BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
only now is true, now is matter

Burden of ProofAs Pro is affirming the contention that "only now is true, now is matter," he must fulfill the Burden of Proof in order to win the debate. Meanwhile, if I negate each of my opponent's claims and his Burden of Proof is unfulfilled by the end of the debate, I am the winner. DefinitionsAs my opponent has not provided definitions, I am free to provide them myself. only - adverb - without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively:now - adverb - at the present time or moment:true - adjective - being in accordance with the actual state or conditions; conforming toreality or fact; not false:matter - noun - the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or iscomposed:information - noun - knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact orcircumstance; news:knowledge - noun - acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study orinvestigation; general erudition:All definitions gathered from dictionary. reference. com. Rebuttals"the future and past is information"I agree with this statement - both the future and past can be understood using information. However, as provided by my definitions, information is knowledge, and knowledge is true. Therefore, my opponent himself has confirmed that the future and past are both true. His contention that "only now is true" is hence negated. "my imagination only happens now"The reality of this statement is irrelevant to whether my opponent's initial contention is true or not. One's imagination is not necessarily related to what is actually true - in fact, imagination is often related to what is true only in one's mind and untrue in reality. My opponent must provide proof that imagination only happens now and that it is necessarily related to what is actually true in order to fulfill his burden and win the debate. "information is nothing and matter is something"This assertion is untrue. According to the definitions provided, information is knowledge - knowledge is not nothing and is therefore something. Therefore, my opponent's statement is false. I agree that matter is something, however, this does not prove that only "now is matter" and matter is not real in the past or future. In fact, according to . http://www.history.com... , dinosaurs were physical beings that existed in the past. As physical beings are made of matter, and the physical being of a dinosaur existed in the past, we can reasonably conclude that matter existed in the past. Therefore, my opponent's assertion that only "now is matter" is false. "0 and 1"Please explain the significance of this statement. As of now, it provides no evidence for your claims. Conclusion I have successfully rebutted each of my opponent's statements, leaving his Burden of Proof unfulfilled. Unless my opponent can defend his statements and fulfill his burden, I am the winner of this debate. Thanks! :D
The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism

Thank you DavidMancke. If history can teach us anything, it is that rationality prevails; gradually, yet continuously. This is the reason we no longer believe the Earth is flat. It is why we don't believe in Thor, why we don't believe masturbation causes blindness and why we don't believe in the geocentric theory. How does this tie into the debate? Put simply, the internet spreads ideas; many ideas. Similar to the mechanics of natural selection where the most beneficial traits will endure while disadvantageous traits will die off, the most rational ideas will persevere and eventually take precedence in society, while the ideas that lack rationality will lose their influence on people over time. Likewise, a notable reason people separate themselves from religion is because they find it irrational to abide by and believe in ideas that do not make sense to them. The internet drives this process forward by making rational ideas more available to people. My goal in this debate was not to provide numbers showing that the internet itself directly causes secularization. Rather, my goal was to demonstrate that there is strong reason to believe that the internet significantly contributes to the rise of secularism, by taking matters which have historically caused its rise such as science and general education, and enhancing their influence on society through the spreading of ideology. I believe I have supplied sufficient reason to show that the internet significantly contributes to the rise of secularism. I thank DavidMancke for debating me! I am glad to have debated someone of his intellect.
The Internet Significantly Contributes to the Rise of Secularism

Greetings! I will argue that the internet significantly contributes to the rise of secularism. My opponent will argue that the internet does not significantly contribute to the rise of secularism. Definitions (Merriam-Webster) Significantly: in a way that is large or important enough to be noticed or have an effect Secularism: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations Format Round 1: acceptance only Round 2: main arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: conclusion; no new arguments Time per round: up to 72 hours Characters per round: up to 10,000 characters Rules No trolling; serious debaters only please Forfeiture results in a loss If there are questions, please write in the comments. Thanks!
Eliminate property taxes

alright i will admit there should be homestead exemptions. but the primary source of income should come from property tax in excess of one's own personal property. and the homestead examption should be nothing for cheaper land that one has to pay, but for excessive properties, it should only be a reduction. if you can't afford to own an excessively large property, tough luck. this all creates disincentives to own excessive property, when property should be promoted to be freely distributed as much as possible. it shouldn't be required to have a roomate, but when it starts to get excessive, you need to start figuring somehting else out if you can't afford it. bottom line though is we should not get rid of the property tax, it should be our main focus, aside from possible homestead exemptions. (next in line is sales tax for those who make more income, perhaps. see pros and cons of 'fair tax', but also note the disadvantags that would entail needing to keep poor people from having to pay. and, last in line should be income tax.
Eliminate property taxes

- Roommates? That is the kind of hassle that I'm arguing against. If it is my property, if I own it, I should not fear government take over, roommates or not. - "If you can't afford it, you shouldn't live there". Again, if it is my property, I should be allowed to live there. If I can't afford other normal expenses, that is my problem, not the government to dictate. Like others mentioned in the comments: Property taxes are pretty much the government saying "I see you own some land, you now owe us money or it now becomes our land.".
Eliminate property taxes

"does guarantee that you will always have the funds" as a practical matter, that might be the case. it is so rare that some who is dead ### broke would own much property. the example you gave about inheriting property sounds like someone inheriting something large and expensive. so it's not like they can't own something within their own league. and at the poorest cheapest property out there, it's more affordable. if it is hard to pay, you could just get a roommate and they could provide the means to pay it. aside from maybe high end markets like NYC, cheap real estate would be affordable like that. NYC isn't something that everyone should be able or should aspire to. it is a business capital, and meant for those sorts of purposes. if you can't afford it, you shouldn't live there. i think i've got your last two points in this last paragraph. also, again, the most you've shown is that we should have homestead exemptions, that doesn't mean we should eliminate property taxes altogether.
Eliminate property taxes

- I agree that income taxes are more personally hurtful than property taxes; but it does guarantee that you will always have the funds to pay the taxes. - There is indeed so much property out there, but as demand rises, so will the prices, resulting in a natural self-regulating/self-taxing industry. There's no need for government taxing if regulation is the argument. Please, could you argue against my "taxing non-existing money" point?
Eliminate property taxes

the govenment has to collect money some how. i'd argue that property taxes are better than income taxes. income taxes are the fruit of your labor, it's personal. and taxing labor creates disincentives to work, and be productive to society. taxing property helps curtail people owning so much. it allows more people to own property. there's only so much of it out there, so to help regulate it, they make it more based on supply and demand. i might be for homeowner's exemptions, to help disincentivise excessive property ownership, but not eliminating property taxes entirely.
Eliminate property taxes

Taxes should only be collected once on a percentage of someone's income or purchase. Property taxes are collected for the rest of your life purely on value of an item, and completely ignore the tax payer's ability to pay. If an individual inherits, wins or purchases a property, they should be allowed to own it without fear of having a government take over due to lack of cash in their pockets to pay what the government itself demands. We have heard many times of people who inherit large pieces of land or houses who are forced to sell because of their personal income not being enough to cover property taxes. This seems largely unfair, a government overreach, and a defiance to the very definition of owning.
the 30 seconds of silence should be allowd in schools

I disagree. If a student can't find 30 seconds in their busy day to pray/meditate or whatever, then they have a problem. It's totally unnecessary, and probably wouldn't help spirituality or prayer habits for anyone, especially since it is such an abstract exercise. If a student really feels the need to pray/meditate then they have time at lunch. Or God forbid they wait until they get home...
Exams should be changed for the better

But that [having 0% interest in the subject] is why most schools give you a choice of which GCSEs or A levels you take. If your school doesn't then that isn't a criticism of our current educational system, but rather your school in particular. At the school I went to, we had to do English, Maths, at least 2 Sciences and 1 Modern Language, but beyond that it was up to us to pick what really interested us. I agree that if you have no interest in a subject then you can't fully apply yourself to it, but that doesn't mean that taking that subject doesn't broaden your knowledge and increase your analytical skills to some degree. Even if you absolutely hate it, you will still be improving the skills which will help you in other subjects, and careers in later life. Moreover, exams are really necessary as a standardised form of assessment. Universities and employers need a way of summing up your academic credentials, and since everyone sits A levels/GCSEs, they are a consistent and pretty accurate grading of a person's academic ability. What you are arguing is that exams disadvantage those who do not work for them, or those who are not intelligent, and that those people should be more advantaged, but that simply doesn't make sense. Why should a student who would get a U in an exam deserve a C, when people work exceptionally hard for C grades? We don't want to enable lazy students to get by with a vague knowledge of material and low levels of work and still get a passing grade. Exams aren't made for you to pass them - they're made to test and assess you, so that in the world of employment or university admissions people can see how academically apt you are, and if all of a sudden swathes of bad students receive C grades it completely devalues to entire system. The current way GCSEs are set, however, basically make it so that if you revise hard you'll get good results, hence why they are so fact-based. That is the way it should be, because the exam boards want to reward eager and hard-working students who may not necessarily be very intelligent. Students who do not work hard do not deserve even decent grades, because that will be misleading to universities/employers when it comes to selecting applicants. If you want decent grades at GCSE, work for them, but you can't complain that the system is flawed when students who don't work hard enough don't receive good grades.
Exams should be changed for the better

Thank you Mr Jack Yes Having the ability to apply yourself is a very looked upon skill but what if the people who sit these exams have 0% interest in the subject (for instance your forced into an art specialist school but have no interest in art ).If you have no interest in the subject then you can't fully apply yourself to that subject which would lead to no understanding of course.That said presenting these students with some form of essay on the whole course would allow them to pick up more marks overall because they can reference everything that course has to offer (even with little understanding) other than the limitations the exams have witch ask you specific questions they may not know the answer to .Stronger students would be to apply their knowledge and pass with A and B while the others would still be able to just about pass the course with a C where the exams could refer them with a U (Maths is pretty much the only exception)
Exams should be changed for the better

Thank you for this debate. I will argue that the current system of GCSE awards in the UK has it right, because knowing facts is not what education is about. Public examinations aren't compiled merely to test whether you know what happened in the Yom Kippur War, or whether you know the first 10 Amendments of the US Constitution off by heart: the purpose is to teach you how to apply your knowledge, as that is the skill education really looks to develop. Anyone can learn a sheet of facts and claim that they have a lot of "knowledge", but actually that knowledge is useless unless you can apply it in the correct way. In fact, the technique is perhaps the most important thing you learn from GCSEs, at least when it comes to essay subjects, as when you have to write reports or statements in university or in a career, it won't be the factual information, but the techniques and skills you learnt with the facts that will help you complete the task. Schools don't teach subjects for the sake of letting people know about a period of history or a the reactivity of certain metals: they teach them so that those subjects act as carriers for the skills which come along with them, and those skills are what education is really about.
Exams should be changed for the better

Hello everybody I believe very strongly that GCSE&GCE awards in the UK should not be based off exams as you may know what to put but have the wrong exam technique and fail the exam all together. I think that many people would agree that while exams do test knowledge they should be based purely off knowledge of the course and not require any technique to actually sit the exams to begin with. (Your Turn Argue cons)
Water boarding is torture and should not be used by the U.S. and their allies.

Waterboarding Is (Still) Not TortureDriving a car CAN cause sever pain if used regularly? Is driving torture? Many things CAN cause severe pain but that doesn't constitute them as torture. In waterboarding pain is not the goal, panic is. Torture says nothing about panic. Also, I checked your Wikipedia source and it's footnote where the information came from [http://www.hrw.org...] and it still shows NO proof of pain. All it says is "can cause pain", there is no documentation of it actually causing pain. Without pain you have no case for torture. Also, drowning is not painful. It causes panic only. And, if you'd read in my source, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed shows no signs of damage because he was the one giving people thumbs up in court during the 9/11 trial. He shows no remorse, no psychological scarring of any kind. Also, it doesn't cause the same damage. If it did, waterboarding would kill you. It doesn't. You are using the word "can" again. I "can" do a lot of things. I "can" murder someone but that doesn't make me a murderer. There is no documentation of extreme pain. There is no documentation of long term damage due to waterboarding. Until you can procure evidence supporting this it is not torture. If you cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that waterboarding causes documented events of "severe pain" in most if not all cycles then it is not torture and you lose the debate.The RestIf you can't prove waterboarding is torture, international laws about torture do not apply to waterboarding. I will address this after you have proven that waterboarding is torture.Also, brought up on war crimes does not mean they are war criminals. Were they charged? If not then that means nothing.Really? You think 9/11 wasn't worse than waterboarding? There is a lot worse than waterboarding. Should I link you a list of terrorist bombings in the Middle East? 9/11 death toll: 3,000. Waterboarding: 0.Again, if waterboarding isn't torture it can't go against the Geneva convention. Also, the information was correct because it led to Osama bin Laden's location being found out. This information was linked directly to waterboarding. See my source in the previous round.Waterboarding is not torture. Until you can prove that this debate cannot move forward any futher because you keep referring to laws and morals based around anti-torture themes. If waterboarding isn't torture then your arguments don't apply.
Water boarding is torture and should not be used by the U.S. and their allies.

I must sincerely apologize because I cannot make my argument for the last round.I am graduating tomorrow and have family in town. I forgot this debate was only a 48 hour debate period instead of the traditional 72. I hope the voters can vote on what has already been written and forgive my blunder. I will understand if I lose the conduct point or more if the voters wish it to be so.My apologies.
Wikileaks is wrong in releasing their online documents.

If I understand your position correctly you are arguing that Wikileaks did a good thing correct? Well considering I am arguing against you I must say that what was done was an attack on our national security. After Wikileaks released their cables foreign powers have done less dealings with us. (1) They see their meetings with us as no longer secure and that undermines our foreign policy seeing as if we can't meet with other heads of state then we are essentially isolated. Wikileaks is also bad because it lowers the credibility of our leaders and people in power and when political legitimacy lowers revolutions ensue. It is true that some revolutions may be good but most cause great loss of life. Look at the Russian Revolution for example. So as we can see, Wikileaks hurts our foreign relations as well as undermines political legitimacy. Con, its your turn. (1)http://www.rferl.org...
Wikileaks is wrong in releasing their online documents.

How have more lives been in danger by the government keeping secrets? What's that? That isn't true? Oh. My opponent says that more lives have been in danger by the government keeping secrets yet this is blatantly not true. She provides no evidence as to when lives have ever been in danger by keeping secrets and thus we cannot look that "fact" as the basis for our judgement. My opponent basically concedes the credibility point because before the leaks our government officials had credibility but, as my opponent states, they now have none after the leaks. So this point goes uncontested and thus we must flow that across. My opponent also makes no attack on the impact on the loss of government legitimacy so that still stands. It is completely irrelevant as to what to what a former governor of New Jersey thought. It has no bearing on whether or not the leaks were detrimental. My opponent then tries to argue that Gandhi was transparent about his ideals and he did great things whilst Hitler wasn't and did terrible things. Well first off is the fact that Hitler came to power on the basis of his anti-sematism and his promise to kick out the Jews so that argument doesn't work in the least. Hitler's agenda was well known and he was entirely transparent. So Con, your turn.
Wikileaks is wrong in releasing their online documents.

I, myself, am not American. A true Canadian at heart, living in a country that has had very few leaks about political dealings. Why, you may ask? We guard our secrets well. We make sure we trust everyone in our government. After all, it isn't the media's job to guard political secrets, it's the government's. Towards the idea that Wikileaks was an "attack on national security", no American has been hurt or injured because of the documents, not inclusing reputation. Even if the facts had put people's lives in danger... Consider this fact: more lives have been in danger thanks to the government hiding their dirty little secrets. The credibility of our leaders? Based on these documents, there is no credibilty. Not only does the government work on our behalf, but we are supposed to live in an open and transparent society. Why are there secrets that aren't necessary to be hid? For example, the 9/11 commission reviewed a few of the leaks about Osama Bin Laden and Al Queada. The former governer of New Jersey said himself that 3/4 of what he read should never have been classified. Some of the leaked documents also include the wars in Iran and Iraq. It was revealed that out of over 109 000 people killed in Iraq, SIXTY SIX THOUSAND EIGHTY ONE were civillians. It that just? Consider one last point, since we are talking about political history. Gandhi & Hitler, both strong, memorable powers. Choose one that was always open with his thoughts and hid nothing and one that hid his agenda until in office. Now, choose one who made amazing changes for the better in the world and one who did damage that is still notable in today's society.
Social Networking

Don’t worry you’ll progress along the lines of DDO. I will provide one argument—as Pro only provide one to me. Rebuttal 1: I begin with his statement of “When in a conversation with someone on a social networking site, one is presented with the opportunity to think before he speaks(that is type). ” This claim is purely speculation—as you have not provided any sources pertaining to this claim. I urge the audience to not take the statement in which my opponent said to be considered as a fact. Argument 1: As the Contender in this debate I will be proving to the Instigator and the audience that in a matter of fact—socializing via conversation in real life is much better than socializing via websites such as DDO, Facebook, etc. I begin with the statement, you do not know really who you are talking to. For all you know I may as well be a 85 year old pedophile who likes little guys wearing princess dresses. Going back to the argument—it’s is shown on this website [1] that there is approximately 750,000 pedophiles roaming the internet each day. My point is you can’t trust who you talk to on the internet—so hence talking face-to-face is a much better source of communication. [1] . http://law.rightpundits.com...