BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
not getting shot, is more important then shooting the bad guy

Thank you for expressing your views, Vi! I will not tackle the misunderstanding of my text as they are sound and reasonable if read properly. Instead, I will wrap up the debate and explain why my side should ultimately win. Throughout this debate only confusion and poorly written text have come from the proposition. Like a derailed train, it has completely gone off track. The arguments presented were all rebutted and are filled with hypocrisies and contradictions. Examples of text that were completely irrelevant yet were spewed out frequently are as follows: "control.." "comparison is comparison." "there is no, you and my logic.. logic is true" In sharp contrast, the opposition was able to present the impracticality of dodging bullets to survive and avoiding shooting criminals at all cost -- even at the expense of your own life. I can say that in the end the proposition has also agreed with me as he states "shooting the bad guy to survive is important." I can close with that, if your life depends on it, dodging bullets and avoiding shooting criminals at all cost is absurd. Instead, if you could survive by shooting a criminal who is threatening your life, do it. Once again, thank you Vi for agreeing with me. Yes, as you put it "shooting the bad guy to survive is important." I'm glad you could finally see my side and agree with it. Cheers!
not getting shot, is more important then shooting the bad guy

you said, "I will be providing a more substantial comment." so you did assume it, mjahaha and good day to you sir. comparison is comparison. shooting some one with a gun purposefully=attack with the intent to do damage.......... there is no, you and my logic.. logic is true if you have the ability to shoot and get rid of the bad guy you should do it a battle formation is not necessarily motionless like a rock on flat ground.. or tanks without wheels shooting the bad guy to survive is important.
not getting shot, is more important then shooting the bad guy

Good day, Vi! You've misinterpreted my statement, I have never assumed your position was correct (and frankly, never will). What I suggested was that you meant to use the word "than" over "then". Anyways, on to the debate... In your example, you show how even if a soldier can "get one of the real bad guys" it would be better to avoid shooting the bad guy. This is faulty logic for a couple of reasons. (i) If you have the ability to shoot and get rid of a bad guy yet not take it, that is a wasted opportunity. (ii) As you stated, they are in a battle. It would be an incredibly ludicrous assumption that any side can win by simple "staying in formation" without trying to shoot at the bad guys. It is simple logic, survival should be the ultimate priority, not avoiding shots. It is ineffective and completely unpractical. By focusing your attention on avoiding getting shot, you run the risk of making decisions that are not sound and that could potentially get you killed. The better alternative would be surviving at any cost, even if it means having to shoot a bad guy.
not getting shot, is more important then shooting the bad guy

Good day! Contrary to the ambiguous message the proposition has left, I will be providing a more substantial comment. My name is James, and I will speak for the opposition on the motion that not getting shot is more important THAN (assuming the proposition meant to say than over then) shooting the bad guy. Let us start by defining the terms which, if left not redefined, will be use throughout the debate. 1.) Not getting shot refers to the act of avoiding being hit by a bullet at all costs, irregardless of the practicality. 2.) Bad guy is the term used for criminals, murderers, and people of the sort of nature. With those definitions in mind, happy debating! :) Once again, I'm James, stating that shooting a criminal for the safety of your life is better than the naive alternative of trying to avoid being shot even with the higher risk of getting killed.
Tattoos

In todays day and age seeing tattoos is normal. We all have different opinions about having them,some people think that tattoos are bad and some think it is cool and isn't anything out of the ordinary. Many people have tattoos;some people have them placed where you can't see it in plain view then some, like my uncle, are covered in them. I believe that it is okay to get a tattoo if, and only if your parent says it is okay. I dont think that people besides your parents should have the right to tell you that you can't do something to your body. If your parents say it okay then i think you should do what makes you happy and shows your individuality. My cousin for example is 17 and she already has two;she got her first one when she was 16. People say that she is stupid for getting a tattoo period,but to me i don't think it is their concern; if she wants to get tattoos and her parents say it is okay then i think there is nothing wrong with it. Many people use the excuse that we are too young to make our own decisions, yet parents hand over the keys to a car and tell us to get a job at 16. Do you feel that is fair to us? being able to drive is a big responsibility; with one wrong decision we could ruin our life or someone else, so what is the big problem with getting a tattoo before you turn 18? Everyone that is against it says that tattoos are permanent and you will have to live with your decision for the rest of your life. I disagree with that completely; they are not permanent you can get them removed if you do feel it is a mistake thousands of people do it daily.They even have people that can change your tattoo into something different if you dont like it but still want to keep it. There are many options that people don't see or just want to avoid because of religion or being raised in a different era of life. In today's day and age there are many people that aren't open to change and just want to live like it is still the 1800"s. Things are different now and it is just going to keep changing so they can either change with it or they can just stay back. It is 2014 not the 1800"s change is happening all around us. Tattoos are normal; many people have them and the numbers of people who are getting them is just going to increase from here on out. Like I said earlier I have many family members that have them and i don't see them as anything else that my family. It is natural for people to have their own opinions on the subject; like the democrats and republicans. I and many other feel that tattoos are okay even if you are under the age of 18.
Tattoos

Tattoos are a childish and careless decision to make in your life. They can cause health problems as well as personal problems. As the popularity of tattoos continues to grow, so does the concern about potential risks. Some risks, such as the spread of infections through the use of unsterilized needles, have long been known. But what isn't clear is the safety of tattoo inks. Permanent tattoos are made by using needles to inject colored ink below the skin's surface. You should NEVER add any foreign substance into or onto your body. For instance, there have been cases where artists have refrained from using 1-use needles for more than one use. Unsterile needles have never been known to cause anything but mischief. People have contracted viruses like HIV from this. Makes sure you know the health risks of tattoos. As you grow older and have responsibilities you will realize that maybe getting a tattoo was not a bright idea. 50 percent of those who get tattoos later wish they hadn't. Their regrets become medical when they visit a dermatologist to have the tattoos removed, which is both painful and expensive. The tattoos also affect your career if you get it in a visible area. I believe the body is beautiful as is; you don't need ink. Tattoos are a bad idea for young adults. Leave God to decide how much art your body needs... when you are born.
Free will exists

Definitions:Free will: Ability to make decisions opposed to instinctive behavior.Exists: Can be either registered with human's senses, or it's presence can be concluded.Instictive behavior: Actions/movements body would make without thinking.BoP is shared. Topic is resolution. Con will make his arguments in Round 1. Con can use Round 4 only for conclusion, and not for arguments.Forfeit in Round 1, 2 or 3 is loss.
Free will exists

I am assuming you're meaning indeterminism as the traditional concept of free will, not "undeterminism". You're wrong, Determinism is actually positioned that we are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will. It might be hard as I have stated in our private message before the debate that I'm dyslexic. you're right again. If by "all conditions" you mean, knowing how each individual atom will behave in the reaction of the event, you're wrong "If A is true, B follows from A, then B is true" It's a fallacy of logic, not a law but it is used to prove a point. I think I have already made this statement irrelevant by correcting your assumption/position on Determinism. You have built most of you argument on on your false premises of determinism. The answers for your arguments 1. Where did you think your "choice" came from? http://io9.com... 2. That's instinctive behavior. obviously I'm way over my head. Please vote for Cold-mind at the end of the debate session. Sorry for wasting your time.
Free will exists

Appropriate word for traditional concept of free will is "undeterminism".Determinism is position that for every event, including human action, there exist conditions that could cause no other event.In order for us to reason, to conclude something, we need to accept laws of logic as true. They can not possibly be false, when they are the ones deciding if something is true or not.If certain conditions could cause multiple events, then we would be unable to predict what will happen even if we know all conditions.One of the laws of logic is "If A is true, B follows from A, then B is true"Even if this law does not explicitly say that C can follow from A instead of B, the whole concept of "follows" would be ruined.If A can cause either B or C, then B would still "follow" from A. But "B is true" = "B is always true", which would not be the case.So, by assuming laws of logic, we assumed determinism as well. This is why undeterminism is non-sensical.Kant's concept of free will, which I inherited, is based on stance that will of mind can not be free from previous events, but only free from will of emotional impulses/drives.Now I should make arguments for my position:1) Example of free will: I opened my fridge in order to eat. Then, I asked my self "Am I really hungry, or am I just attempting to eat because I am bored and nervous". Answer was "yes", so I decided not to eat. If I was not thinking when I opened fridge, I would eat. But I made decision opposed to my instinctive behavior, therefore free will exists.2) Original purpose of why we started thinking was to avoid events that would harm us. If mind was not able to change our instinctive behavior, it would not help us avoid those events. And we would go extinct.
Free will exists

I accept and I thank you for the opportunity. I also haven't done that many debates so I apologize in advance. I think we can agree that human comprehension runs on evolutionary principles like all other creatures in the animal kingdom. cognitive psychology/social psychology/Developmental psychology. Every "choice" we make has a subconscious origin of influence e.g. the environment,education,genes,friends/family,media,society, etc etc etc. http://www.psychologytoday.com...
World government

Thank you for your reply Danielle I apologies for my gramma mistakes English is not my first languge. So back to the debate: Like I said People would immediately think of an authoriative dictatorship when a one world goverment would be introduced. The way to counter that would be if the World Goverment was structuredround the concept of a Federal Republic like I said in my first argument. And if it was contradictory than why does it work in the USA and the other 27 nations ? A World Goverment that is founded on one simple principle would easily overcome unique cultures and values: Human rights. But not like UNO "if" and "should be" laws, but REAL laws based on the Human rights. With that your argument that th unique culutres, vaules and freedom would ot be opressed. Now to your argument that there will be always resistance against a goverment and you are right.Lets say a few exsampels: USA, France, Turkish republic etc... they all had their conflicts with selfish person, deluded ones but all overcame it it's only a matter of time. There was always some who swam against the tide. You cant expect that a Perfect World Goverment would come out of nowhereby just snapping the fingers. It's a long and painful road like every thing in life but if humanity support it's self and helps each other a World Goverment is good chances to succeed. So after your arguments should the USA be disbanded into 50 diffrent nations because each state can act on there own ? Remember my vision of a World Goverment is inspierd by the federal republic which the same system that is used in the US and the 27 other states around the globe. I have written my arguments in the first post to I can repeat it again: First: We are all humans!!! IF we come to that conclusion and strip away our singlemindedness the chancess for a world goverment would be much higher. Second: It's humans fate. I think World Goverment is the inevitable social goal of humanity. Why ? Lets look at history shall we; first in the stoneage in the early years of man came the family, than tribes, than viliages, cities, nations now we have the european union, african union and ok even you UNO. So we expand ourselves and work together because we realise we are all the same Human. And through working together we achive so much more. But the MOST important reason is that to survive a species we MUST band together and work as one. Third: There would finaly be peace and prosperity. So in conclusion through a federal republican system and laws based on the human rights an authoritarian world regime would be safely evaded. Back to you my dear greetings from Deutschland.
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM.

As this debate ends I would like to go and explain why I've won this debate. Now we have to look at the definition. All, this means everyone. My opponent has time and time again in this debate that only a majority. A majority is simply not all. With this already established my opponent has conceded the debate to me. With that I win the debate. For the sake of the debate, though, I will continue arguing for the sake of arguing. My opponent completely dropped the argument in regards to the association as he is just simply grasping for straws. This has nothing to do with a criminal activity as thus this argument is invalid. Not to mention that with the ability to be unable to stop the crime then one is not guiltiy of it. This was also dropped. My opponent brings up one personal account of a pornographic content. This point is invalid and I can careless. The reason is simply that this evidence is one case of this occurance and isn't a 100% thing that ALL bronies do it. It only shows that 1 Brony did it. This argument is a simple Appeal to Emotion and must be discarded. The "No True Scottsman" does apply to my opponent's argument as he is discluding those who do not clop. This argument applies and his attempt to reverse it fails. As it fails as his own polls say people haven't clopped meaning that All Bronies DO NOT clop. My opponent has once again defeated his own argument. Again a majority has clopped, but not everyone has clopped. Opponent makes another concession.
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM.

Topicality? Pro can clarify a definition that Pro made that in turn Con tried to redefine since Con's definition was argumentum ad passiones "Most bronies are friendly teenagers and young adults that simply aren't afraid to admit that they enjoy a show which is innocent, colorful, and funny" (Also known as Appeal to emotion) [1] Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. ' Con attempts to discredit Pro by Argument from fallacy[2] when the points made by Pro were directed at Con's argument which misrepresented evidence. ex. claimed survey[3] said 60% had not clopped when it was only 14% Con attempts to Strawman 'Joint Enterprise' over criminality even then is futile because acts such as these could be considered criminal[4] which part of the brony fandom is producing/distributing pornographic images of a children show . [5]"...her 6-year-old daughter, Jillian, watch "My Little Pony" videos. But when she left the room for a moment, she heard something that didn"t sound anything like a cartoon. Her daughter had stumbled upon a graphic video..." Any attempts by Con to shift the blame would be dishonest and self-serving. Referring to[6] My point cannot be the "No True Scotsman" because I am not excluding people, I am including others based on evidence,which is the complete opposite. When it is actually the bronies who exclude cloppers from themselves This is generally done in order to make the case that no element worthy of criticism can ever be held against them. The fault lies in "P2: All X are clearly not Y" the difference between X and Y is minimal and condenses down to 'X Claims not to be Y Because Y has negative connotation'. When applied to this debate P1: All Bronies clop P2: Bronies claim not to be Cloppers because Clopper has a negative connotation. C1: All Bronies clop Con's argument continually ignores the quote Pro posted from a brony on that same poll which showed how a brony could masturbate to MLP and still not consider himself a clopper the amount of bronies that claimed to masturbate to MLP in that poll was 57% A majority while all of them do not consider themselves a "clopper" they are still a 'brony' and still 'clop'. Yes (465 votes [57.76%] No (340 votes [42.24%] [7] Which the original point is that all bronies clop, not whether all cloppers clop to which would be redundant. If Con does not concede then the only option is to vote Pro. Sources 1. https://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://rationalwiki.org... 3. https://www.reddit.com... 4. https://www.law.cornell.edu... 5. http://www.nytimes.com... 6. http://rationalwiki.org... 7. https://mlpforums.com...
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM.

I will begin by stating that my opponent has already made a huge mistake in this debate by failing on Topicality. When the instigator of the debate fails to define the terms then it is their opponent's job to define the terms and they have no choice, but to accept the definitions. I have done that and with the Topicality in mind, all of my opponent's definitions are thrown out of the window.My opponent then continues to use an ad hom to claim that I am being dishonnest. I would like the voters to keep this in mind as they are voting on the debate.My opponent claims that the Composition fallacy is irrelivant due to "guility by association and a "join enterprise. The definition refers to criminal activity, which this resolution has nothing to do with criminal activity and must be thrown out of the debate. Not only that, but this argument is like saying, since Hilary Clinton is a democrat and has committed a crime against the US due to the Bengahzi incident then all Democrats are Criminals. This is a complete fallacy and simply not true. Though if we do want to look at Criminal Procedures we can see that if people of the group are unable to stop the crime then they cannot be guilty. [1] We all know that we cannot stop people from halfway around the world from masterbating especially if we do not know they are a Brony in the first place. Either way, this argument stands.My opponent is pulling a Red Heron argument by stating that the No True Scottsman fallacy argument should be discarded due to race. Even if we took the title out of the picture we can still see that my opponent is still guilty of the argument especially since it was dropped. The structure of the "No True Scottsman fallacy" is bellow. [2]P1: All X are Y.P2: All X are clearly not Y.C1: All true X are Y.When applied to this debate.P1: All Bronies clop.P2: All Bronies don't not clop.C1: All true Bronies clop.This resolution fits perfectly here and my opponent has committed this crime.As for the survey, keep in mind that it is completely bias since it is a porn site for clopping and MLP fan fics. This is already showing the bias of the people who participated in the poll. While on a non-pornographic MLP website. A poll taken has shown that out of the people who took the survey are viewed as a "Clopper."Yes: (274 votes) 34.04%No: (531 votes) 65.96% [3]My opponent's survey has 400 people on it while my is over 800 people. This is double of my opponent's poll and it is NOT on a porn site. Sources1. (http://www.encyclopedia.com...) 2. (http://rationalwiki.org...) 3. ( https://mlpforums.com...)
All Bronies Clop to MLP:FiM.

First I will clarify the definition of 'Brony' is: [1]"Brony" is an Internet slang term used to describe a teenage or adult male fan of the TV cartoon series My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic (MLP:FiM). For this debate I will only refer to males ages 18 and up. I will also define a 'Clopper': Someone who actively masturbates to anything related to MLP:FiM. I will also prove that a Clopper and Brony are one in the same. With this quote from a Brony : [2]"I guess I might as well be honest. I have clopped before, but it's not something I necessarily do regularly, so I wouldn't really call myself a clopper." Shows that a brony who doesn't define themselves as a clopper and yet still masturbates to MLP:FiM. Since the idea of being a Brony is a loose mob ideology then their beliefs and actions are defined what the majority believes and does. Thus when proving the majority clops then to be a brony is to clop. Clop: The act of masturbating to MLP:FiM (also is used to refer to pornographic material of the show) The beliefs and actions of the majority define the group and therefore what being a Brony is. [3]In this survey from a MLP Forum the majority once again were all cloppers. I will now point out Con's discrepancies and outright dishonesty. The composition fallacy is irrelevant because bronies are guilty by association. Also know as [4]"joint enterprise", a doctrine of common law used to convict entire groups of the same crime. If you do not wished to be lumped into a group of people then don't associate yourself as one of those people. Since "Love and Tolerate" is the motto of being a brony then being an enabler makes them as guilty as the perpetrator for accepting, promoting, or permitting their actions. The term "No True Scotsman" has overtones of nationalism, traditions, and race of which being a brony is none and therefore is inapplicable. Also it's an unreasoned assertion when my argument is quite the opposite since it is based on facts and statistics. Con is being dishonest or willfully ignorant when mentioning that survey, "The same survey that my opponent has sited states that 60% of the people have NOT clopped."-Con when in fact it stated 84% of the bronies had in fact "clopped"[5]. A landslide majority. Con's has shown that his argument is limited, dishonest and uses terms that don't apply. The obvious choice is Pro. Sources: 1. (http://knowyourmeme.com...) 2. (https://mlpforums.com...) 3. (https://mlpforums.com...) 4. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. (https://www.reddit.com...)