BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Terridax comment about this poem accurate

in conclusion I have given evidence as why why Terridax comments are not accurate all con has done is just give assertions without explaining why the poem is horrible thus I must win the debate con says "On to your points: I agree with both definitions of horrible, as they both apply to your writing. but all he does is just say is "Yeah, this poem aroused horror in me when I read it, not because of the content of the writing, but because of the utter lack of writing sophistry, syntax, diction, and overall ability ' con does not explain why the poem is horrible all he talks about is the presentation of the poem con does not give examples to back up his assertion about the poems presentation con by not explaining why the content of the poem is horrible con does not address what is taken for granted that the debate is about the poems content If con wants to say Terridax was commenting on the poems presentation then con has to prove that before he starts debating the poems presentation As con has not proven that then his assertions are not proven thus I must win the debate con says 2. Very unpleasant or disagreeable. Self-explanatory. I'll just copy and paste the passage that the con used" con gives us no reasons/explanation as to why the lines he copied are horrible thus con only gives assertions without any explanation as to why the poem is horrible thus I must win the debate
cause and effect is logic

“is it logical to do like person b? and if so why” It may not be logical to Person A, but for Person B it is the logical conclusion. I claim logic is subjective and if it is subjective then it cannot depend on cause and effect. If you gave your kid a poisonous mushroom and didn’t know that it was poisonous, you still applied the logical reasoning that you subjectively had – unfortunately for you, the logical reasoning that you had wasn’t good enough. You had no way of knowing the cause/effect until you tried it. The question is: if you had known for certain that the mushroom was toxic - and therefore didn’t give it to your kid, is that really using the powers of logical reasoning? Or is that simply being educated beforehand and thereby circumventing the necessity to apply logical reasoning in the first place?
cause and effect is logic

Logic is not cause and effect. Logic is based on the premise and on presuppositions relating to the premise, ie: I presuppose based on a set of established facts (or what I perceive as facts) that eating wild mushrooms could be hazardous to my health. If I knew a bit about mushrooms, I could apply a set of presuppositions to the mushroom in question, and deduce that it probably is or is not good for me based on things I might have learned, like the shape of the mushroom, or the length, color, etc. Therefore, the action I took (if I ate it or did not eat it) is wholly based on my presuppositions. If I chose not to eat the mushrooms that would not have any say in whether or not the mushroom was poisonous. Logic decides if I eat it; If I do eat it, the cause and effect is a different process altogether. My theory here can be proven by using this scenario: Person A eats the mushroom because he has the wrong set of logical presuppositions and dies in the woods. Person B applies the right set of logical presuppositions and deduces not to eat the mushrooms and therefore survives. Cause and effect is a different process in this scenario – it determines the consequence of the choice. The choice however, is determined by logical reasoning based on presuppositions. Pro also argues for this formula “reason+intent=morality”. That formula doesn’t hold up – I would argue that true, selfless morality isn’t based on logic at all. It’s not logical (in the Darwinian sense) to run back in a burning building to save a dog – but people do it all the time.
cause and effect is logic

I’ll argue that there is no absolute logic – that’s a myth. There are almost always multiple ways to logically assess any situation: some ways are stupid and some ways make “sense”. However, the logical conclusion for any situation is apt to change depending on the person who is thinking about it and how the person is thinking about it. Again, my point would be that for you, me, and most people, giving a poisonous apple to a child would be illogical – unless the premise changes; if you were a person from Samoa or something and didn’t know what a poisonous apple looked like, then the logical process wouldn’t be the same, you can’t argue that his logical processing was flawed, just that he wasn’t equipped with the same logical presuppositions. If we get totally fantastical – my point still holds up. If you were a paranoid schizophrenic, you might come to some conclusion based in superman’s powers, etc. The idea here is that the cause and effect is related to the consequences made by the choice that each subjective logical presupposition thought up.
cause and effect is logic

logic is absolute, so it is a universal standard, its immoral and wrong, illogical for anyone to give their child a deadly poisonous mushroom on purpose if they do it for the child to be healthy, where as a healthy apple is not logic is matter, my old definition of logic was the implication of matter against matter there is no your and my logic, is it illogical to help push me out from a Cliff so i can fly if i gained Supermans powers over night? there is no logic in fantasy
cause and effect is logic

The point here is that logic is not a universal standard – you can’t always apply it perfectly. So for one person one thing might be logical but for another it might not be. This is subjectivity in logic! This subjectivity then proves that logic can’t be built around cause and effect, because there are many people who use bad logic and are forced to feel the consequences to a bad logical choice. I’d refer Pro back to the older arguments, most of which are unchallenged directly.
Every person that was alive 7 thousand years ago has 389 billion descendants alive today.

Hello again. You really should have put "on average" somewhere in the resolution. Anyway.Here are some rough numbers. They don't need to be super-accurate to prove the point. I got them from this website http://www.prb.org....world population for most of history: 10 millionby 1 A.D: 300 million200 years ago: 1 billiontoday: 6.5 billionAccording to your formula, by about 200 A.D. each person would have 1.1^208, or about 400 million descendants, in other words the entire population of the world the time. Operating within your assumptions, every person alive at 300 A.D. was descended from everyone alive at 5000 B.C. From that point on, the number of descendants per person alive 7000 years ago would be identical with population growth, and this generation they would each have, on average, 6.5 billion descendants.
Every person that was alive 7 thousand years ago has 389 billion descendants alive today.

While I agree that some people that lived 7 thousand years ago and their decedents died before procreation. I contend that there were a far greater number of people that did have 1 or more children. This can be determined because of population growth, if the average number of offspring per person were 1 or less then the population wouldn't increase. Thus the generous figure of 1.1 offspring per person.
Every person that was alive 7 thousand years ago has 389 billion descendants alive today.

Hello Ganguscon. Thank you for the debate. Your proposal is clearly nonsense. Not every person that was alive 7 thousand years ago would have lived to have descendants. Some would have died before reproducing. Many would have reproduced, but those descendant lines would have died off in subsequent generations. MOST people who were alive 7 thousand years ago would have NO descendants alive today.
Every person that was alive 7 thousand years ago has 389 billion descendants alive today.

Assuming that in the last thousand years that the average increase in population per generation is 1.1, that is, each person will have on average 1.1 offspring (which seems generous, considering that birth control was not a factor until the last 100 years or so), and that there are 4 generations every hundred years, you can conclude that 4*70 (for 7 thousand years) = 280, and that 1.1^280 = 3,890,020,09100, therefore everyone, on average, from the 5th century B.C has 389 billion descendants in this generation. note: when arguing against this topic don't just say 'it doesn't make sense', use math.
PC gaming versus Console gaming

PC GAMING VERSUS CONSOLE GAMING Ann and I were discussing doing a tech-related debate and this is what I came up with. Pro: PC Con: Console (That works quite well, doesn't it.) Standard rules; this first round is only for accepting the terms and to allow Ann to add anything she may want to add, rounds 2, 3 & 4 are for arguments and rebuttals and round 5 is final rebuttals and conclusion. No new arguments are to be made in round 5. Please RFD when you vote and enjoy. ^_-
Ghosts do not Exist

You may have seen Ghost Busters, or other Paranormal "reality" shows, but I can assure you these are pure myths for a way of creating money. If you believe that the things that happen on that show are not staged and set up you might need a mental test to be taken. Obviously lights need to be switched on for the camera men to move their cameras into a perfect position. You don't think that the people who do the shows don't take things and move them around when they are not in action? Think harder "I've Seen Them" Many people claim to see ghosts, but there is a very strong pattern for those who do. Usually, the people who claim are alone, putting loneliness on their minds causing them to imagine things. Other times are during the night when the mind is less effective on seperating reality from brain. When somebody does the only place they go is buried into the ground or worn away.
Middle Eastern Terrorists are created by America.

So what happens is because the middle eastern countries' armies cannot get too big without america getting alarmed, armies must come together in the form of outlaw terrorist organizations. This way, the countries aren't responsible for the conduct of would-be soldiers. It's sort of the same as how, in the 1500s, england hired pirates to attack spanish ships carrying gold back from the americas. That way they're like, "it's not us, it's those dam pirates!"
Middle Eastern Terrorists are created by America.

I"m guessing my opponent is the type of American that is very patriotic, yet unfortunately believes everything that he sees on Fox News. I think he just got angry when he saw my debate post, so hopefully I didn"t offend him so bad that he deregistered his account. So if he doesn"t respond I"ll just try to give you some information to think about. In 1988, during the war between Iran and Iraq, the US supported the Iraqi military effort [1] So why would America do that? When Middle Eastern countries fight and destroy each other, it"s good for the US. It keeps them weak and divided. What"s not good, is when one country scores an overwhelming victory because that is a form of unification. So America doesn"t love Iraq, but it doesn"t want Iran to have a crushing victory. It"s in America"s interests that the countries keep fighting. Therefore, America backs the losing side so the countries continue to fight and wear themselves down both militarily and economically [1] in comments
Middle Eastern Terrorists are created by America.

America and the Western european powers create middle eastern terrorists. This is how. Its in the interests of America to have weak and separated middle eastern countries. If they were not weak and separated they would be strong like the Ottoman empire was. If they were strong then America could not extract huge amounts of wealth through oil from the region. If the middle east was a strong, unified area then they would have a standing army. Instead they are weaker nations. Terrorists come from these weaker nations. Also, when one group becomes too powerful in the region America backs a weaker power to destabilize the powerful group. This is exactly what happened with Saddam Husein. America backed his regime, and then, when the regime became too powerful, they opposed it. Same can be said about Osama Bin Laden.
Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job

Job competition is dandy. Job competition in an economic recession (where a teenager is taking jobs away from people who need it) is not so dandy. My opponent ignores this critical concept (and fails to attack it in my case). When you disregard this the result is spiritual destruction and ultimately genocide (this was also uncontested and VERY important). His value of Economic Stability is not the greatest good in the round because when dealing with economic stability the ultimate goal is over all societal stability (which is my value) thus you must affirm. His criterion of increasing public spending s not up-held by his advocacy ad does not link to his value. Furthermore, increasing public spending does not achieve his value. His case is skewed. In the end he has not attacked my position (failing to uphold his burden of clash) and has tried to squeeze a negative vote out of you with his fallacious position. Don't fall for his trick. Additionally,remember the IMPACT that was ignored. My position calls to question genocide. My opponent's position does not claim any impact therefore mine is the one that you must support. Thank you :)
Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job

I will agree with my opponent definitions and move on to the actual debate. on his observation two: teenagers taking summer jobs generates job competition. Job competition is a good thing. My Value's will be that of Economic Stability, and Education. I provide the criterion of increasing public spending First and only point, by increasing spending we step away from the recession and continue a healthy economy. Now it is perfectly moral for a teen to get a job because why do teenagers need money if they are taken care of by there parent? well the answer is to SPEND IT. This money made in time goes back into the economy into the hands of employers who will open up more jobs and increase employment. From the source that my opponent has given (http://recession.org...) they point out that the cause of recession is because of a stall in the flow of money, therefore it is perfectly moral for teens to get summer jobs because they prevent even can help the economy get out of times of recession. Therefore, my opponents contention one is invalid because we should actually be giving those jobs to those who will spend there money avoiding his impact of a economic collapse. I also do not need to address his observation one because there are also teenagers who need these jobs to help support there family as much as some other people. Thank you... vote for me :)
Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job

In September of 2009 unemployment was at 14.5% according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. When you compare the need of some people to have a job verses the people who wish to acquire a job for luxurious purposes one sees a dramatic imbalance. This is why I strongly affirm the resolution Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job. To clarify the debate I offer the following definitions: Teenager- A person between the ages of 13 and 18 who are economically dependent on a third party (i.e. parent an/or guardians) summer job- a temporary job accepted usually for the length of a summer. Economic recession- GDP growth is negative for a period of two or more consecutive quarters. http://recession.org... My value for the debate will be SOCIETAL STABILITY and my criterions will be FURTHERING ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE FAMILY UNIT and BOLSTERING JOB AVAILABILITY FOR PARTIES LIVING IN AN ECONOMICALLY INDEPENDENT MANNER. Observation one: Necessity ought be prioritized over luxury. (This is simple it goes back to the very basics of human instinct). Observation two: teenagers taking summer jobs generates job competition. Contention one: NECESSITY OVER SOME SNOT NOSED TEEN WHO WANTS A JOB. In times of economic hardship when people are struggling to make ends meet, people who need jobs ought be valued above people who want the luxury of having a job. When teenagers get jobs, they lower job availability. When job availability is lowered, then people who need a job have a harder time getting one. This threatens societal stability by ignoring the people who have a need in favor of the people who want a job as a luxury. If taken to an extreme the result could be economic and financial ruin. Economic ruin leads to destabilization of society according to Pat Robertson "Ten thousand nuclear war heads and the most technologically trained army in the world will not be able to stop America's economic disaster. An implosion that will come from the moral rot inside her heart. A physical army cannot stop the wave of spiritual destruction, for God does not use the weapons of this world to fight against her." http://www.freedomyou.com... IMPACT: spiritual destruction is genocide. On December 9, 1948 the United Nations approved the Genocide Convention defied genocide as "1) killing people belonging to the group; 2) causing severe bodily or spiritual harm to members of the group; 3) deliberately forcing a group to live under conditions that could lead to the complete or partial destruction of the group; 4) taking measures to prevent births among a group; and 5) forcibly removing children from the group and transferring them to another group." Point 2 talks about spiritual harm. Spiritual destruction is spiritual harm, therefore spiritual destruction is defined by the UN as genocide. Ultimately in an economic recession it has been shown to be immoral and destructive for a teenager to accept a summer job. Thank you and vote affirmative.
Resolved: in an economic recession it is immoral for a teenager to accept a summer job

My opponent's opening argument can be summed up in the quote, "...there are also teenagers that also need that same job". This is how my opponent claims that my position is invalid. [Attack #1] His argument has no warrant and does not provide any substantiation for his claim. He says that teens NEED these jobs just as much as people who have a family to provide for. [Attack #2] Furthermore, there is a very sharp contradiction in this premise. He claims that teens NEED these jobs just as much however, this is not what his evidence says. [Attack #3] His evidence talks about leisure spending as a means of getting out of a recession NOT spending money on things that my opponent would like to suggest that one NEEDS. Additionally, parents and/or guardians (the ones responsible for raising the teen in question) should be the ones to buy things that said teen NEEDS (they CANNOT do this if the are UNEMPLOYED). On to the values debate... His value of economic stability is still mitigated by my value of societal stability, as [Attack #1] economic stability is concerned with only one aspect of societal stability. [Attack #2] My opponent does not advocate for societal stability at all in fact. Consider the following quote from a debate.org use Me100, "I do not need to worry about the death of poor people". With these words he directly accepts my impact of spiritual destruction and genocide (not a very stable society). [Attack #3] Given that he has accepted my impact of genocide and spiritual destruction and ultimately the destabilization of society, his value of economic stability doesn't really matter. On his value of education , he said it himself, "(my bad) have not provided a clear link". [Attack #1] This mean that all his second value is is some nebulous, disconnected thought that has no link to the resolution. [Attack #2] The only link that he does provide is excessively weak. He says that with a summer job teens could pay for education. While this is a lovely thought it has a few problems. [Attack #2 Sub-point A] In the affirmative world, where there is societal stability (not genocide), the parents of guardians would be able to pay for their teens education (in large part because they will be EMPLOYED). [Attack #2 Sub-point B] Summer jobs are typically not enough to pay for education like college (maybe dorms, food, and such; but not college). Therefore his value of education also has no real link. In the end my opponent has again attempted to coerce a negative vote out of you. This time by attempting to blur the (rather blatant) line between NEED and WANT. All I ask is that you remember the words, "...I do not need to worry about the death of poor people..." --Me100
Transformers cartoons/animations are better than transformer movies

Design Transformers animes have much cooler designs of Megatron, Starscream, jazz, hound, ironhide and many other bots. In the movie, Ironhide is shown as all show and no go, which is extremely wrong. Ironhide has a whole array of weapons that can crush any bot. And oh, Megatron's best fusion cannon! Why did they drop it in the movie?
Transformers cartoons/animations are better than transformer movies

Con has just posted google search links of transformer cartoons and transformer movies. Having said that. let's move on to the debate. Rebuttal- Realistic means good While I agree some amount of realism is needed in movies and cartoons, if you think realistic means better, then why don't you just record your normal day and sell it as a movie? I don't think anyone would want to watch it. Furthermore, cartoon designs can usually never be realistic as they are drawn and animated, while in the movie the bots are either constructed or brought in through CGI. Arguments Storyline The transformers animes have never focused too much on the humans nor too less, and have a good back story to justify the war. The same can't be said for transformer movies. Three-fourths of the movie involves the human's background story, and autobots and decepticons don't have the usual chatter and barter of insults. The Decepticons are shown as senseless bad guys to destroy the Earth without a plan, which boils my energon. Furthermore, unbelievable revivals of Megatron and Optimus Prime are really irritating, especially when you cut off Megatron's head you can't revive him again. Also, there was no reason for Starscream and Soundwave to die, as Starscream is always self-preserving and Soundwave had no need to come down and could have stayed up as a satellite. Background score For some reason I really love the introductory song in some of the Transformer animes. Too bad the movies don't utilize them. "Transformers, more than meets the eye..... Transformers, robots in disguise!...
Transformers cartoons/animations are better than transformer movies

Debating thishttps://www.google.fr...v.s.https://www.google.fr...that. 1. I believe that the movie is much better because the transformer characters are much much much more realistic. See the difference? The cartoon robots are just plastic figures, when in the movie, they are actual robots which are awesome. This is why I think the movie is better, so vote for me!!!!!
Abortion

While some might say that abortion is inhumane but in reality the fetus isn't even developed, therefore it would be painless to the baby. Abortion has to be legal to make sure that women get the proper care for one, in order to prevent illegal dangerous abortions. Also some women might need to get an abortion if they are likely to have a complicated birth. In addition to that, certain women have unwanted pregnancies, from an attack or abusive partner, and they might not want to carry that person's baby. Nobody wants to get an abortion if they don't have to, but because of how many circumstances there could be, abortion has to be legal.