BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
May Regular Tournament: God Exists

http://www.debate.org...], on solely highly controversial topics. After long discussions on PMs, Mister_Man and I have finally decided on a topic, the existence of God, since it is one of my favorite topics. I shall be playing Devil's advocate in this debate, so it shall definitely be interesting. There is a minimum required Elo of 2,000 to vote on this debate. I hope some good RFDs come up with valuable feedback. I thank Mister_Man for the debate and Unitomic for hosting the tournament, and look forward to an interesting discussion. Full TopicGod probably exists. TermsAll definitions are influenced by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the American Heritage Dictionary, and the Oxford Dictionary. God - an intelligent being that is the supernaturally powerful, transcendent cause of the universe. Probably - is likely to be true; >50% chance of being true. Exists - is actual in objective reality. In addition, I shall define Universe as "the totality of existence, that includes all of time, space, matter, antimatter and energy. "Rules1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources can be in an outside link.3. R1 is for acceptance only, and R2 is for opening arguments. No new contentions in the subsequent rounds.4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.5. No trolling.6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i. e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution).7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions. Deconstructional semantics are not allowed.8. The BOP is shared; Pro must argue for God's existence, and Con must argue the contrary. 9. Debate resolution, definitions, rules and structure cannot be changed after acceptance of the debate. StructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Pro's case, Con's caseR3. Pro rebuts Con's case, Con rebuts Pro's caseR4. Pro defends Pro's case, Con defends Con's case, both crystallizeThanks. .. .. .again to Mister_Man for this debate and to anyone who reads/votes on it.
School should be pushed back later

Round Three is a rebuttal. If a student cannot accurately wake up on time to get to school, they are poor students. School is designed as an institution for teaching students about how to work a job; if a student begs that the job be delayed so they can get another hour of shut-eye, the job would laugh. So it should be with a school that discipline is enforced. It isn't up to the students to decide when school starts, and it isn't up to them to decide when their job starts.
School should be pushed back later

I apologize for the delay and lack of a quality answer: I have been extraordinarily busy. Summarization of my points: 1. Any lack of sleep from early school times can easily be alleviated through afterschool naps. This has been shown in the elderly to improve overall sleep amount. This allows students to make up any needed sleep time. 2. Later school times would hurt a student overall. The early arrival time of school allows students to leave school early. If the student has an after-school activity, leaving school at 3pm - and with an activity pushing them back to 6pm or later - leaves them far less time for homework, studying, family matters, and social activity. 3. Later school times would promote students staying up later because the student thinks they can afford to sleep that late. If you have to wake up at 7, then you'll go to bed at 11. But if you have to be up by 8, then you will go to bed at midnight. 4. Later school times allows students to stay up later in the night. This promotes night-based activities that are bad for the student's health (parties). 5. Students whose parents go to work an hour after their student will be unable to drive their student to work without being late. If you go to school at 7, and your guardian goes to work at 8, you can get a drive to school. Not so if your school bus is later.
School should be pushed back later

Glad to see we have something in common, my first debate as well! Anyway, ON WITH THE DEBATE! Waking up at 5:30 in the morning to get to school on time is too early. Humans have a hormone that is released that makes you sleepy, but it happens at a certain time. For kids it is around 8:00 and for adults it is 9 or 10. Teens have it rough, we don't have this reaction until about 11. We need about 9 hours of sleep in order to get a good night's sleep and wake up feeling refreshed. However, with the current 7 or 8, we are going to be falling asleep throughout 1st and 2nd block. And then teachers get mad at us for it. Our brains do not fully awaken until 8:00 which is when it is fully 'rested'.
Abraham Lincoln was a Time Traveler

Abraham Lincoln has been proven to be a time traveler. I have studied this topic for 13 and a half years. As an astrophysicist, my studies have taken me deep into the topic of space time. Lincoln's top hat was always queer to me. I have realized that the top hat was an ancient artifact from Mars that helped in the process of traveling to the future. Most Sci-fi television shows depict a time traveling device as a clockwork mechanism, but that is not the case with Good ol' Lincoln here. The Confederacy was going to win the Civil war, but Lincoln used futuristic war tactics. He also introduced a more efficient rifle and bullet to his military. His murderer, John Booth, was also a time traveler. I infer that he was trying to hunt down Lincoln for breaking the time traveler's law and changing the course of history. The facts are in plain sight. I'm afraid there is nothing anyone can say to counter it.
Riggs vs. Palmer

(1) A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. (2) Assuming that the testator would have altered his will had he known his grandson"s murderous intent cannot affect whether he is entitled to the provisions. (3) Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. (4) There exists a counterargument: Legatee is guilty of crime where he now appears to be sooner eligible to receive the benefits of the will and should therefore be stripped of his rights to the property and should no longer have ownership of the estate. (5) To allow the counterargument to succeed is to place the estate into the hands of those who were not mentioned to be the rightful owners of the estate, as is written on the will, and would thus go against the terms written in the will. (6) There is no law that warrants this judicial action, the court rewriting the terms written in the will, and presumptions would not be enough to sustain this act. (7) Therefore, the respondent"s succession to the property should not be avoided because of his criminal act.
Riggs vs. Palmer

Is it relevant that maxims of common law are sufficient to regulate such a case that it is unnecessary to write them into legislation? Yes it is relevant that maxims of common law are unnecessary to write them into legislation because maxims of the common law are substantial to regulate such a case. - Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will. - A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers.| - A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text. - A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. Con: A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon.
Riggs vs. Palmer

Round 2: Non-controversial: - Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will. - A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers.| - A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text. - A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. Pro: Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. Therefore, since previous cases do not shed light on the effect that intent has on will alteration, Riggs v. Palmer must be based off of statute. It is relevant that there is no law which allows for judicial action to enforce the court to rewrite terms within a will because without this law, the court has no legal access to make any modifications. If they do, it is illegal, and, therefore, it cannot be done.
Riggs vs. Palmer

implicit question #1 Is it the case that statutes exist, within law, which dictate how wills can and cannot be modified, interpreted, revoked, or altered? (Can statutes be legally altered?) A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. (509.3.5) Implicit Question #2: Should the statutes be interpreted based solely on what is written within their legislation. Con: A thing within the intention of the maker of statute is within statute as much as within the letter, and a thing within the letter of statute is not within the statute, within the intention of the makers. If consequences occur opposed to common reason, they are void. If they occur and are unreasonable, then the judges are to conclude the consequence was not foreseen and therefore may disregard it. Implicit Question #3 Is it the case that new cases, such as Riggs v. Palmer, can be determined without previous rulings? Con: All laws and contracts may be controlled by maxims of the common law. Maxims are based in universal law in all civilized countries and have not been overridden by statutes. The decision of the case New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v Armstrong implied these maxims. There the person who attained a policy upon someone"s life, payable at his death, but murdered the assured to initiate the policy, could not recover thereon.
Riggs vs. Palmer

Implicit Question #1: Is it the case that statutes exist, within law, which dictate how wills can and cannot be modified, interpreted, revoked, or altered? (Can statutes be legally altered?) Pro: Strict and systematic rules are added to statutory restraints regarding the execution, alteration and revocation of a will which must be followed in order to insure validity and performance of the will. Implicit Question #2: Should the statutes be interpreted based solely on what is written within their legislation. Pro: A valid will must constitute as a will unless it is revoked in a manner provided by statutes. The intention to revoke a will does not have the same effect of revocation although the intention is necessary to constitute the effective revocation of the will, but it must be shown by one of the acts written in the statute. The intention of the makers of a statute is within the statute as interpreted within its text. Implicit Question #3 Is it the case that new cases, such as Riggs v. Palmer, can be determined without previous rulings? Pro: Prior court cases do not provide information on whether the murderous intent allows for will revocation or alteration by the law. Therefore, since previous cases do not shed light on the effect that intent has on will alteration, Riggs v. Palmer must be based off of statute. Implicit Question #4 Is it relevant that there is no law that allows for judicial action to enforce the court to rewrite the terms written within a will? Pro Is it relevant that maxims of common law are sufficient to regulate such a case that it is unnecessary to write them into legislation? Con Pro: It is relevant that there is no law which allows for judicial action to enforce the court to rewrite terms within a will because without this law, the court has no legal access to make any modifications. If they do, it is illegal, and, therefore, it cannot be done.
Women in Combat Arms

Thanks for accepting, hoping for a good debate. == Argument == 1. Equal standards - There is no question that the average female is physically weaker than the average male. But what are we to make of above average females? If a woman with exceptional athletic ability and toughness can meet and even exceed the standards currently set for male troops, then on what basis should she be denied the job? For example, the current physical standard to be a US Army Ranger involve completing 49 pushups, 59 situps, 6 pullups, and running 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Another US Infantry standard is carrying a 35 pound pack in full combat gear for 12 miles in under 3 hours. There are women who have completed and even exceeded both of these standards. Notably, 3 women to date have passed the US Army Ranger School, by all accounts outperforming many of their male peers. If these standards, which are currently deemed "good enough" to qualify men for combat, are not changed, and women prove they can meet those standards (they already have), then it qualifies as discrimination to exclude those women solely for their chromosomes. Bottom line - if women meet the same standard as men, there is no justification for denying them the job. 2. Women already have proven competence in combat - A big driver in this debate was the fact that women have already been exposed to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it made no sense to officially continue excluding them. There are numerous accounts of women performing with courage and valor under fire. Take, for instance, SPC Monica Brown, who was awarded the Silver Star for running through enemy small arms and mortar fire to protect and treat wounded infantrymen [1]. Or SGT Leigh Hester, also awarded the Silver Star, who personally led an assault to clear enemy positions during an ambush in Iraq resulting in 27 enemy KIA [2]. I challenge Con to justify why these Silver Star winners should be excluded from serving in combat, given that they already have and did so with distinction. 3. Other countries integrate with no problems - many modern armies are already gender integrated, including Canada, Israel, Germany, Australia, and Norway. It seems there are very few, if any, additional problems as a result of their gender integrated ranks, because if there was a noticeable difference in military performance they would cease the policy. In fact, according to National Geographic, "A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF [Israeli Defense Force] between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit 'superior skills' in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from 'a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.' [3]. If other modern armies (many of them NATO members) have integrated with success, then there is no reason why the United States should be a special exception. [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...... [2] http://www.homeofheroes.com...... [3] http://news.nationalgeographic.com......
peoples right to know/ Government's need for scarcely

This is a complete lie. What so Obama should just give out the United States defense plans to ordinary civilians so that then Islamic terrorists can find out? Or the government should allow college classes that teach people to build nukes? Secrecy [1] is about being safe. And being safe is about preventing people from bombing you. Therefore, secrecy is vital for a country to survive. Pro provided no arguments so I can do nothing more. Sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Guns dont kill people; Golf on T.V. does

I shall negate the resolution, "Guns dont kill people; Golf on T. V. does. " ================================================ Definitions: guns- weapons consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive. kill- to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of. golf- a game in which clubs with wooden or metal heads are used to hit a small, white ball into a number of holes, usually 9 or 18, in succession, situated at various distances over a course having natural or artificial obstacles, the object being to get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible. T. V. - television; the broadcasting of a still or moving image via radiowaves to receivers that project a view of the image on a picture tube. ======================================== I contend that guns do kill people. When a gun is fired, the speed and strength of the projectile has the ability to make contact with a person and kill him/her. Guns kill people due to the force of impact the projected bullet makes with a person's body. I also contend that golf on television does not kill people. Simply broadcasting a game of golf on television will not cause the death of various people. Although some may argue that golf is boring, golf on television does not kill people; for it does not deprive life of people watching the broadcast or cause the immediate death of humans. ========================================= My opponent quoted: "Golf on t. v sucks. " However, this does not create an argument and does not need a rebuttal. ========================================= The resolution is negated. I heavily urge a Con vote.
Should Middle Schoolers Have Recess

To keep that from happening, schools could have one large block of time that can be used for lunch and then recess, once the kids are done eating. They can go outside whenever they're finished. Taking a small amount of time from the classroom is a more than worthwhile bargain when you consider the fact that it will make the entire rest of the day much more productive. You would lose more time by cutting recess and having teachers constantly telling students to get back on task. Kids need this recess time to exercise and form social connections. I believe I have won this debate, both in my argument and in my conduct.
Should Middle Schoolers Have Recess

Not all kids are willing to spend their free time on physical activity, though. How do you know their parents won't let them sit around all the time? A ton parents do exactly that. 74% of kids don't get enough physical activity (1). Recess doesn't require a playground. Just space for the kids to run around. An enclosed roof could do. Or the area outside the school. Regardless, this funding should be a priority. 12.7 million children and adolescents in the United States are obese (2). Obesity can lead to cancer, heart disease, and many other life-threatening physical problems (3). Recess actually improves social skills (4). It's important to have a chance to socialize and play with other children. Will there be conflicts? Yes, but it's necessary that these conflicts occur so that children can learn how to resolve them in a safe, supervised environment. Your final point isn't logical. You claim that if we give recess to middle schoolers, they'll want it in high school. But we give recess to elementary schoolers without questioning whether or not they'll want it in middle school. Changes happen, and that's another thing that kids must learn how to deal with. However, the time for that change is between middle school and high school, not elementary school and middle school. (1) http://www.webmd.com... (2) http://www.cdc.gov... (3) http://www.cdc.gov... (4) http://pediatrics.aappublications.org...
Space isn't real

I apologize for my indecency. It is apparent that your contention has just evolved ten-fold. In order to continue this debate I am going to essentially lay out what I believe you are arguing and then give my opinion on it. Obviously correct me if I am wrong, but from what you have said so far, my points below seem entirely accurate. You award a lot of credit to NASA, a 60 year old agency, in creating fake projections into the sky to deceive our eyes into believing something exists beyond the sky. The sun, for example, I would assume you believe does not actually heat the Earth considering it must be in space in order to exist, and, of course, space does not exist. What your argument should be really, is that you believe we share this Earth with beings much greater than ourselves, and they have controlled what we see and believe for as long as man has been on Earth. Or you may also believe we are inside a computer simulation which is another argument in it of itself. You argue that we must go to space in order to know it is real. Many people have gone to space. I have witnessed a space shuttle in Florida myself. Where did they go? Is the video footage of their trip showing them enter the shuttle, leave and return fabricated? Is it possible that the computer simulation we exist in also contains a space as well? You are arguing with someone who believes the moon landing footage is fake, yet I understand there is undeniable evidence that we have made the journey to the moon, and consequently space. If your true argument here is that we are all prisoners in a simulation then I can understand where you are coming from more, but if you really believe we are all humans, with free will existing together I simply cannot comprehend how you can genuinely argue what we see above us everyday is simply a fake projection created by NASA.