BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Brian Eggleston's Breastguard™ electric bras would be a "stunning" success!

You will have noted from his previous debates, no doubt, that my opponent is an honourable and highly respectable youth and his restraint in limiting himself to just having a good eyeful of his teen lovely classmate's jugs is admirable. Alas, not all young men are so worthy. Had PoeJoe not been brought to his senses with a slap in the face, I'm sure he would still have resisted the temptation to lunge at the Asian babe in question's jubblies, but, unfortunately my opponent is the exception rather than the norm. Hence the urgent requirement for my electric bras. Just to explain: these bras are powered by two AAA batteries which produce about half the power of a Taser gun (which uses four) and which fit discreetly into the strap. When the pressure pad covering the cup of the bra is activated, electrical current is sent via wires to two nodes, resembling erect nipples, on the tips of the cups, that duly stuns the offending pervert. My opponent claimed that my safety device would lead to the end of the human race. Not at all! If you found a chocolate on the street, you might pick it up and eat it, or you might not. But a chocolate presented in fancy packaging and surrounded by security guards would be surely be more tempting? The same principle applies to the contents of my electric bras. My opponent then claimed that my electric bras would electrocute innocent people that accidentally touched the wearer's bosom. Well good. Be more careful, is what I say. Would you like your girlfriend / daughter / sister's breasts to be continually pummelled by strangers on public transport? Then my opponent went on about empathy. Sorry, but very few women feel sorry for sex pests. Of course, people will try and find fault with my product, and criticise it unduly, but not long from now I predict that my electric bras will be as common on Main Street as cell phones. Thank you.
Brian Eggleston's Breastguard™ electric bras would be a "stunning" success!

Ladies! Are you fed up with being molested by bosom-fondling sex-fiends who surreptitiously grope you in crowded places? Well, fret no more! With Brian Eggleston's new Breastguard™ electric bras your worries are over. These stylish pieces of ladies' underwear look and feel like ordinary bras but there is one two important differences – they are insulated with a revolutionary new electrical insulating material called Aerogel and they are hooked up to a powerful but compact battery which delivers a high-voltage electric shock to any mammary-mashing miscreant that makes the mistake of messing with your melons. And the great news is that these stunning chest supports are available now from only $49.99. But wait. There's more. Order today and we'll mail you an in-car battery charger absolutely free of charge!" This is my idea for the advertising campaign. Rather good, don't you think? And what a great idea! Gropers are so prolific in some cities that the transport authorities have had to introduce women-only cars. http://abcnews.go.com...... Now any pervert seeking a cheap thrill from one of my customers is going to get a very nasty shock – literally! What's more the ultra-light Aerogel padding will be comfortable to wear and provide for insulation for the wearer from electric shock. http://www.aerogel.com... So come on, if you agree that Brian Eggleston's new Breastguard™ electric bras could be a stunning success, please vote Pro! Thank you.
Robots will overtake humans

Why computers won't gain sentience,1. Just because a singularity (the level bots need to reach to be dangerous) is conceivable doesn't mean it's probable.http://spectrum.ieee.org...2. Before the technology becomes available to achieve a singularity, most jobs will be automated and the negative economic impact will destroy incentives to create more intelligent machines.http://www.nytimes.com...;3. The rate of technological process is slowing and may prevent is from ever creating a singularity.http://accelerating.org...4. There are several people working to make sure the seed AI for the super AI is friendly in nature.http://sifter.org...To win this debate my opponent needs to put up a strong argument showing that a super AI is likely (or at least an AI that can rival a smarter then average human), and that there is a reasonable chance of that super AI being a danger to mankind.We have no ideal what the future holds,Fears of robot's taking over jobs isn't justified considering humans have such a poor track record of being able to predict the future.http://epicvelocity.wordpress.com...I want to thank my opponent for his last round and I hope he will elaborate on his theory of robots being able to override a disarm code. Especially since I'm not really sure what he means by the term "disarm code". I will refrain from bringing up a more plausible scenario of what I call a Kurzweilian Merger, as my opponent hasn't done enough to support his theory that alternate theories would need exploring.
Robots will overtake humans

Thank you for taking on this debate, apologies for my late reply. I know that I have a very small amount of time, so my apologies for this starting off debate. To start this debate I would like to explain HOW robots will overtake humans. WE at the moment are making robots for everything, literally and many of them are proving to be scarily lifelike, even able to make their own decisions. I believe that one day humans shall create a robot, with a disarming code in it like most do already have. However giving the mental capacity and capability of this robot it will detect the disarming code and then be able to disarm that making the robot 'indestructible'. Because of the i-intelligence they will then be able to create more and more robots to then overtake humans. I would also like to touch on the fact that we are producing robots in such large amounts doing a wide variety of things that one day humans will do no jobs as all of them will be done by robots, then what will we do?
The United Nations: Useless in the Reduction of Poverty

Since my opponent has forfeited, and I assume he will not come back to this debate, I will not spend alot of my energy on this debate. But here it goes.Resolution: the UN is a successful organization By having deployed 42 peace-keeping forces as of 1996, the UN was able to restore calm to allow the negotiating process to go forward while saving millions of people from becoming casualties of conflicts. There are presently 16 active peace-keeping forces in operation. Since 1945, the United Nations has been credited with negotiating 172 peaceful settlements that have ended regional conflicts. More than 30 million refugees fleeing war, famine or persecution have received aid from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees since 1951. UN agencies have worked to make safe drinking water available to 1.3 billion people in rural areas during the last decade. A 13-year effort by the World Health Organization resulted in the complete eradication of smallpox from the planet in 1980. The eradication has saved an estimated $1 billion a year in vaccination and monitoring. UNEP led a major effort to clean up the Mediterranean Sea. It encouraged adversaries such as Syria and Israel, Turkey and Greece to work together to clean up beaches. As a result, more than 50 per cent of the previously polluted beaches are now usable. The UN Population Fund, through its family planning programmes, has enabled people to make informed choices, and consequently given families, and especially women, greater control over their lives. As a result, women in developing countries are having fewer children - from six births per woman in the 1960s to 3.5 today. (http://unadane.com...) Resolution: The UN is/was successful in reducing poverty First of here http://web.undp.org... is a very interesting and intuitive site with lots of information if anyone is interested. Goal 1: Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger Target 1A: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people living on less than $1.25 a day[8] Poverty gap ratio [incidence x depth of poverty] Share of poorest quintile in national consumption Target 1B: Achieve Decent Employment for Women, Men, and Young People GDP Growth per Employed Person Employment Rate Proportion of employed population below $1.25 per day (PPP values) Proportion of family-based workers in employed population Target 1C: Halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people who suffer from hunger Prevalence of underweight children under five years of age Proportion of population below minimum level of dietary energy consumption[9] From the official report in 2013 The target of reducing extreme poverty rates by half was met five years ahead of the 2015 deadline. Globally, 384 million workers lived below the $1.25 a day poverty line in 2011—a reduction of 294 million since 2001. The hunger reduction target is within reach by 2015. So all of the UN mandated goals for reducing poverty where either met, or are within close reach. Clearly the Un is a succesfull organization that has contributed greatly to reducing poverty. http://www.un.org... http://www.un.org...
The United Nations: Useless in the Reduction of Poverty

I accept your challenge. Pro in his title says 'The United Nations: Useless in the Reduction of Poverty' So Pro is arguing the UN is not succeding in reducing Poverty. But the, in the opening statement, Pro states 'The united nations is an useless organisation that has failed to reduce poverty'. So Pro is arguing that the UN is useless and it has not reduced poverty? Pro is contradicting himself in his first two sentences about what he is arguing about! But to clear this up, I, con, will be arguing that the UN has been an extremly succesful organization that has amongst a plethora of other things reduced poverty. Pro will try to prove the opposite. I am looking forward to your arguments.
Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling

My opponent's response is much more like a comment than a position in a debate. My opponent failed to rebut my points and did not provide any substantial points for the con position. I will be using this opportunity to rebut my opponent's statement. Point #1: "But I don't think Chuck E. Cheese's supports gambling." I never once said that Chuck E. Cheese supports gambling, I said "Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling." Per Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com: Definition of "Encourage": to promote, advance, or foster. Definition of "Support": to promote the interests or cause of. As you can see there is a difference between the two. Point #2: "It's simply fun and games and your'e over-thinking it if you consider it 'gambling'." A lot of people who enjoy gambling activities would refer to them as "fun" and/or "games." As an example, just look at Thunder Valley Casino's website, where there are many references to "games" and quotes such as "watch as the fun factor goes through the roof." http://www.thundervalleyresort.com... Point #3: "And, if the parents think it DOES support gambling, simply don't bring your kids to Chuck E. Cheese's." My opponent failed to stay on topic. The topic was "Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling." Not "parents shouldn't bring their children to Chuck E. Cheese." It doesn't matter that parents bring their children there, it's the fact that they have games that are similar to slot machines and other casino games that really matters to the topic of this debate.
Chuck E. Cheese encourages gambling

Chuck E. Cheese encourages children to continue spending tokens until they get enough tickets to win a prize. They want to keep spending more and more tokens on 'that one game that gives a lot of tickets' so that they can get more tickets to get better toys. Not to mention the toys are extremely cheap and break easily, which would make them want a new one to replace it. They waste their parents money on overly priced cheap toys until they get a better toy. The toys that aren't as cheap cost thousands of tickets, making the children play the games over and over again until they get more tickets. There are also games that are based on luck and you may not get any tickets at all from them. There are games that resemble gambling games at casinos. Children continue to play the games because they don't realize they're gambling away their parents money on games that will get the four tickets if they're lucky, and they do it to get a toy that lasts about a week. Especially when the prize is candy, that rots their teeth and is full of unhealthy preservatives.
People cannot be evil.

"[D]efinitions of evil change from person to person... it is impossible to get one, comprehensive definition of evil."In order to go any further we must comprehensively tackle the dilemma my opponent has enlightened us with, about what constitutes evil. What does it mean when someone is called evil, wicked, or morally wrong? How can we put an objective meaning to something which seems so relative from social group to social group? I simply propose that we rely upon empiricism and science to answer the question – namely psycho-linguistics and sociology in this case. When considering how people use the word evil, evil within this understanding is any action or temperament which violates the stability and well-being of individuals or social infrastructure within a system of social contracts. Depending on the nature of a culture and its social contracts, evil may have a loose or very specific nature.Simply, what do I mean? Evil is anything which a person deems detrimental to their own way of life. A Muslim may consider a Christian immoral simply because the Qur'an depicts Jews and Christians as swine, though depending on the sect and specific social environment of the individual, they may not always consider this to be the case. Witchcraft is considered evil to some because it violates their taught understanding of morality (and the social contracts derived from those teachings). We can accurately determine what one will consider evil based on the social contracts he or she subscribes to."[F]or a person to be evil, everything they do and think must be a product of that evil."I disagree with this point. As much as I feel we should rely on science to illustrate what evil means, I feel that science (cognitive science in this example) should also guide the direction of our understanding of personal identity. Within a social system, evil doers are more akin to Shakespearean villains than absolute slates of ill-will. I very much enjoyed the reference to the Venables case and I encourage the audience to take a moment to read it. Someone may be a perfectly good person aside from some evil and destructive habits that taint their personality. They become evil when their actions and behaviours are consumed by those mental afflictions. Was Venables evil (having intention and wilful action) or just misguided and disconnected from an understanding of the consequences? The answer will depend on your own values and social norms. It is possible to have a world-view where nothing is considered evil. While in that world-view people cannot be evil, people can still be evil relative to different world-views.Part of the problem with trying to label someone as “evil” is that in the act of doing so we are attempting to simplistically categorize someone into an expected behaviour set (which may or may not occur). If someone is considered evil, that is simply to say we can reasonably expect them to do evil (perform actions to the detriment of social stability).http://www.iep.utm.edu...http://www.sciencedaily.com...
People cannot be evil.

My opening argument is that it is both morally wrong and simply false to define people as evil. My first point is that, for a person to be evil, everything they do and think must be a product of that evil. And while this would seem to work in some cases, holes in the logic of the statement are quickly evident. For example, a lot of people might think that Jon Venables (Link below) is evil, but that is a shallow cop out. If he was simply evil, that would tell us everything about him. But what is an evil person's favorite movie? Where do they live? Who do they hang around with? What are their hobbies? Evil, given it's total nature, would have to define everything about a person. My second point is that definitions of evil change from person to person, and therefore it is impossible to get one, comprehensive definition of evil. Definitions of evil change from person to person. Muslim extremists would call Christians evil. The Catholic Church would say homosexuality is evil. It seems to be impossible to get a definite idea of evil. These are my brief opening points. I might bring in more points later on in the debate, and I am looking forward to Molzahn's response. . http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Christian God does exist. Christ is not a religion but, a reality!

Well, this debate is over since my opponent just conceded."The BoP has been established. Jesus Christ is the Christian God,The Root of David, Adam, the Alpha of the Bible. Rev.22:16 The Root and Offspring of David. My opponent needs to prove Jesus Christ never existed ever or, The Line of David did not lead to promises kept by Almighty God! So the BoP is on you Sir! Along with the fact that Christ was/is not a Christian but a practicing Jew who kept Jewish feasts days and customs. Proves my opponent is totally bibically illiterate and just babbling on and on!"First point, my opponent provides no arguments but cites a lot of scripture which has not provided evidence for. Next he tries to shift the burden of proof to me, which does not work. I don't need to disprove Jesus' existence, my opponent needs to show that Jesus was the divine son of god. He concedes when he says Christ was not a Christian. My opponent is affirming the resolution "The Christian God does exist. Christ is not a religion but, a reality!" and he just claimed Christ wasn't a Christian.To summarize, my opponent has a huge burden of proof, he has provided no evidence, just a lot of scripture that he has not shown is reliable. He also conceded.
The Christian God does exist. Christ is not a religion but, a reality!

After looking through Pro's round, I found zero arguments. At a stretch, he might have made two points.1. The bible supports the Christian reality.My refutation is that Pro has given no reason as to why the Bible is reliable.2. Islam and other religions are bad.This is irrelevant to the resolution at hand.Pro has the full BoP here and has yet to produce any arguments, so as of this moment I am winning. I will give the problem of evil this round just for the heck of it. The Problem of Evil This is an argument againt the standard omnipotent omniscient and omnibenevolent Christian god. 1. If an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god existed, gratuitous suffering would not exist. 2. Gratuitous suffering exists. 3. An omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god does not exist. Defense of 1: A completely loving and good being would be willing to end all evil if possible. An omnipotent being would be capable of doing it. Therefore an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god does not exist. Defense of 2: This one is obvious. Natural disasters, starving children in Africa, animals receiving inhumane treatment are all examples of unnecessary suffering. “William L. Rowe's famous example of natural evil: ‘In some distant forest lightning strikes a dead tree, resulting in a forest fire. In the fire a fawn is trapped, horribly burned, and lies in terrible agony for several days before death relieves its suffering.’” (http://en.wikipedia.org......) Point 3 is supported and the resolution is negated.
The Christian God does exist. Christ is not a religion but, a reality!

Pro has yet to provide any actual arguments and the BoP is still completely unfulfilled. There is nothing in any of his rounds that even merits a rebuttal. I will just point out again that the bible has not been proven to be accurate, and insulting other religions is irrelevant to this debate. I will present a couple arguments against the existence of the Christian god that I've wanted to try out.The No-Reason Argument1: If the Christian god exists, he must be perfect.2. If the Christian god exists he is the creator of the universe.3: A perfect being cannot have any needs or wants.4. The creator of the universe must have had some need or want.5. A perfect being could not have created the universe. (3 and 4)6. Therefore it is impossible for the Christian god to exist. (1, 2, and 5)The Argument from Poor Design1. A perfect creator god would create beings with optimal design.2. Organisms have sub-optimal features.3. A perfect creator god does not exist.
A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.

I"A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise." Okay so I have gathered that I am debate that A second debate is indeed not not a minor premise and a 1st debate is not a major premise. which means we are arguing Syllogism. Which states: A syllogism is valid if and only if the conclusion necessarily follows the premises, i.e., if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Although there are 256 possible forms (4 possible variations (a, e, i, o) for each part, three parts (major premise, minor premise, conclusion), and four figures, so 4*4*4*4=256) of syllogism, only 19 of them are valid. The valid forms for each figure is given below, with their mnemonic names (each containing three vowels specifying the form of the part (a, e, i, o) in order of major premise, minor premise, conclusion). http://www.wikihow.com... Is this correct?
A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.

A.WitherspoonVI states: "First of all my opponent's introduction is almost completely incomprehensible and I cannot draw any clear arguments from it." I, abstractposters, state: "Whoever accepts this 3rd debate is acknowledging that categorical syllogisms are insufficient (in-themselves) and may not concede this fact within their thesis." I consider Con's concession of the fact that my argument does not imply any ‘clear arguments' and render Con's argument as insufficient to support such a claim and I overlook this appeal to authority. I divide my premises into subjects and assertions. (1) [A first debate] [is a major premise] and (2) [A last and/or second debate] [is a minor premise.] Allow me to reiterate these premises in layman's terms. There exists at least one debate in the entire universe that is in existence as a major premise. There exists at least one debate in the entire universe that is in existence as a minor premise. Although, it seems easy to render what exists (the two debates mentioned) as almost completely incomprehensible, it would have to pass through an individual's freedom first to become incomprehensible. The major and minor premises are that of a practical syllogism which are not only not almost incomprehensible, but much is known. The major and minor premises do not belong to a categorical syllogism, which are incomprehensible (in-themselves) and only ever imply inferiority. (in-themselves is another wording for in-itself) Practical Syllogism: http://en.wikipedia.org... I agree to the fact that the first debate has greater weight than the second. Categorical syllogisms are immoral.
A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.

First Of all my Opponent's introduction Is almost completely incomprehensible and I cannot draw any clear arguments from it. Before I go Any further with this debate can you please clarify your introduction, it makes does not make much sense to me and appears to be making a reference to some other debate I am not aware of. What i managed to Dechypher from your Introduction was that you were going to be defending a mathomatical Model supported in the Bible,(" A first debate is a major premise and a last and/or second debate is a minor premise.") Which makes The first Debate have greater weight over the second debate, and even this confuses me....