BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate

1. The debate's shortnessHad this debate been longer, I would have been prone to making more fallacies. As according to Murphy's Law, under an infinite time span, if a flaw can occur, it will occur. [https://en.wikipedia.org...] However, not only is this debate finite, it is merely three rounds. (Murphy's law is also inaccurate, but I will get back to that later) In round one, I already said that round did not count, thus, I only have to resist making logical fallacies within these two rounds. You might ask, why not only make this debate two rounds? I wanted a rebuttal round just in case my opponent falsely accused me of making a logical fallacy, and I would be unable to refute with just one round of opening arguments. Thus, with only two rounds in total to make fallacies, and one round to refute my opponent's cases, this debate is idealized to prevent me from making logical fallacies.Have I made a fallacy in this argument? Murphy's law could be accused to higher authority fallacy. However, I did not ever state that Murphy was correct, rather, it was a hypothesis. Note that the Wikipedia article notes that "Chatterjee found that Murphy's law so stated could be disproved using the principle of least action." Knowing this, I only made two strong arguments, and thus further strengthen the fact that my opponent has far less to accuse of instead if I had made more, or irrelevant, arguments.2. Awareness of fallaciesHaving started this debate and read over the fallacies, I know that I have at least some basic grounding in logical fallacies. I am careful to not make any suppositions or connections that may lead to a downfall or a pitfall within my arguments. I do not insult my opponent, and I do not distract the topic (ad hominem and red herring respectively), or even move the goalpost (special pleading) or raise a weaker and easier argument (strawman). The only fallacy that I can think of is anecdotal. However, that would actually not be a fallacy, in this case, or even genetic fallacy. I do not say that "I will not make fallacies because 9spaceking does not make fallacies", rather, I say that those whom have read over logical fallacies and are careful to not make them are less likely to commit a logical fallacy since they read their arguments over and are careful to NOT commit logical fallacies. Therefore, it can be concluded that that my chances to make a fallacy are much less than a debater who does not know logical fallacies.Onto you, my opponent.
I will NOT commit a logical fallacy in this debate

The dangerous challenge is imposed upon me. "In philosophy, the term formal fallacy for logical fallacies and defined formally as a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid." From https://en.wikipedia.org...The only rule is that you may not use any of my opening arguments from "The Fallacy Challenge" against Envisage, although you may argue for the same fallacies committed. You will not count my first round to accuse of a fallacy. Round one is acceptance only. Round two we will construct our arguments (opponent may rebut), and then round three we refute each other. The voters shall decide if I made a fallacy in this debate or not. Note that the comments section do not count for my opponent's accusations if I somehow accidentally make a fallacy within the comments of this debate. In philosophy, the term formal fallacy for logical fallacies and definedformally as: a flaw in the structure of a deductive argument which renders the argument invalid.
metro PCS has the best Unlimited Plan.

As a mathematical construct without any empirical control, string theory seems to transcend by means of its increasing self-immunization more and more the context of physics, to become finally a form of mathematically inspired metaphysics of nature. There are many indications of a return to the modalities of an ancient or even a presocratic thinking about nature, although achieved indirectly through a highly complex mathematical apparatus. Here it should be remembered that the ancient philosophy of nature with its rejection of any empirical control can be characterized by two fundamental assumptions: (i) that our rationality enables us to understand nature by means of pure reflection, without any necessity of empirical research, and (ii) that experiments do not make accessible nature (physis) as it is, but, quite the opposite, they produce artifacts which cannot be identified with nature.[2]
metro PCS has the best Unlimited Plan.

I accept this argument even though I had some trouble understanding the grammar of my opponent and I look forward to a good debate. My opponent believes that MetroPCS has the cheapest service but I am not sure if he believes their service is the most extensive (clarify?) If this debate were about only the price of MetroPCS I would have no argument, but it is not, and the main argument I will push is that even though MetroPCS is cheap, it is not good quality. First, let's see what other people think of it. A webite called Cnet, among other things, allows people to make review and ratings for different products. After 219 user reviews, the average was 2 stars out of five. Cnet also allows users to rate peoples reviews by saying whether the review was helpful or unhelpful. Interestingly enough, the most helpful reviews as selected by the Cnet user community were the ratings of 1 star and 2 star whereas the 5 star reviews were deemed on average the least helpful. After finding reviews from around the internet, many claims of MetroPCS being dishonest and scamming them have popped up. Many people have said that the company tells them they didn't pay a bill when they really did, or will tell the people that their warranty has expired even when it has not. Secondly, MetroPCS coverage fails to deliver. Dropped calls, unreceived text messages, and just poor overall service are very common if you happen to be in a store, or travelling to a different state, or even in your own house. Sometimes you get what you pay for, MetroPCS is cheap because it is possibly the worst phone service one could buy, price isn't everything, quality is important. Thank you for your time.
metro PCS has the best Unlimited Plan.

Meto PCS has the best calling and texting plan out there for family and one individual. I try using other phone plan but but none of them seems to work as good as metro Pcs plans. Take for example sprint make u pay 79.99 a month for using the blackberry curve when you can just pay 40 dollars a month using the blackberry curve for blackberry. I know must people out there have family who have phone to stay connected to them. Some family also have family member who live far away from them, like on college campuses and other counttries. But you see if you fall in that situation you can to get the Metro Pcs plan for you and your family member. so stop using OTHER NETWORK and take full charge to Metro Pcs.
Humans eating non-primate sterilised meat, in moderation, is moral

I would just like to point out to the voters how my opponent dropped the vast majority of his arguments and provided zero refutation. My opponent is trying to take us away from our natural ways of living We already have moved away from our natural ways of living, we have evolved. Humans were not designed to live as long as we are now; our natural way of life is to die far before the age of 80, 90, 100. In 1900, only 3 million people were over the age of 65 in America. Now, it is 37 million. [2] In ancient Roman times, you were considered lucky if you got to the age of 25. [3] Our hunter gatherer ancestors died far before that age. The natural way is natural selection, the weak are weeded out. Medicine is extending our lives, thus it is against our natural way as the weak are not being killed off. Thus, medicine is immoral. My opponent is essentially saying that evolution within a species is bad, because the evolution takes the species away from its “natural ways”. To deny that eating meat is moral one can’t simply state that we don’t have to do it. I was merely pointing out that eating meat isn’t a necessity; it is exactly as you put it “a gastronomic preference”, it isn't a necessity. His example of eating his friend Johnny is irrelevant as I stated non-primate meat in the title of the debate states non-primate meat. I was merely using this as an example. My opponent’s flawed logic is that since animals are our lesser, it is acceptable to eat them, because they are our lesser. Johnny is my lesser, is it acceptable to eat him or kill him or deprive him of rights because I am superior? Of course not! Getting fat form meat meant some people could survive the cold better than others and live to have sex with the woman that the frozen to death man could not live to reproduce with. On top of that, only the females who had this attribute would survive to have babies. DOn't need to source this it's common sense, and irrefutable. I am not entirely sure what my opponent is trying to state with this paragraph. Is my opponent saying that eating meat helps us gain weight? I’m not sure if my opponent realizes this, but a vast majority of North America is not suffering from another Ice Age. Furthermore, obesity in North America is at an exponential rate, with 1/5 of Americans being obese! If anything, we don’t want people to gain weight! If anything, this is another argument against eating meat. I had requested my opponent tell me if I could post a 3rd contention in this round as my opponent may consider it unfair as he wouldn’t have as many rounds to refute it. My opponent has ignored the request and thus I will assume that I am not allowed. Regardless, my opponent has not refuted my refutations nor has he refuted my arguments. All my contentions still stand, them being THE CRUELTY ANIMALS FACE AT SLAUGHTERHOUSES and GENETICALLY MODIFING ANIMALS is wrong. I have refuted all of my opponent’s arguments and he has not provided any refutation so it is clear for voters to VOTE CON. SOURCES 1. . http://www.ideafit.com... 2. . http://www.rps.psu.edu... 3. . http://www.utexas.edu...
Humans eating non-primate sterilised meat, in moderation, is moral

My opponent is trying to take us away from our natural ways of living to the extent that he claims we can live on a vegetarian, he even states vegan diet, and be totally healthy to justify that we aren't built to eat meat. To deny that eating meat is moral one can't simply state that we dont' have to do it. If not having to do something made it wrong to do then debating, especially on debate.org, would be immoral without a doubt. His example of eating his friend Johnny is irrelevant as I stated non-primate meat in the title of the debate states non-primate meat. Humans are omnivores for our teeth has canines and one set of premolars is sharp, we gain weight more rapidly with meat than with vegetables (this is often twisted around to say that we aren't designed for meat but actually is was a warming mechanism that we developed in ice age where not many plants grew but there were mammoths to grab and kill), getting fat form meat meant some people could survive the cold better than others and live to have sex with the woman that the frozen to death man could not live to reproduce with. On top of that, only the females who had this attribute would survive to have babies. DOn't need to source this it's common sense, and irrefutable. Omnivore: An animal or person that eats food of both plant and animal origin.[1] Sources: [1] https://www.google.co.uk...
Humans eating non-primate sterilised meat, in moderation, is moral

If you disagree, DO NOT ACCEPT. I do not want to debate the boundaries or definitions, I want to use mine. If this is not acceptable to an opponent then please make this debate yourself and debate with another person. Boundaries of debate: - 1) Consciousness should not be the premise of morality since if consciousness governed morals why can parents force their children into religions legally, as well as zoos and farms meaning we hold animals against their will for our own purposes. Whether or not they consciously have permitted us to do so. 2) The philosophy of Karma in the Buddhist or Hindu outlook on the matter shall not be considered when discussing the morality of eating non-primate meat. We shall be assuming that morality is purely decided by self and not predetermined by something beyond human explanation, otherwise it renders this undebatable for pro since the con's side has been decided by something far superior to any logical reasoning or emotional appeal of a mere human being. 3) The discussion is related to the eating of non-primate meat. Although we could discuss the production of meat and its ethics I would prefer if we mostly stuck to if EATING the meat in itself is ethical or not. However, I see the validity in raising the issues of the production just hope that it will not become a diversive or side-tracked debate in regards to this matter. 4) We shall not be discussing newborn babies or extremely elderly individuals both of whom can be harmed by consumption of meat since neither should be eating it if they wish to be healthy and without sickness. Definitions: Humans: All of the living human inhabitants of the Earth. [1] Primate: any of various omnivorous mammals of the order Primates, comprising the three suborders Anthropoidea (humans, great apes, gibbons, Old World monkeys, and New World monkeys), Prosimii (lemurs, loris, and their allies), and Tarsioidea (tarsiers), especially distinguished by the use of hands, varied locomotion, and by complex flexible behavior involving a high level of social interaction and cultural adaptability. [2] Sterilised: The past-tense of sterilise. Sterilise: Make (something) free from bacteria or other living microorganisms. [3] Meat: The flesh of animals as used for food. [4] Moderation: the quality of being moderate; restraint; avoidance of extremes or excesses; temperance. [5] I wish to take this further in that if discussing environmental issues it means that whatever is being produced or consumed, in moderation, leaves the world in a sustainable state. [5] Moral: conforming to the rules of right conduct (as opposed to immoral). [6] Sources: [1] . http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] . https://www.google.co.uk... [4] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [5] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [6] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Border fences. . . . Walls, Are necessary to Protect a nations soverinty.

Border Fences / Walls / Embargo or whatever you want to call it, Is simply, Unhumane. In the following paragraphs, I will explain why this is inhumane and illogical in the present society Case #1: In the United State Of America's Constitution, There is a very famous quote:We hold these truths to be self-evident, That all men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "" In this case, We are going emphasize upon the word: ALL men are by nature equally free and independent. Thus, Naming all personnel who are considered human equal to each other. Using that logic, Let's pursue further: The quote also says, When they enter into a state of society, They cannot by any compact, Deprive or divest their posterity, Namely, The right to live, The right to have liberty to their course of action, And also the pursuit of Happiness. However, Mr. Donald Trump, The current POTUS, Is challenging this quote, As he decided to name immigrants, Different from US residents. Are immigrants not human? Are US residents now a higher level being? No, The truth is, The WALL itself, And the president himself have become unconstitutional. It have always come as a surprise for me that he is yet to be impeached. Case#2: Past examples of not opening borders to immigrants; US, Canada, Cuba, Mexico all had experiences of denying immigrants into the country. For example, Take the infamous St. Louis incident. The MS St. Louis was a German Ocean Liner that was famous for it's passage to North America carrying more than 900 Jewish Refugees who were trying to flee persecution under the German Nazi regime. After arriving at America, They were denied landing due to the highly influential American Nazi Party, Finally getting nowhere, They were sent back to Germany, Where more than 500 people were executed due to the racist policy. Compare to now, Recent events of the immigrant caravan and also the border wall, Had also become a no longer shocking resemblance to the America before the World War II. It is the action of this kind that led to the Jewish Holocaust, And also other genocide because of American's inaction. American framing themselves as the world police, But turns it's head away from the genocide and people who need help. WHAT IS THAT KIND OF ACTION? Conclusion: It doesn't matter what your excuse is, Border Security and Wall, They are all simply against human rights. Even more seriously, It is simply unconstitutional.
Border fences. . . . Walls, Are necessary to Protect a nations soverinty.

DEBATE. Org, A New topic, New topic. . . Border fences/ Walls, Are necessary to Protect a nations sovereignty. By. . . Lookingattheissues 2 A nation can't survive if the borders aren't secure and will disingrate and fail like the once infameous Rome. Other countries by building fences /walls on their borders prove that they are effective in stopping invaders from invading a nation. Only those who believe in Nations without borders, A one world, Object to border fences/walls. ". . . . A brilliant college professor named Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, Mexifornia, Explaining how immigration " both legal and illegal " was destroying the entire state of California. He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestiges of The American Dream. The cost to America's citizens to provide welfare to aliens flooding America's cities and towns is growing by leaps and bounds to the point of dissolution and unsustainable and will collapse under the ever increasing demands made upon it. Since America's borders are ineffective in keeping out illegal aliens and the elite in politics and education, ". . . . Encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. "and adovcate". . . . . Replacing. . . . The melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. . . . And claim. . . . It is important to ensure that we have various cultural sub-groups living in America reinforcing their differences rather than as Americans, Emphasizing their similarities. " Quotes taken from". . . EIGHT STEPS TO DESTROY AMERICA, By Dick Lamm, Former Governor of Colorado Colorado! March 11, 2017 Dan Volkman " America must have control of who and how many aliens are allowed to enter this country. An impregnable border is a must if a nation is long to remain a nation.
The voting age in the United States should be eliminated

The voting age in the United States should be eliminated for several reasons. First, this country was founded on 'no taxation without representation'. Despite this, in the 2008 presidential debate, over SEVENTY MILLION citizens, a majority of whom did pay taxes, were denied the basic democratic right to vote merely for having been born in the wrong year. Second, it's discriminatory. We've had laws in the past that arbitrarily denied the right to vote (laws against women or black people voting), but we have found such laws to be unfair. Furthermore, if a law against people over a certain age existed, it, too, would quickly be found unfair and discriminatory. It's time to extend the same respect to those under eighteen. Finally, the fourteenth amendment clearly forbids refusing people rights due to their belonging to a certain class of people. In the case of today's voting age, that class is those people who are under eighteen years of age. For these reasons, I urge the nation to eliminate the minimum voting age.
The voting age in the United States should be eliminated

" The right to vote should not be a gambit in your anti-taxation campaign." There is and can be no such thing as a "right" to vote. Rights are inherently negative, i.e., they dictate what someone else CAN'T do TO you, not MUST do FOR you. Any other interpretation means that they are "rightfully" your slave. " During last election season, Howard Stern had a segment covering voter knowledge. Numerous adults were asked who they supported, but then, when quizzed as to their political beliefs, often had the exact opposite beliefs as that candidate. Clearly we don't use knowledge as a prerequisite for voting." Irrelevant, the resolution speaks of what we SHOULD do, not what we currently do. " The constitution certainly can be amended, but in two hundred years, I can think of no amendments that restricted the right to vote, only expansions. Why would this trend be reversed to codify an equally discriminatory reason as previous amendments ended?" Because discrimination is not inherently evil. In order to live you have to learn to discriminate between food and poison. Likewise, to have a good political result you have to learn to discriminate between supporters of good policies and supporters of poor ones. " Weren't you just saying things could change? It would be much easier to change, for example, school lessons and youth-oriented television programs than to change the constitution." It would not be easy (or posisble) to change the fundamental dependency of children. Turning voting children over more to what you have already admitted is a "totalitarian school system" and thus having that system vote pork to itself by means of the children it controls is even worse than letting parents have the extra votes. "Your claim that young people have no other source of information than their parents is simply false. Even if currently the only source for political information is parents, if the voting age were eliminated, other sources of information would spring up." Other sources that parents would permit their children to attend, even when those other sources sought to teach the opposite policies to those the parents support? " I think I've heard this before, where was it? Oh right, the early 1900s! "No wife would be allowed in a voting booth alone. " Women are intellectually and physically capable of being independent. Infants and toddlers are not. "In short, you are basing your entire argument on the false premise that rights can be restricted. " In short, you are basing your new argument on the false premise that there can be a "Right" to command another innocent individual-- to enslave them-- the essential premise of the "right to vote." Democracy, "Voting rights, have no other meaning than to declare that the minority is an unequivocal slave of the majority.