BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Joseph Meglele is not really 100 years old

Joseph Mengele is really 100 years old. According to my source in the previous round, Joseph Mengele is clearly 100 years old, as he was born in 1911. http://www.debate.org... that he is 100 years old. We can conclude that Joseph Mengele is the same as Joseph_Mengele as on DDO. My opponent states that he is 67 years old, but brings 0 evidence for his assertion.It is interesting to note that we have Joseph Mengele's DNA [1]. Therefore, it is likely that Nazis of today's generation cloned him and brought him back from the grave. Is this not conceivable considereing that we do have the technology to do such a thing [2]. ==References==[1] http://www.mengele.dk...;[2] http://www.humancloning.org...;
In debating, understanding the other side is far more important than understanding one's own side.

Just to be clear, I won't be rebutting my opponent's arguments in this round. I will be addressing two kinds of debate, those where the BoP is shared, and those where it isn't. In debates where the burden is only on one side of the argument, it is important to understand the side where the burden lies, since all of the arguments are going to come from there. Since most debate are one-on-one, you have a 50% chance of having to understand your opponent's position and 50% chance of having to understand your own. In other words, it is (on average) equally important to understand your own position as it is to understand your opponent's position. In debates where the burden is shared, both debaters have to attack their opponent's position and they both have to defend their own. While it is crucial to make sure that you shake the ground on which your opponent's stands (metaphorically) in order to turn the audience's attention to you, it will all be for nothing if you are unable to adequately defend your own position, much less if you can't even present it with precision. In public debates, prestance is just as important (if not more important) than the actual arguments you present, and prestance is usually more "striking" when presenting your own arguments, making this part of the debate extremely important. P.S. I apologize for this extremely short argument, I have to type it on my phone since my computer is being repaired. I should have it back by tomorrow so my next round will be much more detailed.
In debating, understanding the other side is far more important than understanding one's own side.

To clarify: BoP is on Pro to demonstrate that understanding the opponent's position (OP, for 'opponent's position') is indeed far more important than understanding your own position (MP, for 'my position'). Concluding that OP is just as important as MP (or less) will be a victory for me. Giving the fact that 'importance' is very hard to quantify (in this case at least), I will concede victory to my opponent if the audience concludes that OP is slightly more important than MP. I hope for a stimulating debate! P. S. A debate on which side of a triangle is more important would have been quite funny, I might try that someday.
. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

CONSCIOUS SECTION: Ladies and gentleman, my opponent's sole objection to argument concerning all things being able to act is that I have yet to prove that all things are consciously able to act. However, little does my opponent know this is indeed implied by my argument on self existence. Let me provide you all with an example of what I intend to say: The United States is a large mass of land, yet presidents and rulers of countries constantly refer to it as if it is conscious or as if it is a person. Now how is it that an inanimate mass of land is able to possess traits of a conscious individual? This is simple, because we conscious individuals have bonded ourselves to this mass of land, thus give it our traits in exchange. Of course, this isn't merely applicable to countries or houses. Rather, if we can agree that existence is our territory (or domain), then all parts of it that lack conscious can be spoken for by those that do have a conscious, provided it is considered our home. Hence, a rock is able to consciously act without even having a conscience. To add, whenever a rock acts, it acts in merely reestablishing that it is part our house (our domain). To briefly expand this logic, you don't call an individual who drives motorcycle fast, do you? Of course not. It is not the individual who is fast, but rather the motorcycle. But yet we can claim that the individual is moving fast. The same apply here. The rock doesn't need to possess a conscious to act consciously , nor does the United States or California. Thus, it is rather clear that I have sufficiently addressed the matter of consciousness and need merely further respond to the matters concerning self interest. SELF INTEREST SECTION: Now first, I would like to point out that two individuals in the comment section (one being my very opponent) has testified to being interested in existence. Ergo, I need merely focus on the matter of self interest in existence being evidence of the resolution. "For example, let's say two medics were killed in a crash. Saying "Medics were involved in a crash" is true, but where medics is an umbrella term that holds many different, individual medics, we cannot say that every medic in existence was therefore involved in the crash. All we can say is that some _part_ of that group 'medics' was involved in the crash, just as some part of my interest in everything would be involved in a rock existing." Actually, we can. Every medic in existence may not have been physically involved in the crash, but they were involved in the crash in an idea perspective in that their name will be affected simply because others who adhere to same group experienced the crash. In other words, association is all that is necessary for an effect. In the debate, this is the same idea I am portraying with self interest. Thus, I beleii
. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

My opponent has recanted his original position, which he stated twice in R1 as "It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved." He says it was simply a typo. If so, then it is his burden to bear - against an ordinary opponent, I might accept his changing of the topic, but my opponent is known for getting by on technicalities. Further, I would not have accepted the debate if it was worded the way my opponent suggests he meant it. As you can see in his R1, I recently had a debate about a related topic. My opponent claimed that all actions were selfish, and I negated his claim in two ways. First, I showed that selfishness includes a 'lack of regard for others' component, and I gave examples of actions with regard for others. Second, I showed that some actions that are done unwillingly can be unselfish. However, the resolution my opponent apparently wanted to use in this debate does not conflict with either of my arguments - it's carefully worded so that the arguments I used in my previous debate do not have any impact. Since my opponent has left it up to me, I will of course hold him to the resolution he used in R1. And not that it makes any difference, but I'll just explain how this debate would have gone if we used my opponent's revised resolution. The debate would come down to the definition of conscious - consciously acting does not mean the same thing as willfully acting. One may be conscious of the fact that he is bleeding to death, but that does not mean he wants to bleed to death, and it doesn't mean he is bleeding to death due to self-interest. But that is moot. We are not arguing that resolution, we are arguing the resolution in my opponent's 1st round - 'It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved.' And so it was that round 2 was meaningless, and the debate became one of three rounds for all intents and purposes.
. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

In R1, it should have said "It is impossible to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved. " The "not" was included by accident. Through reading the argument which I provided (which shows self interest being involved in allowing a conscious action), my initial intentions should be rather clear. Many apologies to my opponent. Fortunately, I made this a 4 round debate by mistake, so if my opponent agrees, we can dismiss all of what he has said in his first round and he can start anew in his second (hence treating this like a 3 round debate). Of course, just in case he doesn't wish to abide by this, I STILL see a flaw in his argument and would thus argue that unintentional position regardless. The choice is his though. Till the next round.
. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

I would eplain the vast differences between this debate and the previous one my opponent refers to, but that would only waste your time and mine. Rather, I will explain why my opponent's position is false. "It is impossible not to consciously act without self-interest being involved." That is his stance. The wording is a bit tricky, but a careful examination of it shows us that my opponent is advocating something truly ridiculous. Let's look at a specific and general example of sentences in this form. Specific: It is impossible to eat without having a mouth. Generic: It is impossible [A] without [B]. So for the specific example, "To eat" is A, and "having a mouth" is B. What this sentence means is that A can only happen with B. Now, let's look at what A and B are for my opponent's sentence, "It is impossible not to consciously act without self-interest being involved" A is "Not to consciously act," B is "self interest being involved." So what my opponent is claiming is that self interest being involved is a necessary condition for _not_ consciously acting. This is patently false - a dead man doesn't consciously act, and there's no self interest involved in that, a rock doesn't consciously act, a man bleeding to death is not consciously acting, and yet there is no self-interest involved. Since this is a four-round debate, I will leave it at that for now. Good luck to my opponent, and thank you all for reading.
. . . Ha! YOU'RE GOING DOWN, BEEM0R!

RESOLVED: It is impossible not to consciously act (perform an action) without self interest being involved. I saw your previous debate and figure I shall be your opponent. Ladies and gentleman, sufficiently upholding the resolution shall be rather simple as the claim being made is easily true and just as easy to prove. I see no reason to provide any definitions as I believe the topic to be quite clear. In addition, I reserve the right to disagree with any definitions which my opponent may provide (although knowing me, I'd probably argue the topic in favor of AND against my opponent's definitions if this debate does indeed flow in that path). To start this debate off, I shall provide merely one contention: ARGUMENT:When one consciously performs a conscious action, one has control over himself/herself. When one is in control of himself/herself, their actions are based on their wishes /interests of their mind. Ergo, itt is impossible not to act (perform an action) without self interest being involved. Of course, I realize that this may not come off as clear to you all (ladies and gentleman), hence, I shall provide an example: EXAMPLE: Let us say that an individual named LM wakes up, only to find himself strapped down to a chair with several dozen hott cheerleaders surrounding him. All of the cheerleaders wish to have their way with the handsome LM, but LM realizes that he promised he'd pick up a subscription for his good pal of a roommate who was heavily ill. The cheerleaders tell LM that they'll only let him go if he lets them have their way with him. Fearing that his friends life is at stake, LM agrees. Looking at this example, one must note that in spite of the fact that LM claimed to be allowing the cheerleaders to have their way with him to save his sick friend (which is seemingly selfless), the fact of the matter is that LM's friend's safety was LM's personal desire, hence making it an action of self interest. Point: Regardless of how selfless an action may seem, if an individual is consciously performing that action, we can conclude that the individual is getting a result from said action that fulfills his/her own interest. If this is not in fact the case, I challenge my opponent to provide AT LEAST one example of a conscious action that doesn't meet my criteria. Though trust me, my opponent shall not be able to do this (hence the topic title). And that'll do it for now.
No video game is purposely designed to anger Players

After reading your opinion on "Are video games causing violence in teens?"I decided that I would like to Debate this with you right away. http://www.debate.org...There are video games designed to anger players and the ones that are not specifically for that purpose can anger players if the goal is not completely obvious, or if the levels are above and beyond the person's skill level. I invite you to start with either more in depth explanation of your opinion or a reasonable restatement of what you truly meant. Please go as in depth as you feel in all three rounds and I will gladly argue with the disadvantage of only having two rounds to complete my argument.
No video game is purposely designed to anger Players

I reject the notion to change the resolution of this debate, however I am willing to accept future debates concerning other negative areas of video games. I will further explain the use of suggestion, and effect of posthypnotic suggestion, bypassing the critical faculty, subliminal advertising, full exploration of empathy as it affects gamers in relation to the game characters, perception of reality as it concerns our experiences, the limits of the ability to differentiate between reality and fiction, et al in future debates. This debate I would like to discuss how video games perpetuate anger. So I will start with a definition of anger, and identify a couple of methods video games use to induce anger. Being that you have asked to limit the debate away from difficulty of game play, I conclude that you agree to this factor as a contributor to angering game players and I will speak on it limitedly. 2anger noun: a strong feeling of being upset or annoyed because of something wrong or bad : the feeling that makes someone want to hurt other people, to shout, etc. : the feeling of being angry http://www.merriam-webster.com... I am only going to present three ways that anger can be suggested. The first way is direct suggestion. Which is when someone tells you “Get Angry.” It’s not very effective, but athletes tend to use it fairly often and so do video games. The second way is indirectly through loaded questions. Questions could be something like, “Aren’t you mad that Obama supports the affordable care act?” or “Did you hear what the republicans did this week, it will make you angry.” The third way, which video games are notorious for, is to present a dilemma that contradicts the user’s personal beliefs. I will present Pewdiepie playing Unfair Mario as an extreme example of this dilemma. I would like you to believe that pewdiepie is just one in a million that got angry when playing this game, but searching unfair Mario on youtube will bring you to hundreds of players whose emotions spike to rage level within moments of starting the game. This sort of inconsistency dilemma is not the only dilemma that video games present which anger gamers. Zoomin games made a top five video to let everyone know, this isn’t a micro population of gamers who experience anger. This proves that video games cause people to get angry. And being angry (according to Webster’s dictionary) means that you want to hurt other people.
Real men DO hit women....back

"Can I ask you though would you hit a male back if he hit you?"I would not. I don't feel like going to prison. Claims of self-defense only apply when the purpose is preventing an imminent threat, not retaliation."When you mentioned that men ARE stronger than women you immediately jumped onto the sexist band wagon."I wasn't aware that it is considered sexist to point out a scientific fact that has bearing on the issue at hand. You have the right to defend yourself in response to a credible threat and in proportion to that threat, and it's more difficult for the average woman to pose a credible threat to the average man than vice versa."Not hitting her back though will just make her think that she can do it to all of her boyfriends. It is just plain stupid to not hit her back (show her you will not be treated with disrespect remember) it's sort of like correcting a child. If a child hit you no you don't hit them back but you may give them a spanking which will show them you will not be disrespected."I also don't believe I have the right to discipline another adult (even if I were in favor of corporeal punishment). Hitting someone in response to being hit, rather than to prevent imminent violence by the other party, is needless violence. In short, violence is an animalistic and brutal behavior. There are occasionally problems that require the use of force, but retaliatory interpersonal violence is unacceptable.
Real men DO hit women....back

Hi there Your response to this debate in my opinion do contain some valid points but I still stick to what I say. I suppose "hitting back" is retaliation rather than self defence. Can I ask you though would you hit a male back if he hit you? I guess there are some circumstances where it would be better to not retaliate e.g someone who is physically or mentally disabled. Also pregnant women, the elderly and children, however I will stand by what I believe in when it comes to hitting women back. I don't think height or weight should come into it. If a person has the bottle to hit you then they lose all respect and should expect (and accept) to be hit back. If a woman slapped you across the face sure it might not hurt you as much as it would if a man slapped you though I do think you are bordering onto sexism there. Women can be vicious. I once slapped my ex boyfriend across the face and he was standing there clutching his cheek in pain. I needn't bother explaining the reason I slapped him. It was years ago. If a PERSON hits you, whether it hurt you or not doesn't really matter. It's the fact that they chose to do it. They ATTEMPTED to hurt you. Therefore they should receive a hit back, though I will agree that you should only use the same force as they did. Sometimes hitting someone back teaches them a valuable lesson. They may think twice before striking someone again. In response to your first paragraph, no I am not referring to "traditional" men. I am talking about NOW. Today we are supposed to be living in an equal society. Women fought for equal rights. When women (and men) say that men shouldn't hit women back then they are taking away those rights. I believe a real man will treat everyone with respect just like women should treat everyone with respect. Treat other's how you wish to be treated. Classic saying but true. A real man does not give women special treatment because they are women. If a woman hits a man then he should hit her back to show her he will not be disrespected as a human being. If someone hits me I will hit them back to show them that I will not be treated in such a disrespectful manner. When you mentioned that men ARE stronger than women you immediately jumped onto the sexist band wagon. No all men are stronger than women but as I mentioned earlier in this post height and weight should not come into it as opposed to strength. If for example your girlfriend hit you, why should you let her get away with it? When it comes to violence in relationships of course you do not have to stay in that relationship. Not hitting her back though will just make her think that she can do it to all of her boyfriends. It is just plain stupid to not hit her back (show her you will not be treated with disrespect remember) it's sort of like correcting a child. If a child hit you no you don't hit them back but you may give them a spanking which will show them you will not be disrespected. I know some people are against spanking children as well but I'm one of the persons who believe that spanking a child (For being violent) will benefit them in the long run.
Real men DO hit women....back

There are several problems with this resolution, and several more with the way you argue for it.To begin:What, exactly, is meant by the term "real men?" If you refer to the traditional conception of what it is to be manly, I think it's self-evident that a refusal to be violent towards women is implicit in being a "real man." If you're not referring to the traditional ideal of a "real man," you need to elucidate what you mean by the term."Hitting back" and self-defense are entirely different concepts. To hit someone in response to being hit is retaliation. It's responding to assault by assaulting. Self-defense consists of using the minimum force necessary to safely defuse a credible threat. If you are slapped once but there is no reason to assume you will be slapped again, to retaliate is assault.There is merit to the claim that because men are generally stronger, it is more difficult for a woman to pose a credible threat than a man, and vice versa. For instance, if my girlfriend slapped me, it would hurt a bit. If I slapped her, it might literally break her jaw -- and we weigh roughly the same. It is important that the threat to which you respond is a credible one. To give an extreme example, if a child is about to kick me in the shins, I would not be justified in punching him to prevent that.
Drug Prohibition has been a failure

Well it appears I only have to barely show up for this one, unfortunately. Here it goes: Your brain is like an egg. Crack it open and pour out the contents, and you have a nicely formed yolk nestled in a bountiful mattress of soft, white albumin. Now drugs, my friends, are like a piping-hot frying pan boiling over with butter. Shall we analyze what happens when you apply your brain/egg to the frying pan/drugs? Well. Off drugs, your brain is a salmonella-ridden, raw and unappealing remnant of a hen's unfertilized ovum. On them however, it's been grotesquely transformed into an extraordinarily nutritious and tasty breakfast item, a staple of any well-balanced breakfast. So as you can see, through the infallibility of my metaphor, there should be no other reasonable conclusion drawn other than that drugs should remain illegal. Sources: http://www.youtube.com...
Drug Prohibition has been a failure

I'll accept as a devil's advocate, because I'd like some practice in doing so and it sounds entertaining. So, for the record, could you state whether we are debating if the war on drugs has been 'a failure' in that it has not achieved its stated goals, or its 'true' goals for that matter, or that its a failure in the sense that we would be safer or otherwise better-off without these laws? We just need a concise statement. And of course you can open up the debate from there.