BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Debates are meant to be won, not to reach truth

First, let"s carefully examine the structure of debates in a page like this one: There is a Pro and a Con user, and they both defend opposite positions. They are both encouraged to prove that their point is the correct one. One has to win, and the other has to lose. So basically the rules of the debate force on the assumption that if one is right, the other one mustn"t, totally eliminating the possibility of synthesis, which could wind up being in some cases the best and true option. ***Let"s assume that if we want to reach truth, we must give some reasons based on evidence or logic. If one wants truth, then there"s no need to embellish one"s arguments or use fallacy, since this things might end up being obstacles to find truth. Now let"s examine a debate at debate.org from one of the top users on leaderboard. User Roylatham on "God is Real", topic proposed and defended by dylancatlow. Link available here: http://www.debate.org... In this case, dylancatlow in a very complex manner, tries to defend its position, leaving (perhaps) RoyLatham confused. One could assume that"s a technique, perhaps not, but this is of no importance compared to the following: RoyLatham answers back calling dylancatlow"s arguments "mumbo jumbo". He gives an unnecessary explanation of its origin which is more of a rhetorical exercise rather than a philosophical one (And reminds me of the "ad hominem fallacy") It would be much interesting to simply examine the arguments bit by bit and then find the errors, but yet there is an apparent tendency to embellish one"s arguments and being passive-aggressive towards the opponent. Dylancatlow answers back implying that what he says is understandable for anyone who is used to that type of thinking (Which reminds me again of more fallacies). This is completely unnecessary verbosity that leads to nowhere. Why this verbal diarrhea? Because the main goal is not to find truth, the main goal is winning.
Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black is no different than Bruce Jenner claiming to be a woman.

Pro's argument is a form of an equivocation fallacy.He set up an argument to debate the nature of two claims but then argues about two states of being. It's true that the two situations are similar and this is what Pro argues. both women identify with a nature that is different from the state they were born into. That makes their feelings about their nature (I still would not say they are essentially the same) similar but this does not support the resolution.Pro has made a statement about the nature of their claims, not the validity of those claims. The two claims are handled in exactly the opposite way. Rachel chose to lie about who she is while Bruce/Caitlyn was simply honest and acted on the feeling. The claims are very different.If the debate were about the validity of the claims, as I have pointed out, one claim is true and the other is a lie.
Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black is no different than Bruce Jenner claiming to be a woman.

Pro’s arguments do not address the resolution. This is not a debate about which claim is more realistic. Pro asserted that the two claims were the same when there are fundamental differences. Rachel lied about who she is. The two claims are completely different. Rachel’s claim was a lie while Caitlyn simply admitted to a feeling. Caitlyn did not lie about who she is and she does not deny reality. She has always acknowledged that she was born a man while being honest about the fact that she identifies as a woman. Caitlyn has only claimed to feel like she is a woman while Rachel claimed to be black. Simply admitting to a feeling is very different than claiming that you are, in fact, another race. Rachel lived as a fraud for years Rachel claimed to be black for years. She became an NAACP chapter president under false pretenses. Caitlyn only recently admitted identifying as a woman and did not live as a fraud. Caitlyn is a woman. Caitlyn is an anatomical woman. This alone makes the claims very different. Rachel is not black and will never be black. Caitlyn is in fact a woman so claiming to be a woman is accurate while Rachel claiming to be black is a lie. Pro’s resolution is indefensible. There are obvious differences between the two claims. Even as Pro argues that claiming to be black is closer to reality (this does not support the resolution) than claiming to be a woman he points out major differences between the two claims. According to Pro there are major differences in brain function between males and females more so than between different races. This makes the claim that you are a woman very different than claiming that you are another race. He also claims that it is more realistic to feel like you are black than it is to feel like you are a woman. This again points out a difference between the two claims. Pro is building a case that it is more realistic to claim that you are black when this is not relevant to the resolution. - Rachel lied about who she is while Caitlyn has been honest. Rachel lived as a fraud for years while Caitlyn only recently admitted to feeling like a woman. Caitlyn is now a woman. Claiming to be a woman is accurate while Rachel’s claim is false.
Rachel Dolezal claiming to be black is no different than Bruce Jenner claiming to be a woman.

Well perhaps I should have titled this debate 'Rachel Dolezal has a MORE of a case on being actually black than Bruce Jenner does on being a woman'. In my view, it's really quite simple: The color of one's skin is purely a superficial difference, one's sex isn't. Studies have shown that there is virtually no difference in brain function between members of different races. In contrast, the brains of men and women are very different insofar as chemistry, structure, and processing. These differences are completely biological, and the brain of someone born male can never function like a female's, regardless of how they may 'feel'. My bottom line is that Rachel Dolezal could realistically "feel" like a black woman, because the neurological differences between black women and white women are negligible, but it is unrealistic that Bruce (Caitlyn) Jenner could actually feel like a woman, due to the differences inherited directly from his XY chromosome. And just for the record, I don't care how Bruce Jenner chooses to live his life, I just think it is important that we don't lie to ourselves as a people. Sources: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... http://partners.nytimes.com...
Near Death Experience's (NDE's) are evidence for Afterlife.

Unfortunately, my opponent has not accepted my original definition, nor my second option for change. I will be forced to unapprove of his change of my original definition given in round 1. That being said, I will now show my arguments. I point to . http://www.near-death.com... where Dr. Ken Ring has published a paper regarding consciousness after death. He states that science does not yet have the tools to replicate these events, "science does not yet have the exact tools to accomplish this. But, science is coming very, very close. " but that should not be means to deny the truth. Example being the Earth thought to be Flat before science had the tools to understand it was round. This perticular link provides fiftyone other links to supporting evidence. I point to these experiences having occured at time when the individual was literally brain-dead. Described by Cardiologist Michael Sabom, "The patient's body temperature was lowered to 60 degrees Fahrenheit, her heartbeat and breathing ceased, her brain waves flattened, and the blood was completely drained, and, lectroencephalogram was totally flat (indicating no cerebral electrical activity) and auditory evoked potentials (normally elicited by clicks presented through molded earplugs that had been inserted into her ears) ceased (indicating cessation of brainstem functioning)" I point to (5) in the same link to a study Dr. Raymond Moody preformed. Moody published five conclusions to the study: (1) Dr. Moody's research findings are confirmed. (2) NDEs happen to people of all races, genders, ages, education, marital status, and social class. (3) Religious orientation is not a factor. (4) People are convinced of the reality of their NDE experience. (5) Drugs do not appear to be a factor. (6) NDEs are not hallucinations. (7) NDEs often involve unparalleled feelings. (8) People lose their fear of death and appreciate life more after having an NDE. (9) People's lives are transformed after having an NDE This 1 website has enough overwelming evidence for Afterlife. I would also like to indicate the number of NDE's that occur, and how closely related they are. Most every NDE is accompanied by, "tunnel vortex, a bright light, and different figures in the light" I show . http://www.nderf.org... This site estimates the number of NDE's too "774 NDEs occurring daily in the United States. " Even if overestimated, his number shows a huge number of occurances. lastly I point to . http://today.msnbc.msn.com... the article shows "near-death experiences play out remarkably similarly among the people who have had them, crossing age and cultural boundaries to such a degree that they can't be chalked up simply to everyone having seen the same Hollywood movie. " I have shown with this information, that NDE's do occur, and can therefore be clairified as evidence.
Near Death Experience's (NDE's) are evidence for Afterlife.

(Ah, that's very interesting to note about you. We've discussed at our Command and Staff Meeting the positions of the S's (s-1, s-2, etc. ) and other positions like XO. I'm going to be the Battalion Commander next year, so I am included in the appointing of people's positions so we can function as a more cohesive unit, for this is our "Year of Change". It's enthralling! ) If the resolution is changed to "Near Death Experience's (NDE's) should be evidence for Afterlife. ", then that would automatically make it a relgious debate, something that you said you did not want. I apoligize, but I find it far too difficult to accurately debate with the resolution changing, the subject changing, and forgeing a new debate entirely in one round and effectively rubutting. If you had indeed thought of this while making it, then, with all due respect, you should have changed it. I would enjoy debating you again on the resolution: "Near Death Experience's (NDE's) should be evidence for Afterlife. " But until then, I would not consent to changing the resolution for the last round on the basis of difficulty and impracticality. I hope you understand.
Near Death Experience's (NDE's) are evidence for Afterlife.

I appreciate my opponent taking the time to have this debate, And I also found our screen names humorous. I was also in the JROTC in my High School days, good times. I realized while creating this debate, that the strongest argument against my proposition would be that of Contention 1 of my opponent. That being, that he would add upon my evidence definition to include the judicial trial as stated. If I accept this extension of the argument, my side is crushed, and I cannot dare to hope to win. That being said, I will allow this extension of the definition I have provided, IF my opponent allows me to change the topic of the debate to show, Near Death Experience's (NDE's) should be evidence for Afterlife. If my opponent accepts this, I will use round 3 to show why it should, or why it will eventually be within the judicial limits of Evidence, described by my opponent. I thank my opponent once again, and hope this debate is not lost. Please Vote PRO. Thank you.
Near Death Experience's (NDE's) are evidence for Afterlife.

For the record, I appreciate the debate and find humor in the cohesion of our screen names. Without further delay, I shall begain (being the iconoclastic person I am, I will delay a moment more to say thank you again. ) (I find it increasingly difficult not to involve relgion with a debate concerning the possibility of an afterlife, but I'll try not to, despite my position as the Chaplain of our JROTC battalion. ) =Contentions= 1. I accept my opponens definitions, but would like to expound and elaborate upon the definition of "evidence". In law, according to Princeton Dictionary, it is defined as "All the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved. " If we assume that the audience is the jury (which, once you think about it, they are) then we would have to provde proof that an "experience" actually took place while the subject in question was dead. However, no proof could be given other than the persons testimony. Thusly, my opponents ENTIRE case and future case will most likely be one extended fallacy called "The Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy". Allow me to provide 2 examples: a) "You cannot prove that God does not exist, therfore he does. " b) Bill: "I think that some people have psychic powers. " Jill: "What is your proof? " Bill: "No one has been able to prove that people do not have psychic powers. " This is my source and reason for this reasoning. . http://www.nizkor.org...
Near Death Experience's (NDE's) are evidence for Afterlife.

NDE: A near-death experience (NDE), refers to a broad range of personal experiences associated with impending death, encompassing multiple possible sensations including detachment from the body; feelings of levitation; extreme fear; total serenity, security, or warmth; the experience of absolute dissolution; and the presence of a light, which some people interpret as a deity.[1] Some see NDEs as a paranormal and spiritual glimpse into the afterlife. http://en.wikipedia.org... Evidence: 1 a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony http://www.merriam-webster.com... Afterlife: 1 : an existence after death http://www.merriam-webster.com... Death: 1 a : a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life — compare brain death b : an instance of dying http://www.merriam-webster.com... Contention 1: NDE's are evidence for an Afterlife Contention 2: The different range/types of NDE's do not render NDE's as non evidential. I would like to avoid semantics in this debate, and hope to have a little bit of fun, and maybe learn something. I would also like to avoid getting into a religious debate here. I will begin my main arguments in the next round.
County clerk Kim Davis violated separation of church and state as an elected official.

Kim Davis has the right to a workplace that didn't inslut or walk over her faith. The judge, who sencnted to her was a more socialy liberal in his ruelings and a long history of being basied in same sex legal services. The five supreme court judges who voted in favor for a nationwide acceptance of gay marriage are liberal. If the pro did not know that the president picks candites to be supreme court justices. The president always picks someone that has the same political views as his political party.
County clerk Kim Davis violated separation of church and state as an elected official.

Our nation has been a non favoring faith nation since our founding. But the united States has have a special relationship with the Christian faith. Many of our founding founding fathers were Christians and our money has the words "in god we trust". Our pledge of allegiance has the line " under God ". The decision that the supmere court made was an biased liberal activism made by 5 judges who are trying to carry out thier political parties' andgea and views. Kim Davis has the right to deny any couple a marriage license! She was put in jail by a liberal judge!
County clerk Kim Davis violated separation of church and state as an elected official.

Con has stated that what Kim Davis did was lawfully carried out. However according to the Associated Press (1), Kim Davis was denying heterosexual and homosexual couples from obtaining licensees in her county. Four of these couples ended up suing Ms. Davis, and the judge ruled in favor of the couples ordering her to issue the licenses. She continued to defy the court order and as a result was held in contempt of court. When the supreme court ruled in favor of same sex marriage she became legally obligated to issue same sex licenses as a public official and county clerk. Her defiance of this ruling is evidence of her acting outside of her legal rights contrary to Con's claim. Con goes on to state that in the Christian faith homosexuality is a sin and is offensive towards God. It is true this is the position of many Christians, however the United States is not and never was a religious theocracy. Separation of church and state in the first amendment shows that upon becoming a public official and swearing an oath, she had an obligation to not allow her religious convictions get in the way of her duty to serve her constituents. Her faith is frankly irrelevant to her position as county clerk as she had many opportunities to both allow a clear conscience with her personal beliefs and carry out her job duties. The court offered Ms. Davis the right to have her deputies issue the licenses in her place previously to allow her to save conscience of the conflict between what her job required and her faith. Ms. Davis chose to not only stop issuing licenses; she didn't allow her deputies to issue them either. Con argues, " She was being fair , she was not allowing any couple to get a marriage license no matter sexual orientation." In attempting to enforce ones religious beliefs upon others this ceases to be fair. Simply because she didn't allow any licences to gay or straight couples is not evidence of fairness as her reason for doing so was in protest of gays having the right to obtain marriage licenses. Stating that she has the right to do this due to her religious freedom is akin to me not allowing Con to obtain desert because I'm on a diet and have the right to diet. You have personal religious freedom yes, but not the right to force others to comply with your religious beliefs. In conclusion Con argues that Davis was acting lawfully, yet she acted in defiance of a court order after being given alternatives. Her being held in contempt of court is evidence she was not acting legally. Con states with her religious freedom that gives her the freedom to force her community to comply with her beliefs, that ceases to be religious freedom and quickly becomes religious tyranny. Con states homosexuality is counter to Christianity, yet the United States is not a theocracy as evident of the 1st amendment. Cited: 1) http://www.ksl.com... - Copyright " The Associated Press
County clerk Kim Davis violated separation of church and state as an elected official.

Kim Davis was elected to the position of County clerk. Once sworn in she becomes a worker of the state. She is also a devout born again Christian which led her to be in opposition to gay marriage. However her job requires her to grant gay marriage licenses after the recent supreme court ruling allowing gay marriage. She was unable to separate her personal beliefs and her duties as clerk; as such she is currently being held in contempt. The first amendment of the constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." As an employee of the state she violated this amendment as well as the supreme court ruling by rejecting requests for same sex marriage licences on the basis of her faith. As a county clerk it is her responsibility to serve the public and the constituents who elected her. By disallowing her constituents to marry their partners because it went against her personal religious convictions she acted outside of her job's role. Her behavior was discriminatory and also hypocritical as she herself was married and divorced multiple times; which also runs counter to her belief system. (Mathew 5:31-32) This cherry picking of what tenets to follow appears to be proof of her using her religious belief as a front for her own prejudice. In conclusion she let her personal prejudice get in the way of her duties as a county clerk, violating separation of church and state.
Parental consent for Abortion

Parents should know if their underage is having an abortion. First of all, we must understand what UNDERAGE means. It means literally that you are "UNDER--- AGE." That means the child is not only property of their parent, but they must have control in what their child does. According to the law, you belong to you parent until you turn eighteen years old. If a seventeen year old girl get pregnant from someone she knows ,and is going to have a baby, should tell her parents. If she believes that she is not ready to care for the baby, still tell your parents, and ask for their consent on whether or not to get an abortion. You may be ashamed to tell, but you must remember that the girl is the one who got pregnant, and if you got pregnant you should not be ashamed of what you have done, because you did. The parents will probably get mad for a while, but they have the right to. After a while they will sit down with you have a nice conversation, and talk about abortion and what it means, and consider it ... Thank you, (good luck to you in the next two rounds....)
Parental consent for Abortion

I will debate that parental consent should not be required for underage pregnant women to have abortions. Here are a few definitions of some terms. Definition of underage pregnant women: A woman under the age of 18 years old who is pregnant. Definition of abortion: Any of the various procedures resulting in the termination of a pregnancy. Definition of The abortion pill: A medicine that ends an early pregnancy. In general, it can be used up to 63 days — 9 weeks — after the first day of a woman's last period. Women who need an abortion and are more than 9 weeks pregnant can have an in clinic abortion. The name for "the abortion pill" is mifepristone. It was called RU-486 when it was being developed. (1) Definition of in-clinic Abortions: The most common is called aspiration. It is also known as vacuum aspiration. Aspiration is usually used up to 16 weeks after a woman's last period. D&E — dilation and evacuation — is another kind of in-clinic abortion. D&E is usually performed later than 16 weeks after a woman's last period. (1) Parental consent is not necessary to have an abortion. The parents of the women do not decide when their daughter should have a child, nor should they decide whether their daughter gives birth to that child. If a woman is at the age of being able to conceive a baby they are then fully responsible for their own decisions. Adolescents are often concerned about what other people think of them. In many cases of teenage pregnancies they choose not to tell their parents in fear of disappointment. Adolescents may have been responsible while being sexually active in regards to contraception, and something may have gone wrong. For example, if a female is on the birth control pill and taking an antibiotic at the same time because she is sick there is a chance that the antibiotic will interfere, maybe she was unaware of this, another example is if they chose to use a condom and it broke. These are two examples that can happen whether it is adolescents or adults that result in unplanned pregnancies even though they used contraception. Adolescents are also going through a lot in their mind. Many teenagers feel they cannot raise a child financially and mentally. If an adolescent feels their parents are going to make a decision for them they are most likely going to keep their pregnancy a secret. Parents who are opposed to abortion may force their daughter to continue with a pregnancy. Other parents may disapprove of their daughter being pregnant to the extent that they throw their daughter out of the house, become physically and emotionally abusive, and disown their daughter. Teenagers often are afraid of the consequences they will have to face when telling their parents. (1) Planned Parenthood