BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

I suspected my opponent would do this: "mongoose updated his stand on the BIG Issues.1 hour ago" He essentially changed all of his opinions to "Not Saying". Fortunately, I foresaw this and copied all of his "BIG Issues" viewpoints onto a .txt file on my computer. I will still use them as if they were truly on his profile. Compulsory- reqiired allegiance- loyalty I expect you to re-answer Number 3 from Round 1, as you were incorrect in guessing it. 1. Should people be able to smoke cigarettes in the privacy of their own homes? 2. Is the ability to smoke cigarettes a "tobacco right"? 3. Should people be aloud to smoke cigarettes if they can afford the medical expenses involved in potential resulting treatment? 4. Should people be aloud to chew tobacco as long as the dip is properly disposed of after use? 5. Is the ability to chew tobacco a "tobacco right"? 6. Are Wikipedia articles that have over 25 sources reliable? 7. When using Wikipedia sources in debates, do you only use reliable ones? 8. Was the United States a good country when under President George W. Bush in 2004? 9. In U.S. history class, was it obvious that the government was conveying its beliefs? 10. Is the current public education system compulsory?
I will not contradict myself.

"1. Should people have the right to consciously do bodily harm to themselves?" Um... as long as it does not infringe other people's rights. "2. Is a fascist nation a good nation?" Depends on your definition of "good." No. "3. Is compulsory allegiance fascism?" I can't find what "compulsory allegiance" is anywhere, so I will assume that it requires you to pledge allegiance to the flag. No. "4. Is the dictionary a reliable source?" Yes. "5. When in conflict, should libety be valued over patriotism?" Yes. "6. Are your opinions on 'The BIG Issues' equivalent to your actual opinions?" Yes. "7. Is it fascism to instill the government's beliefs into a population?" Yes. "8. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over environmental protection?" Yes. "9. Is the United States a good country?" With Obama as president and a Liberal Congress? Good: financially sound or safe. No. http://dictionary.reference.com... "10. Is fascism okay if it stimulates the economy?" No.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Should people have the right to consciously do bodily harm to themselves? 2. Is a fascist nation a good nation? 3. Is compulsory allegiance fascism? 4. Is the dictionary a reliable source? 5. When in conflict, should libety be valued over patriotism? 6. Are your opinions on "The BIG Issues" equivalent to your actual opinions? 7. Is it fascism to instill the government's beliefs into a population? 8. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over environmental protection? 9. Is the United States a good country? 10. Is fascism okay if it stimulates the economy?
I will not contradict myself.

I will now try to defeat the diabolical wizard. Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are irrelevant, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. Good luck.
The Wage Gap Is due to discrimination

I contend that the gender wage gap exists not due to discrimination, but because men work more hours, take different positions, and other factors that would account into this debate. Contention 1: Women work less than men I believe that female full-time workers on average make less money because Women work less hours than man. On average, Men work 8.1 hours per day On average, Women work 7.3 hours per day Source: https://www.bls.gov... Contention 2: Women have babies (This one should be obvious) Some women decide to take time off to have a child, this takes them out of the workforce for 1-2yrs, truly depends on the woman's choice. On Average, 43% of Women with children leave their jobs. https://www.theatlantic.com... Contention 3: The Actual calculation The Actual calculation (Where it comes down to 72 cents on the dollar, or any other BS) is taken from the TOTAL earnings from Full-Time Male and Female workers, it does not take into account the following factors (Women choose different jobs, take time off from work for different reasons, work fewer hours, and make different life decisions on average. ) As my good friend "Shoe0nHead" said, "The Wage Gap is simply the average earnings of men and women working full-time, it does not take into account different job positions, hours worked, or different jobs, it has nothing to do with the same job, it has nothing to do with discrimination *THROWS IT DESPERATELY AT THE GROUND*)
should power ranger be removed

I disagree with you with your argument saying that the costumes are not that bad. They don't look like they put any effort into it whatsoever. Not only has the show gone downhill, it's been free falling and is still going. While the acting might be acceptable, the main problem is still present. The plot is the exact same every single episode. Good acting won't fix a bad show. I don't even think the show can be considered to have different episodes, it's just the same episode over and over again with a slight redesign.
should power ranger be removed

Well, to tell the truth the costumes weren't as bad as you think, the costumes for the rangers ended up growing on me as I grew up watching the show and yes the new ranger show is not as good as the ones owned by Saban which Disney ended up buying from, which you can see where it ended downhill. But some of the acting was solid like from the 1st season the rangers were actually trained in that martial art which takes considerable amount of work.
should power ranger be removed

If power rangers was also one of your favorite shows growing up you to should that the stuff they are showing now is nowhere close to the quality you would expect in a once good kids show. Imagine this scenario. You're an eight year old good who turns on the TV and sees a power rangers episode. you watch and think "that was pretty good, although the costumes were pretty bad. " So you watch another episode and think "hmmm, the plot for that episode was almost the exact same as the last one. So you watch a few more, which episodes you watch does not matter, they all have the exact same plot, and by that time, you're thinking "dang, this show sucks hard" (trying to talke like eight year old) and you never watch power rangers ever again. Just like that, the new power rangers have deprived a good of a good series. Now if kid sees one of the good series of power rangers on netflix or something, he's going to think "nah, power ranger stinks. " This means that the new power rangers are ridding kids of good shows. I await my opposition.
should power ranger be removed

Dear Pro While your point is somewhat valid with the some of the things, looking like there way made from "milk cartons" and while this show was aired in 1993, which in the 90's shows weren't too great and the megazord if you happen to remember the robots the rangers call to form into an awesome mecha warrior, that's the only thing I could see that was made from milk carton's and power rangers was too one of my favorite shows growing up with. challenge accepted.
should power ranger be removed

Power rangers. It used to be good, and one of my favorite shows. Now it's just a mess. The characters look like they are made out of recycled milk cartons, the plot is literally the exact same every single time, and it's just. Not. Good. Kids today are growing up today after watching this garbage thinking "eh, power rangers, nahhhhh," while if they were watching some of the older series they would think it's great. so because the producers can't think of anything new or good, kids are missing a great opportunity to watch a once good show. i await my opponents response.
Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

As it was not specified whether R1 was acceptance only, I will err on the side of caution and assume it is acceptance only. Hence, I will not begin to justify the claims: 1) Secular morality is fallacious. 2) There is no objective way to measure human behaviour aside from religious texts. And will instead allow my opponent to first justify their claims that: 1) Religious morality is fallacious. 2) There is an objective way to measure human behaviour. I would also like to ask Pro to define what they mean by "fallacious" in this context. Should they fail to do so in R2, I will take it upon myself to define this term in my R2 speech. All that is left for R1 is to thank my opponent for proposing such an interesting topic, and to wish them luck for the debate. I look forward to a fruitful discussion.
Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

This debate has 2 resolutions, 1 for each side, whoever proves their resolution wins. Pro must prove that Religious Morality is fallacious, and that there is an objective way to judge human behavior. Con must prove that Secular Morality is fallacious, and that there is no objective way to measure human behavior aside from a religious text. Objective shall be defined as being based on logic and not emotions. Enable to fill the obligation of being 'logical' each argument must follow syllogism.
Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

Secular is merely the absence of religious belief- thus, secuylarism cannot provide anything, just as lacking a belief in God doesn't do or prove anything. The resolution was that religious texts are not an objective or rational way to judge human behavior, and that there is an objective way to measure human behavior which doesn't require a diety. For the first claim- religious moraity is not objective because religious texts are the mere opinions of those who wrote them- even assuming that there is a God who wrote them, his opinions would still be just opinions- granted, someone elses opinion and not our own. The existance of a magical man in the sky doesn't make morality objective, and it cannot provide any consistent or rational moral code. For the second claim- the only way to have a moral code that is a legitimate form of morality is that based on first principles. Libertarianism, or Classical Liberalism, provides a very sensible and coinsistent moral yardstick, and it starts with the concept of self ownership:1. Everyone owns themselves2. You own your life (1)3. No one has the rightto kill you (2)4. You own your body (1)5. No one has the right to infringe on your free movements (4)6. You own the produce of your labor (1)7. No one has the right to steal from you (6)This is the concept of Natural Rights, John Locke said:"All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions."
Secular Morality (Pro) vs. Reigious Morality (Con)

Okay, since Pro didn't begin to argue any of their claims in R2, I will assume the onus is on me to do so first. Objective secular morality does not exist, and simply cannot exist- though secularism can explain the origins of morality (In a nutshell, the I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine principle. See source 1), it cannot and has never provided a form of objective morality which can be justified without using either fallacious or subjective reasoning. Philosophers like Sam Harris (see source 2) boldly declare claims like "That which maximises the wellbeing- and minimises the suffering- of conscious creatures is moral", and though this provides a sensible standard of morality by which to judge things, the claim itself needs to be justified in an objective way, and this simply cannot be done by secularism. It's also rather close to utilitarianism, which ultimately falls short as a form of morality in many respects e.g. it can be used to justify killing one person in order to harvest their organs and save ten people. Religious morality is considerably more objective- whether you believe God exists or not, you should recognise that if we declare axiomatically that God exists, then a specific morality follows. God is defined as being a perfect being, which includes being perfectly moral. As such, by granting the existence of God, we have gotten to an objective moral standard- that which God desires is moral, and that which he does not desire is not. So, to summarise my R2 speech: 1) Objective secular morality cannot exist, as all secular justifications for morality are subjective- the claims they rely on cannot be justified in an objective way. 2) If we grant that God exists, it follows that morality is simply whatever God desires- as such, religious morality is objective. Sources: [1]: [2]: [3]: https://www.google.co.uk...
If you can eat tree you eco fren fren

QUIT FORFIETING! I want to hear your remarks! FINE! snce I am loosing another debate because peopel don't seem to consider anything I actually say. Vote I loose. I lose. U can eat trees. we should eat trees. we are the ecosystems friend. we should be at least. If there are Muslims that don't even want to acknowledge what I am saying in a debate against them. I am perfectly fine with losing this debate too. We can, should, and are better off eating the twicgs and leaves off trees on a regular basis. But always considering, to be a true friend of the ecosystem, we also have to eat the grass, and other things too. Like vegetables and fruit. Peace and vote I loose. ... I loose so long as the Muslims don't even bother reading my shitt and post heckles without regarding what I say. I believe int eh Quran and they just have NOOOO sense whats so ever.
If you can eat tree you eco fren fren

Horses grow faster then man and stronger. They eat no proteins. Moose also do this, and elephants whom strive primarily on leaves and dried wood, and hippos, and rhinos, kangaroo, giraffe, and none of these eat any protein in their diet. respectively, proteins do not come from your food, they are created in your body. Obviously eating trees is healthy and natural, and a great means of attaining nutrition, but I win. this round because u forfeit. Next.
Interracial Dating Negatively Impacts Cultures and Undermines true Diversity.

I've already shown how integration doesn't effect culture, and how race doesn't necessarily effect culture. Race is not necessarily tied to culture, and my opponent has not shown how it is. What evidence is there that interacial dating compromises cultures? My opponent uses race and culture interchangeablely, even using cultures/races, despite claiming that interacial dating, a racial thing, negatively impacts culture. I've shown how interracial relations can benefit culture, my opponent has failed to show how it damages culture. For my opponent has yet to show how interracial dating has actually negatively effected cultures at all. If these two things are not tied together, interracial dating has no effect on culture whatsoever, thus negating the first part of his opening premise. Until then, you cannot use interracial dating and race in general as the same as the mixing of cultures. The next section he has is saying that by mixing red and blue, as a metaphor, reduces the amount of colors. To target the metaphor, no, that's not true. We have three primary colors. Through mixing them, we have more colors, not less. That seems like a pretty obviously flawed analogy. This is quite frankly absurd, because no, the mixing of cultures does not destroy each culture. American culture is made from an integration of many cultures, as he admits, but these cultures still exist. They were not destroyed in their creation, but instead we got an extra culture without the loss of those that made it, increasing, no undermining, diversity. My opponent acknowledges that the American culture is built off many different cultures. Each culture has been influenced by other cultures, and this is how new cultures come about.
Interracial Dating Negatively Impacts Cultures and Undermines true Diversity.

I believe that it is necessary to restate my thesis, as my opponent has seemingly overlooked it. Nowhere in my thesis do I argue that different races can/cannot integrate into a racially uniform society, and nowhere in my thesis do I argue that different cultures cannot contribute to one collective culture. Furthermore, the example my opponent gave, regarding American cultures, proves my point that Interracial Dating undermines true diversity. American culture is one culture, one culture that is comprised of numerous compromised cultures, i.e. British, French, African, Native American, Latin, etc. My argument asserted that Interracial Dating -a graduated result of integration- inevitably compromises the integrity of the cultures involved, negatively impacting those cultures and threatening true racial diversity. In merging two cultures and/or races, both are inevitably compromised. The same concept is present in mixing colors. When Red and Blue are combined, Purple is created at the expense of Red and Blue. No one is arguing that Red and Blue can't mix, but rather that their mixture inherently erodes the degree of diversity among colors. This is a truth that is undeniable by the standards of reality; any time two things are blended into one, you lose the initial properties of both things utilized in the mixture. When a Black person conceives a child with a White person, or any two people of any two different races do the same - for that matter-, the offspring is considered Mixed race. Needless to say, deductively, the cost of a mixed race child is always two relatively pure-raced individuals; which again, only reinforces my assertion that Interracial Dating undermines "variety" - a synonym of diversity. Again, I'm not arguing the significance or merit of any one culture, nor am I arguing the ability of any one race or culture to integrate into a society comprising of other races/cultures; however, I am arguing that Interracial Dating poses an existential threat to race & culture and general diversity of both, requiring two races/cultures to be sacrificed for the creation of one.
Interracial Dating Negatively Impacts Cultures and Undermines true Diversity.

My opponent has attempted to tie culture and race together, when quite frankly, this is absurd. We can see countless examples of other races fully integrating into societies, and many societies are built off a melting pot of cultures, such as the US. Look at American culture. It has been influenced and created by blacks as much as whites. People like Michael Jackson, John Coltraine and Henry Tanner have done massive amounts for American culture and improved it in an amazing and terrific way. Cultures can be infinitely benefited by people of all races. My opponent has not explained to any degree how race and culture is tied together. He's shown no examples or no evidence, and until he does, there is quite frankly nothing to even refute on the subject.
Interracial Dating Negatively Impacts Cultures and Undermines true Diversity.

The fabric of a culture, above is its traditions and sentiments, is its people. The people of a culture, having ties to said culture's history, share a collective interest in the well-being and perpetuation of ther culture. When two cultures are introduced into the same area, more often than not, cultures collide, inevitably comprising certain aspects of both cultures. Because so much of culture is fastened to race; when culture is compromised, often is race, resulting in the decline of true diversity. This is why interracial dating negatively impacts cultures, and undermines true diversity.
Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs

"Resolution stills affirmed I saw that you said that free throws are not important in basketball you are wrong my friend" The resolution is still negated. I never said that free throws are not important. If you look at what I said, I quoted "free throws are not the most important part of a basketball game." That is a true statement. You are jumping to conclusions. "I want to ask you a question; have you ever play basketball?," Yes, I was even captain of the school team freshman year. "well free throws are very important if you miss you could lose a entire game, but if you score always that you go to the line its a higher probability that you can win a game, and if they aren't the most important part of the game tell me what is it?;" Free throws are a very important part of the game. However, they are not the most important. Defense is the most important part of a basketball game. Without defense, the other team can score all night long. A decent offense is also more important than free throws. A team cannot win solely on free throws. This is still besides the topic of the resolution. "besides I keep saying that mavs will beat the spurs on the playoffs maybe stats are not 100% true but in other cases the statistics have made their work, and affirming that they can be very useful. The mavs have everything to keep advancing its depends only from themselves." Statistics are merely numbers. Any team can show up on any given night. I have still negated the resolution. The resolution remains negated. My opponent has not been able to affirm it. I urge a Con vote. Thank you.
Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs

Resolution stills affirmed I saw that you said that free throws are not important in basketball you are wrong my friend I want to ask you a question; have you ever play basketball?, well free throws are very important if you miss you could lose a entire game, but if you score always that you go to the line its a higher probability that you can win a game, and if they aren't the most important part of the game tell me what is it?; besides I keep saying that mavs will beat the spurs on the playoffs maybe stats are not 100% true but in other cases the statistics have made their work, and affirming that they can be very useful. The mavs have everything to keep advancing its depends only from themselves.
Mavericks will beat spurs and they will advance to the next round in the playoffs

It does not matter if it is likely that either team can become victim to a terrorist attack. The fact is, it is possible that while the Mavericks are depleted, the Spurs will not experience an attack. This would force the Mavericks to forfeit, causing them to lose to the Spurs and a failure to advance to the next round. You are unable to affirm the resolution because you are making an absolute statement about an instance in the future in which you have no control over. The resolution is negated. It does not matter if the Spurs lost to the Mavericks last season. Any team can beat any other team on any given night. Dirk cannot make every shot on the court. Besides, you can't prove that he can. Anyway, the point really does not matter. The free throw question does not matter that much in reference to the resolution. The Spurs also have good free throw shooters. Besides, free throws are not the most important part of a basketball game. The resolution remains negated.