BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no present

I shall negate the resolution, "There is no present. " Hence, I shall attempt to prove that there is a present. =============== Burden of Proof: My opponent holds the Burden of Proof to affirm that there is no present. If I am able to prove otherwise, the resolution shall be negated. =============== My opponent quotes: "IA: Hello what time is it IB IB: The time right now is 2 pm IB is referring to a period of time which has already occurred, he is referring to the present. " My opponent has just provided an instance in which the present did exist. Therefore, my position is supported by this claim. As my opponent has already provided a situation where the present does exist, he contradicts himself and his position in the debate. Resolution negated. My opponent quotes: "Present, in this debate is not defined exclusively as the moment in which an event occurs, but it (present) is refereed as the act of declaring that an (event) as occurred. " My opponent states that the present is the act of declaring that an event has occurred. If I were to say, "That guy just got hit by a ball," I would be proclaiming an event that has occurred. Thus, that would qualify as being the present, once again negating the resolution. ================ Conclusion: I have successfully created contentions and negated the resolution. Thank you.
There is no present

There is no present, only the recent past and the immediate future. Present, in this debate is not defined exclusively as the moment in which an event occurs, but it (present) is refereed as the act of declaring that an (event) as occurred. Consider two individuals IA and IB IA: Hello what time is it IB IB: The time right now is 2 pm IB is referring to a period of time which has already occurred, he is referring to the present.
There is no present

However, my opponent ignored my contentions and did not even attempt to counter them. "In this debate the pro (me) is not saying that there is no such concept as the present. I am not making the claim that there "is no present". " The resolution of this debate is, "There is no present. " My opponent has taken the affirmative side, so he must affirm this statement. However, my opponent has just admitted that he is not claiming that there "is no present. " That contradicts his stance on the matter and shows that he has essentially forfeited his initial claim in the context of his own resolution. Resolution negated. "I am instead saying that the present exsists but it is not possiable to mark your postion in time, as the present. " How so? My opponent has yet provided evidence to support this claim. "when IB had said that the time "right now is 2pm" he was actualy referring to the time it was when he checked his watch. Similarily it is not possiable to think of your current moment "now" as the present because the meer act of thinking so or realising it in any way would require that you move forward into a differn't time than the one you are discribing. " My opponent creates quite an incoherent argument. My opponent's argument is just illogical. The present is a broad term for a short period of time being experienced at a current time frame. My opponent's argument is both weak and flawed. He has yet to actually prove why there would be no present. I thank my opponent and the readers for this debate. As my opponent has left many of my contentions unanswered and essentially forfeited his stance on the debate, I heavily urge a Con vote. Thank you.
There is no present

Perhaps this is because of poor comunication on my side so allow me to clarify. In this debate the pro (me) is not saying that there is no such concept as the present. I am not making the claim that there "is no present". I am instead saying that the present exsists but it is not possiable to mark your postion in time, as the present. Remember my example: "IA: Hello what time is it IB IB: The time right now is 2 pm IB is referring to a period of time which has already occurred, he is referring to the present" when IB had said that the time "right now is 2pm" he was actualy referring to the time it was when he checked his watch. Similarily it is not possiable to think of your current moment "now" as the present because the meer act of thinking so or realising it in any way would require that you move forward into a differn't time than the one you are discribing. Hope I made my statement clear, thank you for this debate it was fun!
There is no present

My opponent quotes: "Regardless I have not claimed that there is no present. " As my opponent has taken Pro to the resolution , "There is no present," he must make a claim that there is no present. However, my opponent states he has not yet claimed that there is no present, which means he has failed to provide any argumentation to support his side. "con has clearly misread important details in my argument. " No, I have not. My opponent has not read any of my arguments because he has failed to post rebuttals. "(present) is refereed as the act of declaring that an (event) as occurred. " My opponent has presented this definition as present. As in my example in round I, I can say that my mom just fell on the floor, which qualifies as being present because I declared an event as occurred. "My argument was presenting that you cannot claim that any moment is the present, it offcourse exsit(s)(ed). " However, I showed my opponent's argument to promote my claim. Hence, my opponent has not made a rebuttal or argumentation as to why my view would be incorrect. ================ Conclusion: My opponent did not attack any of my points and only stated that I have misread his arguments. However, he has not posted any rebuttals to my claims and really did not make an argument in his round II. The resolution is negated.
Israel does not Belong to the Palestinians

I will be arguing that the nation of Israel does in fact not belong to the Palestinians, who discounting Israeli Arabs, largely reside in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. Con will be arguing the opposite, that the land of Israel does belong to the Palestinians and that they technically should have rightful ownership of it. Shared BoP. In order to determine who indeed has a stronger claim (Israel or Palestine), a historical basis is required for both of our arguments. Definitions: Belong1. to be owned by, be the property of, be the possession of, be in the ownership of, to be held by.2. to be bound to (a person, place, or club) by ties of affection, dependence,allegiance, or membership. I will also highlight that we are discussing "belonging" in the exclusive sense, in that Con will argue that Palestinians have a full historical connection to the land and that they should have full political sovereignty over it.
A jolly good debate on gun control

'Sup Charles. Resolution: On balance gun control by the state should exist and be enforced. I will be con. My opponent has the BOP, as he is affirming an a positive action (restricting or banning gun ownership) Definitions: Gun control - efforts to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns by private citizens. In this context, the guns in question are generally personal firearms: handguns and long guns. From that wiki [1] Citizen - A person that is a legally recognized as a member of a state, with associated rights and obligations. I only include this definition so that debate isn't derailed by discussion of whether we should restrict children from owning guns Any other definitions can be stated by Pro. I hope this is sufficient to avoid semantic arguments. As Pro is affirming gun control, he may go first. I would request that he does not argue in his final round. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
A jolly good debate on gun control

I'll just do a quick summary. -We shouldn't ban all guns, just guns that people don't really have a need for that are more of a threat to society than traditional hunting weapons. -Getting rid of more dangerous guns and not letting certain people (I mentioned them in a previous argument) get guns, and make gun owners do better back ground checks are good ways to keep society safe. Should we ban all weapons? No. Will this stop muder? No, but it can slow criminals down, minimize the risks of accidents, etc. I would like to thank Thaddeus for a wonderful debate. Win or lose, this has been a great debate, and I hope Thaddeus and I will have many more in the future.
A jolly good debate on gun control

I would like to assure my opponent that the nickname "C-Dizzle" is completely acceptable. 1) My opponent states that the statistic I have stated is wrong because I do not believe in restricting ALL guns. I apologize for any confusion. However, by eliminating more "dangerous" weapons, this statistic will more than likely go down dramatically. The less guns, the smaller the chance you shoot yourself. My opponent states that my statement "Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws" is an assertion without warrant. However, the fact is, most people prefer to kill people with guns. It's quick, easy, and does the most damage compared to a knife, baseball bat, etc. 1. My point is, is that people shouldn't be able to "pick up" dangerous weapons primarily because of accidents. A counter argument may be said that cars cause accidents. You must remember that cars are a necessity to many people. In my rural town, you can't walk from point A to point B unless you have a few hours to waste. Guns, especially fully automatic guns or guns with extended magazines, are NOT a necessity in our everyday lives. My opponent says basically that people should be able to own guns, but if they commit a crime, be arrested for the crime. The thing is is that by restricting certain gun ownerships, lives can be saved. You can shoot more bullets in a fully automatic weapon than a shotgun or hunting rifle in X amount of time. My opponent uses oak chairs as an example. The fact is, murderers use guns more than they are going to use knives or high oak chairs. You might as well get rid of some types of guns to keep people safe from themselves and from others. You can hurt yourself with an oak chair or a toaster, but by taking certain guns off of the market, lives will definitely be saved. 2. My opponent states that black markets would be created by restricting gun ownership. That's why it's the government's job to crack down on the buying and purchasing of illegal weapons. My opponent also states that explosives or other substitutes for guns could be made. It's a lot faster to load and shoot a fully automatic rifle than it is to detonate an explosive. Besides, there's always the chance that people move out of the way, you run out of explosives, or the explosive just doesn't work. 3. My opponent thinks that guns allow people to resist tyrannical government. I think that this argument is basically obsolete especially in countries like the USA. What is a bunch of civilians with some guns against the Marines? You won't be resist anybody. You won't "resist" tyrannical government because it's impossible to overthrow it. I would also like to add that my opponent completely ignores the fact of how easy it is to buy guns without a back ground check in the USA. I don't know about you, but I don't want convicted felons walking around with guns. I look forward to your response.
A jolly good debate on gun control

Thanks for the chance to debate you, Thaddeus. I hope this will be a fun debate! First things first, I accept all the definitions you have stated. I'll start out with basic arguments, and I'll go into more detail as the debate progresses. I don't believe that people shouldn't own guns, but people shouldn't be able to buy certain types of guns. While I'm not completely comfortable with it, guns for hunting can be kept on the market as long as the government does back ground checks. However, fully automatic weapons and handguns with extended magazines (like the one that shot 31 times without reloading at the Tuscan shooting), etc. should not be on the market. A common case for gun control is that people need a way to defend themselves. However, having a gun in your house is 43 times more likely to accidentally kill a person in the house than an intruder. (1) The government needs to make sure that gun stores do more back ground checks. After the Tuscan shootings, some investigators from New York wanted to see how easy it was to get a gun without a background check. At an Arizona gun show, only 15 days after the shooting, these investigators bought a Glock and a 33-round magazine with absolutely no background check. Here's one example of a conversation that one of the investigators had with a seller. "According to a transcript from one investigator's purchase of a Sig Sauer pistol at the Phoenix show, the exchange went like this: Investigator: "So, you're not one of those, you know, dealer guys, right?" Seller: "No. No tax, no form, you don't have to do transfers or nothing." Investigator: "Yeah, yeah." Seller: "Just see an Arizona ID and that's it with me." Investigator: "So no background check?" Seller: "No." Investigator: "That's good, because I probably couldn't pass one, you know what I mean?" The seller sold the gun for $500." (2) This is ridiculous. Countless numbers of lives could be saved if the government would implement more gun safety laws. The fact is, certain guns can do more damage than others. Guns that are too dangerous to society should be taken off the market. (1) http://www.asahi-net.or.jp... (2) http://politicalcorrection.org...
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

Pro argued that there would be additional health benefits from a combined consumption of both black tea and alcohol. Yes if you stack health benefits upon health benefits, of course you get more benefits. But that doesn't mean that if you don't exaggerate that your health will be impacted negatively in any way whatsoever. Also, Pro says you will only get half the benefits by drinking black tea. Please look at this: http://www.the-color-of-tea.com...There are tons of health benefits from black tea. Nonetheless, who says that there has to be a battle (i.e., choice) between black tea and alcohol? I already said that black tea is one of the many healthy foods that people consume and benefit therefrom. All of that is very good for one's health, and there's no need to alcohol. Pro has not cited a single source to actually support her position. There are also health benefits in foods people eat in Ukraine but not in Japan. Doesn't mean the Japanese are negatively impacted by the food they don't eat. They're one of the healthiest people. Why? Because they got alternatives to healthy food that other cultures consume.Additionally, Pro keeps arguing for the health benefits of alcohol and what moderate consumption is. This is irrelevant. I am saying that you can replace alcohol benefits with alternatives. If you're allergic to say, fish, that doesn't mean your body will be impacted negatively by that because you don't consume the Vitamin D from fish. You can eat other food, or take a sunbath. That's called an alternative.Basically, Pro has not done anything useful to support her position, her sources are irrelevant to the burden of proof that she has, and my arguments are literally not refuted at all. Pro thinks that alcohol cannot be replaced by alternatives. This is wrong. The resolution is weak.
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

1. If they are not mutually exclusive, which we both seem to agree on, then there would be additional health benefits if you consume both alcohol and black tea. You would get the benefits of both, while you would only get half the benefits if you chose to drink only black tea. 2. In saying that thy are not mutually exclusive, I meant that you could theoretically consume both fish and alcohol. Fish is healthy, but it doesn't necessarily have to be limited to use as an alternative. 3. At higher concentrations and at inappropriate times, alcohol can cause problems. I have defined the amount of alcohol for this debate as "no more than 9 drinks per week for women and 12-14 for men". Spread out over a week as the definition implies, it would not be enough to cause the problems that you specify.
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

My opponent has completely failed to address the issue at hand.1. The interpretation of the resolution I gave is correct, and even if I gave a wrong one, Pro has not done anything to prove my case wrong. She has not explained how not consuming alcohol impacts the health negatively. 2. No, alcohol and black tea are not mutually exclusive, but that is completely irrelevant. The point is that when so many people consume black tea, then the effects of it will remain even if those people abandon alcohol. It's plain simple logic. If alcohol is good for the heart, and black tea is good for the heart, then it doesn't matter which one you drink, does it? No. Therefore, if you avoid drinking alcohol, you do not increase the risk of having heart disease because you already drink black tea, which has the same good effects as alcohol when it comes to reducing the risk of a certain heart disease.3. This point fails to address anything relevant. I didn't say that fish and alcohol are mutually exclusive - I am saying that all the foods most people eat bring the same benefits as alcohol, and many more. Therefore, if you neglect alcohol, you do not become unhealthier because you have alternatives. 4. The sources are irrelevant to the burden of proof that my opponent has, which she has not lived up to. It doesn't matter whether or not alcohol is beneficial. In this debate, I even agreed that it can come with benefits. However, the question is whether or not it is unique to the benefits it brings - to which I say no. My opponent has not proven that alcohol is necessary in any way.5. I said that alcohol often turns into a disease, while the alternatives I listed are far less likely to turn into diseases. Alcohol often causes traffic incidents, family problems, and many other such catastrophes. Black tea doesn't. Neither does fish. And they are good alternatives to whatever benefits alcohol brings.It is clear that my opponent has barely lived up to any of the criteria for proving her case right. Sure, alcohol brings some benefits - but are the benefits unique to alcohol? No.
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

1. I apologize for unnecessarily dividing my arguments. You are incorrect about your interpretation of the debate, it is about whether prohibiting moderate consumption of alcohol would negatively impact health. 2. Although drinking black tea may decrease the risk of coronary heart disease, black tea consumption and alcohol consumption are not mutually exclusive. This is irrelevant. 3. Again, it is perfectly possible to consume alcohol, fish, and Vitamin E. My opponent has also failed to show that the amount of alcohol I specified in Round 1 is sufficient to cause alcoholism and other problems. It is only the minimum amount necessary to benefit from the healthy proprieties of alcohol. 4. That was not the purpose of my sources, they were intended to demonstrate the effects alcohol has on health. 5. As I stated, the amount of alcohol specified in the definition is, for most people, not enough to cause the adverse effects my opponent describes here. That small an amount of alcohol will not cause healthy people to "wonder why you woke up where you should've never been".
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

In A1, I will attempt to show that alcohol has a beneficial effect on health. In A2, I will attempt to show that the prohibition of alcohol will have in a negative impact on health. Argument 1 Studies have concluded that moderate consumption of alcohol has a protective effect on health, reducing the risk of diseases such as coronary heart disease, total stroke, and ischemic stroke. This is attributed to a higher ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and altering the effects of enzymes involved in lipoprotein metabolism. [1] [2] [3] Argument 2 As alcohol is legal now, it can be assumed that people drink it, causing them to experience the positive health effects described in A1. Making the alcohol illegal would result in a significant number of people not drinking it, and the health benefits from alcohol would no longer be present. Sources [1] http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://cel.isiknowledge.com...
To Prohibit Moderate Consumption of Alcohol Would Negatively Impact Health

Thanks to my opponent for instigating the debate and challenging me.Clarification We are debating the health effects of alcohol. It's not a debate about the effectiveness of a lawful prohibition. We assume that alcohol is effectively banned, and fewer people drink it. Keep in mind that the debate is also not about the medical use of alcohol. If alcohol is used as a medicine, then that does not count as moderate consumption. That is called necessary consumption. The resolution has nothing to do with that.My opponent is not allowed to argue that e.g., alcoholics are in need of moderate consumption of alcohol in order to get rid of their disease over time, and that they would not be allowed to get healthier because the state does not allow them to rehabilitate in a known-to-be-effective way (i.e., lesser consumption over time). As I said, this is necessary consumption. I'd also like to clarify that this is not a debate about my stance on the legality of alcohol, hence my position as Con in this debate has nothing to do with my political stance on alcohol.Burden of Proof My opponent has the highest share of the burden of proof in this debate. As the resolution implies, she will have to prove that lack of moderate consumption of alcohol will necessarily have a negative impact on health. My share of the burden of proof will be rather minimal, as I will have to show facts which demonstrate that any health benefits alcohol might bring can be replaced by something else, hence one is not forced to be dependent on alcohol for the sake of good health if he does not consume it. To give an example:1: Vitamin C is important for good health.2: Drink X contains Vitamin C.3. Drink C contains Vitamin C.4. .: Abandoning Drink X does not necessarily cause lack of Vitamin C.In this example, it is clear that if Drink X is alcohol, and it contains healthy ingredients, then clearly neglecting it would only impact the health in a negative fashion if there is no other food to replace it. However, in this example it is also clear that there is an alternative to Drink X, and in the following rounds I will demonstrate those alternatives.DefinitionsI have no objections to the definitions that my opponent provided. However, I would like to expand upon their meanings and usages in this debate. Taking a look at "impact," my opponent chose to define it as "to have a direct effect on," even though her source listed more loose interpretations of the term. In this case, my opponent has necessitated a strict interpretation of the resolution, which is that a restraint from alcohol will necessarily have a direct negative effect on the health.That being said, I hope this will be an enjoyable debate for both parties and for the readers. Please don't read and vote here if you drink alcohol in the meanwhile.