BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On balance, the Separatists (CIS) were more justified than the Republic during the Clone Wars.

Okay Pro, final round. I've been very frustrated with your conduct during the debate. You set up the debate as an argument over who is more justified. This is all well and good, except for the fact that in your Round 2 argument, you didn't talk about this at all. You gave a description of what the CIS was, and a argument against cloning. Neither of these are an argument justifying the Separatists. The definition isn't an argument at all, and the speech on cloning is just attempting to take the piss out of the Republic. If BOP is supposed to be shared, then you haven't held up your end of the deal. However when Round 3 comes around, suddenly you're calling me out on my lack on fulfilling my BOP. A bit hypocritical, don't you think? Also you've dropped quite a few of my points: -Pro has failed to respond to my rebuttal of his statements on the Separatist Army. -Pro has failed to respond to my attempt to clarify what this debate was about. -Pro has failed to respond to my counter-example showing Separatist behavior during the war. -Pro has failed to respond to my counter-argument to his statements on the clone-program. Anyway, let's do this. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bureaucracy: Your counter-argument is laughable. It's quite clear that we're talking about the first definition of bureaucracy, so let's stick to that. "It wasn't that large", are you serious? This is just semantics. Does it really matter whether you have a large group of un-elected officials running the government, or a small one? Of course not, both are corrupt. But I must commend you, clever dodge of my original argument. Your second point was just a question. No argument, no follow-up, no explanation. But, to answer your question, yes. Yes, it was. The Republic may have been corrupt, but at least they weren't run by a few mega-corporations. Illegal secession: You glaze over how important this point is, and derail the conversation with historical examples. You say that the American Revolution was justified, as was the CIS, however you give no evidence for this. It's just a bare assertion. Was the American Revolution justified? Maybe yes, Maybe no, but you just assume it is and build your whole argument on that. And this point of legality is important, because it justifies the Republic's actions. If this is a illegal rebellion, then the Republic has more than enough reason to declare war. They needed to maintain order. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the end, the Republic has every reason to do what they did. However, Pro hasn't made any REAL arguments justifying the CIS. But I'll let you be the judge of that. Vote Con. Thank you.
On balance, the Separatists (CIS) were more justified than the Republic during the Clone Wars.

Okay, lets take this piece by piece. In fact, it was a democratic coalition of thousands of planetary systems. -Well, why they did have a democratic branch, the CIS was headed by Count Dooku, who was NOT democratically elected. In fact, the higher up bureaucracy of the CIS was very corrupt. -I feel that I should point out that, from my understanding, the CIS didn't leave the Republic by legal process, they illegally declared independence. Much like the South during the Civil War. -Also I have a serious question: Are we debating the motives of the CIS compared to the Republic, or their action during the war. Because if we are purely talking about their motives, then your point on the morality of cloning is mute. But if we are talking about their actions during the war, then let's do that. -The CIS was aggressive in the extreme during the clone wars. Need I point out examples like the Battle of Ryloth, where citizens were used as living shields to protect the Separatist army, while starving and driving said citizens from their homes. In this scenario the Separatists are far from the moral party involved. Compare this to the Republic, who arrived at Ryloth to liberate it. That way, no Separatist citizens lost family members or were drafted. -This is a nice thing to say, but this isn't the reason that the droid army was created. The droid army was created because they needed a mass produced army, and the leaders of the Separatists (who I remind were primarily corporations) had not the experience to lead actual men in battle. It was for the sake of convenience, not primarily to save lives. -I should note, the army of the CIS was not composed entirely of droids. "The military forces of the Confederacy of Independent Systems"also known as the Droid Army or the Separatist Army"was a massive mix of weapons of war, battle droids, organic forces, and local warriors. " -http://starwars.wikia.com... the Clone Program was a awful thing. -Now, the creation of the clone troopers. Why I agree that some things were problematic with the creation of the clone troopers. However, unlike the droids, they were created for a good cause. They needed soldiers, and instead of drafting citizen soldiers they used clones instead. You may argue that they should have used droids, but the clone army was started not by a vote in the Senate, but by a back-door deal. The Republic just decided to continue funding what they already had available to them. In the end, while the Republic had it's flaws, the Separatists were illegal, corrupt, and ruthless. Your move.
On balance, the Separatists (CIS) were more justified than the Republic during the Clone Wars.

During the course of this debate, I will attempt to prove that on balance the CIS are the more justified faction. (As opposed to the Republic) While the Republic is portrayed as the "good" faction in the movies, it is apparent that CIS, contrary to how it seems, is not a bad organization. According to the Star Wars wiki article for the Confederacy of Independent Systems, CIS was-"Formed by various planetary and sectorialal governments, as well as some mega-corporationsions, that declared intentions to leave the Galactic Republic, refusing to comply with its excessive taxation andcorruption in the Senate during theSeparatist Crisis."Now we know that the CIS was not just an evil mastermind with a robot army. In fact, it was a democratic coalition of thousands of planetary systems. CIS had every reason to create an army, an instead of using cloning, which in and it self in inhumane, they used robots. That way, no Separatist citizens lost family members or were drafted. Now, the same goes for Cloning, but if you look into it, the Clone Program was a awful thing."The standard troopers were genetically altered to be more docile and susceptible to obeying orders than their genetic template, supplemented by rigorous behavior modifications to install absolute loyalty to the Galactic Republic. A surgically implanted inhibitor chip was a further safeguard against betrayal from rogue Jedi. The chip, however, proved to be an integral part of the Sith masterplan."In order to grow fully matured clones in half of the time it takes ordinary Humans, the Kaminoans modified the clones by implementing "age acceleration" into their development, thus allowing the clones to reach adulthood in ten years instead of two decades. Although the exact rate at which clones aged is unknown, it appears to be nearly twice as fast a natural-born Human and it is theorized that this rate increased as clones grew older—especially under stress, thus leading to a dramatic shortening of the clones' life expectancy. Despite these modifications, the clone troopers could still think and act creatively and possessed a level of individuality that their Kaminoan creators did not anticipate.Just to clarify, that means that they were doomed to die young, brainwashed, and forced to fight for a flawed cause.Back to you Con.
On balance, the Separatists (CIS) were more justified than the Republic during the Clone Wars.

The Resolution is that in the Star Wars prequels, the Confederacy of Independent Systems has a more just cause than that of the Galactic Republic. BOP is shared, with Con attempting to prove that the Republic is more justified. Sources will be accepted from official resources such as the movies, books, and comic books, but not from any unofficial resources (ex: fanfiction). I look forward to a productive and civil debate.
The god of the bible exists

My opponent claims that I have to prove that the 3,000,000 did NOT hear anything. This is a false burden of truth. The one that makes the claim has to prove it. As said by Alex Michalos "one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed." http://en.wikipedia.org... Also, since my opponent is making an extraordinary claim, extraordinary support is needed to back it up. The words of a book are not sufficient. My opponent also seems to forget what a strawman actually is. If I said that was his argument, and so shot it down and claimed victory, that would be a strawman. However, I only said that it used the same line of logic, and used it as an example to show how books cannot be used as evidence, since books can be fiction. Just because some book says it happened does not mean it happened. Unfortunately, this is the last round, so anything my opponent now says cannot be answered. Again, my opponent has presented a basic syllogism, however the syllogism is full of unsubstantiated claims with no meaningful evidence. As such, there is no reason to resolve the Pro side.
The god of the bible exists

Mr. Infidel brings up one main point. 1.If God spoke to the Hebrews at Mount Sinai, the God of the Bible exists. 2.God spoke to the Hebrews at Mount Sinai. 3.Therefore, the Biblical God exists. The rest is just based off of this one contention. I will focus on premise 2. Mr. Infidel needs to offer some kind of evidence to claim premise 2 as fact. There are two things that need to be proven. 1)That 3,000,000 Hebrews all heard the same thing. 2)That is was god that said it. Mr. Infidel only really addresses that second option by showing that it would be nearly impossible for something other than god to do such a thing. But he has not shown 3,000,000 Hebrews did all hear the same thing. Our only "evidence" are some books that are derived from the same initial source. Likewise, we could say… 1)If the invisibility cloak makes one invisible, than it is real. 2)The invisibility cloak does make one invisible. 3)Therefore, the invisibility cloak is real. This, of course, being derived from the Harry Potter books. But we know that they are fiction and so not legitimate sources. As such, they cannot be used to prove themselves. Likewise, the bible and other religious texts that have not been shown to be non-fiction, cannot be used. In order to use any source to back the claim up, my opponent will have to show that such a source is legitimate and accurate.
Flag burning

the Pro made a number of good points in his last post, I will respond to his arguments and conclude my own here: The flag is not just an symbol. Burning the flag is not voicing an opinion. The flag is a unique article. For Millions around the world, it represents the freedom that America promises. Public Flag Desecretion should be outlawed on the basis of the unique nature of the Flag. The Flag is not just another idea in the marketplace of ideas that has made America great. The freedom that the flag represents guides this market place of ideas. People who dislike America's government have every right to peacefully dissent. However, they have no right to publicly disrespect the article that represents their right to dissent. The flag is a unique symbol. When people think of the flag, they don't think of an ideaology, they think of the greatness of America and the freedom and prosperity that its people enjoy. The flag does not represent the current government. The Tea Party disagreed strongly with the current government, yet they held up American Flags up proudly. Burning the American Flag is not dissenting on the current government, it is destroying a unique article that represents freedom and prosperity to the Billions around the world.
Flag burning

My opponent says that there are limits to the freedom of speech. This is true considering is example of not being able to yell fire in the movie theater. However, these limits are set if there is something that desturbs the peace. By yelling fire someone is probably going to get get hurt when people stat screaming and running out the theater, on the other hand what is the consequences from burning the national flag? There are none! Burning the flag is a peaceful way to say 'I hate the government' or ' i'm unhappy with it's choices'. Therefore, since it's not hurting anyone then it should be legal. Mr. Rehnquist was wrong when he said this. When something goes wrong or the government is bad or when someone just disagrees with the government. They look at the nation as a whole. Same with other countries when they see the actions of our government they don't blame political parties they see the nation as a whole. What better way to say your unhappy with the way things are going then to burn the symbol of that which is making you unhappy? My point is that even though we can't yell fire in the theater, this is because it has more severe consequences then burning the flag. Since burning the national flag doesn't hurt anybody it should be legal. My opponent says that burnng the flag is not exercising the first amendment rights. This false because it is possible to speak wth one's actions, and if this is denied then the people's freedom of speach is denied. People have a right to protest, and people have a right to voice there distaste for the government. Not everyone loves the government or it's symbol anf they shouldn't be silenced. By outlawing flag burning we are doing just that, we are silencing people in a way. Our founding fathers wouldn't aprove.
Flag burning

My opponent's argument focuses largely on the idea that the flag violates First Amendment. As my opponent points out, this amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Whether or not this includes the right to burn a flag is one of the main points of this argument. I argue that the First Amendment does not include this right. After all, not all forms of expression are protected by the First Amendment. The famous example of this is the fact that one cannot yell "fire" in a Movie Theatre legally. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court William H Rehnquist summarized the argument for the ban on Flag Burning: "The American flag, then, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our Nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party, and it does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another "idea" or "point of view" competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. Millions and millions of Americans regard it with an almost mystical reverence regardless of what sort of social, political, or philosophical beliefs they may have. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the Act of Congress, and the laws of 48 of the 50 States, which make criminal the public burning of the flag." This is the fundamental point. Not all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Ever since the founding of the nation, there have been some limits on Free Speech. My argument is that a ban on flag burning should be included in these limits. Why should it be illegal to yell "fire" in a theatre, but be legal to burn the symbol that represents the first Free Nation? The American Flag is not an ideaological statement and burning it is not exercising First Amendment Rights. The American Flag is a unique symbol of Freedom and Prosperity, and it should be treated with the respect it deserves.
Flag burning

I will be arguing that the act of burning the national flag for reasons of protest is constitutional and should be legal.I will begin by sharing a quote by Patrick Henry one of our nation's founding fathers. He once said, 'Id rather see a man rapt in the constitution burning the flag, the rapt in the flag burning burning the constitution.'Now, the first amendment to our constitution grants us the freedom of speech, expression, and protest. Flag burning exercises all of these rights. Therefore, it should be legal.The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1]From virtue of the First Amendment, flag burning should be legal.~~sources~~[1] http://www.usconstitution.net.........
Flag burning

I will be arguing that the act of burning the national flag for reasons of protest is constitutional and should be legal.I will begin by sharing a quote by Patrick Henry one of our nation's founding fathers. He once said, 'Id rather see a man rapt in the constitution burning the flag, the rapt in the flag burning burning the constitution.'Now, the first amendment to our constitution grants us the freedom of speech, expression, and protest. Flag burning exercises all of these rights. Therefore, it should be legal.The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads as follows:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." [1]From virtue of the First Amendment, flag burning should be legal.~~sources~~[1] http://www.usconstitution.net......
The Lies of Obama are more consequential than those of Trump

Major US media properties like New York Times, Washington Post, CNN etc. keep telling us that Trump is a liar. For example, NYT has a webpage titled "President Trump's Lies, the Definitive List". Yet, the lies of Trump are trifling in comparison to those of Obama. Trump lied about the size of the crowd at his inauguration, about the percentage of Cuban Americans who voted for him, etc. In comparison, Obama lied about whether Americans would be able to keep their health care plan, whether his administration would continue the secret surveillance of the previous administration etc. I believe Obama's lies were the big lies about important matters, whereas Trump's lies are about unimportant matters that the media magnifies. I would like to hear someone make and defend a case that Trump is a "bigger liar" than Obama was.
Consciousness is non-physical, and self-aware.

The debate here is whether consciousness is to be believed as physical or non-physical. The argument assumes no science is required to prove it and that consciousness is real and has a non-physical "self" of it's own - it's an "a priori" argument. I want to win votes on my belief that consciousness is non-physical, and therefore does not require a brain or other matter to be self-aware. It is a philosophical argument, not in the science category. Define "mind"... a brain? My understanding is that mind is the seat of consciousness (intangible) and not the tangible matter of a brain. A mind would use a brain's functions to process consciousness and make itself observable or reflective. Mind is a tool of consciousness, and consciousness itself intangible and not physical. Consciousness in the seat of the mind exists non-physically. Expressions observed or defined are elements of consciousness, which are manifest physically. The information that consciousness allows for matter to exist, is confirmed only by observation or being defined. Nothingness, when defined or expressed is a word written or spoken audibly. Nothingness by definition is an idea of consciousness that is real. Nothingness in itself is zero-point or non-expression, or unknown blackness and not light. Consciousness is information that is non-physical until vocalized or written or transmitted, or in the electromagnetic spectrum of light. Those are all only physical transmissions of consciousness utilizing matter, which itself is physical. Consciousness is an example of what is non-physical. If matter is required for consciousness to exist as we observe it, then consciousness is, will be, and always has been non-existent as a non-physical nothingness. Without a brain, there is still consciousness, and mind. How otherwise did we evolve into being if consciousness is not non-physical and self-aware?
Consciousness is non-physical, and self-aware.

Personally, I do not believe that this will be a productive debate in general because these are not subjects in which someone changes his or her mind. If someone is Christian, they will continue what they believe regardless of the victor of this debate. Same for someone who agrees with this philosophy I will state one thing. You claim that one mind is shared between everyone in the world. This philosophy says that my consiousness is shared with someone else. This would support a claim stating that everyone knows the difference between right and wrong or knows what is good and bad. However, there are people in the world who have completely different ideas of right and wrong. Many with mental illnesses have different concepts of these things. Yet, you claim that everyone shares one conscience. I believe that everyone has a conscience of their own and it is based on what a person has learned to be socially acceptable. I believe that the spirit plays a role in the actions of the person as well as the development of the conscience. No, known of this can be proved and if it can, I will not prove it anyway.
Consciousness is non-physical, and self-aware.

I am well acquainted with a psycologist. Consciousness is the product of electrical impulses firing away inside your brain. Without the brain, there would be no impulses, without the impulses, there would be no thoughts, without thoughts, there would be no mind. The brain is divided into a subconsious and a conscience mind. The subconsious acts without you knowing it and tells you things by giving you thoughts and dreams or even creating feelings of anxiety. However, this is just an interior function of the brain. It functions off of memories that you do not directly remember. Again, without the electricity, the physical part, the mind is nonexistent.
Legalize marijuana in North American continent.

I didn't reduce myself to the strawman argument, you just failed to lay out your point properly in the opening statement, so now we are arguing over whether or not "we" need to legalize it "in the North American continent." I am against prohibition of marijuana and almost everything else, but what you are asking for in your opening statement is a blanket legalization. You are also very much asking that we use pressure to break them of their laws. You said it yourself, "I don't see how it makes much sense to have pot illegal in one state/nation and legal in the adjacent state/nation," concerning the individual countries' and states' rights to decide their own laws. "Yet, enforcement of such drug laws will become nigh impossible when every nation and state around them legalizes weed." That would be you suggesting we use pressures to impair the law enforcement efforts of other states. This is to disrespect their sovereignty entirely. This is not a debate on weed legalization. This is a debate on weed legalization in North America. You cannot just make the two synonymous and override international agreements or your own statements.