BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
it should be mandatory for teachers to wear school uniform

I accept the challenge. I will argue that wearing the school uniform should not be mandatory for teachers. The primary purpose of the school uniform is to establish a sense of order. That sense is fulfilled by creating a hierarchy between pupils and their teachers. If a person is seen wearing a school uniform, then that signifies them as a student in that school. A teacher should not be seen as a student, for that signifies that they are on an equal level with the student. This perspective might undermine a teacher's authority, as it might lead students to percieve teachers as students of the school just like them, and not an authority over them.
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissable foreign policy tool

it is regrettable that my opponent could not post their constructive case, but I have some questions nonetheless. Is it morally right for a serial killer to run loose in society, killing targets? Would we not be serial killers ourselves if we were to do the same thing to world leaders? How is this at all diplomatic? that is all. I hope that my opponent posts their case in this round, along with some questions.
Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissable foreign policy tool

Definitions: Targeted killing: killing of political or military targets morally permissable: acceptable according to accepted values of society. Value: Societal Welfare Value Criterion: Diplomacy My value criterion upholds my value because: the only way we can keep our society under control and for it to survive against other societies is to maintain a measure of diplomacy. Reason 1: Targeted killing is NOT diplomatic Killing a high-priority target, such as a leader (whether domestic or military) is not diplomatic. We do not negotiate world issues with snipers. we solve these issues with without violence. An example of this is the debate happening right now. If targeted killing were morally permissable, then I could theoretically shoot my opponent because he has a different point of view. Reason 2: There is no cause needed The resolution only states that targeted killing is a permissable tool to use. It does not specify what the cause has to be or when it isn't ok. According to the resolution, we could kill EVERY world leader and it would still be all right. This cannot work without restrictions, which the resolution does not provide. Thus, I urge for a negative vote for this debate.
the golden rule in application is not clear

In her first argument my opponent misses the point entirely. The point I was making is that Bob must ask himself what he would think about Pauls interference with his smoking habit if the reason for said hypothetical interference was given to be a health motivated reason as opposed to a morally motivated one. The reason for making this point is that pro HAS NOT mentioned what Bob feels about health-motivated interference. The perception of cigarettes being better healthwise than cocaine, or at least less bad, is totally irrelevant UNLESS my opponent states that Bob would be okay with interference for major health issues but not okay with interference with minor health issues. I ask my opponent to please state Bobs opinion on health motivated interference, just as my opponent has already stated Bobs opinion on morally motivated interference in her opening arguments (point 3 of my argument) Is Bob for it? Against it? Thinks it should be done only in severe situations? My opponents second argument is much easier to dismiss. In it my opponent states the following (copy pasted from round two): "con says bob is against smoking. that means regardless of whether he wants intervened against, he thinks smoking is wrong, AND thinks it is a not debateable point." Simply put, this is a lie. I NEVER said Bob consideres smoking cigarettes to be morally wrong. In fact I said the EXACT OPPOSITE in point 5, something that is completely obvious to anyone who reads my argument. Dishonesty will get you nowhere, pro. Voters notice dishonesty and they don't like it.
the golden rule in application is not clear

con was very verbose but seems to basically say what if the person bob who doesn't like cocaine smoked cigarettes? would he want intervened against? that, according to con, should answer the cocaine question.it doesnt.first, cigarettes and cocaine are different. even if both are bad for health reasons, cocaine is considered worse. so even if he didn't want intervened with cigs, he might be open to a different outcome with cocaine.second, con says bob is against smoking. that means regardless of whether he wants intervened against, he thinks smoking is wrong, AND thinks it is a not debateable point. in general, bob doesn't mind if he's intervened with with things that are non debateble harmful. i do admit i am having a hard time organizing my thoughts on this debate, i dont know what it is about it.
the golden rule in application is not clear

Thank you for choosing me for this debate. As pro has stated opening arguments, I assume first round is not for acceptance only. First, Let me point out that my position as con DOES NOT mean I believe the golden rule is a sound basis for moral decisions. My position as con merely means I believe it is clear in application. That is to say, in any given situation it is clear what one should do if one wishes to stick to the golden rule. Now that the purpose of this debate is made clear, allow me to state for the record what the golden rule actually says: Do on to others as you would have them do on to you. I will now address my oponents example. John believes the following: 1) Cocaine use is okay morally Bob believes the following: 1) Cocaine use is not okay morally 2) if he was doing cocaine, he would want someone to intervene. 3) If he were doing something he thought was okay morallyhe would not want anyone to intervene. However, there is some information missing that, if filled in, would make the issue much more clear. To illustrate, let us bring in a third character named Paul. Paul believes the following: 1) Smoking cigarettes is not okay for health reasons. Now, let us say Bob has the following attributes: 4) Believes cocaine is not okay for health reasons. 5) Believes smoking cigarettes is okay morally. 6) Believes smoking cigarettes is not okay for health reasons. 7) Smokes cigarettes (is addicted). 8) Believes Paul (should/should) not intervene in his smoking habit for health reasons. Depending on what Bob would want Paul to do on to him in number eight will determine what Bob should do on to John regarding cocaine. You see, the percieved issue was based on a lack of information. Note that I did not change any of pros original premises, nor are any new premises inconsistent with pros original ones. Pro must do one of the following to show that my argument is invalid: 1) Demonstrate one or more of my new premises is inconsistent with pros original ones. 2) Demonstrate that knowing the answer to number eight would not necessarily give a good answer as to whether Bob should intervene with John. 3) Demonstrate that the answer to number eight does logically follow from the other premises. Back to you pro.
the golden rule in application is not clear

the rule itself may be clear, but the application of the rule isn't always. maybe instead of disorganized mess of ideas as i gave in the past, i will give a hypothetical.for example. intervention v deferrence. John is doing cocaine, and only dabbles in it and views it as nondebateably harmless in the bigger picture. Bob thinks any cocaine use is going too far, and is not debatable to say otherwise. Bob personally would want someone to invervene if he was doing cocaine. on the other hand, Bob also would want people to respect his wishes on things he sees as debateably okay or nondebateable.does Bob intervene, based on the fact that he'd want intervened with on cocaine use, especially given he personally sees it as undebateably not okay? or does he respect John's wishes given John must at least view cocaine use as at least debateably to nondebateably okay?reliance on the golden rule doesn't really direct how to approach it. if you take one option, it undermines the other considerations. the rule admittedly gives you food for thought and directs you in a laudable way in general, but how to respond isn't so clear cut.
Christianity is a metaphor

To begin, my opponent states that "everything's a metaphor. " And my opponent's primary argument seems to be "Christianity is a metaphor. " My opponent is thus arguing that Christianity is a metaphor by arguing that everything's a metaphor. For the purposes of this debate, I provide the following definition of metaphor: 1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance. Source: . http://dictionary.reference.com... From these definitions, I argue that everything is clearly not a metaphor. Not everything is a figure of speech. An easy example is religion itself. Religion is clearly not a metaphor, a "figure of speech" or even, more loosely, something that suggests something else as a resemblance. Religion is a set of beliefs. It is not a metaphor. Therefore, I refute my opponent's claim that everything is a metaphor, and his claim that Christianity is a metaphor because Christianity is a religion. . I have refuted what seems to be my opponent's first argument. Because the burden of proof is on my opponent, I await his next one.
Christianity is a metaphor

If you think about it really, everything's a metaphor and parallel's to each other. It's a metaphor for yourself. So that you can understand why you are or to understand the pure truth about anything. It's no better than drugs or something as simple as playing music. But, that's not to say it can't be used properly. It's a way to feel connected to something greater and have an understanding of not only yourself, but of others, and how to react to others. What happens is people start to use it as an escape. To search for something in their life they feel is missing, then they escape into the security of 'God will take care of everything' without knowing of what this 'God' really is. God is you. 'God' is Music. 'God' is Art. 'God' is Food, 'God' is everything, really, if you think about it. Christianity was something believed in and acquired followers who took it way too seriously. Charles Manson did something like that. Then again, so did Miles Davis. So did any major figure. So is it wrong, or heresy to give yourself in to something? I think not. It's better than living in fear your whole life.
I will contradict myself.

The resolution of this debate is "I will contradict myself. " To support that resolution, Pro promises to indeed contradict himself. In other words, the only way in which he can really win the debate is if his answers did NOT contradict. In giving contradicting answers, all he did was NOT contradict his very own resolution and thesis. For example, we only need to look to the mango answers to prove my point (though there are other examples). He says that he has both tried and not tried a mango. Are those answers contradictory? Yep! But ultimately, because they're contradictory, then he did not in fact contradict himself at all (since he promised to contradict himself). To clarify, if my thesis was "I will contradict myself" and then answered questions that did NOT contradict, I would have won the debate (because my answers were contradictory, meaning I upheld the resolution and did in fact contradict myself). However, Pro has done the opposite. He promised to contradict himself but indeed gave answers that were contradictory, thus not contradicting himself at all. Furthermore, even if you believe this to be a "circular" thing whereas we'd both be right (which isn't the case - I'm actually right), then you should still vote CON. Why? Because Pro hasn't made a case for his side, whereas I have made a case for mine. Thus by debate standards it doesn't matter what is "right" or what you believe, but rather what the debater has made a case for.
I will contradict myself.

1. No. 2. It depends if he is wearing a sombrero or not. 3. Never 4. Yes 5. No 6. I have not. 7. Yes. It was a little spoiled the first time I ate one, but now I only purchase them fresh. 8. I never tried a mango, and I think they taste okay. 9. In a dream. 10. You will win. I see that you have won many debates, which obviously means that I will win.
I will contradict myself.

Alright, I'll do as my opponent has requested and ask him more questions until the final round. 1. Is light bulb your favorite flavor ice cream? 2. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, would he chuck 3 tablespoons? 3. If a woodchuck could chuck wood, would he chuck 12 pieces on a good day? 4. Is 12 pieces of wood equivalent to 3 tablespoons? 5. Is 12 pieces of wood equivalent to 3 tablespoons? 6. Have you ever tried a mango? 7. Have you ever tried a mango and liked it? 8. Have you ever tried a mango and not liked it? 9. Have you ever tried a mango? 10. Do you think you'll win this debate?
I will contradict myself.

1. No. 2. Yes, but not on Monday, Sunday, or any day inbetween. 3.Light-bulb flavored 4. Yes 5. Everyone who has a kidney can understand woodchucks are not capable of chuking wood they can chuck 12 pieces on a good day. 6. I do believe so. 7. I do not eat them because I have a beak. Nontheless, I eat them reguraly and I love them. 8. I never tried them. 9. That is racist....... 10.My answer is your answer. Prove that did not contadict myself in round 3.
I will contradict myself.

Alright, sure. I really don't understand the point of asking 10 questions per round. In what round are we to actually debate your contradiction or lack thereof? In R3? Nevertheless, I'll start with these 10 until you give me further instructions (or clarify on them - because asking 10 in each round is pointless to negate the resolution). Good luck! 1. Do you like ice cream? 2. Do you like ice cream? 3. What's your favorite flavor? 4. Is 'cookie dough' the answer to question #3? 5. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? 6. Is the answer to the above question '3 tablespoons?' 7. Do you like mangos? 8. Do you like mangos? 9. Capisci questa domanda? 10. Che cosa non si capisce a questo proposito?
Video games are art

But, as you said "it is possible", There is nothing to stop anyone to appreciate the video games beauty as art. The design gives the form of the game, but the art style gives it a personality, like Cup Head, it's a platform game game, but it looks like a 1930's cartoon. Zelda Breath Of The Wild, it's an open world but with a cartoon style. Resident Evil 7, it's an horror game and it's realistic, with some graphic and sound elements to give the player the sense of constant danger (but RE7 at the beginning Capcom does great, but then it's predictable and eliminates that sense of danger, more like action, but predictable). And there are more art styles than these I mentioned earlier. Just to show you some games that can be considered art: Good to debate with you.
Video games are art

An art piece is a creative work created to be appreciated for its beauty or emotional power (1). While it is possible for a video game to be art, the majority of video games do not fit this criterion.My opponent has stated that many video games use graphics and modelling to create beauty. In this case, however, it is important to distinguish between design and art; art is to be appreciated for its beauty, while design is intended to facilitate something else. In this case, the design, such as graphics, of a video game is not primarily intended to be beautiful, but rather to create an environment in which the player can be entertained, making it design rather than art. Furthermore, not all video games need to use beautiful graphics; a barebones video game can consist of using coloured blocks as sprites. This is because video game graphics are intended to facilitate entertainment, and they do not need to be art in order to fulfill their purpose.It is possible to create a video game that is not art. A pong game, for instance, does not focus on graphics and beauty; its primary goal is to entertain, and its entertainment comes not because it looks good, but because it presents a challenge for the player to solve. Any computer program that entertains people by presenting a challenge is a video game, and beauty or emotional power are not necessary to presenting an entertaining challenge.As a result of the previous arguments, it is clear that video games are not necessarily art.Citations https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Video games are art

The games should be considered art, you need an artist or have drawing skills for making the graphics of the video games, look at the atmosphere, the characters, the enemies, look at the landscape, everything is made by draws that make the sprites or models, that make the art style of the video game, I mean, how Breath of the Wild can't be art, or video games in general? https://i.ytimg.com... http://sm.ign.com... https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com... http://i13c.3djuegos.com... Look at Horizon Zero Down http://img1.meristation.com... http://cdn.gamer-network.net... https://media.playstation.com...$ Or Journey https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... And Broken Age https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net... http://www.kotaku.co.uk... No one cared. I mean, why at least certain video games can't be art, but a few scratches and scribbles from Pollock are art? I mean, if those games were the scratches and scribbles of Pollock everybody would be missing, rverybody would be losing their mind.
Do Atheists think? (Pro/For) or do they not think? (Con/Against)

I agree with you that both Christians and Atheists commit logical fallacies at times, but I am not straw manning you. Did you not make a post titled "Atheists dont think" and reply to it stating "No they donty"? That post is the entire reason I began this debate in the first place. Second, I take issue with the statement "...while Atheists create for themselves unprovable theories (such as The theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity)". Atheism does not require anything from you other than a lack of faith in a God or Gods. Being an Atheist does not automatically mean you subscribe to those theories. That said, I am an Atheist that does subscribe to the theory of evolution, but I do not take it as fact. There's a reason it's the "theory" of evolution and not the law of evolution. While not all the puzzle pieces have been found, many are already in place. I'll link below some proofs that have been discovered. Thank you. My opponent's post stating that Atheists don't think: http://www.debate.org... Proofs of Evolution: http://evolutionfaq.com...
Do Atheists think? (Pro/For) or do they not think? (Con/Against)

I never denied that they (Atheists) actually think, i did however question whether or not they think about what they get told (The Big Bang Theory and Evolution) before they believe it, obviously they think, but not about this, truthfully, atheists think more about what they are told than many Christians, (Who blindly go with cults and believe things such as the Universe being 6000 years old even though the bible never says that),but on the other hand, some one else doing worse is no excuse to not think more, both sides (and i can say this from experience) have a legitimate issue of flaming and straw man arguments, which is what this debate is, as I never suggested that atheists do not think (like my opponent is suggesting) but that they (like many Christians) do not consider what they have been told before believing it, as far as I'm concerned it is agnostics who are the least prone to present straw man fallacies and to flame, this is due in part to the fact that agnostics assess the reality more than Christians or Atheists, they believe either that there might or might not be a god but there is no way to tell, or that there is a god but that he is too big to be confined to the little sliver of desert in Palestine and a few places in Greece and Egypt, this is where hypocrisy comes in, Atheists have just as much proof that god doesn't exist as Christians do that he does, yet they both accept the correlating belief, as an example, Christians create for themselves doctrines that are not biblical in the slightest (Such as Mormonism and Calvinism), while Atheists create for themselves unprovable theories (Such as The theory of Evolution or the Theory of Relativity), and despite this, Christians (Though many of their doctrines are blasphemous) accuse Atheists of Blaspheme, while Atheists (Even though they believe things with no proof) accuse Christians of believing things without proof, hypocrisy, flaming, and straw man facilities are legitimate problems in both groups.
Do Atheists think? (Pro/For) or do they not think? (Con/Against)

Of course Atheists think! In fact, 49% of the entirety of the Scientific community deny the existence of a God or Gods. Slightly less than half of the greatest thinkers alive today are Atheists. The reasons you give are not even reasons the average Atheist would cite for becoming an Atheist. We know that Komodo Dragons, Monkeys, and The Sphinx all exist because there's empirical evidence for all those things. There isn't empirical evidence for Gods because nobody has ever seen one and can prove it. I have no doubt that you believe what you believe for some reason, but don't attempt to say Atheists don't think when we clearly think very critically about the world around us. I think some critical thinking would do you some good too.
Don't give birth to children or they will be raped by a psychopathic pedophile killer

Children can't consent to be born, So being born is wrong- People shouldn't be able to make children, Because children can't consent to be born. They also can't consent to go to school, Which means that school is wrong. They can't consent to life, They don't understand life, So life is wrong. Everything about children is wrong. EVERYTHING. Don't make any more children. When you make children, You give them into the life where they could suffer horribly. The only way to prevent suffering is to prevent life. So do it. Prevent the life. No more children. There will be no more children being born. It is wrong. It is immoral. What if your child gets kidnapped and brutally raped by a sick pedophile? You could have prevented that if you only didn't give birth to that child. It's your fault. You gave birth to her. Because of you she was raped. All because of you. It's all your fault. You are a monster. A failure. A freak. You should die. Period.
God is real

Thank you for your argument.Do you know that cancer sometimes disappears for medically unknown reasons? You certainly do know that a lot of people that have cancer pray to be cured. Don't you think that it is more likely that these two events happened coincidentally to the same person? Can you explain to me why some people get better without praying and, more importantly, why not everyone who prays is cured? You have basically committed a post hoc fallacy; assuming that, because A happened before B, A must have been the cause of B. Furthermore, let's imagine that the prayer is actually what cured her; unless you believe that John Paul II is God, I fail to see how that is evidence for the existence of God.Anecdotal evidence is the worst possible kind of evidence because humans are vulnerable to too many sources of bias.Thank you for respecting my beliefs, but atheism is not a belief.There are absolutely no extra biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus. And for the record, I do believe Jesus existed, but I do not believe that he was the son of God (or God himself) and I do not believe any of the miracles he apparently performed.I would invite you again to tell me the characteristics that you attribute to your God.Thank you.