BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Some Days Are Longer Than Years

Terminology and ModifiersThe term "round rules" is very ambiguous and is left undefined. Since a debate (in this instance) = 4 rounds it is arguable that debate rules and round rules are the same thing. A round rule (as I have interpreted since Pro left it undefined) is a rule regarding the debate. I should NOT be penalized for this interpretation due to the fact that the term was extremely vague and was not explained in enough detail in the first round. Pro even reinforces this by defining "round" as a division of a debate. Meaning that if a rule concerns the rounds it ultimately concerns the debate. I agree that nouns can be used as modifiers however in this instance the modifier "round" can easily be interpreted as very similar, if not the same, as the modifier "debate". CompositionMy opponent's argument regarding composition is also irrelevant. I never made that assumption. This is my interpretation of Pro's initial round: Premise: There is a rule at the beginnining of the round stating that the first round is acceptance. Premise: Directly underneath this rule it states that there are no more round rules other than the rule above. Premise: The term round rule is left undefined. Conclusion: The term round rule is left to Con's interpretation due to the fact that it's left undefined. Conclusion: I interpret round rules as being comparable to debate rules due to their similarity, especially in regards to debate. I do not view them as the same however I do interpret that in this instance whether they are similar or the same is irrelevant since I believe that rules regarding definitions come under the heading of round rules and debate rules. Note: I should not be penalized due to the fact that I am not able to read Pro's mind and find out what interpretation of round rules he was using. Furthermore, due to the nature of this debate (being that it is a trap debate that is a truism in Pro's favor - provided that we accept his definitions), you ought to penalize Pro on this - not me. There was no "bogus" interpretation and as I have already stated there was no need to include the modifier as the modifiers debate and round are similar and can be used interchangably in this instance. MisquoteI have not "misquote[d]" my opponent. x = y (ie. they are synonyms)I have said that my opponent said x when in reality he said y. There is no difference between x and y because they are synonyms and ultimately mean exactly the same thing. SummaryMy opponent is being ridiculous and is expecting me to know things that are impossible for me to know. How on Earth am I supposed to know my opponent's interpretation of the words "round rules"? This is ridiculous.
Some Days Are Longer Than Years

**Burdens**The burdens solely lie on Pro to prove that some days are longer than years. **Observation of the Rules**Let's look at what Pro says in the first round: "1st round is for acceptance, and if you want to introduce yourself." Now directly underneath this (this was the very first sentence). Pro says:"There are no round rules other than the above rule." Now let's look at what Pro says underneath the text that says that there are no rules other than the above rule:"*Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before accepting, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Otherwise... *Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate."This rule is invalid due to the fact that Pro specifically says that there are no rules other than the one above him saying that. This means that definitions CAN be changed in the debate because the rule saying that they can't is an invalid rule. **Proposal**I propose that the definition of the word 'day' is changed to make it more suitable, applicable and fair in regards to the debate resolution because as Pro's argument clearly shows, the resolution is a truism without the necessary definition change that I will be proposing. The definition of day will now be: "each of the twenty-four-hour periods, reckoned from one midnight to the next, into which a week, month, or year is divided, and corresponding to a rotation of the earth on its axis." [1]Ergo, the length of a day on any planet other than Earth is irrelevant. My opponent's argument is therefore irrelevant. [1] https://www.google.co.uk...;
Some Days Are Longer Than Years

I affirm that some days are longer than years, because on the planet Venus, the 2nd planet from our sun, "one day...lasts as long as 243 Earth days...Venus makes a complete orbit around the sun (a year in Venusian time) in 225 Earth days or slightly less than 2 Venusian day-night cycles." http://solarsystem.nasa.gov... So, it is true that some days, Venusian days, are longer than years. One day on Venus is about 243 Earth days, and one year on Venus is about 225 earth days. One must affirm the resolution, because of Venusian days and years.
Some Days Are Longer Than Years

*There are no round rules other than the above rule. ResolutionSome days are longer than years. ProHas the Burden of Proof and 3 sets of 10,000 characters to AFFIRM the resolution that some days are longer than years. ConHas also 3 sets of 10,000 characters to NEGATE the resolution that some days are longer than years. *Definitions can be changed, in the comments section, before accepting, as long as both Pro and Con agree. Otherwise. .. *Definitions below are agreed to by accepting the debate. Definitionssome - an unspecified amount or number of. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...day - a single rotation of a planet in relation to its primary. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...longer - last a greater amount of time. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...year - the time taken by a planet to make one revolution around the sun. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
I believe that abortion is wrong.

My opponent states: "In certain situations abortion is appropriate, but if they are so young and its not rape its there own fault. But abortion isn't safe anyway." My opponent has conceded this debate. 52% of females who have abortions are aged 25 or younger. Teens take up 20% and women aged 20-24 take up the remaining 32%.Out of all the women who have abortions, 66% are unmarried. This means that it would be difficult to look after the child - making its living quality poor. I may not win the conduct point but in my opinion I have won the argument points and definitely the sources points. For these reasons and more I believe that I have won this debate. VOTE CON!Sourceshttp://www.angelfire.com...;
I believe that abortion is wrong.

I believe that abortion is wrong. Me being a Christian, there are many reasons I believe this. But I believe that above all, if you aren't willing to have a child, do one of the two: A) Use a condom. B) Don't have sex in the first place. People find it ok do do a sick thing, killing children before they are even born. People who participate in this ritual have a disgusting thought process. We have no idea if the child feels anything at all, but what if it does? I'm sure it's an undesirable feeling. So you're murdering small babies brutally and slowly. Think about that a minuet. Better yet, think about it before you lay your head down tonight.
Gun Control

Well, First of all, America already has thousands of gun laws in place at a state and local level. Majority of all gun crime happens in 4 cities. Baltimore, Chigaco, Detroit and Washington D. C. These 4 cities all have strict gun laws. 96% of mass shootings are in gun-free zones. Britain, Who banned all guns has seen an increase in violent crime and has murders higher than Japan which has the best gun policy with only 10 deaths and a higher population. There's a movement in the UK to ban knives now. In Parkland, Florida the school shooter was in an FBI Watchlist. His Mom called the cops on him 39 times and had mental problems. That would have prevented a school shooting. Now, Let's look at countries who banned guns. mexico did it-largest crime rate in the world Hitler did it Stalin did it mau did it These are the people who took the guns. I have more arguments that I am going to save, I look forward to your response. The way Japan bans guns is in the comments. Last, Give me a solution to disarming 300 million guns.
Gun Control

Going by your opening (albeit confusing) argument, I believe I should speak FOR the effective banning of guns. I truly believe that the best way to control an issue is to stem out its source, Which, In this case, Takes the form of guns. Of course, Japan has implemented a novel system, But looking at this in a logical light, It would be far more efficient to ban guns altogether. As a result, One can control over illegal trade and imports of guns, As there are provisions banning them. You see, The route problem is in how the law is tuned. In a country that has completely banned guns, It authorizes the state to use force against any potential defaulters. Now think of countries like America. What guarantee exists that a former convict will not wield the gun again? What safeguard exists against any potential criminals influenced by this convict? In all, The situation is dangerous and worrisome - the solution? Gun Control. I shall elaborate in R2, But I feel this should do for an introduction to my argument.
Gun Control

Right, So the UK banned virtually all guns and doubled their gun crime in 6 years and violent crime continue to rise. So guns are risky. You are safer holding a gun and being next to someone with a gun than being in a car. no, It wouldn't have happened if mental health screening took place. What if that woman was put in a position to defend herself. Guns don't kill people. He could've come in with a spoon to kill people and or a knife, Or an iron rod. You can't bn the iron rod. If there were laws for responsibilities with mentally ill people. No mass shootings. First of all, Drug Lords can't get guns legally. So where do they come from? I made this to clear up a point. There have been fewer guns in the past, More crime in the past. There are fewer guns in Britain now, More crime now. There are fewer guns in Mexico then was before more come. There are multiple examples. This is why I want a wall, Think about it. Now if guns were illegal and you wanted to commit a mass shooting(God Forbid) Where would you get the gun? Common Sense. Their ahs been mass shooting with weapons bought illegally. Well, Australia banned virtually all guns. Give me an example of the Jurisdiction being part of the rise in crime. Criminals will find a way-Illegally bought, Etc. Etc. Nobody could stop them either. See this has relation to Parkland. If the mother was responsible with her gun. Nothing would have happened. You see, The media always has news on about the shooting and yatta, Yatta, Yatta. This ahs an influence on kids mind. There have been guns before the rise in school shootings. Why are we just seeing them now? Ok, Look. They are kids. They don't know the real world and are being brainwashed by the media. If they looked at what could've stopped the Parkland shooting. They would change sides. The media doesn't report
Gun Control

Well, You just proved my point. I am for permits. Why should we take guns from good guys when a few criminals commit crimes. The mother of the school shooter was a law-abiding citizen and called the cops on her son 39 times! Banning ARs would not have done anything. There have been shootings not committed by an AR. AR crime only commits barely a fraction of the gun crime. Shootings have been stopped by good citizens in gun-free zones. 80% of gun crime is drug-related. Violent and gun crime continue to fall and more and more guns are being purchased. According to FBI crime stats, In 2004, After the 1994 federal "assault weapons" ban ended, Violent crime actually fell. In fact, Violent crime has fallen by more than 50 percent since 1997, When the ban was in effect. Since 2004, Sales and ownership of AR-15-style rifles have skyrocketed. Thus, Contradicting claims made by gun control components, Violent crime fell when the number of guns owned by the population significantly increased. if we ban guns, Illegal firearm sales from our southern border will skyrocket. For the reasons above, We know that this isn"t true. However, Even if it were true, Our goal should be to reduce all violence. Completely eradicating gun violence wouldn"t have stopped the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The Boston marathon bombing, The serial bombings in Austin, Texas, Or other violent crimes. Often Australia is used as an example for how banning guns works. Yes, Their firearm-related crime went down, But their violent crimes, To include sexual assault, Kidnapping, Manslaughter, And robbery, Have all stayed the same or increased. Also, Gun restrictions can lead to an increase in violence when law-abiding citizens are unable to protect themselves. Everywhere would be a gun-free zone.
People are Generally Selfish

Con: i see a homeless guy outside of seven eleven i give him a few dollars Pro: okay i dont Con: well i dont [pro doesnt] therefore most people dont [don't give to the homeless]?? Pro: yep Con: Prove that most people are selfish Pro: theres too much proof The above is a copy and paste of a chat I had with Pro. I ask him to defend his statements. "Selfish" as pro puts it is: "nobody cares about anyone else pretty much man" and "its about caring about yourself and family" Again these are direct quotes from a private chat. With that said, I remind the audience that Pro has the burden of proof. To keep things balanced, I will argue my case in Round 2. I await his arguements.
God is required for morality or morals to exist

I am going to be arguing that moral values are grounded in the morally perfect God. I have a few arguments regarding this conclusion. Argument (1) 1) Obligations are contingent upon a personnel entity. 2) Moral values are obligatory in that they pesrcribe behaviour. 3) Moral values transcend imperfect human persons. 4) Therefore a morally perfect transcendent personnel being (God) exists. The philosopher Peter S Williams explains it like this: An objective moral value is a transcendent ideal that prescribes and obligates behaviour; but an ideal implies a mind, a prescription requires a prescriber and an obligation is contingent upon a person. As H.P. Owen argues: "On the one hand [objective moral] claims transcend every human person" On the other hand" it is contradictory to assert that impersonal claims are entitled to the allegiance of our wills. The only solution to this paradox is to suppose that the order of [objective moral] claims" is in fact rooted in the personality of God." Argument (2) 1)On atheism there is absolutely no grounds for the existence of objectivie morality. 2)Objective morality exists. 3)Therefore atheism is false.(God exists) This is also an argument for Gods existence but I use it hear because it depends on a proposition which supports this motion and fleshes it out to its conclusion. This argument is not arguing for the obviously false claim that atheists are immoral. Rather it relies on the proposition that on atheism there would be no reason to predict morality's existence. This is a proposition which is recognised not only Thiestic philosophers but also a large number of Athiest philosophers also. Turning to the first premise, many atheists acknowledge that "if god doesn"t exist, then objective moral values don"t exist". For example, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote that it is: extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. The famous Richard Dawkins had this to say: In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. And he's right(if atheism is true). Notice that he says "no design,no purpose,no evil,no good". Here he joins no design with no good or bad.
God is required for morality or morals to exist

R1: Acceptance/definition clarification R2: Main argument R3: Rebuttal R4: Closing(limited new argument only) Morality defined 1) Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. virtue, goodness, good behavior, righteousness, rectitude, uprightness; morals, principles, honesty, integrity, propriety, honor, justice, decency; ethics, standards/principles of behavior, mores, standards 2) A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. On God: For this debate, I will consider us to be discussing the concept of God as generally espoused by Christianity put forth by the Bible. If you wish to make reference another god claim please say so in your acceptance here in round 1.
because god is not real, morality exist

This debate isn't on the truth of the bible. But nevertheless, I'll provide a quick argument for the existence of God. The Kalam Cosmological argument or the first cause argument states that everything has a cause and therefore the Earth and the Universe has a cause. As a result of this, we can ultimately conclude that something must have caused the universe. That something is most likely God since in order to create the universe it would require an immense amount of energy and power which could easily be achieved by an omnipotent figure. It is more specifically the God of the Bible because Christianity has the most followers out of any religion which therefore gives it greater credibility. A lot of people believe it because they believe that it is rational and true. If people believed that it was irrational and probably not true then they wouldn't believe in it. My opponent's example is that an assassin can kill you no matter how many men you have. This does the opposite of helping him. It shows that God cannot be on your side if he doesn't exist and therefore by killing people it is not immoral because nobody will necessarily find out. My opponent's example helps my position and makes their burden of proof higher. I have fulfilled my BOP by proving the universe to be created by God and proven that it is most likely the God of the Bible.
because god is not real, morality exist

I know I'm Con however you are Pro and are affirming the resolution therefore you must prove it beyond reasonable doubt to be true. This is called your burden of proof. As Con my role is to negate your arguments and therefore I await them patiently. My opponent believes that morality exists because God doesn't. This is false. Due to the fact that iGod (in Christianity) gave us the 10 commandments this ultimately means that we got our morals indirectly from God and directly on to Moses. Without God we never would have had these morals.
Resolved: The Possession and Use of Nuclear Weapons is Immoral

Then I'll be saying why I won this debate. His Response 1 literally concedes the point. To quote him, "when he calls my argument "morally repugnant"". Exactly. Attacking people's arguments is allowed. For Response 2 the US does not have anti nuclear weapons. If any on country had anti-nuclear weapons, then MAD would not apply and that side could just bomb everyone else. This is what my physics teacher said, and he is a PHd. So ad hominem away, friend. For Response 3 like I said the argument doesn't apply. For Responses 4 and 6 it's still immoral for them to have nukes even if we can't take it away from them. The possibility of having a nuclear war is reason enough for them to be immoral. Remember the topic! And response 5 I'd have to make a new response to so I'll prove I'm winning without the whole Japan surrender argument. Reasons to vote Neg: 1. He concedes that Japan was affected by all these horrible health defects which are far worse than any lives the Us would have lost. Plus my argument is substantiated whilst his is speculative. So I outweigh his argument and my argument is more legit. 2. If the only point of having a nuke is to stop nuke attacks, then not having nukes is strictly superior. It doesn't matter that that isn't obtainable because it will still be immoral. 3. He uses ad hominem on me, while I just attacked his argument. 4. Having nukes risks extinction. There is no response to this argument, and I'm winning the debate on that alone because of the Bostrom weighing card - reducing extinction must come before everything else because of how bad a result extinction is. Why would you risk having the world end? It is clearly immoral to have nukes if the world might end because of it. 5. I contest his arguments, while mine go uncontested, so I'm also winning on strength of link. Clearly a world without nukes is the best one. Even if it isn't obtainable, that still means I win because it's immoral regardless.
Resolved: The Possession and Use of Nuclear Weapons is Immoral

Hello Esteemed Debate Colleagues,Today I present you with a debate that is of much importance to our world today. Nuclear weapons have have been and still are (And will most likely will continue to be) a source of controversy. Despite this, I, along with my opponent, wish to shed some light on this topic.Rules: I am not a big rule person so I do not expect you to perform any ridiculous actions. However, I do expect three things: First of all you must treat me, as I will you, with the utmost respect; Secondly you must provide sources for any evidence presented, if no sufficient links or references are provided I urge the voters to disregard the evidence; Last of all no Ad Hominem. Also no Kritiks.Structure of the Round:Round 1: Introductions, acceptance statements, thanks, etc... Round 2: Primary arguments Round 3: Refutations of opponents arguments Round 4: Maintenance of original arguments and refutation of opponents arguments A Note to the Voter: Thank you if you are about to vote or if you are planning to vote, your input is greatly appreciated. I urge you to disregard any unsupported evidence. I also hope you will judge not on your personal view(s) but on how well the debaters impacted you.
Most people on antidepressants are being duped

I started this debate before, but got LatentDebater who was banned, and then Inquisitor who was banned. So this is getting exciting now. How many different alts of RationalMadman will I go through before I get to do this debate? So I'm putting it up again: In the suburb where I live, I've noticed that being on antidepressants is almost as common as not being on them. People are on them and long term and I have SO MANY issues with this. By "being duped" I mean that they would be no worse off if they weren't taking them, and probably would be better off. antidepressants: SSRIs, SNRIs. Of course, if you want, you can try to include other drugs, but they have to be proper antidepressants meaning drugs that doctors would be likely to prescribe for depression. Rounds 1. acceptance 2-3 arguments and rebuttals 4 conclusion no new arguments. 5000 characters per round.