BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

I like the title of Drafterman's opinion. ARBITRARY SEMANTICS (which his are, not mine, I put my two cents in first) My two cents are (1) Draftersman uses a genetic fallacy. It is implied by genetic fallacy that one is in denial. If drafterman had admitted such a fallacy to himself (which is the aristotelian method) he would conclude that Aristotle's definition of syllogism must be implied as obsolete as well, being included in the class Aristotlean Logic. New meaning was implied all along. Drafterman says: Essentially, he says Aristotle is wrong because Bertrand Russell says so. This is a red herring. A distortion of my argument. Math says so! It should be noted that math is math as distinct from language. In Aristotle's time the math had the same authority as it does today. It is a universal term despite cultural differences. (2) My opponent's appeal to authority occurs not because he goes to aristotle the person but because he goes to aristotelian logic, which as I said, has become obsolete. A subject/predicate division is less fundamental than a subject/assertion division. Classes (subject and predicate) cannot be varied. Let's consider the assertion ‘is a valid syllogism'. To make the assertion become a class we simply drop the verb ‘is' or the equivalent ‘to be', just as my opponent has done. The assertion then becomes the class ‘valid syllogisms' which is not variable. Unless my opponent can justify himself in dropping the verb, and thus twisting my argument into one based on 'valid syllogisms' over 'IS A VALID SYLLOGISM', his argument should not be considered as relevant to the debate, because nowhere have I implied that an ‘IS A VALID SYLLOGISM' is to be based on classes but merely the word syllogism, by itself, has new meaning.
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

Pro:"But as I have shown he may conclude that my conclusion is unsound or uncogent. If it is unsound. It is still a valid deductive argument."I never concluded that the conclusion is unsound or uncogent. I concluded that the argument doesn't entail the conclusion provided by Pro. If the premises do not entail the conclusion, then, by definition, it is invalid: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.[1] The conclusion entailed by the premises is "Space-Time precedes Existence." This is contradictory to the conclusion provided by pro, "Existence precedes Space-Time." Ergo, the provided argument is invalid. I stated this in the previous round, which Pro did not rebut. I state it again.Argument from Authority?Pro accuses me of comitting an argument of authority, then commits one himself. Essentially, he says Aristotle is wrong because Bertrand Russell says so. In fact, both components of thise are false.First, Aristotle defined what a syllogism is. To refer to this definition is not an appeal to authority. No more so is it to accuse Pro of an appeal to authority by referencing the existing definitoins of this terms (Time is of the essence; Essence precedes existence).Second, Bertrand Russell didn't invalidate the syllogistic form. If he did, and Pro wishes to invoke Bertrand, then Pro refutes his own argument. But he didn't. What Russell said was:"But now, thanks mainly to the mathematical logicians, formal logic is enriched by several forms of reasoning not reducible to the syllogism..."[2]What Russell was saying was that formal logic and mathematics was bigger than syllogisms, not that syllogisms were completely invalid. Regardless, you are, in fact, using a syllogism, ergo the rules pertaining to syllogisms apply.Third, the scope of Russell's statement was about formal logic nor mathematics neither of which you've invoked.Arbitrary SemanticsIf you had wished to use a non-standard definition of syllogism, as you imply ("giving new meaning to syllogism") then your opportunity to do so was in Round 1. By default, common and accepted definitions of words and terms are in effect unless explicitly changed by one part or the other before the debate actually begins. You can't just arbitrarily decide to change the definition of the word mid-debate.Perhaps you always intended to use such a definition. However, did you really expect that anyone else would know that if you didn't explicitly say so? No. The bait and switch has failed, we are sticking to accepted definitions, if only because you have only referred to using a "new meaning" and have yet to explain what that is.[1] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[2] http://books.google.com...
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

Drafterman states: If Space-Time is of the Essence and Essence precedes Existence, then Space-Time Precedes Existence, not the other way around. As in . . . I've got the subjects in the conclusion in reverse. Drafterman also states: The End. Thanks for playing. Come again. But as I have shown he may conclude that my conclusion is unsound or uncogent. If it is unsound. It is still a valid deductive argument. If it uncogent it is an inductive argument, which can be weak or strong. My claim is that it is valid and so draftermans options are 1: to prove it UNCOGOGENT Tha tha tha that's all folks. If an argument is uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both) Both my premises are true. It cannot be uncogent. Drafterman uses the appeal to authority fallacy. The reference is to a site explaining the aristotelian definition of syllogism. as i have said: aristotelian logic has become obsolete and a new meaning has been derived in his coinage of the term syllogism. References: The Principles of Mathematics by Bertrand Russell p. 457 !!! http://books.google.com... Here he explains the advances in logic and states that they are not reducible to syllogism. My argument has reduced such advances to this one syllogism and no other, therefore giving new meaning to syllogism. A stipulative definition. Not a lexical definition, which reports the meaning a word already has in a language. New meaning given to a word can be neither neither true nor false. That was rude of me to refer to a commentor in the debate. I am sorry and forgive me.
Rap battles on DDO should be freestyled on the spot

According to Wiki, rap battles are formally freestyled on the spot. Freestyling on the spot demonstrates that you can creatively rap about a diversity of things within seconds and use it to defeat your opponent. Freestyling is like fighting where you deliver quick hits to end the battle. Freestyling in rap battles shows lyrical proficiency because you are able to instantly come up with disses just by looking at your opponent's picture, observing any and everything around you, dissing their name and reputation, and so on. When your pumped up and have all of these inspirations and ideas in your head, that's the perfect moment to freestyle during a rap battle. Yes you can take your time and think of lyrics to use against your opponent, but as soon as you decide to walk away from the battle as you take a break, you lose focus and when that happens, your raps won't build enough momentum than if you had simply let bursts of creativity flow as you type. For that reason, rap battles on DDO should follow the regular custom of freestyling lyrics. The only exception is if you are busy. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
George Carlin was the best comedian who has ever lived

I do believe that Adam Sandler and Jeff Dunham are good comedians, and are award winners, and they deserved them. However, Adam Sandler and Jeff Dunham never pushed the envelope. They did not do too much that was very innovative in the world of comedy. Yes, that's not the most important thing in the world, but they really kept everything clean, and didn't voice too many personal opinions. George Carlin on the other hand told jokes that also got people thinking. He was a funny man, but he sent messages that made many of people think. I know I do not count as a source, however, I have conducted many people who know who George Carlin is, and have agreed that he was someone that did get them thinking, including myself. But, as I stated previously, awards don't always matter. Mr. Carlin did not receive a lot of awards and this is likely due to the fact that his comedy was of the dark kind. George Carlin is also an innovator of many things on stage such as breaking the 7 dirty words you aren't supposed to say on television. He argued that there is nothing wrong with the words, only the context in which the words were used. He was also the one who inspired comedians to use gestures and motions on stage, instead of just talking, as many before him did. Why, there are several people who mention George Carlin and genius in the same sentence. I'd be more than happy to post the several web pages that say so, too. No, they aren't scientific or journalistic writings, but it is everyday people calling him a genius. Many YouTube links, many Yahoo links, everyday people, not everyday critics. George Carlin was a great comedian, and no one has ever been able to up show him because everyone is always afraid of going too far.
George Carlin was the best comedian who has ever lived

First off I like to state that my opponent is incorrect about his link, because it does not state that he has won a single Grammy.Contention 1: Adam SandlerLet's begin the long list of awards won by Mr. Sandler: Back-to-back Blockbuster Awards (1999-2000), 9 Kids Choice awards, 1 Gijon International Award (2002), 6 MTV Awards, 8 People's Choice Awards, 2 Razzie Awards, 2 ShoWest awards, 7 Teen Choice Awards, and 1 Walk of Fame Award. (http://www.imdb.com...) Adam Sandler also has produced 7 musical albums. (http://www.amazon.com...) We can all agree that Adam Sandler is a hilarious guy. Contention 2: Jeff DunhamHe has actually won the best male comedian of the year award from the American Comedy Awards. (http://www.imdb.com...) He is a tranvilliquist who has made many shows where he has done several things with his own puppets.
George Carlin was the best comedian who has ever lived

I apologize. I set rules for 5 rounds, but there are only 3 rounds. So, let's make second round arguments and the final rebuttals and final arguments What defines the 'best'? Well, when it comes to entertainment, the best is usually someone who has acquired many awards in their life time regarding their field of entertainment. However, not always. If someone is very taboo, or going against the norm, or speaking of the unspeakable topics, they may not receive awards. George Carlin may not have acquired many awards, although some, he has definitely acquired the fans. George Carlin has earned 5 Grammy awards for his comedy (http://www.reuters.com...). George Carlin has also had 15 HBO specials in his life, averaging about one HBO special every two years. He has also written 7 books, selling large amounts of copies for each of his books. His first book Brain Droppings sold almost 900,000 copies in its first year released, and the book stayed on the New York Times Best Seller list for 40 weeks straight. George Carlin was never afraid to speak what should not be spoken. He pushed the envelope several times. Countless amounts of comedians today contribute George Carlin to their inspiration, Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Stephen Colbert, as noted by them in their own material several times.
George Carlin was the best comedian who has ever lived

My opponent drops my arguments both of Adam Sandler and Jeff Dunham saying that they are good, but have never pushed the envelope. That was his only counterargument. My response you may ask? I in turn answer with a question. If they did not push the envelope how come they have more awards then Mr. Carlin? Pro responds by saying that his comedy was dark, but let me bring up the point if that's true then how does Eminem have Oscars and more awards then Mr. Carlin. (. http://www.imdb.com...) We all have known Eminem not to shy away from swearing in his music. My point here is that it does not matter the vullgarness. In Conclusion, we can see that my opponent has dropped most of my points and I have, in both rounds, shown that Adam Sandler, Jeff Dunham, and heck even Eminem is better than George Carlin.
Hydrogen is a cost efective altrnative fuel source, NOT!

Rebuttal- "Man what a fricken waste of my time to even make a rebuttal. " If you felt this was such a major waste of time as you claim, you would have forfeited. Since you did not forfeit, obviously this wasn't a complete waste of time. "My opponent clearly does not want to debate substance. " I may not want to debate "substance" but I am still clearly winning this round on all levels. "Then plagiarizes my source word for word. " Plagarism is when you copy someone's work. I did not copy your work. You did not write any of that an thus the plagirism argument fails. "I will have the debate again but word it so intellectual morons can't pick the title apart in order to avoid the substance of the debate. " Right now you are straying away from substance. I merely cleared up which side I was supposed to debate and then posted evidence. You could have argued the evidence turning this debate int a issue based one. Also "moron" is a term of opinion. You give no evidence as to why I am a moron. Extend all arguments in the article I posted earlier. My opponent fails to respond and thus I have won this round. Furthermore, at the end of his last rebuttal he tells you to vote for me. Thus the decision in this round is clear.
We dont need no education

Sigh................................,-~*`¯lllllll`*~,................................... ....... .......................,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,.................................... ..................,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,.................................. ...............,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.\.......................... ....... .............;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll\............................ .... ..............\lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/.........\;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,......................... .. ...............\lllllllllllllllllllll,-*...........`~-~-,...(.(¯`*,`,.......................... ................\llllllllllll,-~*.....................)_-\..*`*;..).......................... .................\,-*`¯,*`)............,-~*`~................/..................... ..................|/.../.../~,......-~*,-~*`;................/.\.................. ................./.../.../.../..,-,..*~,.`*~*................*...\................. ................|.../.../.../.*`...\...........................)....)¯`~,...... ............ ................|./.../..../.......)......,.)`*~-,............/....|..)...`~-,............. ..............././.../...,*`-,.....`-,...*`....,---......\..../...../..|.........¯```*~-,,,, ...............(..........)`*~-,....`*`.,-~*.,-*......|.../..../.../............\........ ................*-,.......`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*..........|.,*...,*...|..............\........ ...................*,.........`-,...)-,..............,-*`...,-*....(`-,............\....... ......................f`-,.........`-,/...*-,___,,-~*....,-*......|...`-,..........\........
We dont need no education

I thank Con for his incredible argument. My reaction:http://www.youtube.com...Absolutely incredible. I will try my best to refute his point. I will concede to him the following of his points:1. "and you will keep waiting"How can I argue with that logic?My Arguments:I'll make it quick and simple. I won't even bother proving that correlation yields causation in my cases because...well it's obvious. And I am just making an argument to fulfill my portion of this failed debate.Education... (all positive correlations in the the qualitative sense)1. Education is correlated to lower unemployment. [1] 2. Higher Income [2] 3. Lower Crime [3] 4. Hapiness [4] I'll just stop there as my opponent hasn't even given an argument.Sources:1. http://www.bls.gov...2. http://www.artscape.us...3. http://whenchemistsattack.com...;4. http://www.trinity.edu...;
Space research is a waste of money and time

I think that my opponent underestimates the potential benefits of space travel. Yes it is expensive but it is justifiable for advanced economies to invest reasonable sums of money into space travel. The potential benefits to the human race is enormous. Imagine if we developed a way of traveling to another earth like planet where humans could start a new colony. The economic benefits of this would be enormous. Space travel could potentially be regarded as nothing more spectacular than we view aeroplanes today. The key advances in humanity have generally come about through the discovery new land (America, Australia, New Zealand etc), and new transportation technology. If we invest now in the early stage of space travel we will speed up the process of space development. Imagine if in 100 years time it is discovered a meteorite Will cause a mass worldwide extinction in 2145. I think humanity would be then very thankful for the previous generations investment in space travel and discovery.
Space research is a waste of money and time

Sorry, I have been sick so I was unable to post my argument. Yes, I agree we cannot achieve something without trying but we need to prioritise what comes first our curiosity our. Naturally as human beings are fascinated by galaxies, by astronomy, by the wonders of Outer Space but unfortunately we cannot afford to spend such enormous sums on a mere whim, and that is what it is. Space travel is non-essential. It"s an utterly self-indulgent luxury
Space research is a waste of money and time

Yes I agree space travel is expensive and dangerous but it is not a waste of money. Unless you attempt something you don't improve at it. Astronauts are not forced into space. They accept the levels of risk involved. You have to be prepared to accept some level of risk with new transportation technology. Early boats, planes, cars and trains were all seriously dangerous to their passengers but over time safety has improved. If the Wright brothers early plane was taken as an example, It was clearly unsafe, not particularly useful and not worth the money they spent on it. However humanity didn't write off flying as a waste of time but persisted at it and improved it until it became an essential part of the modern world. You have to look at the potential long term benefits of space travel. Currently it is not particularly beneficial to humanity but it has enormous potential. Obviously money also needs to be spent on improving the lives of many people in need throughout the world but I don't see how that means space travel should receive no funding whatsoever. It potentially could benefit humanity in the long term.
Space research is a waste of money and time

Exactly N.A.S.A research is completely fine and researching about what's out there is too. However exploring Space is dangerous, unnecessarily and a waste of money. We live on an Earth that is beset by numerous problems. World famine or abject poverty will not be solved by a stroke of a pen. Nor is world peace assured by a United Nations resolution. Seventeen percent of the world"s population has intermittent running water. In excess of 43 percent of sub-Saharan Africa is poorly clothed and housed in sub-standard accommodation. It seems fairly clear what we should be focused on.
Space research is a waste of money and time

This is an interesting topic. Firstly I will agree in saying spending 14 billion dollars on toothpaste is a complete waste of money. The organisation needs to be sensible, understand the current economic situation and spend money more wisely. Space research is clearly expensive but unless someone does it then space travel will not develop and humanity will remain stuck on earth throughout its existence, at some point being wiped out by a mass extinction or the expansion of the sun at the end of its life. It's fair to say we are a long, long way off establishing a human colony on another planet, but I think that should be the goal. With continued research it should be possible to reach nearby solar systems and possibly habitable earth like planets within 1, 000 years. If you told someone in England in the year 969 humanity would be able to land on the moon in 1, 000 years time it would have been assumed impossible. If you had told people in 1850 that in 150 years regular flights between Australia and the UK were possible they would not have believed you. I generally believe that humanity can become a multi solar system species, potentially bringing huge economic benefits. The discovery of the Americas paved the way for the industrial revolution. The discovery of new planets could pave the way for the next advancement of the human species. The creation of new colonies first on the moon and mars would be a good starting point. This is what NASA should be suspending money on, not toothpaste research!
Space research is a waste of money and time

Last year N.A.S.A. spent a total of fourteen billion dollars on research simply to ascertain whether striped toothpaste performed better under intergalactic conditions than traditional fluoride based non-striped toothpaste. This expenditure is a shockingly prodigal misuse of taxpayer funds. Yet how does the United States justify it? This situation is monstrous. What an appalling misuse of funds! Research into space travel should be halted immediately and funds diverted away from N.A.S.A. Forthwith.
You can't reasobly be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate, but you R fairly sure.

Lacan, I must start off by saying that you have a very firm grip on logic and philosophy. "This type of dialectics is dangerous because if we allow yourself to slip from direct awareness, that is the belief that the world around us is as perceives, into partial awareness we lose self to self ethics. These ethics are the only things that prevent rational people from becoming Hitler equivalents." Do not worry, I have never "acted" on these types of beliefs. I am, for the most part, a Taoist, and, though my intuitive "knowledge" may "know" certain things, I act on my instincts, as much as I can, and live in the present, and believe in my surroundings that I can sense. It is useless to try to defy the natural sets of our minds. "The idea that reality must only be the waking, uncontrolled mind is flawed in that it choses to define reality by an arbitrary standard" I, hereby, concede, that my perception and definition of reality is flawed, for the mean time. I will, however, think about this, for a while, and possibly start this debate again, if I come back to my original conclusion. Thank you, for sharing this logic. And, sorry for abruptly ending the debate. -Harlan