BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This is not valid in content

Izbo misconstrued my point. When I said that his entier argument hinges on the assumption that an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God, I meant that to be an atheist, one must not just disbelieve in god, but also all other supernatural beings. "Now the person who does not know whether god exist, is clearly not in a state of mind where they place trust or confidence in the existence of god."- Nor are they putting trust or confidence in the nonexistence of God. Therefore they cannot be an atheist by any definition. Also, to be an atheist one must not believe in the existence of all supreme beings. So even if Izbo is right and they do not believe in God, they are still not necessarily an atheist since we do not know whether or not they believe in other supreme beings. "That would imply an absence of belief or have no belief in. Absence and not being there or having no are the same concept. So by all definitions this person meets the definition of atheist."- Not having a belief is not the same as disbelief. This is obvious with your definitions. Izbo's examples are irrelevant. Even without any other arguments, by the definition of atheist that Izbo accepted, a person must disbelieve in all supreme beings, not just God. No matter what answer a person gives to "Do you believe in God?", we do not have enough information about their beliefs to conclude whether or not they believe in supreme beings or not and therefore not enough information to conclude whether or not they are an atheist. Izbo's syllogism says that if someone does not answer yes to the question "Do you believe in God?", they are an atheist. I have proved this to be false.
This is not valid in content

First of all, my opponent is either rejecting my definitions or is just ignoring it. It is important that my opponent clarify because if my definitions are correct, his entire argument is irrelevant. If my opponent is going to reject my definitions, he must give a relevant reason why. "Since a person she claims is agnostic is not believing they are withholding belief."- My opponent makes a big mistake here. I never said that the agnostic said that he did not believe, just that he would not answer "yes" to the question "Do your believe in God?" There are more answers to said question than just yes and no. Just because one does not answer "yes" does not mean that one does not believe. A person who does not answer "yes" to the question "do you believe in God?" is not a theist. But we have no idea what they are other than that. We do not have enough information to determine what the person would qualify as. "I do not know what I believe" is a legitimate answer and does not qualify as "witholding belief." My opponent does not give definitions for words such as "agnostic", "theist", or "atheist", but rather tries to create definitions from his own knowledge. A person who disbelieves in God, and that is all we know about them, does not qualify as an atheist by my definition. The person must disbelieve in all supreme beings which could be beings other than "god". There is no reason to believe in the four definitions and terms he supplied. He has no basis to support that they are even real terms. His entire arguments hinges on the assumption that an atheist is someone who disbelieves in God. There is no credible definition that defines an atheist this way. Also, according to his syllogism, "not a theist is the same as an atheist." My opponent has only supported that someone who does not believe in god is an atheist. He has not proven that everyone who is not a theist is an atheist. He entire argument denies any existence of a middle ground in the situation. He is saying that someone who is unsure of their beliefs or has come to the conclusion that they cannot know is withholding belief and is therefore disbelieving. disbelieve: to have no belief in; refuse or reject belief in http://dictionary.reference.com... According to this definition, which I personally think is obviously more credible, withholding belief is not disbelieving. It is counterintuitive to think that someone who has decided that they can never know what is true and therefore refuses to make a conclusion is disbelieving in something. Same goes for saying that someone who is unsure of their beliefs and is withholding judgement is disbelieving. Clearly my definition fits better.
This is not valid in content

I have no problems with premises 1 and 2. His conclusion is faulty. It is true that said person is not a theist if they answer "I don't know" to the question "Do you believe God?" But, clearly "not a theist" is not the same as an atheist. He has not shown any evidence to show that "not a theist" is the same as an atheist. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. http://dictionary.reference.com... Agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. http://dictionary.reference.com... Clearly both these types of people would not answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe in god?" but one cannot discern from their answer if they are agnostic or atheist or neither. An agnostic is clearly not the same as an atheist. Also, someone may not believe in "God" per se but still believe in supreme beings. This person would answer not answer "yes" to the question "Do you believe in God?" but is not an atheist according to the dictionary's definitions. Clearly this is a false syllogism.
college should be entierly government funded

because some people have lower the jobs, the government should pay for college. if the government wants us all to be productive members of society they we need to be educated and if we cant afford to pay for school then we wont be educated. so if they want something from us then they have to give us somthing in return. i disagree that we shouldnt rely on the government all the time, the reason they're there is for us to rely on them. thats why we vote for them and let them control everything.
college should be entierly government funded

There are many colleges and I don't believe that the government has that much money. Even if they did, that means anyone can get into any college. Education wouldn't really matter anymore. A student who has lower grades than a highly academic student may be able to go to a great college and their effort won't matter. Those who want to get into a good college work hard for it, but if students are just going to have a college handed to them because it's already paid for then it gives them no reason for any work or effort at all.
college should be entierly government funded

Yes, the government may have to give us something in return if education really is that special to them, but the amount of money the government has is not enough to pay for colleges. Not everyone pays taxes and so the government doesn't have that much money. Tuition goes into paying for the professors, lunch, and other facilities. We have to rely on ourselves too, not just the government. We can't be sure that the government has enough to pay for all the expenses of college.
-Rap Battle 23-

I played yahtzee once, all alone on a private beach in the Maldives, too busy stuck in my head waiting for my parents to acknowledge me. I'm still waiting. Fam, I'm still waiting. Oh god, I'm still waiting... Oh momma and poppa why am I invisible to you, why you don't recognise this struggle. I just need a snuggle... Why God? , why the torment?? Why was I born? , why am I here? Pray tell me, show me the light. Show me the light. SHOW ME.... HOLD ON, I AM THE LIGHT, I'M SO LIT EVERY OTHER MOTHERFVKER IS BLIND REWIND... I AM AMAZING AM I AMAZING? AMAZING, I AM AMAZING, AM I? EVERYTHING AMAZING YES YES YES Yall jealous, over zealous. K byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
-Rap Battle 23-

You the divine wind but can't spell kamikaze! Whether you are Imperial Japan or a German Nazi, I treat your rap like a piece of crap tchotchke You will lose this gamble like a game of Yahtzee! Go run to yo papi, so he can fvcking molest ya If you run to me, I'm gonna fvcking best ya I was bound to win, you don't catch the news, huh? I might be a winja, but you are just a loseja
-Rap Battle 23-

Nah I'm alright, the day is still bright. You are delusional, very much confusional. You talk about relevance, benevolence and konichiwa. Scrap that sh1t, I'm straight kamakazi, all in, high stakes, no regrets, no rugrats, you a rug rats. You live in a sewer, chicken skewer, hallucinating to 4 turts n a shedder. Print this sh1t, il put ya knickers in da shedder. Everyday cheddar, money stacked fat. So bless, very bless, too much bless. You ain't ninja, you winja. Wah wah wah, all ways crying to yo granmomma. You cheap, come at me again, I'll be in my lux Jeep. Creep
-Rap Battle 23-

Read your rap twice, now I'm scratching my head.... I don't got lice, just can't believe what I read. Random can be funny, the key word is CAN In your case you dummy, it's a failed plan. I'm tryin' to be nice, good, benevolent But how can I be when your rap aint relevant? Your shjt is radioactive, no good element Why did you sign up? Why you be sellin' it? I lured you into this battle with a friendly "Konnichiwa" I'm really a stealthy ninjawho gon' beatchu up. I'm the ruler of words, you're the ruler of turds I'm write poetry, so good they all be knowin' me Quoting me, like I'm the new Shakespeare the savior, creator, writing gold on paper But I'll stop this slaying, I'm only playing Cause I'm sure what you'll say will only be grazing No more using my language to top you Anata wa fakku, Haha, man I got you!
-Rap Battle 23-

Lets start of with the basics, i'll make you redefine yo life from a new basis, where's ya bae?- sis. I got her, she bless, you a mess, we fine dining, Ric flair suit shining. 5 star everything, 5 star everything, 5 star every thing. You just an infant, still need ya crawler, holla at me I'm a baller, you got no balls uhh. You blatantly suckin, you blatantly suckin, you blatantly suckin. D1ck, you a d1ck, and your bars make me sick. Quick Quick Quick, what's 1+1 Window, you still bussin windows, 1998, you so outta date. Ya real name Kate. Man you know I am great... Great like Sikander, that's Alexander for you muppets, sheeple stinkin puppets. I own ya, god shall condone ya. I'm sayin I am g o d, I don't play c o d. I am a vegetarian, partially because of the horse meat scandal. Scandal, everyday scandal, i'm a scandalous, scan da lust. I'm super horny, ya mom-so corny. She wants me, beggar, she a beggar. I feel sorry for You. Hitler movement slaughter all the Jew, tragedy, national tragedy. Yo popps, a national tragedy. I've kept this real simple, bet you use a55 wipes- brand name Simple. No that's me, cos I've got haemorrhoids, too much time on the toilet, rep maryse ouellet... miz, punk, cabana.. Every day smoke that Cabana, why you rep Ariana. |Crash, bang, Manchester national tragedy. Everything tragedy, Tragedy of the commons, yo just a commons. I run House of Commons, I IS THE GOVERNMENT, corrupt like kurupt fm, google that sh1t. They jokers, i'm so good at the pokers. Joeincidence, Friends- you got none. Friends, you got none. I prefer HIMYM nowadays, Willow peng tings, Willow peng tings, Willow peng tings. Me not so humble, Today is the rumble, for the kids, apple crumble. School diners, only sinners, I own the winners. Just like flatstanley, man never wins, man never wins, man never wins. He thinks earth is flat, oh my days, you are so fat. Shall I stop now?, Shall I stop now?, Shall I stop now?.
-Rap Battle 23-

I'm a chill dude, like a new freezer, I forgive foes, unlike mean Caesar I end the fights, called the appeaser Drinks are on me, called a sweet pleaser Oh, My knees hurt, (but I don't suck djck) I'm Just tired of the ol' rap subject Insults and jibes, I used to love it But now I'm nice, it's peace I covet So enough shjt, let's get psychedelic My old battles is just a bunch of relic This may be competish, but it's lax Laid back, not debate filled with fact hate rap , none of that this rap Just good fun, join me in this pact Cloud surfin', like I'm on some shrooms This new beat has got me in the mood Happy like I see Ariana nude That'll give me a good new attitude
Should photoshop be banned in the U.S.A or not?? Is it affecting the ideal concepts of beauty in soc

I will be arguing for the side that Photoshop, by Adobe, should not be banned in the US. Good luck to Pro, as I look forward to a good debate. I will now state my case. Why should Photoshop not be banned? It is not the issue. Using the same perspective on gun control, limiting guns will not 100% stop acts of murder. While in advertising, eliminating Photoshop will not stop women and men alike from wanting to look like the fake image they see before them. Sometimes, Photoshop isn't even used. Pro states that plastic surgery and cosmetics make women feel pressured, but these things have little to do with Photoshop. The idea of beauty is already being manipulated without photoshop (i.e. Famous People with plastic surgery). Sources: [1] http://www.hilltopviewsonline.com...
Killing Prostitutes is not a "murder"; it is social cleansing activism.

It is rather regretrable that the con decided to end this joyful debate prematurely, as this intriguing topic could be a small yet significant step towards a cleaner abd better society for so many people. The con keeps repeating that killing prostitutes is a crime, while failing to provide any single proper logic and factual evidence as to why it should be a crime, or whether it is right for it to be a crime. The con's last resort is a classic presentation of fallacies, includijg ad hominem. A more serious problem the con demonstrates is that the cob refuses to be honest with him/herself and with others participating in this debate. The con nerely says cheap phrases such as "I do not devalue prostitutes", yet flattering talk is meaningless and pointless. The climax is where con rlcameto rely on the pseudosceience of freudian psychoanalysis in order to mask the fact that the con does not and cannot provide any argument containing logic and concrete evidence to oppose my argument. All the miserable failures on the con's side to refute my argument rather further cements my position and ahs strenghthend my conviction that my position is indeed correct. I jope that we human beings can discuss this idea of mine more in an effort to create the world that is cleaner and better, with less evil creatures conducting less sinister deeds. We can, and we will. I appreciate everyine for their time and effort for this debatr.
Killing Prostitutes is not a "murder"; it is social cleansing activism.

I am going to end this debate now as not to be an accomplice to the threatening nature of possible crimes, crimes that have been committed already and crimes that may be incited due to this debate. You really should get some help, now I think that you are not a person exercising debating skills but a deranged lunatic who I do not want to be associated with. I do not devalue prostitutes, as you do not know the position they are in and who are you to judge. The judgement probably comes from insecurities, and other messed up things, maybe from childhood. Anyway, again this debate is ended, hopefully my report will go through.
Killing Prostitutes is not a "murder"; it is social cleansing activism.

Female prostitution is the act of giving the use of sexual acts portrayed by one's own body to another person. Defining the term is important and that is my first point. The issue on the table I believe is the issue of morality, and I and many others would say that this is definitely immoral, as sex is beautiful (BTW, not Christian, basing this on moral views and the Kama Sutra) and solely used for the purpose of making a person. The act of prostitution, as you and I agree is amoral and immoral. The killing of a person is also amoral and immoral. I do believe that everyone is equal and that prostitutes and strippers and pornstars do not deserve to be treated in such a horrible way. Right now is a great time to say that the idea of "social cleansing," was proposed by Hitler with his slaughter of the Jews.
Abortion is wrong

Hello. The resolution is, "Abortion is wrong." I will present the affirmative (pro), and my opponent will present the negative (con). first, I would like to define "abortion": abortion- the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy; any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy. next, I would like to define "wrong": wrong- not in accordance with what is morally right or good; not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc. both of these definitions are taken verbatim from dictionary.com this round I have posted no argument towards my case, and I would appreciate it if my opponent does not post arguments for this round either. I just wanted to clarify the resolution. I simply would like the opponent to state that they accept the challenge and if they accept the definitions I have stated. If the opponent needs me to clarify anything, it would be sufficient to ask me about it in this round. Very much appreciated. Thank you.
Resolved: It is immoral not to extend rights to living animals.

Resolved: It is immoral not to extend rights to living animals.I will be affirming this resolution in this debate.Here are my conditions for a successful debate:Round 1 - agreement to debate, introductionRound 2 - definitions, burdens, values, and contention-level argumentsRound 3 - refutations to the arguments and conditions created in Round 2Round 4 - summary and crystallization of the key arguments and voting issueHere are a couple of observations hat I have with respect to the previous structure. NEITHER PRO NOR CON MAY DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS. These should be automatic grounds for disqualification:1. beginning contention-level arguments, definitions, values, burdens, or observations in Round 12. doing any refutations of the opponent's arguments in Round 2 (ex: Con cannot spend his/her Round 2 speech refuting my arguments from Round 2)3. trolling, loitering, or being disrespectful to the opponentAnd finally, a couple of expectations for the round (so long as my opponent agrees to them):1. use evidence, statistics, and examples to illustrate arguments2. follow through with impacts to arguments, clearly defining how each links back to the values and burdens stated at the beginning of the Round 2 speeches3. sign-post arguments (ex: using contentions or benefits)As affirmative, I believe that the U.S. should value rights of animals majorly because they can feel pain. However, I will NOT make any definitions or specific arguments until the Con accepts this debate.I look forward to it!
There are only 2 Genders

I believe there are only two genders. I'm not saying that it's wrong to believe there are more than two, that is just my opinion. Each human is either born with a vagina or a penis. On your birth certificate it either says male or female. You can identify as anything you would like but at the end of the day you still are a FEMALE or MALE. You can identify as a bulldog, but when you are filling out an application for a job, will you put bulldog? No. There is totally no problem with identifying as anything you want, but when it comes down to business you are either of the two genders. There are only male and female bathrooms. You aren't going to stop yourself from letting your bladder go in public just because they don't have what you identify as , as a type of bathroom. You are either going to go in the female or male bathroom.
There are only 2 Genders

To clarify I did not say that there are two genders and that can be subdivided into other categories. What I said is that there is an infinite array of gender variance and we can divide that spectrum of variance into however many categories we like. You say that: "yes, there are different shades of each color, but at the end of the day we still identify AQUA as BLUE" - well, that may be true, but that doesn't mean that there is no difference between, say, aqua and navy, despite the fact that they are both technically 'blue'. To say that 'aqua and navy are both blue' is to ignore differences between them that are very real and observable. Let me blow your mind for second, if you are looking at something 'yellow' on a computer screen you are looking at at an RGB monitor, you aren't actually seeing anything 'yellow' but a combination of red and green pixels. The point is - when you break them down, the categories: red, orange, yellow, etc. are not as well defined as you might think - and the same is true of gender. Another point I reject is that "[binary] gender is a physical thing" and that non-binary genders are "made up". Here, you argue that binary genders are physical and therefore 'real' and that non-binary genders are not physical and therefore 'not real'. In fact, both of those assertions are wrong. Binary genders are not solely physical - you cannot observe 'manhood' or 'womanhood' under a microscope. And secondly, just because something is not physical does not mean it is not 'real'. Money, for instance, has value in a very real sense (if you disagree feel free to set some money on fire) - but you can't look at money under a microscope and observe the value physically. In your concluding paragraph you make an assertion that I find hard to accept you believe sincerely - that "everything falls into simple categories". Even within your own example of 'solid, liquid and gas', there is a lot of ambiguity you are ignoring: the are viscous solids that have properties of both liquids and solids, there is photonic matter than has properties of solids and gas, there are forms of matter that lie outside these categorisations altogether, like dark matter. No matter what the subject, categorisations are only ever rough approximations of typologies and there will always be outliers and ambiguity.
There are only 2 Genders

You can't cut the two genders up into a spectrum. You CAN identify as anything you would like. But in the end you are still MALE or FEMALE. Yes, there are different shades of each color, but at the end of the day we still identify AQUA as BLUE. LAVENDER as PURPLE, and so on. These are SHADES and they are put into a category under BLUE and PURPLE. Lavender is still purple and aqua is still blue. The thing is, gender is a physical thing. All of these "new genders" are made up. Tell me , what is the difference between an AMBONEC female and a female. The only difference is the AMBONEC female doesn't want to be identified as any gender, but still has the same female parts of any other. That's like a liquid identifying as a solid or gas. Like even though this sounds silly, imagine a bottle of water talking to you and it's telling you that it's a rock. You would go against that bottle of water because it is clearly A BOTTLE OF WATER ! Just like there are different types of colors, there are different types of liquids, solids, and gases, but at the end of the day we still identify WATER as a LIQUID and a ROCK as a SOLID and AIR as a GAS. EVERYTHING FALLS INTO SIMPLE CATEGORIES. You are either one or the other .