BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I am a Homo sapien.

In this debate I will be defending the proposition that my opponent (and indeed myself) are in fact computer programs invented sometime in a hypothetical future. I would add that as the instigator of this debate and Pro, TeddyKyle really does have the burden of proof in this debate. He should demonstrate that he is human and not, for example, an intelligent alien or a computer program. I look forward to his arguments to demonstrate the resolution. My argument will be an extremely simplified form of philosopher Nick Bostrom's 'Are you living in a computer program?' [1] paper. The argument goes like this: in the future (barring catastrophic events) it is likely that that our civilization will reach a level of technology where it is possible to generate huge and sophisticated computer simulations of worlds and of human minds to inhabit those worlds - a future equivalent of The Sims [2] for example. A single future equivalent of a laptop could harbor thousands, even millions of intelligent simulated minds, none of which would be aware that they were not real humans. However, considering that the number of minds inhabiting these laptops is likely to vastly outnumber (by several orders of magnitude) the number of real humans, it is vastly more likely that any given person is simulated rather than real. The argument is couched so far in terms of the future - however, assuming such a future is probable, as it likely is, it is rather likely that we are in fact in that future and are one of the many simulated minds living in a simulated world. We don't of course think that, but that would merely be a tribute to the quality of the programming. Given this argument, it is overwhelmingly likely that my opponent, rather than being a human, is a simulated computer program that thinks he is a human. I turn it over to Pro. [1] http://www.simulation-argument.com... [2]
Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

I take the position (to confirm to anybody who is still confused) of: Arming citizens with guns is not an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals. I take this on: Contention 1: The cost of arming citizens would be too much to bear, especially in the economic stress. I have drawn this conclusion with mathematics. Population of America: 313.914 million people. (1) Population of Americans under 20: 82.8626 million people(1) 313.914 - 82.8626 = 231.0514 million people who can be armed. We'll round this to 231 million people. We'll also say that the average handgun cost is $500. (2) If these are being supplied to the citizens by the government, we'll also assume that the government will give them one box of ammo, worth about $10 per box. So - about $510 per person. Thus: 510x231,000,000 = $117,810,000,000 to arm the USA. I appreciate that some people already own a gun, some are mentally ill, criminals etc. .. but this is still a phenomenal cost to the US government! Contention 2: Arming citizens would make the United States of America a nation wherein people can kill easier, and more discreetly. Clearly, one can not argue with easier. More guns give more opportunity. Criminals just have to wait it out until they're armed. But more discreetly, too, I argue. If everyone has a gun, then criminals in, say, a crowd, could shoot people (with silencer - which is relatively cheap) and in some cases, no one could find out whom it was. this situation would be rare; but a risk to the general public that I do not accept we should take. The counter-argument of ballistic testing wouldn't work in all cases, either, because now everyone has a government issue gun! I could have been anyone - that is: everyone - who had that gun model. Contention 3: Power corrupts. A common saying with variants but still very true. And the extension of that would be: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Owning a gun will normally give you absolute power over someone's life; even if they have a gun. I do not accept that everyone will stay the same when in possession of a gun. I believe that murder rates will rise. In 2010, 67.5% of all homicides were perpetrated using a firearm. (3) Clearly, if hundreds, maybe thousands, of the USA now has access to a gun, these will rise, which is the opposite of what my opponent would argue for. Contention 4: False beliefs. I believe that many people will think that by owning a gun they are effectively safe. This however, gives leads many people to be misguided and can actually make them quite the opposite in a real situation! (4) This means that it's possible that arming citizens will make the USA more dangerous, despite initial intentions. (1): . https://www.google.co.uk... (2): . http://wiki.answers.com... (3):. http://en.wikipedia.org... (4):. http://www.youtube.com... This concludes my initial contentions. Source (4) if the YouTube video shown at the top.
Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

Welcome to this debate, viewers! This is a debate pre-discussed with my opponent - LagerHead based on an opinion post I did. Should LagerHead accept; he will accept the following things: The BoP relies upon both of us to provide reasons for or against the preposition aforementioned. The first round is acceptance only. The last round is closing statements only - no refutes or new arguments. Rounds 2, 3, and 4 are for debating, argument proposals, and refutes. Any questions - please post a comment!
Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

Thank you Jacob. As you can probably tell this is an area about which I feel intense passion. As a gun owner myself I see nothing but negativity portrayed against gun owners in the media. I, and my fellow law-abiding gun owners therefore feel it is left to us to inform folks about the positive side of guns. Contrary to what the media would have you believe none of us looks forward to or fantasizes about taking the life of another human being no matter how much that person might deserve it. Many people who are forced to take the life of another in defense of theirs or that of their families suffer from the effects of PTSD and require extensive counseling to overcome the guilt and second guessing. But all that aside my family looks to me for protection. I am just an average guy. I am an MMA champion. I am probably about middle of the road in every way: height, weight, strength, fighting skill, etc. I do however maintain situational awareness. I carry a gun. And I know how to use it. I shoot thousands of rounds each year. This year alone I'm approaching 10,000 rounds down the barrel of my pistol. While it is certainly not a guarantee, I feel having a pistol would put me at a distinct advantage against most criminals, due both to my habit of keeping my "head on a swivel" and the fact that I shoot a couple of hundred rounds in various scenarios just about every weekend. Maybe I'm not the norm because I shoot so much, but I have also shown that those who simply know how to use their firearms, like the 15-year old with the AR-15, can be extremely effective protectors of life and property. I have talked to someone who watched her husband get gunned down by a crazed stalker while she stood by helpless because the state legislated her out of her right to protect herself in certain locales. She saw it happening, saw several men try to wrestle the gun away, then saw him break free and shoot her husband in the back of the head. During that time she had several seconds where she could have drawn her gun and and saved her husband's life, if only it was not locked in the car as the law required. None of these folks are ex Special Forces. None of them had years of firearms and tactical training. It actually takes less time than one might think to learn to responsibly and effectively carry and use a firearm.As I have demonstrated above it happens every day. It happens in all kinds of locations by all kinds of people. And it happens enough that it is a significant deterrent to crime. Thanks again to Jacob for setting this debate up. I look forward to the voting period and our next meeting. Cheers.
Arming citizens with guns is an ideal action to take to defend against the threat of criminals.

Therefore, all I will do is answer my opponent's question: No, I do not believe the the police (assuming you mean your average officer and not some heavy duty crime squad) should carry guns. I cannot say why here, as that would constitute as a new argument. This was, by far, the most challenging debate for me to do - not only on context, but my opponent is a very good debater! So, once again, I thank my opponent, Robert/Lagerhead for this debate. I have enjoyed it immensly! Kind regards, J
Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses

In the interests of having a fair debate, I won't advance any original arguments or rebuttals in this round. I will, however, take the opportunity to tidy up two quick things. First, the cut off sentence reading "The Javascript implementation is also closer to the C family of languages which" in my last round should in fact read "The Javascript implementation is also closer to the C family of languages which makes transitioning to those languages later in the course easier for students". I have no idea why that sentence was cut off. Second, I should probably define JIT compilation in case anyone doesn't know what it is (it is a bit obscure). JIT stands for just in time - it means the program compiles itself while you run it. In this way code is only compiled as its needed to run the program. Apologies to not-technically-minded people who may be reading this debate, it's easy to get carried away in programming-speak in debates like this. I look forward to reading and responding to my opponent's final contentions.
Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses

Clarifications (yes, I did go over these in the comments first)As usual, I maintain that a shared burden of proof is impossible. I'll take it that my opponent means that while he has the burden of proof, I have to make a constructive argument. This prevents me from forcing the onus on to pro, which I had no intention of doing anyway. In other words, I cannot just win by saying that both are equally good. Javascript can in theory be compiled just like Java, but I'm guessing that's not important to the debate. If I need to justify it then I can do so in my contentions. As should be obvious, my opponent also has sources 1 and 2 in the wrong order. He apologized for that mix-up in the comments. Like my opponent I will also number my sources sequentially in the debate, not in each round. I hope that this avoids confusion. All of my opponent's other rules, definitions etc look great to me!
Teaching Java in Introductory programming courses

Resolution Introductory college courses in Computer Science should teach the Java programming language as opposed to Javascript. DefinitionsJava: Java is a general purpose object oriented programming language details of which are shown in this link [1]. Javascript: Javascript is an interpreted computer programming language originally implemented as part of web browsers more details of which are provided in the link[2]. Burden Of ProofBOP is shared. Con must argue that JavaScript should be taught in introductory college courses as opposed to Java, not just that both are equally good. BackgroundIntroductory college courses are generally those taught in the first semester or quarter of an undergraduate course and sometimes spilling into the second semester or quarter. Ideally, students will learn many different programming languages and most students learn more programming languages through their college years. However, most colleges introduce students to programming by teaching one language in an Intro to Computer Science course after which students will likely learn others. In this debate, I argue that Java must be used to introduce students to computer programming. Rules 1) All arguments must be made in the debate. 2) No semantics. In case of conflict on undefined terms, the most general and relevant definition of the word should be considered.3) Round 1 is for acceptance only. Any clarifications about rules or topic must be made in the comments section prior to acceptance.5) No new arguments from either side in round 4. No new sources from Con in round 4. SourcesI will number sources sequential from the start of the debate. This allows citing a reference without also referencing the round number. [1] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Javascript_(programming_language)[2] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Java_(programming_language)
fat jonah hill(con) or skinny jonah hill(pro)

Critical Acclaim:Jonah hill has had a prolific career by anyone's standards[1]. Yet it is clear by all objective measure, that Jonah Hill has received much wider critical acclaim for the films in which he was fat. In fact, all major acting rewards he has been nominated for have been for work in a film where he was fat[2].Since experienced film media critics have deemed his 'fat' films worthy of accolade, it would seem logical that his performance, and thus career was superior during his fat years.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Piracy" Should be Legal

Indeed, whether or not creative works are property is irrelevant by itself-- however, the claim that these works are property is central to several arguments that "piracy" is "stealing," which led me to consider it in the debate.I am ashamed that I didn't look further into the RIAA's cited study, but I am hesitant to call the IPI's study (cited by the RIAA) scientific-- the number, 20%, is arbitrarily chosen. Considering numbers pulled from thin air can hardly be considered scientific.Cory Doctorow is indeed a special case-- you may hear, for example, "have you read this great free book..."Randall Munroe very well could also be a special case-- but you'll probably hear something akin to "have you read this great comic strip..."The fanbase generated around Mr. Doctorow's books are greatly interesting in his advocacy for free culture, while the fanbase generated around Mr. Munroe's comic-strip "XKCD" doesn't seem as infatuated with this.A subjective "harm" from sharing is the difference between one person sharing a creative work with a friend and getting massive fines for doing so, even with non-commercial works. This is exactly the power I was speaking of. There doesn't need to be any actual harm to the copyright holder for the copyright holder to be able to charge the "pirate," and this is percisely the problem. The Nazi analogy Con brings up doesn't make sense, and their personal experience via writing contest wasn't applicable. I'd be interested in hearing a relevant analogy or example of harm from the non-transformative sharing of gratis creative work. (Non-transformative meaning that they do not alter the artist's name in the creative work, nor do they take credit for the work.)Con argues that non-commercial redistribution being legal would lead to less creation of culture-- however, as copyright law stands, the banning of derivative creative works also leads to the creation of less culture (and harm to those that attempt to create it.) This, however, is for another debate, as this one is focused on sharing.It is indeed possible to make a profit without the current restrictions on sharing, and as such we need to consider two potential futures:One in which sharing is illegal, a world in which 70% of citizens are criminals, and in which merely sharing a copy of a book with a friend can lead to massive and impossible fines, in which media companies and new artists focus on a dated business model for a new technological age of information.Another in which sharing is legal, a world in which people aren't charged for merely sharing a book, and as a consequence, media companies as well as new artists have to focus on a new business model for an equally new technological age of information.
Morals are Objective

Hi, I accept.If killing, rape, stealing, lying, and torture are all wrong nation-wide in everyone's conscience, then this suggests that there is some form of moral order which the Universe conforms itself to.Argumentum ad populum.I believe that there is a God who created this objective moral standard, and thus the fact that the standard exists is evidence of a God.Circular logic. You believe that God created the objective moral standard, and that the standard lends itself to God's existence. You would have no reason to suppose either claim without the support of the other, so neither of these claims can stand on their own.Examples: -Declaration of Human Rights -Acceptance of certain practices as 'inhumane' -Restrictions on 'Freedom' Every single one of those is up for debate among different people. What is properly a human "right", or even if there are any true human rights, will probably be disagreed upon by every human and especially between different societies and countries.I believe to be truly free is to realize there is an objective moral standard that you cannot achieve perfectly, recognise the need for a Saviour, and thus accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and King. Doing so liberates us from the bondage of sin, and removes the bonds of slavery that once tied us down.This is fine if this is what you believe, but they can't be considered points of debate, since they contain blatant religious bias that I can't respond to.Because of a lack of characters, I will simply state the following:There is no way to go from "is" to "ought". What is can never be indicative of absolute "oughtness" or moral obligation in its truest sense. What people think cannot be a means by which to bridge the gap, since people are wrong all the time. What nature seems to indicate means nothing, since it seems that nature must often be tempered.
Morals are Objective

Morals are entirely objective. If killing, rape, stealing, lying, and torture are all wrong nation-wide in everyone's conscience, then this suggests that there is some form of moral order which the Universe conforms itself to. I believe that there is a God who created this objective moral standard, and thus the fact that the standard exists is evidence of a God. Examples: -Declaration of Human Rights -Acceptance of certain practices as 'inhumane' -Restrictions on 'Freedom' I believe to be truly free is to realize there is an objective moral standard that you cannot achieve perfectly, recognise the need for a Saviour, and thus accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and King. Doing so liberates us from the bondage of sin, and removes the bonds of slavery that once tied us down. I would love to hear from someone who wants to argue that morals are relative, and thus provide evidence for their case. God Bless, James
Israeli bombs Gaza

All right I will respect your win here but I will not give up when I have done your requested reshearch I will make a come back, but you might what to check your spelling more carefully. "Needless to say, the situation is not as black and white as you seem to thing." This is a qute from your debate read it closely... do you see it? I mean you are a college student, do you really need to be making simple grammar mistakes like that?
Israeli bombs Gaza

This is laughable. Your speculation as to what the U. S. would do in Israel's place is entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, "common sense" is is not proof of anything. There is NO SUCH THING. It is simply a phrase thrown around by ignorant people, twisted into whatever suits them. Personally, I actually see the existence of the state of Israel as a far better thing for the entire world (America especially) than having the same area controlled by Muslims. However, you clearly have absolutely no idea what all this fighting is about, so I'm going to give you a brief history lesson: The Jews and Muslims have been fighting each other, in one way or another, over the land known as Israel since the 7th century CE. Before that, the land switched hands several times between such groups as the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc. Before that (beginning at around the 11th century BCE), a series of Israelite states existed. Jews did not have solid political control of that area between the fall of the last ancient Israelite kingdom to Assyrian rule until the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948 CE. Now, one of the main reasons that Muslim Palestinians see themselves as having the right to this land (aside from all the usual religious BS), is because the majority of Jews were expelled from the area in the early 2nd century CE after a failed revolt against the Roman Empire. Around 628 CE, Byzantine Emperor Heraclius massacred or expelled a large number of the remaining Jews. Though there still remained a small and drifting population of Jews in the region, it was largely populated by people of other ethnicities and religions. One of the largest of these groups was composed of Muslims. Modern Muslims in the area saw the establishment of the Jewish state of Israel more as a situation of Westerners taking over territory to which they had no right and handing it over to the Jews (for several reasons, including but not limited to religiously-based ones), who had so little relative influence in region in the recent past that they were seen as foreigners themselves. Needless to say, the situation is not as black and white as you seem to thing. By the way, the opinions of your war veteran are also irrelevant (especially considering that his role was in the Vietnam war, which was entirely unrelated to the conflict in Israel. ) You also have a very pedestrian idea of debate.
Israeli bombs Gaza

O.k. I admit that I should not quote the bible in this debate, but put the U.S. in Israel's shoes... would you sit down and do nothing after being bombed non-stop for to years. any reasonable person would say no. It is only common sense to fight back. All I am saying is that the media should not criticize Israel for fighting back. Just because innocent people die. I have talked to a war veteran and he said that in Vietnam innocent people were killed on both sided. Debate- argue with one another. There is what Debate means
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should enforce mandatory vaccinations.

"My opponent's quotation from the youtube video doesn't appear to actually be from the video as it is more about having a healthy eating lifestyle and obesity than anything else. Please throw it out of the debate as a response. " lannan13Of course, my last opponent completely ignored this issue when I brought it up. Seems if you don't follow the majority, nobody listens. The cure for cancer does exist, the medical establishment is failing. Chronic disease is on the rise. Diabetes is on the rise and so forth. Whatever, just say "please throw it out of the debate as a response." Look the other way. Pretend it does not exist. I find it funny you spend all your time on my weaker arguments and almost entirely ignored my strongest argument. Perhaps, I should have only used my strongest argument. That way it would look more ridiculous if you ignored it. Since, then you couldn't focus on my weaker arguments. I think there is something in psychology about this. If you give someone $100 dollars versus giving them $100 dollars and a penny, people will perceived the first gift as more valuable. That somehow the extra penny lessens the perceived value. I still think I have enough to win even with that thrown out and very simply that forcing mandatory vaccines upon people with medical contraindications and that are severely immunocompromised as per my round 2 argument is cruel and unjust. There is no good reason to do so. Thanks for the debate.