BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Libertarian Society Would Benefit the United States of America.

It is true that my opponent never truly states that he accepts the libertarians party platform as what he is referring to, but since he does refer to the Libertarian idea, I would ask my opponent to clarify what he truly means and his stance of the several issues listed on the platform party. Since I am incapable of producing a counter argument for something that I have no frame of reference to. I am incapable of reading into my opponents mind to understand fully what he entails by libertarianism. I just follow the party's platform and his general guideline that "A Libertarian Society is one where the only laws that apply are laws that prohibit taking freedoms away from someone else without their consent. " So if everyone is free as long as they don't give their consent to be slaves, then they are perfectly free of not paying for taxes, they are perfectly free for not caring for the environment that they own And as far as one person not owning the Grand Canyon, granted at the moment that sounds like an extreme and imaginative scenario but in the age of free capitalism and massing of wealth who knows how rich 1 person might get. Also there is no such thing as anti trust laws in libertarianism, if you support laws such as anti trust regulations etc, then your not a true and complete libertarian and the society that you suggested would be a libertarian society no more. If what my opponent meant to suggest in his topic is our current society but with a few borrowed libertarian principles like legalization of marijuana and other soft drugs, a strengthening of the bill of rights and other individual freedoms and the legalization of abortion (which is still legal right now) then that is a whole other subject matter. You claim that you want the US to be the policeman of the world, you want anti monopoly regulation, we should have free or public education. Those statements alone disqualify you from being a libertarian. Please I ask my opponent to clarify exactly what is proposing before I continue to another round of arguing. I do thoroughly believe though that as far as your suggestion as it currently stand that for a completely libertarian society to exist in the US, and using the public idea of what libertarian means I have already provided sufficient arguments to prove the inefficiency of such a utopia like place.
A Libertarian Society Would Benefit the United States of America.

A Libertarian Society is one where the only laws that apply are laws that prohibit taking freedoms away from someone else without their consent. These freedoms include life, liberty, and property. In this particular Libertarian society, soft drugs such as marijuana would be legal, along with prostitution, same-sex marriage, and many other things. Censorship would also be very limited because people have the first amendment rights of freedom of speech/expression. Abortion would be legal because a fetus is not a person, and only people have rights to life. This society would be beneficial because it would give citizens maximum freedom without the freedom extended to people getting hurt.
Resolved: Public high school students in the United States ought not be required to pass standardize

Im not going to make any arguments here as to follow the order of LD. However i just want to point a few things out: 1) "My opponent then continues to provide an alternative, however he needed to do so in the AR, because the abuse had already happened. Had he specified an alternative in the AC, I wouldn't have had to invest so much time in theory." It is obvious that where a wrote AR it the first sentence, I meant AC. If you read my last argument, I later state "(Remember the alt specified in the 1AR doesn't count because it was not originally presented in the AC)." As well as other parts of my theory relying on this distinction. I had actually made that typo (AR instead of AC) a few times and must have missed that one when revising. I'm asking voters not to kill me on that, we've all made typos. 2) For those who don't know what theory is: A theory argument is an argument that explains how one debater is violating a rule of debate or making the debate unfair in some way. This type of debate had four parts as seen in my off case. a) interpretation -here all a debater does is give an interpretation of the rules or the resolution b) violation- this is where a debater tell the judge (or voters) what his/her opponent has done wrong c) standards- in this section the debater explains why the interpretation is necessary to have a fair debate and how it has been violated by his/her opponent d) voters- here the debater tells the judge (or voters) why they should vote on theory. Usually this is either Fairness or Education. 3)For those unfamiliar with LD: When evaluating in LD round it should be done in this order (it would be in the arguments if you don't see the term there it wasn't in this debate)- Theory, A priori/pre-standards arguments, then decide which value and which criterion to use for the round (the don't have to be from the same side of the debate you can mix and match), pick which debater better upholds the value through the criterion (using the value and criterion you chose) I hope this was helpful, I know LD can get confusing. If you don't understand this or don't agree with it, feel free to vote as you would had I not posted this.
Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

For the final round, I will do one more major rebuttal and conclude this debate.My opponent mainly states that Pokemon does cause animal abuse with the following quote: "Essentially, what I am saying is just because you don't see the headlines in the news doesn't mean people have not been affected by some way". Well if no headlines are seen, that makes your argument faulty because there is no evidence that Pokemon influences children for animal abuse.In fact, video games really don't cause violence at all (1).To conclude the debate, my opponent makes many claims but fails to provide evidence for any of these claims. He never really proved on how pokemon causes children to start animal abuse. He really did not rebuttal any of my past statements, and in the final round he doesn't talk about the topic on hand but more of a generalization. If the topic was different, it would work but its not.vote Con!Source:1. http://www.independent.co.uk...
Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

With all due respect to my opponent, the way he says it is as if he has personally seen every single person who has played Pokemon have not committed any animal abuse. How do you measure that? If a person derives pleasure just by seeing animals getting hurt, wouldn't you say that he or she has been influenced by the shows they watch too? Essentially, what I am saying is just because you don't see the headlines in the news doesn't mean people have not been affected by some way. It could very well be that we are all so used to this animal violence that it has become normal for us. Bull-fights, cockfights, keeping fishes in aquariums, keeping pets. To me, all these can lean towards animal abuse because we have mislead ourselves into thinking that we are caring for the animals when in fact, we have and will continue to strip them of their natural habitats, behaviour etc. This silent attack on our subconscious is done by the things we play and watch and we should not deny that. Thank you
Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

I will post my opponents statements in italics and rebuttal against themOf course the fanbase is getting older since the generation which was first to receive Pokemon is getting older. My opponent says these adults are not doing violent acts. I feel this is outside the scope of the debate. We are talking about the kids not the adults.In this statement, my opponent agrees that those who have played Pokemon are older. My opponent argues how this isn't part of the debate, when it is. Those who have played Pokemon have not commited any animal abuse, and the same goes to children who play the game.Then he says just cause someone plays a game doesn't make them evil. Um? We are not discussing about judging someone on what they play.Actually we are because the topic for this debate states "Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children". Have any of these kids commited animal abuse? No they have not, and leans towards the Con side that children do not commit any animal abuse after Pokemon.
Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

Thank you for accepting. Rebuttals: My opponent says that the fan base is getting older. He brings up his evidence. Of course the fanbase is getting older since the generation which was first to receive Pokemon is getting older. My opponent says these adults are not doing violent acts. I feel this is outside the scope of the debate. We are talking about the kids not the adults. My opponent needs to limit his argument only to the kids audience. Then he says just cause someone plays a game doesn't make them evil. Um? We are not discussing about judging someone on what they play. I was arguing that the game or show does affect kids at a subsconsious level. It is not easy to measure this influence merely based on "hard facts". My next argument is that all games or shows have a consent age where it is generally deemed to be safe. However for Pokemon we need to raise this age bar because kids are heavily susceptible to the subsconscious attacks of media including Pokemon. Thank you
Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

I will argue that Pokemon does not cause animal abuse to children.Firstly, I like to please bring up a statistic about the fanbase of Pokemon. Stated by "Pokemon's Audience Growing Older" (1), it states that Pokemon's players are more adults than children. That is way different, and have a majority of them commited animal abuse? No, they are just nerds, like myself, who play a game because they want to. After they played it, have any of them became animal abusers? No, in fact players actually learned to care and treat animals more (2). Just because someone plays a game does not make them already a evil individual.1. http://www.siliconera.com...2. https://www.google.com...
Pokemon Promotes Animal Abuse in Children

This is a short debate. You have 12 hours to argue and only 1000 chars. I am for the motion that Pokemon promotes animal abuse in children. As you know, Pokemon is a franchise which depicts human trainers using animals to fight each other. The animals fight and the trainers get the reputation, prize money etc. Pokemon is largely targeted to audience of lower than 12 years. At this growing age, they are very susceptible to influence from the things they watch, play and read. Any adult person can tell you how kids today are becoming more violent. Cartoons play a large part in this and this includes Pokemon. Yes, I know opposition will probably argue that adults should regulate kids TV programs etc. The thing is people just readily accept that Pokemon is for kids but they fail to recognize how much it is encouraging them to see animals as just something to play around with and to be used for our desires of entertainment.
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

And you have lost. I have taken your argument, reduced it to its component parts, dropped it off a river, retrieved it, infected it with Ebola, stabbed it repeatedly, dropped it off an orbital platform, dug my teeth in, and shaked it until it was reduced to molecules.Your argument rests upon two basic ideas:1. That atheists have to be logical and scientific. They don't. I know atheist pagans--they don't believe in a deity, but they believe in subtle energy.2. Unicorns don't exist. I've proven the opposite--unicorns do exist; we made them. They aren't attracted to virgins, but they do exist nevertheless. They can't cure toxins; they are ill-tempered and stereotypically eat tin cans. But they exist.You lose. Because you're right about one thing: The information following your last sentence was brought to you by CHECK and MATE.Cheers.
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

There's no crying in baseball cheetah avatar baby. You know that. Walk It Off :) Now back to big kids stuff :) Unicorns, leprechauns at the end of rainbows and personal gods are all supernatural ridiculous ideas that thinking people cannot embrace because thinking people have higher levelS of intuition, intellect and instinct than those who believe in superstition and myths. Calling me a troll wont wont make unicorns real. You are a silly childish superstition believer and Richard and I ask that you put your atheist badge on the desk and banish yourself from the cool kids of the world until you are cured of your unicorn delusion. Splitting hairs on goats, or other animals wont help you, creatioists are professional hairsplitting sissies. Also we request that you quit being a part time supernatural believer and get yourself a holy binky and suckle malnutrition from it like your closest peer the creationist :) The following information is brought to you by our faithful sponsors CHECK and MATE :)
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

In other words your a hair splitting child full of delusion and fairy tale beliefs and you think using big words proves your intelligence. You are an embarrassment to non bleieveris in superstition because you pick and choose supernatural beliefs just like a creationist picks and chooses which scripture to quote. Unicorns are horses with long horns on their heads, split hairs on whatever you want, your not going to convince me you are intelligent by using the word ergo, your a little kid and it shows :)
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

If you don't believe cars can drive themselves up mountains by themselves, as well as back down, then you clearly haven't heard about the advances in robotic cars.In any event. You didn't define unicorn, ergo I get to define unicorn. There is truth in the unicorn legends, as is clearly shown by what I cited. You have no reason to say I am incorrect aside from repeated assertions.And I am a genuine atheist. I don't believe in a deity of any sort.
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

Well for an atheist, your not at the top of the food chain. Your down towards the bottom where supernatural beliefs wallow. The only difference between you, and a creationist, is your fairy tale is an unproven animal and their fairy tale is an unproven entity. I cant put a list of the trillions and trillons of things a genuine atheist is also a-?????. Imagine my list in the title the start of a long never ending list. Example. I am a-weightlifitingottterofsixist, a-deerchefist, a-cardrivingupamountainbyitselfandbackdownist, A-turtledovepigeonreunionindecemberofaoddnumberyearsist, a-anythingsupernaituralchildishist. So in conclusion, you are atheist to some unproven supernatural, just like creationists You sound confusd, and confusion is a creationist trait, not atheist, go ahead and get back on their team, we dont claim childish beliefs at the top :)
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

From Con's argument, I'm forced to conclude that he meant to argue 'Pro'.As my opening argument, I would like to point out that I am an atheist, but believe in unicorns. Specifically, a unicorn is a horse with a single horn.... except not quite. In reality, a unicorn only resembles a horse. For instance, in the Middle Ages, unicorns were often goatlike (http://upload.wikimedia.org...). Oberon Zell-Ravenheart made a goat with a single horn by binding the horns together (http://www.lair2000.net...). Ergo, unicorns exist.
A-THEIST are also a-unicornist, a-hobgoblinist, and a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows

If you were to ask pope pius XII Mar. 2, 1939 - Oct. 9, 1958, where he received his information regarding rules and regulations for catholics, or how was this information coming to him, he would have pulled out a King Kong sized syringe of poison and proceeds to spew "god told me" and you would have eaten up. If you still would eat it up, the poison is still affecting you. Please do not reproduce until you wake from the delusion. I would suggest learning biology, embryology, physics, fractal geometry, cosmology, (NOT pseudo scince astrology), and a few other intelligent sciences for fastest and best results :) Just slow down. Take a breath. Agnostic is putting the probability of a god on par with the improbability. That is incorrect. There isnt a 50-50 chance here. No human can prove or disprove a god any more than any person can prove or disprove leprechauns at the end of rainbows. However, these things can be considered a statistical improbability. So a-theist, are also a-leprechaunist, even at the end of rainbows :) We just need to raise our conciousness. Just a simple small step, and all agree that questioning the origins of human life becasue of our current scientific knowledge is NOT somehow inherintley wrong, or rude, or offensive in any way just because those truths contradict words in a holy book. Once we all agree on that, we will begin to embrace the beautiful truths and explanations for the complexity of life and ultimitley have the conciousness to let go of the dull lazy answers that "god did it", "its gods will", "its gods way of testing us" "It says so in my holy binky" :) Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism, affirms our responsibility to lead ethical lives of value to self and humanity because we want to, that doesnt sound too difficult right? :)
Metaphysics Debate 3

Yeah, sorry, I misread that part. Okay, hear goes: Knowledge: Awareness of truth Wise: Having unusual insight Nothing: absence of existence (bad phrasing) ex. man who knows he knows nothing would be man who is aware that he has an absence of awareness. Now, I think you may have misunderstood my argument, I was saying Dubito or Cogito ergo sum, (it was originally Dubito, but was changed in order to not be heretic), was flawed, and could not be used to rebut my argument. I don't have to prove the existence of the Evil Deceiver, my point is that you can't know whether he exists or not. The proof of that would be that you can't disprove his existence, and that means however unlikely it is, it is possible that he exists, as long as there is the slight possibility that he may exist, the rest follows. In syllogistic form. 1. There is the possibility of an Evil Deceiver 2. If he exists he has the ability and will to change logic, and the empirical world. 3. We would not be aware of what is true, and what is one of his lies. 4. We would not know anything. 5. A wise man would recognize that fact. As long as we don't know whether he exists or not, we have the possibility of the situation where we don't know anything. This lack of knowledge leads to us being unable to prove the absolute truth of anything, if we don't know what is true, than we don't know anything. Your hypothetical good deity is also possible, but as he can't be proven, he cannot rebut my possibility. We don't know this, so we can't know anything else. Okay, your argument that if a man knows that he knows nothing he knows something is flawed. The phrase I offered as a possible topic of debate is a fairly well known figure of speech. It is fallacious to say it is false simply because it is phrased as a contradiction. In truth, a man can't even know that he knows nothing, because of the possible Evil Deceiver possibly messing with logic. So he can't know anything, not even that he can't know anything. It is a paradox, but it is proved logically, so I guess it is a true paradox.
Metaphysics Debate 3

Opponent: ""Okay, man who knows nothing isn't really in the dictionary, so I used common sense, but wise man is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a man of unusual learning, judgment, or insight" basically what I said."" You didn't comprehend what I said. In philosophy, things like "wise" and "knowing" and "nothing" can be debated, therefore I do not accept any definition just because it is dictionary. You need to prove to me what knowing is, what a wise man is, and what nothing is etc. in your argument (as you are debating, again, metaphysics here). ""Now, onto my case. This has some Descartes in it, so it may be slightly familiar, your profile says you have a background in metaphysics."" I am more than slightly familiar with Descartes argument (as with all other Philosophy majors, they need be more than slightly familiar), and have written many a rebuttal against his Cogito ergo sum inference. (my ethos) Now to your argument: Ok... so you are saying that it is possible that there is an evil deceiver, but supply no proof for one. Metaphysical arguments consist of proofs on what exists, what causes those things to exist, and why they exist. You have proved none of them by saying "it is possible." How is it possible? Can you show me using a syllogism at least? You have no proof that such a being exists. You have just given a what if? I can counter a what if with another what if - what if there was a benevolent good being that fought the evil deceiver and there was still some truth to be learned in the world. Then the man would not be wise to think he didn't know all, because he might in fact know something. So, again, you have the burden of proof and have not given any proof for your "what if." You also mention Cogito ergo sum (or as you mentioned it, "dubito"). This doesn't mean logic is messed up. It is a widely known argument that Descartes Cogito is logically flawed as it is a syllogistic inference. This only means that Descartes reasoning was flawed (he's not a perfect being, he can make a reasoning flaw). Because Descartes reasoning was flawed, Cogito would then not logically follow from his syllogism error. So, in no way does pointing out an obvious reasoning error prove that logic can be manipulated. Logic is prevailing, and just because a famous philosopher said something doesn't mean it is logically sound. _____________________ My argument as to why a "The wise man is the man who knows he knows nothing" is flawed: To know that you know nothing is to know something - that you know nothing. Therefore, the wise man does know something. Just because a sentence can be put together and be grammatically correct does not mean it is logically correct - such as the statement we are arguing about the wise man. I can give you an example: The hollow unicorns organs ached and radiated sweet sugar remote controls. The sentence can be put together with verbs and nouns, sure, but it is by far logical. Just like a wise man knowing that he knows nothing. You can't know that you know nothing. You wouldn't have the empirical evidence to make such an inference if you didn't know something.
Metaphysics Debate 3

Okay, man who knows nothing isn't really in the dictionary, so I used common sense, but wise man is defined by Merriam-Webster as "a man of unusual learning, judgment, or insight" basically what I said. Now, onto my case. This has some Descartes in it, so it may be slightly familiar, your profile says you have a background in metaphysics. Okay, it is a possibility that there is an Evil Deceiver, one who is omnipotent, omnimalevolent, and omniscient. This guy, he since he is so evil likes to mess with logic, and give us hallucinations, and other naughty things. These acts interfere with us knowing anything, as any empirical evidence could be a false perception, and any logical proof could be invalidated when he changes logic. Even Descartes' Dubito ergo sum is flawed, as with logic messed up, all is possible. Unless this Evil Deceiver definitely does not exist, we cannot know anything. It is unusually insightful to recognize this. Therefore, the wise man is the man who knows he knows nothing. Quod erat demonstrandum