BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

Good argument if it wasn't for you saying in the full resolution that your opponent was indeed ClashnBoom. "In this debate I intend to show that Clashnboom has broken a law, whatever it may be." Also about the IP address take a look at this. Profile Card airmax1227 airmax1227 So there's some unusual data that points to you potentially using an Alt account.... if its just an active account you haven't used in awhile it's not the same as an Alt... what I'm referring to is two accounts that are both used Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:47:54 PM Posted by: Profile Card ClashnBoom ClashnBoom What's the deference between an alt and another user? Cause I'm not making an alt though I do have another account I made before that's still active but I couldn't deactivate it because I used 10 minute mail to make it. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:49:16 PM Posted by: Profile Card airmax1227 airmax1227 what is that other account? Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:50:39 PM Posted by: Profile Card ClashnBoom ClashnBoom I do not have an alt. Ian Fernandez. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:51:17 PM Posted by: Profile Card airmax1227 airmax1227 okey doke link me to that account please Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:54:55 PM Posted by: Profile Card ClashnBoom ClashnBoom http://www.debate.org... BTW. There are multiple people who have the same IP address because my apartment building gives free WIFI so many people use it. Tuesday, April 21, 2015 @ 8:58:25 PM Posted by: Profile Card airmax1227 airmax1227 alright, thanks. As you can see that was way before this debate and as I've stated in the PM "BTW. There are multiple people who have the same IP address because my apartment building gives free WIFI so many people use it." I have never said that I do not know who my hacker is. I do know Timothy he is my next door neighbor. Also I don't know what this has to do with purgary. Conclusion: I conclude that I have nit committed a single crime but Timothy Rodriguez has but he isn't who you are debating.
Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

As this debate comes to a close we have to observe a key thing here. First let's look to the resolution. "Resolved: My opponent has broken the law. " We know what "broken the law" means, but what of my opponent? Opponent- a person who is on an opposing side in a game, contest, controversy, or the like; adversary. ( . http://dictionary.reference.com...) We can see that even is ClashnBoom never accepted this debate and someone else did for him we can still see that the other person who accepted for him is still "my opponent" meaning that the person who "hacked" his account is still concidered my "opponent" meaning that they are still liable to the same law. My opponenet would have to provide hard proff evidence that their account was hacked. One key reason we can see that is the key reason as to why my opponent is lying about his hacked account is that his IP address was the same at the beginning and the end of the debate. How do I know this you may ask? We simply just Ping his account and we can see that it has the same IP address in the Phillipeans as it did in the beginning of the debate then at 9:32 AM Central time 8/23/15. So with that we can see that it would be impossible for someone to actually steal his IP address and more likely than not we can see that my opponent is lying, and hence shall now be charged with purgery, and (s)he has still comitted those crimes. My opponent has dropped all arguments and I extend those across the board and we see that he is a hard bitter crimminal that needs to rot in jail.
Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

"In this debate I intend to show that Clashnboom has broken a law, whatever it may be." You are right Timothy Rodriguez has broken laws but he is not ClashnBoom. He uses the account but is not its owner or creator, he hacked it and stole it. I am the real owner of the account ClashnBoom, I created it, named it and thought of it and I didn't do anything illegal and never posted in this site.
Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

1. Timothy. 2. The Philippines 3. It ended in a period so I don't need to answer. 4. No. 5. How do you define it? 6. Not for free. 7. ClashnBoom. 8. Yes. 9. No. 10. I don't think so. 11. Yes. 12. No. 13. No, I don't even have any social media accounts. 14. No 15. If I had one. 16. Comments but not videos. 17. Yes, but I was home schooled. 18. No, never even drank anything alcoholic. 19. No. 20. Food porn?? 21. No. 22. Did this question get repeated?? And yes. 23. I didn't complete it and it was more original than a fan fiction. 24. Only the stupid comments or people. 25. Yes, knives. 26. Yes. 27. Blue. 28. Never. 29. Yes. 30. Am I? 31. Cause your weird and want to win. 32. No. 33. As old as I want to be.
Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

I would like to remind my opponent and ALL voters that even though my opponent is from a foreign nation (so his profile says) he is to abide by ALL US laws as stated in the rules. 1. What is your name?2. Where do you live?3. Have you wrote fiction on the internet.4. Have you done torrenting?5. Have you done cyberbullying?6. Have you watched movies or shows online for free?7. What's your username?8. Have you conntected to non-public wyfy.9. Do you have ad blocker?10. Have you ever used a meme?11. Have you clicked "Save image as" ever?12. Have you shared your password with any one?13. How you been underage register on DDO or facebook or anytype of social media?14. Have you watched Disney movie with 3 or more people that wasn't in a threator?15. Do you mow your own lawn?16. Have you uploaded stuff on to youtube? If so then what?17. Have you played internet games at your school?18. Have you been drunk?19. Have you smoked?20. Do you possess porn?21. Have you had sex?22. Have you connected to public wyfy?23. Have you wrote a fanfic?24. Has someone on DDO not like something you've said?25. Do you possess a weapon?26. Do you like ducks?27. What color is the sky?28. Have you spoken about sex on the internet?29. In your opinion, does God exist?30. Are you insane?31. Why am I asking you all these questions?32. Do you own a horse?33. How old are you?Your turn.
Resolved: My opponent has broken the law.

In this debate I intend to show that Clashnboom has broken a law, whatever it may be.RulesFirst Round is rules and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con.Round 2 Pro is to ask Con questions, may refuse to answer some personal, but must answer the questions truthfully (under penalty of purgery)Third Round is charges and defenseForth Round is Reubuttals.No trolling.No k's.No counter-plans.These will be US laws.If any of the above rules are violated the violator forfeits the debate.NOTE: In order for Pro to win he must prove that Con has broken the law. For Con to win (s)he must prove their innocence.Break the law- to fail to obey a law; to act contrary to a law (http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...)
should kittens and puppys go in the microwave

It is wrong "an" mean? Ah, this is a joke right? Do you have problems with your thought processes? Wow, such a detailed depiction of emotional heartbreak, such passion. Oh please. Spin 'em round and grind 'em up, that's my motto. Kittens and puppies are annoying and pointless creatures that deserve torture, and the microwave is a good place to do it in.
RESOLVED: Free Will Does Not Exist

Main Entry: free will Function: noun Date: 13th century 1 : voluntary choice or decision It is very obvious to me that people make voluntary choices. We do choose Mc Donalds over Burger King. Sometimes we choose a new restaurant because we want something different. People choose to break the law because it is what they want to do. Sometimes we make choices based on which is the least of two evils such as to pull the plug or keep someone on life support. Everyday we are faced with choices and if we did not have the ability to make those choices we would never even leave the house. I still stand strong that free will does exist.
RESOLVED: Free Will Does Not Exist

1. Rape Faulty assumptions creates a faulty claim. You assume that rapists know of the consequences of their actions. They do not, or if they do they are not sane, as any sane individual would realize the weight of his actions as society would punish him severely for his actions. 2. Choice definition This is a semantics argument. Action and inaction are literally two different terms, but I believe we can both agree that inaction and action are both conscious choices and are inherently both actions themselves. The same can be applied to choices and actions, as a choice is obviously not the same word as an action, but a choice is inherently an action in itself. It is the ACT of choosing, and whatever choice is made has become an action in the instance of time it was conducted under. 3. Reactions Thanks for agreeing with me. 4. Cooperation Thanks for agreeing with me for the most part. I still contend that this was mandated for the survival of humanity because it increased the overall welfare of humans far beyond that which it previously was. Society brought specialization, and more importantly the pursuit of knowledge. I believe we can both agree that medicine and engineering have saved countless lives. Now for the cultures that did not cooperate, they were simply products of location. Clearly, their location did not permit the growth of society in order to further their lives. They were not prime for cooperation, and instead relied on older methods to continue survival, again furthering my claim that all actions are based off of other actions. Conclusion: It has become apparent that every action stems from other actions, and by extension it has become apparent that free will does not exist.
RESOLVED: Free Will Does Not Exist

1. "human wants to preserve his own life, and raping would violate the safety of his own life" To begin with you have reconfirmed what I have already stated. Yes a person wants to preserve his life as free and well as it can be, but if your theory is true than no one would commit the crime of rape. We all know that is not the case. If the act of rape is already predetermined to be the wrong choice why do so many choose it? There are people who rape. They know the consequences but still chose to act on the choice that could put there way of life in jeopardy. If everything was predetermined and a product of previous actions then you could easily predict a criminal before he ever commits a crime. This, unfortunately, is not possible. 2. "A choice is the act of deciding. By definition, a choice is an action itself." I would like to be able to agree with all of your definitions but at this time it is not possible. Webster defines choice as: 1: the act of choosing : selection 2: power of choosing : option It continues with: synonyms choice , option , alternative , preference , selection , election mean the act or opportunity of choosing or the thing chosen. choice suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely . option implies a power to choose that is specifically granted or guaranteed . alternative implies a need to choose one and reject another possibility . preference suggests a choice guided by one's judgment or predilections . selection implies a range of choice . election implies an end or purpose which requires exercise of judgment . As you can see they follow suite with: Choice suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely. 3. "Just because all actions have equal reactions does not necessitate that their are two choices." You have again managed to take a line out of context to try and prove your point. I believe Newton's law read Every action has an equal AND OPPOSITE reaction. Therefore it does necessitate that there are two forces, or in this instance choices. 4. "This brought newfound intelligence. With this intelligence, humans became able to cooperate." I will agree that on this point you are correct. If you look at your statement you pointed out that humans became ABLE to cooperate. This does not mean that it was mandated in order to survive. There were many cultures that did not cooperate with others, and still are today. I firmly believe that every action derives from a choice of many options. With us having a choice and being able to make a decision on not only our needs but also our desires proves that free will does undoubtedly exist.
RESOLVED: Free Will Does Not Exist

"Humans act based on primal needs." To begin with I would like to address this statement. We are not here to debate a human action but to decide if a human has a choice in that action. I will have to concede that our actions are based on primal needs, as has been proven on many occasions. But the question is if we have the ability to make choices based on those needs or if it is predetermined. I challenge you to this thought, if all actions derive from human needs then why are there so many different people doing different things. Just because we have a need to procreate does not mean that we have to molest or rape to do it. Just because we have a need to obtain food does not mean that we have to go to Mc Donalds. We as humans have choices. We choose what fits our needs AND our desires the best. If this were not the case we would have no use for laws to govern us. If this were not the case we would have no use for any type of advertising. If this were not the case we would have no use for any parenting. We form our lives around a system of beliefs called morals. If we did not have free will we would simply act without thought. I myself have stayed up nights pondering the next days decisions, have you not? "Fate decides all human actions." Your argument is a very compelling one, if you agree that actions and choices are the same thing. I for one do not agree. An action has a physical base yet a decision is mental. All actions have equal and opposite reactions as proven by Newton. Does this not imply that there are two choices? Every action has a consequence, it is a matter of accepting the consequence that makes a decision. If fate ruled the world and nothing that we did really mattered then how would our society and many other have grown and advanced. If life is simply fate and primal instincts then why do we not hunt with a sharp stick and eat our food raw. Why don't we live in grass huts, why do we strive to do our best. The answer is simple. Your theory is flawed. We hunt with guns because we choose not to spend weeks trying to capture a single creature. We cook our food because it tastes better and is better for us. We live in houses because it is more comfortable, and we do our best because we know that our decisions are the only thing that set us apart from every other living being on this planet.
RESOLVED: Free Will Does Not Exist

In order to truly evaluate this resolution, some topicalities must be cleared. Definitions: Free Will: The ability to consciously choose one's own actions free from any external forces Observations: 1. A choice is not necessarily a free one. If a choice is available at a specific instance of time, the fact there is a choice does not necessarily make the choice a free and unsullied one. 2. For something to exist, it must exist within the bounds of reality. By this, I mean that for something to exist it must be applicable or evidenced within a human realm, and not only a figment of our imagination. For instance, Pokemon do not exist. You may argue that they exist within our minds, but that does not justify a true existence, as thought does not necessarily impact our actual lives. I would like to offer 1 contention in the name of affirming this resolution. Contention 1: Human Actions are predetermined A. Humans act based on primal needs. It is undoubtedly true that humans, at the core, are animals. This is biologically true, and philosophically true. Forever, humans have acted based on a "dog eat dog" ideology. But, more importantly, we have even more basic necessities besides competition. These would be the obtaining of food, water, air, shelter, intimacy, freedom, and other means of self progression. Now that that has been established, how does this negate the presence of free will? Well, because all human actions stem from some form of need, then all human actions are involuntary and the product of an external force. This means that free will does not exist, because for free will to exist a human would be able to choose to act in a way that defies all of his needs. This is CON's burden, as he must evidence that the choice of an action can defy a human's needs. B. Fate decides all human actions. When viewing time that has past, every second is a frame. In this frame, certain choices are made. When looking at choices and actions from the past for milennia and milennia, one can see a pattern. Certain actions force other actions to occur. The same can be applied to choices, as choices become actions. Because of this, we must realize that all human actions stem from previous actions, and thus free will does not exist because this would violate fate.
School Uniforms

Before I continue with this argument, I would like to say that I am immensely enjoying this argument. It's not often that people truly challenge me, I appreciate your response and am looking forward to the rest of this debate. You said that "how we express ourselves through our clothing helps us define ourselves" though I agree, clothing does help show who you are, it also puts on the perfect exterior that makes people going into the relationship already think they know who you are. But I don't think people always dress based on their personality. Lets say, hypothetically, there's a girl who is very down to earth and is almost your stereotypical 'hippy', except her clothes. Maybe she wears leather tube skirts and black crop tops, with studded combat boots and ripped tights, people aren't going to look at her and think "oh wow, that girl is probably a hippy and has the same philosophy as me and listens to the same music" Her appearance doesn't match the stereotype of her personality. People who are your typical "nerd" don't wear robes, or carry around staffs and wands, or always are wearing a cloak instead of a normal jacket, they probably wear jeans and a t-shirt. I don't think clothing always helps us define who we are, and I think we should get away from having to physically show who we are on the exterior when its what's on the inside that matters. I understand that some girls may feel insecure about uniforms, which is why if uniforms are enforced, do it right. I believe schools should give students the options between slacks, skirts, or dresses. And to your last point, it is valid and a strong point, but I think that uniforms will help with that. They aren't going to be wearing less and less everyday because they're wearing school uniforms. And if they dress 'slutty' outside school, then that's about them and who they are. They can express themselves that way if they want, but I just want them to keep it out of the education system.
School Uniforms

Thanks for the apology, what whats done is done. I still firmly believe that school uniforms should be banned. For one of my points I think that they are detrimental to adult development. How we express ourselves through our clothing helps us define ourselves. Wearing the same clothes every single day takes huge toll on our transition into adulthood. Wearing a uniform also is a big factor in youth depression. Imaging being a teen girl, staring into the school bathroom mirrors with tears in her eyes because a couple of the "popular girls" were just making fun of her. Uniforms main purpose is to make everyone look homogeneous (the same) but in fact they do the exact opposite. When everyones wearing the same thing you would image they all look the same. Thats totally wrong. Everyone has different body types, weights and heights. After a recent study I have discovered that almost every girl that wears a school uniform is often embarrassed to go to school wearing those clothes. Also most people think that uniforms try to desexualize youth, It does the exact the opposite. When those students come home they feel ugly. They're looking for someone to think that they look attractive, it drives them to wear less and less clothing every day.
School Uniforms

I'm sorry that you were bullied, and I understand that bullies may look for different ways to target people when they don't have appearance to pick on. But I know this is a terrible thing to say, but bullying is inevitable, all we can try to do is limit the sunjects of bullying. I am bullied in school because of my clothing and because of who I am. And if our school would enforce school uniforms, I kknow that it wouldn't only be me who would benefit from bullies stopping from making fun of our clothing. And yes, these 'helpful' uniforms are helpful, again I'm sorry you were bullied, but you can't ignore all of the other positive sides of school uniforms becuase you were bullied. And you said "clothes have no part with that" when refering to bullying, but I disagree. I along with many other people at my school are bullied because of our clothing. Clothing most definitely does have to do with the topics bullies pick to target people. I also believe that clothing is not the way to show other people how you feel. Other people should know how you feel becuase you chose to vocalize your opinions.
School Uniforms

I think that schools should not enforce uniforms. For the first major years of my life i was forced to go to a private school. They forced us to wear a uniform. The uniform wasn't the worst part, it was only a blue, or red polo shirt, and khaki pants. The only bad part was what they were restricting us from. Sure they eliminated some forms of bullying, but that happens anyway. Clothes have no part with that. They wouldn't let us express our own opinions. We needed the room to show other people the way we felt. With uniforms we had no differences between us. That was simply visually though. Now this opened up new ways for other students to bully us. They now targeted the "intellectually inferior students" This was not helping. The teachers wouldn't help us because they thought we were just having fun because no one ever hit one another. These so called "helpful" uniforms didn't help any of us. Instead it brought in more ways for the other students to verbally, and emotionally bully me.
god cant be all good if he created evil..

As there was no format described in Pro's round 1, I will go ahead with my opening:God did not create Evil, nor did he create Death. The Devil created death and evil by fooling Eve into eating the fruit of good and evil. God first worked to create a lasting nation of himself (Israel), then sent his only son (Jesus) to spread the word to the Gentiles, and Non-believers. Jesus died for our sins (us existing now, and before Jesus) so that other people of other Nations with different customs could enter heaven. Now we only have to abide by two rules:1: Love your God with all of your EHart, Sould, Mind and strength2: Love your Neighbor as yourself. In Conclusion, I would like to present Pro with my last argument:It can be assumed that by having Good, you also Have EvilIt can also be assumed that by Having Evil, you also have Good. It can also be assumed that having Good and Evil, you have to Have a Moral CodeThis "Moral Code" Are the Teachings of Jesus, and the Ten Commandments. God Laid out Rules, encouragement, and a guideline on how he wants us to act (Good). So where is the problem?
god cant be all good if he created evil..

Not necessarily. God did not create the Devil, but he created the Angel Lucifer. Lucifer then rebelled against God. Now Lucifer is stuck in Hell, and attempting to tempt others to turn against God. Nowhere in the Bible has it described God as one of Hatred. He is one of Complete Justice, Mercy, and Love. Did Jesus Not say to the Elders who were about to stone the Woman: "The one of you who have not sinned, may throw the first stone"? Jesus saved a Woman from being Stoned, died and protected his apostles, revived many dead people, healed sorrows, gave to the needy, never had a penny in his wallet, routed demons out of possessed people, and saved all of us.Explain to me how this does not show love and compassion?