BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

Human dominance is waning. Younger generations are already slaves to electronic devices. How long before we no longer call the shots. Fear not though. This is not stuff of horror movies or nightmares. This is simply evolution in progress. Rules: 5 open rounds. Use your own brain power. No referencing other peoples work/theories. 100 words max, per round. (Not 8000 characters) Enjoy!
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

Pro asserts: S. E. M. D. dominance is inevitable and imminent. Con. Doesn't deny S. E. M. D. dominance will happen. They hope we have the power to control. I believe that we can control it them. For example, leave it in their code or even simpler, don't make S. E. M. Ds Pro. Demonstrates that the rate of technological advancement is exponential. Con. Doesn't counter this point. I didn't counter this point because I agree with it, technological advancement being exponential is a fact, there is no couner-argument. Pro. Suggests that S. E. M. D. dominance, is the unavoidable consequence of the " Evolution of Matter". Con. Doesn't respond to this point. "evolution in process", you said that yourself. I countered saying that the keyword was "soon" Pro. Observes. Younger generations are already becoming dependant on electromechanical devices. Con's Response. Is defensive. Suggesting they are reluctant to admit the truth. That's rich. check my opening argument addressing this,feel free to interpret it as defensive but oh well, we think differently. It's only human CONCLUSION Pro's Standpoint. Is sensible and logical. Con's Standpoint. Is one of reluctance. Reluctance to accept the inevitable. In your opinion, i could say the same about myself but I wont. This is up to the voters and it is what they'll use to vote.
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

Pro asserts: S. E. M. D. dominance is inevitable and imminent. Con. Doesn't deny S. E. M. D. dominance will happen. They hope we have the power to control. Pro. Demonstrates that the rate of technological advancement is exponential. Con. Doesn't counter this point. Pro. Suggests that S. E. M. D. dominance, is the unavoidable consequence of the " Evolution of Matter". Con. Doesn't respond to this point. Pro. Observes. Younger generations are already becoming dependant on electromechanical devices. Con's Response. Is defensive. Suggesting they are reluctant to admit the truth. CONCLUSION Pro's Standpoint. Is sensible and logical. Con's Standpoint. Is one of reluctance. Reluctance to accept the inevitable.
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

I'd have to say your correct about my age, 17 is quite young. According to you it was 2500 years ago, going with your example of 33 years we can take it to be much more in this time period (~1.3%) as opposed to nanosecond in our entire evolutionary timeline. We are advancing our technology at a fast rate, we may (probably will) have the power to create S.E.M.Ds in the future, but only if we choose to. There are many examples of how to prevent dominance of S.E.M.Ds but most are unlikely. And since I've probably run out of words at this point I'll leave with one final thought. "If we will be the creators of S.E.M.Ds then surely we can control them or leave an emergency function within them for such an event." Apologies for going over the word limit but I really couldn"t express myself correctly without enough words
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

You cannot be very old. When you get to my age, 33 years will have vanished in the blink of an eye! In relative evolutionary terms, 33 years is a nanosecond. I reiterate: The rate of technological advancement is exponential, S.E.M.Ds will probably exist in your lifetime. You speak of "revolt". A typical, fearful human response. Yet, humans will facilitate this technological advancement. I reiterate: This is evolution in progress. The evolution of matter. We are probably destined to become redundant. The end of organic usefulness. Is knowledge the true purpose? Or is there no purpose to anything?
Human dominance on Planet Earth, will soon be superseded by sentient, electromechanical devices.

Technology is growing very fast, much faster than many could expect it to. What really sticks out to me in this timeline is the time from the first PC to the first smartphone. A smartphone is basically a PC made smaller and more practical, the fact that it took 33 years to make one proves we do not develop devices as fast as we think. We have AI already, many programs that can form their own sentences and communicate but I think it'll take much, much longer for them to develop into sentient beings and even more to think about a revolt
Heil Hitler!

I made it clear in caps about my intentions. My opponent has entirely ignored this. Thus the way it stands is my opponent will not use logical reasoning to win this debate but rather through opinion, debates are won with logic and reasoning not personal opinions. In this way my opponent has forfeited by refusing to properly debate. Nowhere did I say hitler was a good person. Con's argument makes no sense. The reason i said Hitler was not evil was because evil is an opionion and not a fact and so by the same logic i cannot believe hitler is a good man because that would be an opinion. My opponent clearly did not read my last argument. If my opponent refuses to read my arguments then he has already lost this debate. He says i have a hatred against the jewish race because i'm opposing his view. This would mean he would accuse anyone who accepted this debate. If this debate was made so false accusations could be made my opponent has created a method to harass fellow debate. org community members. He has thus already lost this debate and has shown terrible conduct. The first sentence is a personal insult. The 2nd sentence shows he did not read my previous argument. I siad Hitler is not proven evil as a confirmed fact. This does not mean in my PERSONAL opinion is he isn't a bad person but then again that is just an opinion. There is no proof I don't know history because of anything I said in my last argument. This is an assumption. Just because I'm against my opponent in this debate does not mean I hate anyone. The last question makes no sense in this context. I simply believe hitler is not factually evil nor good like there are no laws of physics or anything like that which scientificallly prove he is evil. There fore asking me how i think hitler is a good person is an invalid question. My opponent provided no argument as to why Hitler is a bad person but rather attackedme directly. Terrible, terrible conduct was used.
Heil Hitler!

Voters I know many of you will be biased but I ask all voters especially to be mindful that I did not chose which side I'm on for this debate so it may not represent what I truly believe so please base your opinions on the winner solely on what is said in this debate and not on personal background views. Now to begin, debates must be won with FACTS and NOT opinions even if they be the opinions of the majority. there is no fact that Hitler is an evil man it's just most people have such as opinion on him. Therefore he is only personally 'evil' to those who would like to view as evil but is not factually evil and it seems you fit into this category. Therefore you posted an opinion not a fact. If Osama bind Laden and his terrorists thought of you as evil because you are chrisitan as it says on your profile then would that mean you are an evil man? No!! simply because some people think of you as evil does not make you factually evil.As for damn him, this is not an argument this is just something rude to say. Since you are christian and the chrisitan defintion of damn means to condemn one eternally to hell, it's reasonable to assume this is what you mean. However there is no proof he is in hell or is there solid proof hell exists. Therefore Hitler being in hell not a fact.Conclusion is he is an evil man to you and some other people but not factually evil. There is no proof that he is hell so damn him is incorrect and thus invalid.
Should North korean border lines be less strict

Ok,now during my research it explains that in South Korea..when people cross the border line illegally A punishment is given but most of these punishments are very violent and cruel. For example if parents or parent are caught trying to get across the punishment is that the guards kill the adults child right in front of their eyes as a punishment. And another is that people are placed in camps as a punishment and what happens in there is not good. Women who are pregnant that are placed in the camps have to have a forced abortion...and sometimes a guard will be placed in front of the stomach and kicks the women in the stomach so hard that the child dies. Most punishments are very wrong and cruel. I'm only saying that they should make the punishments less violent cruel and villainous.
Should North korean border lines be less strict

Since you are pro, I am assuming your are for less strict border patrol. This would be an unintellegent idea for many reasons. First off, as you probably already know, North and South Korea are very different in terms of government. North Korea has a dictatorship while South Korea is a republic with a president. The border divides the Korean peninsula into two equal parts. By having strict border patrol, it can be insured each side gets a fair share of land and doesn't try to take over the other half. Second of all, without this strict border, it can be assured chaos would follow. North and South Korea are not friendly with each other, and there has been many incidents of violence between the two. Several times, infiltrators from North Korea were spotted and killed by South Korean soldiers. On March 24th of last year, a North Korean drone was found trying to take pictures of important military buildings in South Korea, and another drone crash landed a week later. Without this strict border, who knows what would happen! Many civilians have been shot and killed by both sides, getting spotted trying to escape to the other side. If the border was less strict, It would be easier to do this and more people would attempt to do so, thus resulting in more deaths. Not to mention it would be easier for troops from both side to interact, leading to skirmishes and more violence and death between the two countries. Of course, this could lead to war and bombings, etc. Having a less strict border patrol would be like a domino effect, spiraling into a much larger problem. Overall, it would not be a smart idea. The strict border is there for a reason. Sources- qsl.net, BBC News website
Mormanism

Regretfully, my debate opponent's town was recently struck with the zombie virus. Because of this, my opponent was busy defending himself from the onslaught of the living dead and thus was unable to post his debate. I ask voters to ignore this round during the voting period and not hold it against my opponent because frankly, zombie attacks are impossible to schedule. If my opponent has joined the ranks of the dead, I eagerly await his input into this debate next round.
Mormanism

My opponent will be arguing that Mormonism is right and inspired by God. I will be arguing that Mormonism is a false realigion. Mormonism >>> http://en.wikipedia.org... <<< Rules: (1) No improper conduct. Insults, offensive laguage, rude remarks etc....... (2) my opponent must Mormon. (3) First round is for exceptance. Debating will start in round two. I look forward to an enjoyable debate!
Resolved: Abraham Lincoln never existed....

Its common knowledge that M&M people and Santa Clause were all taxed to death thanks to Obamacare, I dont need to give evidence for that! Whats next, I havent given evidence that 2+2= Fish? Give me a break...Santa claus is not an American citizen so therefore doesn't pax taxes! I have caught my opponent being intellectually dishonest! Oh this is just unreasonable now. This footage is clearly doctered and inadmissable. Look at his hair, nobody could have hair look that good! My existence/non-existence isnt the one in question though, its that of Abraham Lincolns. I will concede that the man in the video does have the hair of an angel, but it is still very much my opponent. My reason for submitting this evidence is to show that it is entirely possible for someone in a video to in fact exist Its not my job to prove that they exist, its yours! Ive already given evidence showing that they were all taxed to death thanks to Obama, if they are still around then its your job to show that, not mine. That's not evidence. It's a claim, just like your claim that Lincoln doesn't exist. Well excuse me for thinking that Santa Claus hanging out with humanoid M&M's are somehow NOT as ludicrous as Abraham lincoln helping Black Dynamite defeat Richard Nixon.....THATS HISTORICAL FACT!My opponent then just post a bunch of pictures, including one that just a quote from Abraham Lincoln himself. Keep in mind that none of his pictures hold any more truths than my videos. None of his evidence show that Abraham lincoln doesn't exist but I showed a video of him fighting with Black Dynamite. A video that he has not proven to be false. Thank You!
Resolved: Abraham Lincoln never existed....

"my opponent has no evidence that the video in question is not factual or that Santa and the M&M people do not exist! "Its common knowledge that M&M people and Santa Clause were all taxed to death thanks to Obamacare, I dont need to give evidence for that! Whats next, I havent given evidence that 2+2= Fish? Give me a break..."A video of......My opponent!!!! Clearly he does exist!"Oh this is just unreasonable now. This footage is clearly doctered and inadmissable. Look at his hair, nobody could have hair look that good! My existence/non-existence isnt the one in question though, its that of Abraham Lincolns. "SO! He has not shown any proof that the video that I posted is not factual or that Santa Clause and the giant humanoid M&M's exist."Its not my job to prove that they exist, its yours! Ive already given evidence showing that they were all taxed to death thanks to Obama, if they are still around then its your job to show that, not mine. "As far as I'm concerned he tried to counter my evidence with a video of Santa Clause hanging out with sentient candy pieces"Well excuse me for thinking that Santa Claus hanging out with humanoid M&M's are somehow NOT as ludicrous as Abraham lincoln helping Black Dynamite defeat Richard Nixon.....Here are some pictures that illustrate why Lincoln is no more then just a myth: So to conclude: Abraham Lincoln clearly does not exist. I URGE VOTERS TO NOT LET YOUR BIAS FOR LINCOLN SWAY YOUR VOTE. Please use evidence given only in this debate.Thanks for reading :D
Resolved: Abraham Lincoln never existed....

Just because they're are videos of things that don't exist does not mean that everything in a video does not! Santa claus and M&M are not on trial here and my opponent has no evidence that the video in question is not factual or that Santa and the M&M people do not exist! I present exhibit B! A video of......My opponent!!!! http://www.youtube.com...Clearly he does exist! Let me remind you that my opponent has asked for you to"please use the arguments within this debate instead of your own political bias when allocating points." SO! He has not shown any proof that the video that I posted is not factual or that Santa Clause and the giant humanoid M&M's exist.As far as I'm concerned he tried to counter my evidence with a video of Santa Clause hanging out with sentient candy pieces. A non sequitor if I ever saw one
Resolved: Abraham Lincoln never existed....

A video of lincoln is not evidence that he ever existed! *Scoff scoff scoff* If that were the case, then Santa Claus, talking M&M's, and the Easter Bunny would also have to exist according to these videos as 'evidence' of them! The truth is that there is no proof that Abraham Lincoln ever existed. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Resolved: Abraham Lincoln never existed....

I will be debating that Abraham Lincoln never existed, con will be arguing for the existence of Abraham Lincoln.... The burden of proof is on the con to prove that he does exist. Therefore Con can use the first round to introduce 'evidence' for the existence of Lincoln.... 3 round debate, 4000 characters, nice and short. I know there are a lot of people who already believe that lincoln exists, but when voting on the debate please use the arguments within this debate instead of your own political bias when allocating points.
Essential Services Should be Allowed to Strike

R1 is acceptance. R2 - 4 are arguments and conclusions.Definitions:Essential Services - a class of occupation that has limitations in regard to labour actions. For this debate, essential services will be:The polic sectorThe firefighting sectorThe hospital sectorWater supply servicesElectricity supply servicesArmed forcesPrison servicesAir traffic control servicesThe telephone serviceThose providing food and cleaning schools for kids [1]Strike - a concerted stopping of work or withdrawal of workers services as to compel an employer to acede to workers demands or in protest of terms or conditions imposed by the employer [2]If my opponent wishes to add any services to this list, IT MUST BE POSTED IN R1.No semantics, no trolling, and no new arguments may be posted by my opponent in the final Round.I look forward to an entertaining and interesting debate!SOURCES1. http://en.wikipedia.org...2. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Essential Services Should be Allowed to Strike

I accept, but I wish to amend the defintion of Essential services to "a class of occupation deemed essential by the ILO", which is accessible in article 585 of "Digest of decisions and principles of the Freedom of Association Committee of the Governing Body of the ILO" (http://www.ilo.org...)Also, "should be" implies this is not a factual debate: current legislation banning strikes, for example, is not an argument in itself.
DC is misjudged and deserves the respect: Marvel v. DC

Please, read and consider the following: ROUND 1 is for our position statements ONLY. ROUND 2 is for our points/evidence ONLY. ROUND 3 is for rebuttals and new points/evidence. ROUND 4 is for final rebuttals and closing statements ONLY. Thank you for considering and/or choosing to participate in this debate! I look forward to this respectful and civil debate. My position statement: DC Comics is misjudged and deserves respect that is equal to, if not more, than Marvel Comics.
opinions can be wrong

Merriam-Websters definition: Opinion- a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing. Conscious- aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc. [5] Con brings up Qualia. Qualia is a conscious experience [4], and an opinion is someones way of thinking therefore wouldn't a wrong opinion still be a conscious experience because they are aware of what they are thinking? Qualia then backfires on Con since an opinion is a person experience, but it is an awareness of their decision. It doesn't matter if someone knows a fact, if they say "In my opinion (Concluding that in their own thought) that Eggs are bigger than full-grown turkeys" they would be still be wrong because Facts> Opinions. Con claims that no opinion that can be contradicted, this is wrong. As the definition of Opinion says, an opinion is a belief/judgement. My judgement on something is that a mouse is bigger than an Elephant, but my judgement is not correct. Therefore, my opinion is not correct. The definition of opinion disagrees with cons claim that "That person would have just stated a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion as con claims." According to Merriam-Webster[1] an opinion does not have to be a fact, rather a belief of something. Anyone can believe anything, but not anything anyone beliefs is necessarily correct, if that makes sense. Con claims that no opinion can be wrong because people experience things different. If no ones opinions could be compared to other people then election polls would not be accurate at all, and a lot of the time they are accurate. [2] "But pollsters have found that the so-called "generic ballot test," which asks whether respondents intend to vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate in their local race for the House, can provide an accurate estimate of the vote on which projections about party gains and losses in seats can be based." [3] If what Con says were to be true, we would have no way of determining the political polls because everyone experiences things differently. Con claims that "one perception can not be more correct than another one." This is again, false. A opinion is a perception, yes, but just because someone seems one thing in a way doesn't mean it is correct. It's like looking at art: If I look at art one way and see a house then look at it from the side and see a big blob of paint, it is still a house even if you look at it differently. Anyone can say anything is their "opinion," but that doesn't make it correct. You have the burden of proof to prove why opinions are always correct. 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.pewresearch.org... 4. https://en.wikipedia.org... 5. http://www.dictionary.com...
opinions can be wrong

Let me propose a definition for opinion. Opinions are descriptions of Qualia, and the conclusions and comparisons drawn for them. Qualia are the subjective experiences that each person perceives differently [1]. For example, I cannot explain objectively why brownies are better than cookies, even if we both have studied all the knowledge about the sence of taste that there is. That is the nature of Qualia.Reject definitions that allow opinions to be unrelated to Qualia, because everything can be explained objectively were it not for the existence of Qualia. My opponent has raised only one argument, and that is that opinions can contradict facts, thus being wrong. However, there are no opinions that can be objectively proven or disproven with facts because they are based on the subjective perception of the world. His example is not an opinion, because the size of something is based of objective measurements and not on Qualia. That person would have just stated a wrong fact, not a wrong opinion as Pro claims.My argument is that no opinions can be wrong as the perceptions of the world that each person experiences cannot be compared to the experiences of other people. And definitely not in a way that allows one perception to be somehow more correct than another. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org...