BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My actions are predetermined.

this is not intended to be a trap; i only phrased this debate's topic in regards to myself because it requires a level of evidence that i believe can only be known personally. my opponent may be a magical creature, unbound by my laws (or myself, their own), but for the sake of a successful debate, i will assume that we are both real humans and, as such, function the same way on at least a basic level. this is the first time i have participated in a structured debate and if, at this moment, i have any request, it is that i am treated with an opponent that "respects" my lack of a full understanding of the rules and practices that a formal debate entails. i also feel that i have a lesser command of language in relation to what i believe i know; out of some laziness, there is the possibility that i may use a word improperly and i ask that my opponent bring any particularly confusing statements i might publish to my attention so that i might clarify my position. Finally, i ask that my opponent highlight any debate faux pas i may, and likely, will, commit. if my opponent wishes that i do the same for them, then they need but ask and i will comply as best i can. asides from those requests, i feel disinclined to make a debate any more complicated than the arguments that might ensue from the statement i will begin below: my opponent was sculpted entirely by their environment and the genetics that built the brain that makes their consciousness. their actions are driven by genetic responses, in conjunction with the memories derived from previous genetic responses. any "free will" that my opponent experiences is a fabrication.
My actions are predetermined.

I'm sorry to hear that you have not been enjoying the format. I have to agree with you that the format doesn't lend itself to exploration of concepts, but it does require us to do extensive research to justify any claims we make. To that end, I suggest some sources that you mind find useful regarding this subject. (http://plato.stanford.edu...) (http://www.skepticwiki.org...) Also, several books by Daniel C. Dennett "Freedom Evolves" for example cover the issue quite well. I think it is important to communicate your ideas to others, because this will help you refine them and find out where they are controversial. One good way to use this site would be to post your ideas in a relevant forum. Talking about them there doesn't commit you to a particular stance and allows for maximum feedback from other interested parties. When you find that your ideas are starting to solidify and you feel the desire to defend them, rather than probe them, then start a debate on the topic. As to your definition... What is the difference between a consciousness that independently exercises control over its actions and one that does not? Can an external agent make a distinction between these two? Can the consciousness itself tell the difference? If there is no distinction, if these two situations cannot be differentiated in some way, then we are left completely unable to tell if such control is exorcised and claiming that it isn't, is unjustified. A good article to read on the subject is (http://www.godlessgeeks.com...) "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless..." How can we test the claim that "free will is a fabrication"?
gym class: needed or not

As we move into the final round, I will rap up/ summarize my side of the debate, I will counter any last rebuttals to show why Gym class shouldn't be canceled. Like what I said earlier, P.E is is helpful to people who don't have time to work out, as it's a school class. If they can't work out at home because of time restraints, then they can work out and exercise at school during class in gym. However, I believe that classes are long enough already. If people work hard, they usually don't end up with a lot of homework, and if they do end up with homework, then what's left usually isn't that much. I believe that we have an adequate amount of time per class, and for lunch. However, I do see where you are coming from. No two schools are exactly the same, both in classes, and class time. So while you might not have as much time as you'd like, I have a fair amount of time per period to work on the useless crap that I'm being forced to do here. And while having longer classes might lead to better grades, you also have to look at the curriculum that's being taught. Not everybody is good at everything. Like me, for example. I am brilliant at psychology and English, but I fail miserably at Spanish and any sort of math. I'm bad with numbers and do poorly in large classes, compared to performing better in small classes. So the bigger problem, I believe, would be transferring the kids who have bad grades in certain classes to a different class that they are good at, so that they can graduate and be given a false sense of hope of getting a job because of getting a diploma. The final contention is that school is no place to fool around with shenanigans, and horse playing. School is supposed to be a place of learning, not messing around. That's what recess and gym class are for. Now that I am finished, I will summarize my debate. P.E should not be canceled because the benefits outweigh the cons, with allowing kids to release pent up energy to help them concentrate in later classes, giving kids time to exercise, and to be active and have fun. This was a fun debate, and it was a nice final debate for me before I deactivate my account. May the best man win!
gym class: needed or not

I concur with some of your contentions. You do raise some pretty good points, however, I believe that there is more good than bad for P.E classes. P.E is intended for students to help burn off energy to help them sit still and concentrate on their schoolwork, instead of having ants in their pants and goofing off in class. Anther reason why P.E is needed is because most Americans are lazy fat@$$e$. Because of American opulence lifestyle, we have severe obesity, diabetes, and a host of other health problems because Americans are getting fatter and fatter every year. We need gym class to help get kids moving and doing exercise to help prevent these problems. Further more, some kids (Like me) struggle with school because we can't sit down all day, doing paperwork. People were meant to do so much more, and be active. Kids who struggle in school need all the help they can get, and by taking gym, they can get a good grade relativity easily by doing something they are good at. One more reason why people are either really good or really poor is how they live. Me? I live on a huge farm, and have to work very hard most days, my birthday included. I work out a lot, so lifting weights in gym and bench pressing is a breeze. However, kids who don't work very often are physically weaker, making gym harder for them because of a distinct lack of exercise, either because of a lack of time, or because they choose not to. Which means the only way to rectify that is to do mandatory exercise during physical education. Now for your side, some of the problems you mentioned can easily be fixed by the teacher. For yoga, instead of having to do the downward facing dog, you could do balancing or core poses. Balancing poses are when you simply balance on one foot or your arms if you"re up to the challenge. Core is when you are sitting down, holding onto your legs so they aren"t touching the ground. You"re basically balancing on your butt, which is harder than it sounds. And while yes, you don"t get to work all hour in gym, you also have to take into account the time needed to change into and out of your gym clothes, and to organize everyone to get ready to do whatever it is they"re doing that day. These are my contentions, and why I believe that physical education should not be canceled. I will now wait haleyharding's turn.
gym class: needed or not

In America"s school districts, P.E. class should not be required. It is embarrassing. It is awkward. Parents are questioning if it should be. It is embarrassing. If you can't do 10 push-ups or 20 sit-ups, everybody shoves their score, of like 50 or 40, in your face. If you try to hard you could get injured. If you fall while doing some sport you get laughed at. It is awkward. If you are in your squads and have to warm up, you might have to touch your toes. In order to touch your toes you have to bend over. It feels like you are sticking your butt in someone's face. Or vice versa. Parents are questioning if it should be required. According to an investigation by MSNBC, the average time spent exercising is 16 out of 45 minutes. That's not very much physical time. Since we aren't doing very much parents think that it should be cut. All in all, gym class should not be mandatory. Students get embarrassed. Students feel awkward. Parents think it should be cut. We need more time for better things like study hall or longer classes.
teachers ought to be armed to prevent school shootings

Intro: After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. William S. Burroughs Defenitions: http://www.macmillandictionary.com... http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Contention 1: Why we need to arm teachers. http://www.foxnews.com... Contention 2: How this will help schools. http://www.pbs.org... Contention 3: What this will help prevent. https://www.washingtonpost.com... Conclusion: We need to arm teachers and protect the youth of the world.
teachers ought to be armed to prevent school shootings

Right. Aff(Affirm) reads my case falsely. Plagarism: 1.the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. [1] Pro is simply using someone else's ideas, and using them as his own, instead of restating them, therefore Pro is plagiarising. Prevent: 1.keep (something) from happening or arising: [2] 'prevent' in the resolution seems to state(as it wasn't defined to mean) prevent school shooting from happening at all. Pro's case IS on the goal of preventing, or having no deaths,# 'They are making up numbers whereas I have the actual facts.' This is only a ballpark figure, but it serves to illustrate the costs. It's irrelevant whether the numbers are correct(but I have a source for the number of public schools) ' I never once said just public schools or just private schools. This is all schools everywhere within the U.S.' It is not the government's responsibility to deal with private schools.They have no involvement. Next. 'They are in full support of my case. No, they aren't. If you read them closely, it says if a teacher WANTS to bring a lawfully concealed gun in, that's fine. It nowhere states that the government should arm all of them. Pro's quotation at the beginning of R2 is irrelevant. This is the fallacy of authority. 1.)Google 2.)Ibid
teachers ought to be armed to prevent school shootings

Ladies and gentlemen please see a few things. 1. I am not plagarizing. Here is a link for the defenition. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I ask how am I plagarising when I give specific links and authors? NO plagarizing here. Also NO cheating. 2. My opponent misread my case. I agree in the fact school shootings happenings will not change just because we arm teachers. My case is on the goal of having less deaths. 3. I found the defenitions and provided the links for what the neg has asked me to define. 4. We would be the people and government. Also with miscalculation the neg's first rebuttal doesnt touch my case. 5. Neg c1. I emphasis one word. Assume. Neg is trying to talk costs, but knows nothing of the sort. They are making up numbers whereas I have the actual facts. 6. Neg c2. This involves all teachers. I never once said just public schools or just private schools. This is all schools everywhere within the U.S. 7. Check out the last 2 sentances in the Neg c3. They are in full support of my case. This case is closed. Neg agrees with aff, while falsly accusing of plagarism, and falsly reading my case. Case closed. Please vote with me.
teachers ought to be armed to prevent school shootings

Plagarism is not debating. Pro simply produces three newspaper articles(fallacy of authority) and a quote(same fallacy) Pro provides no evidence to back up points. Anyhow, even though Pro is 'cheating', I'll still debate him. Pro's entire argument rests on one contention- namely,'IF we arm teachers and students, school shootings go down.' I think I've read this right. Two problems with this. R1) Pro produces not a shred of evidence to say that this would (my caps) a) reduce school shootings b)be the most efficient method c) also not cause any secondary problems (gun crime etc.) This makes it his word against mine. But, the BoP is on Pro, and so he must prove this claim- extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. R2) Who is we? The government. I'll mainly focus on the government in my points, in order to take out the other pillar of Pro's argument thus far. POINTS C1 That the costs of taking such a measure are prohibitive. Assume the average (legal) [1] gun costs 700$(not really, but an average). There are 98,817 public schools in America. [2]. Assume ten(nice round number, and probably typical) teachers in each. That's 691,719,000$. That's nearly 700 million dollars. That's a lot of money for something that is (C3) inefficient and to prevent a problem that is (C2) fairly rare. C2 That the relative occurence of school shootings is fairly rare There have been 74[3] school shootings since Sandy Hook. Compare that with the number of public schools above(not even adding private schools, because they're not the government's responsibility). C3 That testing if this is efficacious is very hard/impossible to do ethically. This one should be pretty obvious. If there have been only 74 shootings since Sandy Hook versus 98817 schools, it's pretty hard to have a trial in a 'typical' environs. Of course, if a teacher wants to carry a lawfully concealed weapon to school to prevent school shootings, that's fine. Second Amendment rights and all that. 1.)Simplification 2.)https://nces.ed.gov... 3.)mashable.com/2014/06/10/school-shootings-since-sandy-hook/
An Economy Based on Profit-Maximizing Companies is Unsustainable and Bad for the Common Man

Income disparity in a capitalist society is obvious and undeniable so I will not try to debate that but accept it as a fact. However when comparing capitalism to other economic systems it is obvious that capitalism is far superior to all other forms and is what made America the economic leader of the world. America has a great infrastructure. Even if you remove the highways you still have the railways and the waterways and airports. The railways never would have been built if not for big business building them to maximize profits, that is also true for the water transportation and airports. Many in America are living in poverty, but that is true of most if not all countries in the world of all economic systems. However you must compare what poverty means in various parts of the world. In America those at the poverty line (not extreme poverty or the homeless) still have plenty to eat and home to live in with basic utilities and appliances to store or cook the food. In most other countries those in poverty are starving, malnourished, living in one room shacks with maybe electric lights and very few clothes to wear if any besides what they are wearing. That huge difference in the poverty level of different in countries show that America has a much higher standard of living than most other countries, that is due to capitalism. Capitalism and the opportunity of making it big in a new young nation is what brought many immigrants to America and started the Industrial Revolution in America. The industrial revolution started in America and although it also benefited the rest of the world it is what made America the wealthiest nation in the world. That never could have happened with an other economic system or with the government controlling all business activities as they do and attempt even more of today.
An Economy Based on Profit-Maximizing Companies is Unsustainable and Bad for the Common Man

In a capitalistic society such as one that many of our members are located in, one can observe the effects of our main industries operating under a profit-maximizing model. Whether this is good or bad is up for debate here. Pro (me) will have to prove: 1. This model is unsustainable 2. This is bad for average Joe Con (you) will have to prove: 1. This model is sustainable 2. This is good for average Joe Round 1 is for acceptance only. Round 2 is for opening arguments. Round 3 is for rebuttals and new arguments Round 4 is for rebuttals and closing statements, NO NEW ARGUMENTS. Please have economical knowledge and at least familiarity with economical concepts and terms.
Biologically Immortal Humans

There are immortalized cell lines. Most of them are cancerous cells, such as the HeLa cells which has an active version of telomerase. This prevents the shortening of the telomere, which protects the ends of the chromosome. If such results can be reproduced on a normal cell without the tumorous side-effects, we then would be able to create biologically immortal humans. There is nothing immoral with being immortal. In the case where it is considered immoral, depending on the reason given, can always be shown to be immaterial. Perhaps the reason for doing so would be overpopulation. Would not this provide a very great motivation to colonize other planets? Yes, certainly, there would be fighting, but there is already fighting, and there will be as long as there are humans. If there is nothing immoral with this, we should not intervene. In a disruptive way, at least.
Biologically Immortal Humans

I accept.I will be advancing the claims that:a) It is not possible for humans to be biologically immortalb) If it were to be possible, it is immoral and should not happenc) If it does happen we are obliged to intervene.I'm not too sure what my opponent wishes to debate about to be honest, but I would like to do this debate anyhow, it is too interesting to turn down. Definitions:Biological: of or relating to biology or to life and living processes[1]Immortal: exempt from death [2]Good luck to my opponent, BoP is shared as it stands, I await to see your case.[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
Resolved: Canada should be pro global warming

It's very unclear as to how any of the factors mentioned by Pro will improve living conditions for Canadian citizens. Opening of the Northwest passage will, indeed vastly increase the amount of shipping across the top of Canada, but it will also bring Canada into confrontation with Russian interests who have laid claim to a large portion of the Aortic. At this time, Canada has no need to defend it's Northern border, either from military incursions or environmental damage. Opening the Northern Passage will require exactly that. Allowing a quantum increase in the amount of natural resource extraction in Canada will destroy much of what makes Canada a desirable place to live. Canada is known for it's natural beauty and pristine wilderness areas that makes it a wonderful place to visit and to reside in. Making much of that land look more like the current oil sands extraction project in Alberta wouldn't seem like an improvement to anyone, except, perhaps, a stockholder in the extraction venture. Trees that are currently growing in Northern Canada have evolved to flourish in the existing climate. When one is cut down another, if undisturbed, will grow in it's place. It's incorrect to say that the current climate will prevent current growth from continuing. What global warming will do is to change the type of trees that are currently there to others that are more suited to warmer temperatures. That will change the entire ecosystem, destroy much native species of plants and animals, and have unknown effects on the human population. Yes, there will be a huge increase in agricultural production, and there will have to be because: Canada isn't on a planet separate from the rest of the world and will be affected, not to the better, by the effects warming will have on everyone else. Rises in sea level will displace billions of people who will be seeking higher ground. Is it to Canada's benefit to have those huge numbers of people, of vastly different cultures, seeking to get into that country by whatever means possible? For an example of what can happen, see Greece as it tries to cope with the influx of Syrian refugees. Canada is also a nation with a large and economically important fishing industry. One of the effects of climate change is the acidification of the seas, destroying much of the seafood stocks upon which much of the world, and the Canadian economy, depends. Canada is not a food importing nation in the sense that Britain is - that is to say, without imports it will starve. Canada is a major exporter of products like wheat , meat, and seafood. It's an importer of foods in the same sense that the US is. It imports foodstuffs that are "nice" to have, like mango's, fresh tomatoes in the winter, etc, but not necessary for survival. The Canadians are doing pretty well right now. They've got a longer life span than Americans, no need for a large military, little poverty, and no real threat from any foreign powers. How the very unstable, nuclear armed world produced by global warming will make Canada a better place is beyond my understanding.
Resolved: Canada should be pro global warming

Pro has used the following arguments supporting his position: 1. Increased shipping through the Northwest Passage will make Canada a global shopping hub and center of world trade. History has shown that merely having lots of ships pass your coast doesn't do that. If it did, Egypt and Panama would be the equivalent of New York and London. What it would do would create huge expenses and risk for Canada due to competition with Russia for artic natural resources as well as the need for increased military and environmental protection expenses to protect a newly accessible national border. 2. More natural resources will be available for exploitation. Oil, gas, and coal will be easier to extract but at the cost of environmental damage. Whether that's a cost that's worth the benefit is purely subjective. The resources extracted will at some point be totally depleted but the environmental damage is, usually permanent. Should anyone doubt that they merely have to look at the ex mountains of West Virginia or the tar sand mines of Alberta. I don't believe the net result is better for Canada. 3. More forests for Canada. Pro never said why that would make Canada better, only that recent polling said that "trees are good". I've pointed out that when trees advance into new areas they displace the existing flora and fauna, eventually driving some species close to, or into extinction. Why is that good for Canada? 4. Increased agricultural production, according to Pro, will make Canada a food exporter instead of an importer. This is a false claim. Canada is now, and almost always has been a major exporter of meat, seafood, and wheat.. In round two he tried to change that claim. Finally, Pro seems to believe that major global disruptions in food production, coastal communities, and population distributions will have no adverse effect on Canada. To that I can only say that given the interconnectedness of the world, a catastrophe anywhere effects all of us; usually not for the better. A global catastrophe is dangerous for all. A nuclear weapon going off in India drops fallout in Canada, and gaining a northern sea route from Europe to Asia doesn't do much to balance that out. Pro has not proven his contentions.