http://io9.com...
SOPA and PIPA bills should be stopped

I would like to start off with some of the big problems with these bills that make them illogical to pass. First off the fact that the bills allow any business, that can prove any copyrighting has been done on a certain page, can shut down the entire site. Second the fact that because of my first point many international sites would be brought down making these bills an international concern to great for just America to handle. Third the fact that many sites that have copyrighted material have no control of what their users put up. ex: facebook, youtube, photobucket ect. ect. Fourth that the main supporter of the bill itself has copyrighted material as the background of his website. Fifth the fact that the amount of people voting in America is decreasing with every election and the Internet is one of the big ways America has been turning it around. Sixth the fact that bringing down international sites like this destroys the global community that is now (because of Internet) stronger then ever before. Seventh the fact that many of the people voting on this bill are old men and woman who have never used the Internet themselves and are just scared of it. So it is because of these seven points that I think that SOPA and PIPA should be buried. As shown all these points show that the people voting on these bills don't really know what there voting on and that if passed they will decrease our own social awareness of our country and destroy the global community that the Internet has developed over the years. I now give the debate to the Con, Thank you again for accepting I hope for some good points to come out of this to help everyone get a better understanding for these bills.
The reason YOU cannot disprove solipsism is because your NOT REAL!!!!

If I was going to add unhappiness to my life, I don't think it would be what I got. Most of my life has been mind numbingly boring. I accidentally let myself run low on time, so I have one main argument to give you. If I was the only one whom existed, than why can you think? The same goes for the voters. As long as the person who reads this thinks, I cannot be the only one who exists.
The reason YOU cannot disprove solipsism is because your NOT REAL!!!!

Prove to "us" that "we" exist. I (smooosh) will represent "us"/we! You can represent your damm self! I can see through your ruse. I've wondered all my life, "am I the only one who is real?" and now I know that you and everyone I know are just illusions or extensions of myself! I've put a little twist in this debate. The focus of the debate will be from cons point of view. Cons objective is to simply prove existence happens outside his/her experience. Con must prove to us that we are not just illusions in a universe made entirely for con which only con exists in!
The reason YOU cannot disprove solipsism is because your NOT REAL!!!!

Even if you do not think, as long as anyone voting can my point stands. Proving it to myself on the other hand is a little more challenging.If my life was a dream, it would only make sense for other people to exist still, so that I would have a place to come from and a world to be dreaming from. My life is uninteresting. If my brain created this to give me something to do, I find it more likely we would be in japan during the boshin war. Thank you for the argument and good day.
The reason YOU cannot disprove solipsism is because your NOT REAL!!!!

Oh hunny, nobody who knows me ever accused me of thinking. Besides, what if your life is just a dream and everyone you meet is just the embodiment of aspects of yourself? For all you know, every conversation with every person you've ever met could actually be a conversation with yourself. Lets suppose your a character in a sims game, it may seem to you that you are having genuine dialogue with everyone you meet, but the fact of the matter is those supposed conversations are just an illusion and all the other characters are just illusions too!
Obama's decision to not appear on Fox News was the beneficial decision to his presidency.

President Obama has decided not to appear on Fox News or give them any interviews for the time being. His reasons include the fact that Fox News is a right-wing, manipulative and biased news source, and one that frequently insults him by flat out calling him a racist amongst other lies. Many people agree with Obama in his decision not to appear on Fox News; they don't see how it could possibly do him or the public any good, since he will be straw manned anyway. However, I posit that it was a bad decision in terms of political strategy, damaging to his reputation, a biased and unfair decision in itself, and a decision that ultimately does more harm for his candidacy than good. My opponent who accepts this debate will be defending the view that Obama's decision in this regard was the right one. I welcome any questions/clarifications from my opponent in the first round, and will begin listing my contentions in R2. Good luck.
Evolution is a religion

Very true I just used the wrong words tbh but actually I would argue that people see stars form people see stars blow up it's called a nova or a super nova if it's really big and sometimes a dust cloud moves away which gives sight of other stars, if this is what astrologist have said I would like to see the source. Also I would disagree that micro evolution is a theory I would think that it's an actual fact something that takes place in animals and humans e. g. Some humans are tall some of us are small some of us have curly hair some of us have straight hair we have many different varieties of humans. :)