BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Relativism is philisophically contradictive

C1. Quick Rebuttal:"Truth depends on one's point of view" spoken by a relativist is a truth relative to the speaker, thus not an objective principle, thus voiding Pro's argument.C2. Long Rebuttal:The resolution puts relativism in a philisophical context, but fails to define it.As defined in the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else.[1]"Nothing in the definition of relativism neccesarily prohibits the acceptance of all objective statements in all circumstances.So, by viture of it's nature, relativism is not self-contradictory. Saying that "truth depends on one's point of view" is an expression that what one group/person considers truth is going to be different from what another person considers truth, and depending on the issue under consideration, there may not be an objective way to determine which is right.If someone agrees that there isn't neccesarily one best kind of ice-cream flavor but instead, the truth about what the best flavor is will depend on one's point of view, then that person is a relativist regarding ice-cream flavor value. Accepting that the best flavor of ice-cream is relative doesn't require the belief that you can't make any objective statement about anything.Since Pro's claim is that ALL relativism is self-contradictory, as indicated by his claim that it is "100% contradictive" Pro must argue that all views in the family of relativism are contradictory. Picking out a single or few of the least defensible ones will not suffice.[1]http://plato.stanford.edu...
god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication, the worst possible form of communication to god. Video 1. http://www.youtube.com... - Christians don't understand the character of God Video 2. http://www.youtube.com... -The god that christians believe in is amazingly STUPID!!! Video 3. http://www.youtube.com... Atheist Experience 21:49 with Tracie Harris zand Don Baker Call starts at approx 47:30. Picks up after a long introduction 54:45 and really gets into it 1:03:30 - 1:11:30. Pay attention everybody to vidie #2 and how YOU as a christian can easily misinterpret YOUR bible which is one of the reasons why YOUR god would --- NEVER --- use text as a form of communication. Don Baker, one of the hosts here in the vidie also briefly mentions it. And he's 100% correct! Rules: For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else. Oh and don't do something REALLY stupid and NOT watch the videos. dsjpk5will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Certain convicted sex offenders should be executed

Capital punishment is a complex and serious subject. There are many cases where the death penalty can be all but proven to have been the wrong choice (Stanley 'Tookie' Williams [1]). This is the reason why I have targetted a very specific type of criminal in my contention. By specifying sex offenders in particular, I hope to reduce the strength of some of the arguments against execution and strengthen the arguments for it. With that, I present my opening arguments, which I will mention briefly here and expand upon in further rounds: ============================================== ARGUMENT ONE: MORALITY: Should the State be allowed to take a life? ============================================== The Government is given many powers by the people. We allow them to tax us and decide how to spend said tax, to train and use an army to fight wars and to make and enforce the laws that hold our society together. The death penalty is a natural extension of this. In cases where the the crimes of the offender are so heinous, such as a murderous psychopath, that science[2] and good logic tell us that the criminal is obviously morally bankrupt, the punishment should fit the crime. ================================= ARGUMENT 2: RETRIBUTION: The chance to reform ================================= The reason I have chosen the perpetrators of the sex crime(that is, crime inflicted upon unwilling and often helpless victims) as the target of this debate because often they show no remorse for their crimes and reoffend. [3] How much happier would the victims of 'Mr. Baldys' crimes and their families be knowing that he would never, ever be able to reoffend. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://findarticles.com... [3] http://www.theage.com.au...
Certain convicted sex offenders should be executed

Thanks PRO, and good luck to you too! I intend to argue that certain violent criminals, rapists, pedophiles, etc. should be punished by a life sentence to a hard labor facility with no opportunity for parole. This is neither a variation nor an extension of PRO's position, and does not, in my view, constitute cruel or unusual punishment. In the next round, I will bring forth arguments both supporting my position and attacking my opponent's.
Certain convicted sex offenders should be executed

My argument will be that certain types of convicted sex offenders should be executed, rather than imprisoned. By convicted, I mean beyond a shadow of a doubt. A great body of evidence should be presented against them to try and minimise or even completely prevent wrongful execution. By certain types I mainly mean, but am not restricted to: Paedophiles & child pornographers Violent serial rapists Serial killers of a sexual nature. I don't want to argue semantics. My opponent should argue against all execution, not a variation or extension of my own contention. My opponent should accept the terms of the debate in round one. If you want to ask any questions, please use the messages window. My opening argument will be made in Round 2 Good luck.
The NHL playoff format is screwed up.

There are two divisions in each conference in the NHL. Since the main problem is in the Eastern Conference, I will use it as an example. The playoff format works like this: The top three teams in each division automatically earn a berth to a playoff spot. The next two teams in each conference, regardless of division, also make the playoffs. The division winner with more points faces the wild card team with the fewest points. The division winner with fewer points faces the wild card team with more points. The second and third teams in each division play each other. Assuming the playoffs started today, the Washington Capitals would be the top seed in the Metropolitan Division and the Eastern Conference. That means the second and third teams, the Pittsburgh Penguins and the Columbus Blue Jackets, would play each other. The wild card team with more points, the New York Rangers, would play the division winner in the Atlantic Division. Here is where the problem starts. The top three teams in the conference, the Capitals, Penguins, and Blue Jackets, are in the same division. The New York Rangers, the first wild card team, has 94 points, while the top team in the Atlantic Division, the Montreal Canadiens, has only 91 points. That means the wild card team, the New York Rangers, would probably win the first round, even though they don't have home ice advantage, and would easily beat whoever they face in the second round (Senators or Maple Leafs) and would make the Conference Finals, even though they are a wild card team. Also, the loser of the Penguins and Blue Jackets matchup would be out after the first round. That basically means that either the second or third best team in the league will be out after the first round, while some loser in the first wild card spot actually ends up making the Conference Finals. Another side problem that comes up with this is that the Rangers figured out that they would have an advantage by being the first wild card team, and they started to lose a few games on purpose to gain the unfair advantage in the playoffs. One news source that apparently doesn't exist anymore says that, even though they have the second-best record in the league, the Pittsburgh Penguins have the hardest route to the Stanley Cup Final, while the Rangers have one of the easiest paths. If you aren't convinced yet, check out these news sources for more details: http://www.chicagotribune.com... https://www.theguardian.com...
Resolved: The US should implement a military draft

OOPS. In lieu of the developments on this interesting debate - such as the fact that I ARGUED MY OPPONENTS CASE FOR HIM (like an idiot), I must tip my hat to him, and shuffle into the darkness, with my proverbial tail betwixt me legs. How fricken embarrasin' is this? You won, my friend. I look forward to debating you again, and next time, I just might READ THE RESOLUTION CORRECTLY. (*slaps self upside head unmercifully.)
war on drugs is war on the poor

The war on drugs is a fight for the poor, not against them. The poor are the primary users of illegal substances, the same as a poor man is likely to go out and drink his troubles away. It provides an escape, a release from his hard and monotonous life[1]. That being said, the poor would benefit the most from the downfall of drugs. It would allow these people, who many times can barely feed their families, much less do so while buying drugs to once again support their children and enable them to have a bright and prosperous future. [1]http://www.politifact.com...
ethical consumerism

This is one of those propositions that is impossible to argue against, As Pro opens with a conclusive statement of fact, Which in principle cannot be regarded as inaccurate. Nonetheless I am more than happy to discuss this issue with them. Ethics are as ethics do. That is to say that there is no set standard for consumer ethics. Cost is ultimately what drives consumer interest, So therefore if ethical consumerism is cost effective to a large enough consumer group then it will also be beneficial to buyers and companies. I would suggest that ethical trade (as generally regarded) is still a niche market though and not beneficial to the mass market. Meeting the basic needs of todays population of 7. 6 billion is what matters at the end of the day. But as I have already implied the definition of ethical trade is by no way clear cut anyway. 1) Who actually has the authority to set ethical trading standards? 2) What actually is Pro's own definition of ethical consumerism? 3) Is it actually possible to get 7. 6 billion people all singing from the same ethical hymn book? 4) Can everyone afford to be an ethical consumer? Ultimately it will be supply and demand that decides the success and benefit of ethical consumerism and of course the key factor in any trade equation is always going to be cost effectivity to producers, Suppliers and consumers. As ever money is the be all and end all, The one all consuming God.
Will China rule the world

I would like to clarify the resolution: Resolved: China will rule the worldMy opponent must prove that China will rule the world. It is useless for my opponent to prove that China is likely to rule the world, he/she must prove that they will rule the world. Als, my opponents case has no impacts, he/she talks about how they spend billions on their militairy each year, he/she gives no impact. My opponent also talks about how he/she thinks that China will rule the world. Oh, great, you think they will! That statement is absolutely useless because it doesn't matter what he thinks will happen. Also, my opponent has given no sources for his arguments so they fall.Using analytical arguments I have dissproved my opponents arguments. I now will present my own arguments.According to USAToday, China is regarded as the U.S.'s top enemy. Also, the U.S.'s defense spending budget is 577,100,000,000 USD according to globalfirepower.com. China's is 145,000,000,000 USD according to the same source. That means the U.S. budget is almost 4 times the size of China's. If China tried to take over the world, the U.S. would retaliate since China is considered their greatest enemy.After refuting my opponents arguments, and presenting mine, I can see no other ballot than Con.Thank You
Will China rule the world

I personally think China will rule the world even though i'm not from china or a chinese. They have a very big number of armies and modern technologies. They spend billion dollars just for military each year. Plus, this country has a tremendous effect for the whole world. For example, china attacked and build islands in the south china sea, and seems nobody is brave enough to confront them. Just now, china was devaluating its yuan and a lot of asia pacific countries were immediately hit. So, i think china will rule the world in 20 to 40 years time, and hopefully they can keep peace together along with united states
Government Polocies/Laws For (Outer) Space

I've learned many things through this experience, and I hope he has too. Now my final arguments are that while the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the use of wmds It does not prohibit the use of conventional weapons which can still threaten the safety of other nations something that China has already demonstrated back in 2006 when thy proved they could blowup a satellite just with a surface to air missile. I would also like to remind my opponent that the Soviet Union had plans to colonize the moon, but failed at the cost of many lives. While it may be a great dream the technology, and funding for a colony isn't there.
Government Polocies/Laws For (Outer) Space

The pro, in this argument has clearly never heard of the "Outer Space Treaty" or "The Treaty on Priniciples Governing the Activites Of States In The Exploration And Use Of Outer Space, Including The Moon And Other Celestial Bodies." The treaty was originally formed around the U.S., UK, and the Soviet Union, but, the law expanded out to become the international law. The treaty/law, clearly states that the use of (outer) space or other celestial bodies for the purpose of launching or creating a weapon of mass destruction. (i.e. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...) Also, , my opponent stated that NASA wouldn't colonize on Mars. He doesn't understand this process however. In which, landing on Mars, is only the first step.
Government Polocies/Laws For (Outer) Space

The con is stating that weapons in space are already against the law, and yet I find this untrue because according to this article http://www.slate.com... Not only are there no laws governing weapons in space, but it is actually a reality that nations can develop weapons in space which is why there absolutely need to be laws and regulations when it comes to space. My opponent also mentions how Space X is going to launch a mission to Mars, but I would counter that while it may be possible to put a man on Mars, it is not economically possible to colonize it as the Director of Nasa Sam Scimimie has stated.
Government Polocies/Laws For (Outer) Space

My opponent talked about developing a weapon in space. This, is already against the law. According the U.S.'s law, space is an open frontier to those with "good means." This means, that they could not build a space weapon. Also, there are thousands of debris orbiting Earth. So, if someone was to build a weapon in space, it'd be extremely difficult, if it wasn't done by a machine/robot. The debris can travel 5-10km per hour. Now that might not seem like a lot, but if you got hit by a peice of metal, the size of a nickel, you'd surely wake up with a head ache the next morning. My opponent also stated that a country could not afford to send people to another planet to colonize. Space X, a private company, will have people on Mars by 2025.
Government Polocies/Laws For (Outer) Space

I absolutely without a doubt believe that there should be rules, and regulations regarding space because if their aren't any rules or regulations then that means a country can do whatever it wants whenever it wants. such as deploying weapons in space violating, and threatening the sovereignty of other nations. Furthermore there would have to be some sort of international oversight in order for colonization of other worlds to become a reality, because there aren't any worlds in this solar system that can sustain human life like Earth can meaning the colony would have to depend on supplies. Also no single country on Earth could afford to establish a colony on another world so it would require international cooperation to fund such a project.
Government Polocies/Laws For (Outer) Space

I believe that there should be no rules for space. My perspective of this is that space, is not owned by a country, nor government. So, who is to say what we can or cannot do in space? If someone were to colonize Mars, for example, they'd more then likely begin a new government. Take for example, the USA. The U.S., was formed by Britain and other "colonizing countries." However, when they got here, they had no "rules" to abide by. They didn't have to buy plots of land, and they surely didn't have anyone enforcing these rules. As I was saying, the people in the U.S., eventually broke away from their "father" countries and formed their own. This is the same of what may happen to space. However, currently, who is to say (they) own space?
SpongeBob is the Best Cartoon on Nickelodeon Right Now

- Neutron's film was nominated for an Academy Award. These are trained judges who decided that Jimmy Neutron is a great show. - Neutron has several complicated charaters, while Spongebob only has a lot of arndom, shallow characters. You never responded to this so you must agree with it. - Neutron has had a crush and relationship and breakup with Cindy Vortex, while Spongebob has never endured love. Love stories are the best stories. - Neutron has 4 good friends, Cindy, Libby, Carl, and Sheen, with different personalities instead of just one good friend, Patrick. This proves that there are more, well- developed characters. Instead of just one line characters who appear once and no longer matter. - Spongebob is aired more than Neutron and will obviously be more vewed. More viewed does not make a better show. There are several factors: audience, time, schedule, number of times aired, etc. Spongebob will logically be more viewed. But let th judges decide whether more views equates to a better show. - Neutron is obviously the better show.
SpongeBob is the Best Cartoon on Nickelodeon Right Now

- Neutron's film was nominated for an Academy Award. - Neutron has several complicated charaters, while Spongebob only has a lot of arndom, shallow characters. - Neutron has had a crush and relationship and breakup with Cindy Vortex, while Spongebob has never endured love. - Neutron has 4 good friends, Cindy, Libby, Carl, and Sheen, with different personalities instead of just one good friend, Patrick. This proves that there are more, well- developed characters. Instead of just one line characters who appear once and no longer matter. - Spongebob is a FIEND!!!
SpongeBob is the Best Cartoon on Nickelodeon Right Now

You OBVIOUISLY have not seen the show, Jimmy Neutron. Neutron's film was nominated for an Academy Award making it equal if not better than Spongebob. Neutron has several complicated charaters. Neutron has had a crush and relationship and breakup with Cindy Vortex. There hass never been a love story on Spongebob. Neutron has 3 good friends with different personalities instead of just one good friend, Patrick. Neutron is obviously the superior show.
Rap Battle

Haven't done one of these in a while; Real simple kids. 4 rounds. You automatically win the coin flip, so you can choose whether you go first or not. Either start spitting in your round 1, or simply accept. 1,000 character limit because mofos be babbling on and on in these things and I don't have time for that. I recommend you stick to 16 bars, but whatever. 2 rounds of battles, simple voting, 1 months until winner is decided, min 2000 Elo score so someone of reasonable quality accepts. If I've battled you before, please don't accept.
Rap Battle

I hope you like sleeping because my rap is your nightmares at best, I don't care about your gratitude as long as I don't have less, No seriously are you okay because seriously you look like a mess, Now how about I slap you awake so you can actually get some breast, Okay,so it seems like you have a problem with your direction, Man if I tell you every guy who did that before to me,you'll get an erection, Wait up man lets pause I have to play some GTA, While I do that go make sure your boner's not gay!
Rap Battle

JJAquarius, your position is precarious I hope you like metal, cause I'm iron and you're ferrous Hilarious, gregarious nefarious, My personalities are various Battling a nobody, believe me, there's no fear in us I deliver like Deliverance, an unpleasant experience Audit your soul, like some satanic I.R.S Leave you a manic, squealing incoherent mess. But allow me to digress I'm not a rapper, I'm a rap-pest Slap ya breasts off ya chest Hitch-a with my cock and send you north by north-west. Nah, but seriously I jest This first round was a test. See if you can bring it, while I go to bed and rest.
Starbucks Should be Exclusively for White Girls

I see your point in this, however there are actual people who actually like Starbucks. One of them being myself, and I'm not a white girl. Besides I know plenty of women who consider themselves "white girls" and they actually go there whenever they have time, not as a routine they have. I'm male and go there every morning because I personally enjoy their coffee, when in fact I could be going to the coffee shop down the street. Instead I choose to go to Starbucks because I find their coffee good. Some people just enjoy it, though they aren't white girls.
Starbucks Should be Exclusively for White Girls

OK. I have been to Starbucks like a couple of times so far in my life, which is almost 23 years. However, Starbucks is most suitable and preferred among young white girls. I would like to say that because white girls like Starbucks the most, why not make it exclusive to them? I know that people who are not white girls also enjoy to Starbucks and go there, but what's the point of THEM going there? They only go there because they want something to eat or drink or want to impress a white girl. However, white girls go there as part of their routines.
Starbucks Should be Exclusively for White Girls

I personally think Starbucks should be for everyone, it's a place to go in and get coffee and/or food. Why should there be licenses to go into a coffee shop?! That's ridiculous lol. As a Russian male myself, yes, a lot of "white girls" go to Starbucks, though everyone should be allowed to enjoy it. Saying only certain people can go to a place before you yourself haven't even gone in is slightly weird. Why not go in there to check it out first before saying things ?
Starbucks Should be Exclusively for White Girls

I believe that Starbucks should be exclusively for white girls. They are the ones who really enjoy Starbucks. Don't you think that only they should be allowed to have Starbucks? Since white girls like Starbucks so much, they should have special government-issued licenses that allow them to have Starbucks. From my experience, I have seen that Starbucks customers are mostly young Caucasian females. As a Russian male, I never go to Starbucks. Whoever accepts my debate will have 3 days to come up with a convincing argument to counter my statements. You can have up to 4,000 character per argument.