BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Apathy is not a f****** ideology!

My opponent has forfeited his first rebuttal, so let me go ahead and briefly crystallize a couple of the key points I made during my last post. 1. My opponent fails to warrant his claim that apathy is not an ideology, choosing instead to attack apathetic people, thereby setting up a double standard in which he claims they are narrow-minded, when he himself is guilty of the same behavior. 2. Extend through that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining society, and that this sad truth must be accepted, not insulted; in fact, the PRO advocates that the lives of apathetic people should be taken. In conclusion, allow me to outline the positions of both sides in this debate: PRO: -Ad hominem attacks -senseless slaughter -lack of proof of the resolution CON: -Acceptance of truth -encouraging people to get active in society, as opposed to killing them -more than adequate proof of my side of the resolution If the PRO has any further arguments to make, he is now free to do so.
Apathy is not a f****** ideology!

First of all, I'd like to point out that, overall, you give absolutely no reason that apathy is not an ideology; you say it is 'beyond your understanding' why people consider apathy (defined by merriam-webster's as "lack of interest or concern") to be an ideology (defined by merriam-webster's as "a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture"); from that comment, you extend your argument into what you even admit are Ad Hominem attacks; this means 2 things: 1. You attack people who are apathetic, not the idea that apathy can be an ideology. 2. You claim that people who are apathetic are narrow-minded, but in attacking these people relentlessly, you yourself are being extremely narrow-minded, just the other side of the coin, so to speakl so really, your argument is setting up a giant double standard: ("If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae. ") While I may not agree with apathy, that doesn't mean that it isn't an ideology; it would be as hard to change their outlook on society and the human race as it would be to change yours. And honestly, society hasn't been declining for ONLY the past 3 years. There are plenty of times where society has been dismal at best. The Dark Ages, for example. So, to close out my opening argument, it comes down to this: Either you vote CON, because we have to accept that not everyone is going to be passionate about maintaining social bonds, and because my opponent doesn't actually defend his side of the resolution, or you can vote PRO, which advocates slaughter of anyone caught not being appropriately passionate about society (sounds familiar. .. ), and provides you, the voters, with a lot of Ad Hominem attacks (which he admits puts a lot of flaws in his argument). So, CON = Acceptance of truth, PRO = Personal attacks and social "cleansing". I'll let you guys decide. Until then, I await my opponent's next argument.
Apathy is not a f****** ideology!

Why anyone would feel apathy is an ideology is beyond my understanding. For the last 3 years I have watched a decline in society for which there are many reasons, apathy being one of them. If you are so narrow minded and motivation deficit that you would choose apathy to action you are scum. You do not deserve the life you have. To say you are a rancid infection to society would be offensive to the kingdom of prokaryotae. I know that my opening argument is flawed with Ad Hominem (attacking the individual) but I think that it is the case that this is a very much individual argument for which different people have different opinions and requires personal defence.
Anything is debatable

"no one can see these Words on the screen with their eye closed" Under Metaphysical Idealism , this is possible to see the words on the screen while having the eyes closed since what A metaphysical idealism will say that you are "seeing" a idea of a computer screen with words while also having a idea of having your eyes closed. Since metaphysical idealism says everything is either a mind or a idea, it also makes the "Know = Physical experience" debatable since idealism reject's the idea of physical things. "possibilities are false" This a very vague statement, I recommend Con to expand and explain this statement on the next turn. "belief and knowledge is mental" as above with false thing.
There's evidence in the Bible and among the Church fathers that supports the papacy.

I look forward to a fruitful exchange. Rules: 1. My opponent may begin his/her case now or simply accept the debate. If he/she begins his/her case now, he/she must waive the final round. 2. Both of us accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. End of rules. Outline I won't be beginning my case this round. I will simply be giving an outline as to how I will be making my case. Both me and my opponent will be quoting the Bible (sometimes even the same verses). The key, I believe is deciding which approach is the best way to interpret those verses. I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once: Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase: I never said you stole money. Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote that meant I never said you stole money. .. He said it. Or. .. I never SAID you stole money. .. But I sure thought it. Or. .. I never said YOU stole money. .. I said she stole it. Or. .. I never said you STOLE money. .. I said you borrowed it. Or. .. I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car. Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later? Development of doctrine. Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the difference between development versus departure is this. .. Is the teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip. Development versus departure.
"It is no more likely that the tenth marble will be blue than it is that it will be red."

Sadly, my opponent forfeited Round 3, but she should be back for a closing statement next round. Because the forfeit has deprived me of the ability to refute my opponent's next set of points within this debate itself, I would like to reserve the right to use one comment in the Comments section to refute any points that seem to be new to the debate. Thanks, now let's wrap up this debate. "In conclusion, the fact that the first nine marbles were blue clearly supports the idea that the final marble will be blue. The color blue is an established color of marble, while red must first compete with yellow, green, purple, invisible, orange, and numerous others for being the unmentioned color. "
"It is no more likely that the tenth marble will be blue than it is that it will be red."

Now, to the debate. Contention 1-: Red marbles might not exist. We have proof that blue marbles exist. The man already pulled nine of them out of the bag. However, we do not have proof that red marbles exist. Perhaps nobody has red marbles. It is likely that the previous owner of this bag did not have access to red marbles, and only had access to blue glass to make blue marbles out of. With proof of the existence of blue marbles, but no proof of the existence of red marbles, the marble in the bag is more likely blue than red. In any event, the number of blue marbles and red marbles in the world are different. Therefore, an equal chance of pulling either one out of a bag is highly unlikely. Contention 2-: Reason favors the blue marble. People often group marbles by color. Here is a commercial bag of only blue marbles, for example: . http://www.arcatapet.com... There exist numerous bags of only blue marbles. Therefore, it is quite likely that this bag, like the others, has all blue marbles. However, few bags exist with mostly blue, but few red, marbles. Contention 3-: Probability favors the blue marble. If the bag were filled with ten blue marbles, then it is guaranteed that the first nine would be blue. If the bag were filled with nine blue marbles and one red marble, the chance of pulling out nine blue marbles would be 9/10 * 8/9 * 7/8 * 6/7 * 5/6 * 4/5 * 3/4 * 2/3 * 1/2, or 1/10. Therefore, even if you were to assume that there is an equal chance of a given bag having ten blue marbles or nine blue marbles and one red marble, if a red marble existed in the bag, it most likely would have been revealed by now. Contention 4-: There are more marbles than just red and blue. If the marble is not blue (unlikely, given that we place blue marbles with other blue marbles and all), then it's still hardly likely that the marble is red. After all, it could be green, yellow, pink with purple polka-dots, or even clear. To assume that the marble is equally likely red as it is blue is to also assume that it is equally likely to be any other color. And yet, you still don't even know if those color marbles even exist. (This ties back to Contention 1-. ) Therefore, the safest assumption one could possibly make about the last marble is that it is blue. With that, I'll leave the debate to my opponent.
"It is no more likely that the tenth marble will be blue than it is that it will be red."

I accept this debate, and will help re-state Francis bacon as such: The mere repetativeness of the occurance of an incident does not guarentee that the same thing will happen again. His example: Suppose a man draws nine blue marbles out of a bag of ten marbles. It's no more likely that the tenth marble will be blue than it is that it will be red. The previous instances do not guarentee anything about the following instance.
"It is no more likely that the tenth marble will be blue than it is that it will be red."

This is a quote from a packet over Francis Bacon. The full situation is that a man draws nine blue marbles out of a bag of ten. According to the packet, Bacon's contemporaries claimed that the tenth marble is just as likely to be red as it is likely to be blue. I am against this notion. The man has no idea how he obtained this bag. This scenario allows for speculation, but no speculations may be confirmed within the given scenario. As for definitions, blue and red are two very different colors. The blue marbles are assumed to be a perfectly solid blue, with no traces of red. Marbles are colored, glass spheres. Good luck to whoever accepts this debate. We shall start debating in Round 2.
A chainsaw is the worst weapon in a zombie apocalypse

Thank you for replying to my debate. First of all, I'm afraid I was mistaken in my argument. What I meant to say was that a chainsaw is a terrible weapon, not that there was a weapon worse than it. But I will still try to continue this debate despite my faults. I will support this with first instinct. When you are stuck between a rock and a hard place (or in this case, a hoard of zombies), you wouldn't go out in your garage and start up the chainsaw, which will only give more time for the undead to reach you. No, you may as well get a pair of scissors that are lying around. It's sharp, and you cannot exactly process any information about it when you are trying to save yourself and possibly the people around you. Though this may lead to certain death from a hoard, you may only need to kill one or two zombies by sticking the blade straight through the eye and into the brain itself, so it can in fact kill a zombie. The second set of arguments I find to be very unique. First of all, it might as well be an empty cup since you might need to be hydrated when you are on the run. Although small and practically useless, it can simply be used as a distraction. When a zombie is about to feast on your team mate, you can simply toss the cup against the zombie's head and possibly distract it. But there is one question: Why? Why would someone get a plastic cup when there are warnings of a zombie uprising? The golf ball can be used similarly, as a distraction, but if you are an experienced golf player, you can use a golf club (I suppose they should be nearby) and send the ball flying into a zombie's head. But you can also take the golf club itself instead of a golf ball which may be a bit more useful. I am also a she, not a he.
A chainsaw is the worst weapon in a zombie apocalypse

The chainsaw has been used widely in zombie movies, video games, etc. However, as proved in The Zombie Survival Guide, the chainsaw is one of the worst weapons to use. 1. It is heavyweight. It is exaggerated how a normal person can possibly lift this weapon above their head and use it with ease to slice through a zombie. The people that normally use it are extremely muscular and the people that don't have difficulties welding it. 2. It is cumbersome. Why carry around a chainsaw when you can carry that ax and (loaded)pistol you saw a while back? The truth about its weight is that it is difficult to carry to and fro. It will either have to be carried by a strong member or in a vehicle that can support its weight. 3. It uses fuel. The truth is, that fuel you just poured into your chainsaw perhaps had caused you your life. You will also have to carry that fuel tank will you along with the chainsaw while you are running from a hoard of zombies. 4. Only one or two kills can be performed. The blade, much like the one of a jagged blade, may get jammed into the body of a zombie, causing you to abandon it and get killed. The blade may also become filled with the organs and blood, rendering it useless. This is my first debate. Who will challenge me? Enjoy.
should there be 4 day school weeks

so im guessing that im for 4 day schools? since im on the pro side So i we would have 4 day school days kids have a longer weekend to sleep and that is when they can catch up on all of there homework most kids/students would love to have 4 day school days every kid here would want to have a 4 day school day not a 5. Me being an athlete i work hard to stay awake and doing work i get little to no sleep on some nights so if we would hav4 day school days i could catch up on my sleep
should there be 4 day school weeks

There would be longer days. You would probably stay at school until 6:00. Which is usually when kids leave to go to sports games or practice. Also educational wise we are behind other countries. Lastley people who work at the school (substitute,teachers,janitor,and bus drivers. Also as a student I feel like it would be to much to fit more learning in a day when i go home i'm exhausted and tired, on top of that we have homework. And some studies show that it actually may be more expensive to have 4 day school weeks and that could be bad for some schools if they try it.
Prosthetic breasts and vaginas should be banned from sale

In reply, I would like to contribute the following: It is impossible for me to prove absolutely that Mr. Gaga isn't a man because he has consistently refused to subject himself to a full, public gynecological examination of his genitalia. Of course, we have to ask ourselves why this is. What has he got to hide? No doubt, in a few years when his fans have reached the age of puberty and he is all washed up as a pop star, it will come out (I mean the truth, not his penis). In the meantime, dirty old men are donning prosthetic breasts and vaginas and are going into swimming baths to spy on our womenfolk with impunity. They know they can get away with it because no swimming baths manager would go up to a butch-looking woman in the showers and say: "Excuse me madam, but I can't help noticing you have hairy legs and I suspect you may be a man. I'm afraid I'm going to have to have a good grope of your jubblies and a proper poke around inside your minge in order to satisfy myself that you are, as you purport, of the female gender. " That's why so few crimes of this nature have been brought to justice. That said, I do agree that women who have had mastectomies or have suffered injuries to their beef curtains should be allowed prosthetic replacements, but these should be prescribed by doctors rather than be offered for sale by unscrupulous traders of female sexual appendages. In the final analysis, prevention is better than cure and the protection of innocent women and girls must remain paramount and for that reason I reaffirm prosthetic breasts and vaginas should be banned from sale. Thank you.
Prosthetic breasts and vaginas should be banned from sale

As we now all know, Lady Gaga is, in reality, a man in drag. [1] Mr. Gaga has been using a phoney vagina and replica breasts to deceive the record-buying public into believing he is a woman. But although this deception must be roundly condemned, the real danger of allowing men to buy false knockers and chuffs is that sex pests can use them to get into the ladies' showers at the local swimming baths in order to perv on all the teen lovelies soaping each other up in there. Would you like your sister, daughter, wife or girlfriend to be eyed-up while she is having a shower by a nonce wearing artificial breasts and a fake vagina? I don't think so, and for that reason I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you. [1] http://www.debate.org...
Islam is incapable of being peaceful

Resolution: - Topic: wether Islam (Shari'a) is inherently violent, or promotes Peace. - Terminology: > Religion = scripture, law, theology, & thought. > Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an. > Peace, since the concept is broad & abstruse, I’ll define it broadly as = a state of freedom from injustice or oppression. > Shari'a = Islamic Law. Rules: - No forfeit, no disrespect & no logical fallacies. - BOF: the burden of proof is on Pro, as per the fomulation of his resolution. - Sources: authentic & authoritative.
Progressives support the far right by supporting Islam

After Con's second comment and objection in the comments section, I changed the title & first argument. He by his own choice then accepted the debate. Con has chosen to do as he did in our last debate, & rather than debate a position he can not defend, he goes to semantics to try and win the debate without actually debating the topic. That's fine if that's how he rolls, but that's a tactical mistake in this case. He chose his path of logic on his own. ----- Con says "far right" isn't specific. It actually has a definition, & I provided it. Con says "Islam" is not specific. It actually has a definition, & I not only provided it, but also, to be Muslim, by definition, you believe in the words of the Quran, thus the words of the Quran, which are far right, by definition, mean Islam is far right by definition. We also know that the eaxct same qualities that are chastized by the left as being "fundamentalist Christian", "Nazi", "Neo Nazi", "bigotry,"racism", etc are teachings from the Islamic Quran, of which I provided. ----- Con went on to use the phrase "Liberal Islam". I never mentioned "Liberal Islam". I only mentioned Islam, which has a definition that isn't liberal. We also know that Farrakhan's version of Islam is anything but "Liberal". Per Con's logic, I don't have to prove that liberals support for "Liberal Islam" is support for the far right, but that support for "Islam" is support for the far right. I have also proven they support a Farrakhan-esque Islam that is far right. ----- Progressives call themselves the "Progressive Movement". https://www.washingtonpost.com... ----- Con says, "Progressives do not hold one set of views." It doesn't matter since he has turned it into a semantics debate. If this debate is semantics, all there has to be is two people anywhere on Earth who are Progressives and support Islam. The two Progressives could be Muslims themselves, point of fact. Con himself says there is a "Liberal Islam". That is my entire burden of proof in a semantics debate. ----- Here is a link to our last debate where Con tried the exact same technique rather than actually debate. http://www.debate.org... ----- The rules say spelling is a part of the voting process. Con's last argument was so poorly written, per spelling, that it was rather hard to read.
Progressives support the far right by supporting Islam

Before the debate I asked the pro to clarify her terms, as the title was too broad to decide whether a defence was possible, or whether it was even a position I agreed with. She refused to do so, simply giving a childish " debate me and fund out." I have now found out, and she has indeed clarified her position the " progressives" means "some progressives". While this is a possible interpretation, Not defining this pre- debate was quite dishonest, as it is obviously an unfaksifisble position. Why she would posit such a proposition, then expect it to be debated is ludicrous. As she has not honestly conducted this debate, I withdraw from the argument, but request spectators either do not vote, or vote for me in response to her dishonestly.
Progressives support the far right by supporting Islam

----- Con:Not some progressives, not most progressives, "Progressives" which must mean "ALL" progressives. ----- Not actually. Seeing tha Con wants semantics rather than to try & defend an indefensable position of the left in general, let's play semantics. Technically, I didn't say "all Progressives". I said "Progressives". Progressives is simply the plural of "a progressive". According to the dictionary "plural means... "consisting of, containing, or pertaining to more than one." http://www.dictionary.com... So technically, according to Con's semantical logic game, I only need to show that 2 Progressives support the claim. I have easily done that. ISLAM A Muslim is someone who follows or practices Islam, a monotheisticAbrahamic religion. Muslims consider theQuran, their holy book, to be the verbatim word of God as revealed to the Islamicprophet and messenger Muhammad. The majority of Muslims also follow the teachings and practices of Muhammad (sunnah) as recorded in traditional accounts (hadith)."Muslim" is an Arabic word meaning "submitter" (to God). https://en.m.wikipedia.org... http://www.dictionary.com... ----- Con: It would be simple enough for me to simply say I am a progressive but do not support any aspect of Isam that could be considered "right wing" and the proposition is falsified. ----- Not necessarily. We have no proof that you are a Progressive in real life, nor do we have proof you aren't a Russian bot intending to be devisive on a debate site. I could claim to be God, Santa Clause, or the Easter Rabbit. That doesn't make it true or verifiable. ----- Con: Right Wing is an equally imprecise and debatable term. ----- I gave the definition with source, of "right wing" in the previous round. ----- And finally, Con rebuttled none of my claims in the last round, thus they stand. He also had me change terms prior to the debate until he was satisfied with the terms. He then happily joined the debate, fully accepting of the definitions and of the terms.