BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is more likely that we live in a simulated reality than a real reality (2)

I thank Con for their reply. I am running short on time some I will make it short and sweet. Con wasn't able to prove that its impossible for a simulated world to exist, nor was Con able to prove that it was impossible for what we consider our "physical" world to be a simulated reality. Previously I alluded to, that a perception doesn't necessarily correspond to reality in the Sun rising example. This undermines the basic assumption that what we perceive is in line with reality, as such it can't be a given that just because we perceive we live in a real world, that means we must live in a real world. Con didn't refute this, so Con can't just take it for granted that a "perceived" cat is a real cat. Con did present a counter argument to my probability premise, but there counter argument was even less probable, so was ineffective. Vote Pro. I thank Con for participating in this debate.
Children should be allowed to go on diets

The motion is whether or not children should be allowed to go on diets and as government, I whole-heartedly agree. Let's notice a word in the topic, "allow". My stance is that children should be allowed to choose whether or not they want a diet and the choice should be respected. Burden of proof: The government (pro, if you want) side adknowledges two things that both sides have to prove. Pro side has to prove that the children nowadays have more and more of a need for a diet and that the choice of the children are worth and Con has to prove that the choices of children do not matter and that children in the status quo do not need a diet. Setup: Western Liberal Democracies, Problem statement: Many children in the US are now obese and diets are now an ideal way to solve them. If it hadn't been this serious, we wouldn't be debating this however, we are. Mechanism: Allow kids to choose whether or not they want to diet up to a certain extent. Points: I have 2 points. Number one is the status quo and necessity and number two is freedom of choice. Necessity: According to www. heart. org, about 1 in 3 american children are now obese. The presence of obesity in many kids and teens have more that tripled from 1971 to 2011. It has been growing more gradually nowadays because of terrible eating managements and midnight raids on the fridge. We need a way to stop this threat now. Exercise won't work as now, alot of kids and teens are replacing the outdoors with the worlds within the arts of technology. Alot of people, even adults, are now neglecting their exercise therefore proving the alternative invalid. Therefore, we need to cut some of the food they consume so they actually can become healthier. Freedom of choice: We all have many rights. The right to live, drink, move, breathe and eat. However, a very significant right is the right to choose. With this right, we can choose whether or not we want a diet. We are not saying we want dieting to be compulsory. We are saying that we will respect the child's choice up to a certain extent. If you are too skinny, no diet. If you are obese, you definitely need a diet however if you are in the middle, you are free to choose whether or not you want a diet. What we want is that we respect the person's choices but not neglect his/her health either. Note that "allow" does not mean make compulsory and therfore we make our stance. If you want to control the choices on how the person eats, you might as well control the choices on everything he/she does. Then the chance that the child will sense the feeling of restriction and it will lead to psychological problems. Not guaranteed don't get me wrong, but it is a chance and a chance enough. Conclusion: Overall, I have proved to you the way a choice needs to be respected and the emergency on the need of diets via status quo. I await con to prove his part and I wish him/her good luck.
Children should be allowed to go on diets

I think that children should not be allowed to go on diets because the children might get undersized than normal. Obese adults has to go on diets. But the problem gets a little complicated when you change the subject into a kid. Foods contain nutritions, fats, cholesterol, vitamins, and more, which help your body be balanced. But, if you limit these things and not make your children eat fats, they would get undersized than their age. They won't be able to act naturally, and also will have problems within it. Do you still agree?
should schools use corporal punishment

I will begin my side by saying corporal punishment is highly unnecessary, and doesn't do anything besides implant more negative behavior. Also since you didn't specify what type of education, I must assume all grade levels(excluding college), and thus we will debate on that. First off, corporal punishment is a unnecessary act, and the schools have no right to hit a kid without consent of parents. Also since you never specified whether school had the parent consent. You have so many more punishments such as : Detention, sat. detention, in school suspension, suspension, and expulsion. I don't see why you need to enter the fist of "justice" into the picture. Secondly, striking the child isn't going to solve anything, all it is going to do is embarrass the child, and cause possible physcological problems. Also if the child is in high school and gets hit, then he or she may strike back. Also the allowing of corporal punishment in school leads to child abuse. What stops a teacher for beating the kid, or a student beating a teacher back in self defense. Thirdly, violence does not belong in the classroom. It does not help the education, and in fact probably harms it. The child will be more afraid of the teacher, they won't pay attention to the lesson plan. Also most associations are against corporal punishment, the one that caught my eye was The American School Counsellor Association. Hmmm, counsellors against the beating of children, didn't see that coming. If the people who are suppose to watch and help guide our children oppose why should it be used?
blowing the moon landing hoax wide open

===== My Case ===== My friend and his family live on the moon. Upon reading this debate, I called his house and asked about this issue. He said that the event was way before his time, but he asked his dad about it. His dad said he remembered when the astronauts came to visit and that he still had a picture in one of the old family photo albums. He sent it to me and I've put it up on the web for you to see: http://astrogeology.usgs.gov... Unfortunately, since putting it on the world-wide web, it has become quite popular. It is now all over Google Images. Plus, there's all the evidence here: http://science.nasa.gov... ====== Rebuttal ====== 1. "think about it, JFK, RFK, Malcom X, and MLK were all assassinated that decade, people were getting pissed, they needed to distract them." Why would the government want to distract people from these? The JFK/RFK assassinations sparked patriotism in a similar way that 9/11 did. The sooner people forgot, the sooner that loyalty to country wore off (which was of particular importance in the Vietnam War era.) 2. If you google "van uys radiation belt" the first site to show up is this debate. No other sites have any information about any 'van nuys radiation belt' so I have no idea where pro is getting these sources. http://www.google.com...= 3. My opponent's only source is the homepage of wikipedia... I'll leave you to decide what that says about the credibility of his argument.
Marijuana abuse will never be stopped. the governments just need to legalise it.

the aim to actually remove the drug(marijuana) by the ruling governments such as those of America, Brazil and Zimbabwe among others have failed as this drug continues to actually circulate and instead of its consumption reducing, it is increasing. therefore it is of paramount importance to note that instead of wasting a lot of resources trying to remove the drug from the market, let it be legalized and this may actually have an impact in the countries' GDP growth.
Aliens (Etraterrestrials) Exist

Aliens who live on other planets do not exist. The SETI program has been searching for many years and have never found any sign of communications in outer space. Just because people have sighted things does not prove they exist, they can be explained with hallucinations or other natural explanations. For the opponent to win this debate he needs to provide tangible evidence of such beings that we can actually observe and are from credible sources, conspiracy websites will not count. Since it appears both sides are Christians, I contend that there may be some physical apparitions of demons in another dimensions not known to ours however but there are not aliens in outer space with a civilization and spacecraft flying around the universe. No other life has been found in outer space and if my opponent is a bible believing Christian, then he would take heed to scripture as it says all living Hebrew word denotes with a soul/conciousness came from Eve
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.

Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist those in need.Rules and Conditions:1. This is the November/December topic for 2011 in LD. Thus, this will be treated as an LD debate. 2. Both traditional and progressive cases are allowed. 3. Cases are allowed to be posted in google documents if they exceed the 8000 character limit. All rebuttals must be inside the limit. 4. Forfeit means automatic loss, unless this rule is voided by the non-forfeiting debater. Round structure:Round One: Neg proposes debate, aff accepts and posts case.Round Two: Neg posts case and rebuttal. Aff posts rebuttal.Round Three: Neg posts rebuttal, aff posts last rebuttal. Deviation from this round structure is automatic deduction of conduct point for one offense, automatic loss for two.With that, I await my opponent.
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy

energy cant exist without a positive and negative and balance. energy is positive negative and balance any example of energy is sufficient, but some a complicated.. take off the negative wire from the light bulb, the energy that goes back to the relai, and the shine and positive energy ceases to exist in the circuit why talk about speed of light when a simple example makes it clear? the fúture and past is energy of the mind, postive and negative, so my body represent earth
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy

Sorry about being so late with my response to your responses. I'm new to this forum and likely got misplaced. I also work and have not gotten my mind around what and when something has to be done. Making it short an speaking of 'late'. Is that an energy? If so is it a positive or a negative energy. Would that be positive to 'on time? Would it be a negative to early? E=MC 2 is an interesting calculation that frankly I've not mastered but could Mass be equivalent to Matter? If this is possible could the Speed of Light be changed to the speed of a memory? Could these calculations be put into a negative format? What would that produce? Would the mass be the balancing point between negative energy? I have no real figures to put here other then possible doubt.
matter is the balancing point between positive and negative energy

It is interesting that you believe that matter is center of negative and positive energy. I can agree with your assessment but only sometimes. There are to many variables that can be added to the mix or brought in that take matter mute. Take the relationship that light has with sound for one example. When the light shows the bat striking the ball before the sound of the bat hitting the ball there is no correlation between them. One takes light and vision to complete the picture while the other takes vibration and receptors to capture then decipher those waves into useable data. The thought that the speed of light is the ultimate speed that can be traveled can now be challenged. It was even argued that once 'mach' was reached the 'matter' that reached it would actually turn into light itself. People once believed that the speed of sound was as fast as anything could go. It was even said that when that speed was achieved all the molecules making up that 'matter' would disintegrate. Both of these states of senses act within the confines of their own variables and are subject to change speeds, direction, intensity, and more as it is affected by non light or sound variables. The atmosphere these travel in can bring in changes that will alter the speed and even direction and destination of either. Sound transmitted from a sending unit can bounce around due to temperature in the medium of water, the waters depth and the waters pressure at specified depth of the water. It will even be affected by the make up and composition of the surrounding areas as well as the floor below. The salinity of the water will also play a major factor. To take it towards logic the way sound will act will be different in freezing or lower water compared to boiling or hotter water. The same can be said of the characteristics of light as to do with the medium it is traveling in. The thought of darkness being faster then light is intriguing. The thought that light leaves darkness and arrives at darkness just seems to indicate that there are more then one 'light' and more then one 'darkness' wonders in. Heard before about the world would live another seven or eight minutes if the sun exploded because it would take that long for the energy leaving the sun would take that long to reach is makes one realize our expiration date might be considered a stale date. If one is in doubt of the variables affecting the sound or sight of our being only need look at our thought process. As one sits there they need only think about when they were a child and see the picture of what they saw and here the sounds of what happened twenty or thirty or forty years ago. Variables do matter.
Socialism Doesn't work

Now one says, "History has proved that humanity for one reason or another doesn't work well together." however, there are 7 billion people on this earth right now and about 160 billion before those who live today, and there are many records of humans that have worked together and were successful and many records of humans working together and not being successful. There are just too many people on this earth to declare that they don't work well together. Socialism might not be the solution to every country but it should still be looked at as a realistic political movement. Even if it might not work best as a permanent option, it still can be a possibility. Also when one says "fully worked", what does this mean? The phrase "fully worked" can mean many different things to different people, to me, it means to achieve a purpose or result". In this case, then China has used socialism as a political movement and it worked. One says, "Because as history shows it won't hold together long enough.", could one share the research behind this statement? History is very complex and has contradicted things many times. Once again, with 160 billion people in history, it is impossible to find something that hasn't happened. One says, "something that's temporal" however, temporary (temporal) can be a very relative term, and in the oxford dictionary it means, "lasting for only a limited period of time." After all there are many political movements that only last for a limited period of time. For example, the ancient Roman empire was a mixture of democracy and oligarchy, however this lasted for 500 years before collapsing. Nearly every political movement can be seen as temporary depending on the amount of time one is looking at. Thank you for taking the time to debate this with me and I am happy to read the article you shared. You made some very interesting points and I will keep them in mind when thinking about this topic.
Socialism Doesn't work

You make some great points and I am enjoying debating this with you. Could you include the resource, research, or link that says that by nature all humans are incapable of working for a common good? So although one stated in round one that socialism "will never work" and "should not be looked at as a realistic political movement". Would one be willing to say that socialism can be a realistic political movement and could work, but only if the people within the government are not corrupt and capable? Also, why would everyone have to be uncorrupt? What if the majority were capable and uncorrupt? (corrupt meaning cause to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain) Would one agree that the definition of communism is advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs? And based on the definition in round one socialism is a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies. In this case then I would agree that socialism can easily become communism. Just for clarification, is one saying that socialism will not work because it is the same as communism? Even though a government might not be able to industrialize by themselves in situations such as Latin America, they do have more power than the common folk to attempt and receive help to allow them to industrialize. So in order for socialism to work for countries, such as Latin America, they will have to reach out for help. Although Socialism might not be realistic for a permanent plan, it can be realistic for a temporary fix. It can help get countries back on their feet, by providing food and jobs in places that are unable to. Eventually, it is possible for a new political movement. Thus, Socialism is a realistic political movement.
Socialism Doesn't work

This will be about socialism as a whole. Debunk:When you say "is by nature", what do you mean by that? What I mean by that is simple. Humans by nature are incapable of working for a common good, as they will always put their needs first. Socialism can be a realistic political movement. For countries where the majority of people are poor, it is difficult for individuals to have enough money to start up a company that could benefit society: For that we would need to be sure that the government is not corrupt and it's actually capable of making it all run smoothly. Inherently not everyone in the government will work for the better of society but instead filling their own pockets. For socialism to work we would need everyone in the government to be uncorrupted which we all know it's not possible. Example of how wrong socialism can become you only need to look at Venezuela, a country suffering for the so called socialism. http://www.frontpagemag.com... Chavez called it: Revolutionary Socialism, different name same thing. And most of the time countries where the majority are poor the governments can't afford to just start setting up this industries. That is why international inversion in those countries is needed. The government has too much to work in and can't actually give themselves the luxury of doing it themselves. Example of this is Latin America where most countries need foreign investors or they will enter a crisis. Governments can't industrialize by themselves in those situation. Socialism is simply an utopia as communism and before you argue I am whipping the Communist argument Lenin did say I find quiet interesting. "The goal of socialism is communism."
Socialism Doesn't work

Thank you for defining socialism and when using socialism for the rest of the debate we will be referring to the definition you stated. So for the scope of this argument, is the argument about socialism in general or is there a more specific example? Like a specific country during a certain period of time? When you say "is by nature", what do you mean by that? Are you saying that in nature major industries are not owned by the government? Also, could you elaborate on what you mean by it "will never work"? How does it not work? Additionally, when one says it "will never work", does this mean that socialism can never ever be an option? Even for cases when the government could start up a major industry such as a food plantation that would help feed it's people, when there are no individuals or companies to do so? Socialism can be a realistic political movement. For countries where the majority of people are poor, it is difficult for individuals to have enough money to start up a company that could benefit society. Whereas the government may be able to start up major industries when individuals cannot.
The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system

To organize all of what you said, I'm going to number my responses to correspond to the order of your rebuttals: 1) Right, I didn't say every single person would participate in a debate at once. I did say only several people would be needed in order to represent each position on a specific item. You probably won't have more than a few positions on a specific item, so only a few people need to debate in order for each position to be represented. 2) Indeed, the electoral college would need to be re-worked. I would actually advocate making the popular vote be the determinant for who becomes president however. In addition, I would be in favor of instant run-off voting. But this is a little off-topic. However, if you're worried about the people having too much power, I suppose we could have the state legislatures or something elect the president. This isn't exactly a major point to discuss, since I'm open to different ideas on how the president should be elected, but I would prefer a popular vote option, but wouldn't be too upset over something else since we are making the legislative branch the people anyways. 3) Well, the head of the party could be whoever seeks the position. We could have that voted upon by the members of that political party, or the political party could choose however they see fit to make who is the head of that party. They are private organizations, so they would decide how to choose the head of their own party. 4) As for your issue with when I brought up that the federal government would decrease in size, I really don't think it would be an issue. The federal government was much smaller back when the constitution was just drafted, and we did just fine back then. There is not any reason I see that the federal government needs to be as large as it is now. If you think it is, then it's your job to prove that the federal government needs to be as large as it is now. As I pointed out before, congress used to meet less often back then and would pass much fewer laws back then in a year than they do now. 5) Congress acting on behalf of the will of organizations and elites is very relevant. I believe I already established its relevancy when I pointed out that it makes congress less representative of the people, and that was the main objection I had to continuing to have congress. The whole point that I was making for why we should have a direct voting system was to make it more representative of the people. The fact that congress represents elites and corporations, means it doesn't represent all of the people. 6) The tyranny of the majority would still have checks against it. As I said, the president can still veto laws passed by the people, and then the supreme court will be there still to declare certain laws unconstitutional. It's not a tyranny of the majority because of these checks and balances.