BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
With the Development of Intellegence comes the Inherent Advancement of Evil

DEVELOPMENT: the process of growth or progress INTELLEGENCE: capacity and retention of learning, reasoning, and understanding INHERENT: existing as an inseperable element ADVANCEMENT: the act of continuance or moving forward, often with a greater result than the original EVIL: morally wrong or wicked -Humankind, though its evolutionary increase in brain capacity has continually shown its brutal and violent hostility towards it's fellow man for the sole purpose of personal gain and not of survival -Take the case of Francisco Pizzaro and the Incan Emporer Atahuallpa, though the members of the Incan Civilization showed no intent of harm, the Spanish proceeded to (in full knowing of their acquired military advantage) needlessly massacre the Incan public, hold their Emporer for Ransom, and loot the area of riches to send home (personal advancement of economic and political capital) -Animals with obviously less intellegence and brain capacity than Humans, such as... chickens, perhaps, which clearly have limited social organization never engage in Fratricide or random acts of violence. Other such animals kill only for the purposes of survival (obviously a cheif animal concern) -SURVIVAL: the ability to endure under adverse circumstances -Greed is never justified and has shown presence more so in the Human Race than in any other member of nature -GREED: excessive desire, esp. (but not limited to) wealth and posessions -Various other cases such as the obvious Holocaust, Mafia, and other organizations claiming some clouded form of vigilantism as their justification proceed to end human life for the purposes of lack of tolerance and pleasure respectively -The knowledge of Nuclear technology has become more a cause for concern of the continuance of humankind rather than it's preservation through energy efficiency Therefore it has become appallingly obvious in recent times that with the development of intellegence comes the inherent advancement of Evil (I reserve the rights to clarification and fiat) Thank You Opponent, I need the Practice!!!!
Third Party Candidates are harmful towards the progression of America in this election.

I. Value and Value CriterionAs America is a democratic republic, democracy is the status quo. It is therefore my opponent's job to prove why democracy is inherently bad rather than mine to prove why democracy is good and should be used as a weighing mechanism in this debate. However, I'll do so anyway, just to advance my own position. In the style of a Lincoln Douglas debate, I will provide a value and a value criterion for this debate. My value is limited freedom. Limited freedom allows individuals to decide their own fates and make decisions that they choose, so long as they don't harm another individual. My value criterion is democratic republicanism. Individuals can decide to elect leaders who most accurately represent the population. II. Trump's Chances/Third Party SupportLiterally every major poll taken since 8/4 has Clinton leading Trump. [1] Even the incredibly conservative Rasmussen Reports and Breitbart have Hillary beating Donald by 2 and 5 points, respectively. The average of all polls has Clinton ahead by 5.5%. All of these polls include both Johnson and Stein. 2016 Election forecasts have shown that it's over 80% likely that Clinton will win the Oval Office. [2] Trump is unlikely to win even if third party candidates are pulling from Clinton's support base, which is the unsubstantiated claim my opponent has made. It's no wonder Pro has failed to support their claim: it isn't true. Experts are in agreement that Johnson will draw about equally from both sides. [3]If I prove Trump is unlikely to win the election or that Third Party candidates are not going to facilitate a Trump victory, Con is the way to vote. So far I have proven both. Vote Con. Thank you. [1] . http://www.realclearpolitics.com...[2] . http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...[3] . http://www.sunjournal.com...
The US Federal Government ought to ban the selling of and possession of the Bible

The Bible is a harmful book that evokes unnatural feelings that constrain human intellect and reasoning. The Bible is dangerously addictive if believed. The Bible's affect is even more damaging when put into the hands of a child, or a senior citizen. My intention for this debate is to prove how damaging the Bible is towards the human mind, and to the world.Round 1-AcceptanceRound 2-CasesRound 3-RebuttalsRound 4-Defense
Wilt Chamberlain is presumably the best NBA basketball player of all time

This fact sums up the entire Wilt vs. Russell debate. Wilt Chamberlain once averaged 50 ppg in the regular season. Bill Russell won the MVP award that same year. Wilt had a bigger statistical impact; Bill had a bigger impact on every single game and teammates. Wilt peaked in the regular season; Bill peaked in the playoffs, when it mattered. Wilt was not clutch; Bill was the epitome of clutch. Like i said, if two teams of equal talent square off, then the winner of the game will be the team with the more dominant player. Russell's teams absolutely dominated Wilt's. My opponent has done nothing but make false assertions up to this point. Wilt Chamberlain could not dunk from the foul line and certainly didn't put up twice the numbers Yao does. He also wasn't nearly as good a defensive player as Russell. Bill Russell > Wilt Chamberlain
Wilt Chamberlain is presumably the best NBA basketball player of all time

My opponent has challenged me on the Con side, but has debated in affirmation of the resolution. I will debate against what he posted rather than the side he is on. I urge a Pro vote while I debate in negation of Wilt being the best NBA basketball player of all time. What is the ultimate job of any NBA Player? Easy. Their job is to win a title. A player who wins NBA titles is better at his job than a player who doesn't. Therefore, Bill Russell was a better player than Wilt. There isn't an easier to understand sport than basketball. If two teams of equal talent play each other, then the team with the better overall player will win. Russell's teams played against Wilt's and went 84-58. The best players also step up in the playoffs. Wilt's record in Conference/NBA Finals: 48-44 Bill's record in Conference/NBA Finals: 90-53 Thats not all. Wilt's record in elimination games: 10-11 Bill's record in elimination games: 16-2 Bill Russell won 11 titles. Wilt won 2. Russell wins.
Wilt Chamberlain is presumably the best NBA basketball player of all time

Wilt Chamberlain is one of the most profound athletes of his generation and of all time. He completely dominated the game like no other. He could score whenever he wanted to, rebound whenever he wanted to, and dunk on a foul shot. Some may say that he was just taller than everyone else, so it was easy for him. However this is false because there have been men who were a lot taller than everyone else in the league, for example Yao Ming and Kenny George who played for UNC-Ashville and was 7 foot 7 inches. Both these players didn't put up half the numbers that Wilt Chamberlain did. So it wasn't just because he was tall. He was a great all around palyer offensively and defensively and it shows in his statistics.
Pascal's Wager should not be followed, it is flawed.

I realize that there is no way to determine an exact probability of a thing like a religion being true. This is why I said "Perceived probability" many times in my case. If I tihnk religion X is 0.1% likely, then that's the likelihood I should use for it being true. I could PERCIEVE religion X to be 3x as likely as religion Y. Just because there isn't some solid equation doesn't mean I can't perceive probabilities. People do it all the time, for both religion and other things. In my opponent's first analogy, the kid should indeed chop his arm off. .. IF he recognized the real possiblity of getting an infinite reward. However, most people would not even acknowledge this possiblity, making it either infinitesimal or 0, in which case they should usually not cut their arms off. PERCEIVED probability can indeed be based on prophecies. Let's say I think a prophecy from religion X gives the religion some merit, and makes it likely that religion X is true. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. It does not mean that this prophecy is undeniable proof that the religion is true, nor does it mean that there is some nice equation we can plug this into. I was simply showing that the existence of fulfilled prophecies, etc. can make people think one religion is likely and/or more likely than others. I already addressed the fact that multiple religions exist. The person should choose the religion whose benefit if true x probability is higher. If a person thinks Christianity is twice as likely as Islam, but thinks Islam's possible benefit is 3 times as much, then they should follow Islam [assuming there are no other religions with a higher (benefit if true) x (probability)] And many religions stating that worshipping false idols is bad is no issue, since these same religions state that one must follow said religion to gain any benefit anyway. A worshipper of false idols suffers the same punishmnet any other unbelieve suffers. Plus, a worshipper of a false god is at least acknowledging that we should worship our creator, something a non-worshipper is not doing. I already stated a motive for God to not place the answer squarely in front of his face. I said it's probably FUN for him to see us figure it out on our own.
Pascal's Wager should not be followed, it is flawed.

Beem0r has completely and utterly missed my entire point. I stated, "There is absolutely not guarantee that the religion one is attempting to settle with actually will put forth infinite happiness. Not only is there this lack of a guarantee but there is absolutely no definite probability from which we can derive an equation from which we may determine probable benefit." In other words there is no way to determine a probability for a religion being true or not. There is no way to determine the validity of a religion when compared to any other religion. To say something like, "This religion has 3x the chance of being true." makes absolutely no sense, there is no way to determine such a thing. Once again let's look at my example. If I tell the kid to cut off his arm because there is a small chance he might get eternal salvation; there is still that small chance. Small chance x infinity = infinite benefit. Under Beem0r's own logic the kid should cut off his or her arm. There is no way to say for sure that the small chance = 0%; likewise there is no way to prove that any religion has a specific percent chance of being true. Which brings me to: A. Once again, there is no way to determine the perceived probability. Beem0r states, "Perceieved probability can usually be based on prophecies, etc." What how? There is no way to prove the prophesy or the text is even legit in most cases. There isn't a way to do this. And of course my original argument went completely dropped so I'm going to repost that for viewing pleasure, "Well I suppose you could just pick one and hope it is the right one, at least you'll have a bit of a chance right? Nay, many religions also state, "worship no false idol". It would be better to be undecided in most religions eyes than to be worshiping the wrong god. Imagine if you were god, two groups of people are before you. The first group is worshiping a random false idol something you specifically tell them not to do in your holy book. The other group isn't worshiping anyone, they are just confused and sad. Who do you like more? Obvious choice." Obviously the better idea is to follow no religion at all under this paradigm. B. Actually the majority of religious texts are pretty big on the whole if you're not a true worshiper then you won't be accepted thing. It is rather safe to assume that the omnipotent, omniscience god put forth by most religions would be able to see through this shame. Hence it is also a safe assumption to assume that the probability is 0 and not "0.000000001". A god will be able to see through this. C. None of these reasons make any sense at all. What motive would he/she/it have for any of that? Anyways, considering Beem0r dropped my entire case excluding an attack on me using Satanism as an example (something by the way I am fine with withdrawing, feel free to interchange that with any other religion, it does not hurt my case) I can only urge for a vote in my favor.
Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

To summarize this debate, Con proposed this debate to question whether Alex Jones lacked the ability to reason. Con was required to provide evidence which showed that Alex Jones lacked reason. This was Con’s burden of proof. Con started off R2 by saying that the content of the show was all the proof needed to presume that the person was irrational. I responded by saying that Con cannot use radio show comments to prove that the person is irrational, controversial radio show comments only prove that someone makes controversial remarks on their radio show, no more and no less. I opened R2 by naming several other radio and TV personalities who often make controversial remarks in order to generate listeners and media buzz. I pointed out that the discussion of Alex Jones’s radio show actually benefits Alex Jones because even bad PR is better than no PR. I continued in R2 to discuss that we should take Alex Jones seriously. As Con could not refute my R2 arguments nor could Con prove that Alex Jones was irrational and should be ignored, Con lost this entire debate in R2. Realizing that Con could not meet the burden of proof, Con changed his focus in R3 towards something that he could prove: that Alex Jones made wrong statements on his radio show. However, as I mentioned in R3, being wrong just means being wrong. Contrary to Con’s second argument, being wrong does not mean being irrational. Now, in the final round of the debate, Con moved the goal post once again. Con now claims that I have personally attacked him and that I kept changing my story throughout this debate. You are welcome to read the transcript and decide who changed their mind through this debate and who didn’t. Con concluded his remarks by saying that if you vote for Con, it’s not because you felt that Con met the burden of proof or that Con was even required to meet the burden of proof. No, no, now a Con vote only means that you agree with Con, no more and no less. In other words, Con moved the goal post one last time. I thank you all for reading this entire debate. This was a difficult subject to discuss and we covered a lot of ground. Throughout this entire debate, I have not faltered or wavered. I have not changed my mind, only to change it again, and then change it two more times at the very end of the debate. I have not attacked Con. I have merely pointed out that Con was supposed to provide evidence, and he has not. Con has not met the burden of proof, and he was required to do so if he wanted your vote. He did not meet it in R2 and he has not met it now. Because Con did not meet the burden of proof, you must give the resolution a Pro vote even if you don’t agree with Alex Jones.
Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

"Now I will admit that being wrong doesn't inherently make one irrational. However in this particular case I think we could all agree that content of which Alex Jones conveys to his audience, and the implications of that content are very serious..." - Me, r2. I fail to see the confusion.Note that we are here in the fourth and final round of this debate and my opponent has yet to defend Alex Jones's statements or his non-existence as a rational human being. Outside of the essential threat (another irrational behavior) Jones gave Piers Morgan on his show, Pro cited (One of the two instances I've listed where Jones believes he was followed by federal agents) in his opening argument, he has been completely silent about Alex Jones. Instead of defending the conspiracy theorist, Pro has taken the high road and thought it would be a more convenient of a position to attack my logic and overall ability to make judgements about others. Yes, this may come of a surprise to my opponent but people frequently make assertions about one another based upon the things people say and do. "We cannot allow an individual’s intuition, absent appropriate medical expertise, to become the sole and deciding factor in determining another person’s rationality."- Pro, R2.No.. I do not need nor should I have an M.D. to be able to hear someone who says irrational things like "If they get their plan fully in, say 10 years after its in place, you'll probably have a 150 million people left in the country and they're (the government) gunna repopulate the U.S. with Latin Americans." and infer that said someone may just be an irrational person. Keep in mind I never made the claim that Jones possess some sort of mental illness, I merely am making the judgement based off of what the man says, does and believes is in fact the statements, actions, and thoughts of an irrational person. Seems to me that Pro recognizes the kind of nonsense Jones constantly offers the country and looks at it understandably as indefensible. So instead of actually defending these statements or Jones rationale as a whole, Pro decided to fight a different fight (me). I've given my evidence to show you all exactly why I've come to the conclusion of this man being irrational. Statements, videos and conspiracies riddled with the illogic of an irrational person that has yet to be disputed. Pro's 2 cents is in short is characterized by "well, being wrong doesn't mean you're irrational". Yes, I've already established being wrong doesn't inherently mean being irrational. What is the argument? Because I really don't see how wrongly understating the capabilities of Alexander Graham Bell's telephone and misreading a U.N. international development document from the early 90's to be the blue print for "covert genocide" to be even remotely the same thing. A con vote, would ideally indicate that you looked at the evidence presented by both sides and ultimately agreed with me more than pro. No more, no less.
Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

My opponent began to discuss that Alex Jones is irrational because he makes wrong statements. In R2, Con defined irrational as:“Irrational: ‘Without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason. ’”(Con – Round 2 Arguments) In R2, Con never said that being wrong means being irrational. However, in R3, Con now argues that making wrong statements in and of itself is cause for irrationality. In other words, Con is now debating himself about what constitutes irrationality. We can’t trust Con’s moving goal post to determine if someone lacks logic and reason. A Pro vote signifies stability and consistency in thought. Being wrong just means being wrong. Wrong does not mean irrational. Being wrong does not mean anything else other than being wrong. History has given us many people who were wrong. For instance, Western Union nixed Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone saying: "We do not see that this device will be ever capable of sending recognizable speech over a distance of several miles. Hubbard and Bell want to install one of their telephone devices in every city. The idea is idiotic on the face of it. Furthermore, why would any person want to use this ungainly and impractical device when he can send a messenger to the telegraph office and have a clear written message sent to any large city in the United States? .. ignoring the obvious limitations of his device, which is hardly more than a toy. This device is inherently of no use to us. We do not recommend its purchase. " . http://inventors.about.com... Are we to determine that the officers of Western Union lacked the ability to reason simply because they were wrong? No. Being wrong just means being wrong. Wrong does not mean irrational. It’s alleged that in 1943, Thomas Watson of IBM thought that there would be a world market for approximately 5 computers in total. To show you how wrong such a statement is, we are using more than 5 computers just to facilitate this online debate and I have three computers in my own house. . http://inventors.about.com... If Thomas Watson said that there was a world market for 5 computers, then he was wrong. Does that mean he lacked reason? No. Being wrong just means being wrong. Wrong does not mean irrational. Contrary to Con’s argument, being wrong does not mean that someone lacks reason. It just means that someone is wrong. A Pro vote signifies that being wrong is not proof to determine that someone is irrational and should not be taken seriously. We cannot start accusing someone of being irrational simply because they are wrong or because we do not agree with what they say. A Pro vote stops the whimsical & subjective slippery-slope proposed by Con and states that no substitute exists for facts, evidence, and logic.
Alex Jones is rational, and should be taken seriously.

Quick RebuttalAlex Jones doesn't make offensive statements as much as he makes WRONG statements. Wrong statements that infer malicious intent in the manifestation of a global tyrannical government ran by bankers that are hell bent on enslaving the earth's population for really no clear reason whatsoever (They already have power and wealth according to this theory of his). His evidence for such a extraordinary claim? A non-binding U.N. resolution adopted by 178 countries at a 1992 conference regarding the environment and international development. The content of this resolution in short was a compilation of goals and recommendations set forth in order to tackle a variety of global issues such as poverty, pollution, famine, and environmental concerns regarding sustainable development. Sincerely nothing out of the ordinary, being that it is sort of what the U.N. does. Jones believes this highly irrelevant U.N. resolution was essentially the blue print for the globalist's "stealth takeover". Because as we all know, when corrupt governing organizations wish to unleash their diabolical plans upon their own people they always do so by placing said plans in full, on the Internet. Alex Jones declares that this "stealth takeover" will be seen in the most evil light through the initiation of "covert genocide" by his fantasized sinister world government. Now I mentioned this previously in second round, but apparently this term isn't ridiculous enough on its face to be considered irrational. From my modest understanding of what the term genocide means... Genocide: "Thedeliberateandsystematicexterminationofanational,racial,political,orculturalgroup."& Covert: "Concealed;secret;disguised." I really don't see how in the 21st century this is even logistically possible. Let alone with the use of such substances like aspartame.THIS is what makes Jones irrational and thus why he shouldn't be taken seriously in the realm of public debate. How dare I, to have the audacity to draw such a conclusion of a man being irrational?The ArgumentIt is in the mind of Alex Jones where there is no right-left paradigm in politics. There is no such thing as subjective reporting (or subjective reality for that matter), only people that are either on the side of liberty or on the side of tyranny. Jones fundamentally believes that he is an informational messiah/freedom fighter that is occasionally followed by federal agents for whatever reason his convoluted paranoid mind thinks. These are not the thoughts of a rational person. This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. Alex Jones insights conspiracy NOT controversy. An accusation of global tyranny that conducts genocide is NOT a mere statement. It's lunacy. SourcesBelief in being followed by federal agents: http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...Agenda 21: http://www.undispatch.com... http://www.unep.org...