BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

1st, Abstinence, definition: "any self-restraint, self-denial, or forbearance." Rape is irrelevant to this issue. This is due to the fact that words cannot be defined based on examples, because then there would not be any word that is safe in the English language. I agree that political parties can be changed- to an extent. For the most part, political parties are run by large companies or business men who wish to make a profit. Therefore, it would be easier, and more beneficial to just get rid of them completely. Next, you said "However, it is within the realm of possibility. It has only been a lack of desire to create such a political party that one does not exist." Let's dissect this statement. I suppose if you believe that this applies to political parties, then you believe this applies to most things as well. Please tell me, has anyone ever desired to make a clean source of energy, which is much, much, cleaner, and in more abundance compared to something such as nuclear energy? If you answered yes, then you have just explained that no one has a desired to create a source of energy by the product of the fission of hydrogen molecules. Just incase you are not into science, ill explain: the person who can successful turn hydrogen into a power source will be the richest, and most well know man in the science community, because this is something that everybody desires. Every quantum scientist desires the answer to fission, alas, no one has discovered it. This relates to the topic because I can compare this to the republican party. This was a party started to abolish slavery (hence why Abraham Lincoln was a republican), and fast forward to today where republicans are being indicted (Rick Perry) Thank you, I am finished for this round.
Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

It might be "more beneficial for political parties to just abolish themselves" or it might not be. It could go either way depending on the populous. Also, I have to strongly disagree that "abstinence is agreement". If so, then the abstinence of sexual consent during a sexual act is would be synonymous with consensual sex. However, the abstinence of sexual consent during a sexual act is rape. But my general point is that political parties can be changed. Or that new political parties can be created "for the better of society"... or the most good for the most people. They do not have to intrinsically work against the public. I accept that there is no historic precedent for this. However, it is within the realm of possibility. It has only been a lack of desire to create such a political party that one does not exist.
Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

I would now like to analyze your arguments. I 100% agree with your definitions, and they seem to suit both sides of the argument, so they will remain. Let's look back at the topic: "Political Parties Need To Cease Existence" While there is room for interpretation, this topic roughly translates to: "For the better of society, Political Parties Need To Cease Existence". Thus, the definitions uphold my argument. Next, at this point in time, it would probably be more beneficial for political parties to just abolish themselves anyways, because then maybe work could get done. I would like to counter argue your points. The public does "need" political parties to stop. Throughout history (and the examples I have given), the state of any nation would be better of if there were no political divisions. Since you have neither shown that my examples are irrelevant, nor shown examples of your own, you must agree with these examples, and how they prove my point. After all, abstinence is agreement. However, I would agree that political parties do not "need" to cease to exist. Particularly because they are all a way to funnel funding into upperclassmen who do not care for the rest of us. If they cease to exist, then the money stops flowing, and thus, corruption comes to a screeching halt. So of course, the last thing the party needs is to not exist, however for the overall benefit of this country, political parties need to be stopped. Thanks your for your time
Political Parties Need To Cease Existence

I agree with you that some political parties throughout world history have not always acted in a way that was most beneficial to most of the population. However, I am going to attack the semantics of your argument. A "need" is, as defined by Merriam-Webster: * a situation in which someone or something must do or have something * something that a person must have : something that is needed in order to live or succeed or be happy * a strong feeling that you must have or do something To "cease existence" is not a "need" for political parties. In fact, ceasing existence would be the exact opposite of what a political party "needs" "in order to live succeed or be happy". In terms of public needs. .. The public also does not "need" political parties to cease existence. It is well within the realm of possibility that a political party can mostly act in a way that serves the needs of the public "to live or succeed or be happy". Although, I agree with you that throughout most of history, most political parties have not acted in this manner. Of course, all organizations must be self-serving to some extent. But this does not mean that a political party must be mostly self-serving. A political party can be self-sacrificing. However, yes I do agree that there has historically been a significant lack of desire to create such a political party.
DDO Tier Tournament 2 (Round 2): On Balance Ontology Makes God A Necessary Phenomenon!

Greetings and Salutations! This debate is part of Mikal's DDO Tier Tournament: . http://www.debate.org... It is the second round (semi-finals): . http://www.debate.org... The debate is to take place between Fanath, . http://www.debate.org... and Ajab. . http://www.debate.org... Both contestants won their previous debates, with Fanath beating lannan13, . http://www.debate.org... and Ajab beating Crescendo. . http://www.debate.org... The Spirit of this debate is to consider an original Ontological Proof which I have come up with. This Proof will seek to make God a necessary phenomenon. Rules for Contestants: 1. There is a shared Burden of Proof, but I have the higher mountain to climb. I must lay out the proof and my opponent must find flaws in my logic. The voters must vote for whichever side has the higher probability of being right. Voters must judge the content within the debate only. 2. The first round is for acceptance, with acceptance Fanath binds himself to the definitions, and the rules set herein. 3. No semantics will be allowed this includes Kripkean semantics. 4. There is a 10,000 character limit, 72 hours to post one's arguments/rebuttals, and a Select Winner voting system. There is an Elo Restriction of 2500 on who is allowed to vote here. 5. I request that youtube not be used, as it is banned in my country. 6. Links must be provided to any sources cited, as must the page number. 7. All definitions will be taken from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Definitions: 1. God: is then an omnipotent, and omniscient being who is maximally great, and is transcendent of Time, Space and Number. The rest of terms will then be defined where necessary.
affirmative action is immoral

I am not accusing anything I'm promoting laws that already exist in 8 states. You are the con therefore you are opposing my stance (round 1. ) This leaves it to you to disprove my position for witch I sited 2 sources just as you did (round 2. ) I don't need to give a source for my second, Within round 2, Point because I'm responding to your article. The fact that you're simply dismissing me as a troll is because you've failed to contend with my points and premise. I understand the basic principle of affirmative action and it is race motivated. You are promoting one race over the other because you think minorities deserve special treatment because of the past. I believe that anyone should have an equal opportunity. Now you can say things like they weren't given an opportunity because of where they were raised but I'm not arguing geographical difficulties. Anyone from a poor town that received sub-par education should have a shot at secondary education. I'm arguing, As I stated in the premise, That race based affirmative action as outlawed in 8 states is a good model for others. The second link I posted, If you read it, Is about how affirmative action is actively discriminating against minorities in the U. S. Affirmative action was a presidential order made by Kennedy to combat segregation. Now it is actively combating diversity, As the article shows, And states are moving on. I'm here to prove my Idea you on the other hand haven't even approached the Idea. You claim that you aren't being argued against in a meaningful way but I've literally gone point for point with you. Also I don't have to argue against an entire article you posted. You post sources to validate your point not to defer your argument to someone elses line of thought. If I wanted to argue Noriko Amano I would write a counter article myself. I'm debating you not him. As a matter of fact all of your arguments are based off of thinking as a group rather than guarding the rights of individuals. Individuals by the way are the smallest minority of all. If every individual has equal rights there is no color involved in the equation. In conclusion you wasted you're first round setting a false premise. The second you whinnied and complained about how I didn't engage you when I almost go sentence fore sentence with you. (sorry I'm not about to argue someone elses article for you. ) All throughout attacking my character because I guess that's easier than debating points. So here is the last round. Lets see who's talking past who.
affirmative action is immoral

The burden of proof is on the accuser, Not on the defender. You failed to provide no evidence and either any proof of your claims, And therefore I must work with simply anything that you give me with. Failures to as well respect the oppositions gender and their political stances show that the oppostion is clearly just here to troll with the debate and not provide any real and meaningful discussion to the topic at hand. As established by the point; Affirmative Action was established, As said in sources, To provide anti-discrimination against minorities to as well boost their economic standing. This is another failing on the oppositions part to read the sources and respond to them in a meaningful way, And the citation of an opinion article from the New Yorker fails to provide any meaningful counterargument to either of what I've said. They simply, As it were, Talk past and try to avoid responding to my arguments in earnest and honesty. The opposition, As well, Fails to understand the most basic principles of Affirmative Action and why it was designed to exist; to uplift minorities and to break down barriers of stereotyping and prejudices. Which, As my previously cited research paper provides, Shows an immense benefit towards all in this direction. And as well, They show a pugnacious anger which can presumably be attributed to his personal white rage against the system. In short, This debate is nothing but a farce designed to troll.
affirmative action is immoral

By the first response of the con I can conclude that he thinks people should be given privilege by race. I would also speculate that the con is of the standard democratic camp by the way he feels the need to lump me into the "other. " People can in fact debate single topics and not align themselves with a party. Furthermore it was an opening statement and you have the burden of proof as the con. Not me. "The opposition fails to understand that the dynamics of ethnicity, Gender, Religion, And views play a major effect on how financial difficulties differ between peoples. " This whole sentence insinuates that affirmative action and equal employment opportunity laws are the same. It also exemplifies the Idea that people should be viewed as their groups and not individuals. Affirmative action is the encouragement of increased representation of women and minority-group members, Especially in employment. That's the definition. It doesn't say anything about it being a merit based system. (https://www. Dictionary. Com/browse/affirmative-action) In practice there are plenty of cases where people who score higher on sat's aren't accepted because of affirmative action. (https://www. Newyorker. Com/news/news-desk/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-affirmative-action-and-asian-americans) Setting race based standards on employment has no merit. Even if both people are qualified why shouldn't a person with more qualifications be hired? How does promoting certain people based on race equate to equality? White people can have "black names. " Not to mention the article you quote goes on to say this "So while I can't confirm the exact number, I believe the fundamental relationship to still be true. " That's some real fine evidence to support your claim. unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination can be easily taken out by having a computers running university acceptance and employment. That would be based truly on things you can quantify. Also, Unconscious bias? Because, People who don't act, Speak, Or write something racist they might still be racist. I hope you can sense the sarcasm in that last sentence through the screen.
affirmative action is immoral

By the introduction, The opposition finds itself falling into the standard conservative muckraking against Affirmative Action and provides no evidence to back up their statements. As such I'll give a response to them by pointing out that Affirmative Action is not racist and doesn't exclude impoverished people from one group in favor of others; in fact, The whole system is designed to fight against discrimination, Which is still a major issue in hiring practices within America. As well, The opposition fails to understand that the dynamics of ethnicity, Gender, Religion, And views play a major effect on how financial difficulties differ between peoples. A study by Yale, Provided at (https://isps. Yale. Edu/news/blog/2017/01/what-are-the-effects-of-affirmative-action-regulation-on-workers%E2%80%99-careers) showcases a vastly more different picture than presented. They as well fall under the same 'merit-based' system, Which is fictional and has no meaning beyond platitudes towards those already prejudiced against the system (http://theconversation. Com/the-myth-of-merit-and-unconscious-bias-18876). People are routinely discriminated against for something as simple as their name (https://www. Politifact. Com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/), Especially for poor black people who have 'ghetto' names. Due to the unconscious bias and societal-driven discrimination, It's impossible to have an objective merit-based hiring system. Prejudices and unconscious bias still play a major role in the hiring process, Making Affirmative Action all the more necessary to exist.
The intellect is immaterial

In this debate, I will take the con side and argue against my opponents arguments. First of all, I would like to make a comment about Aquinas himself, who was an essential theologian and philosopher in the 13 century. As much as I admire his writings and his extreme intellect, he isn`t up to date. In the 21st Century, most of the scientists and philosophers regard him as a historical figure. Apart from that, his books mostly lie in dusty bookshelves, waiting to be read. Thats how out of date this man is. Argument 2 sounds invalid. You`re making a distinction between the material and immaterial world. Thoughts, language etc.. are all physical(in my opinion) We learn through our senses, we pick up information on a daily basis and these thoughts lie in the neurons. I wouldn`t understand why thought and physical world couldn`t go hand in hand. The concept of truth lies only in the language. Fact. Without words, any kind of communication, there would probably be no thoughts. So is the concept of truth immaterial? Pronouncing a word, formulating a sentence, producing a sound, would you call that immaterial? Thank you for a thought provoking round. Sorry btw I wrote my argument in like 10 minutes. Going out of town now.
The intellect is immaterial

By intellect I mean the rational thinking aspect of the person. By immaterial I mean the intellect is not made of matter. I will be using a formulation of an argument by St. Thomas Aquinas, below. 1. In order for the intellect to have knowledge of X, the intellect must at least have some sort of interaction with X or with Y, if Y can produce knowledge of X. 2. The concept of truth is not a material object and no interaction with a group of material objects can produce knowledge of the concept of truth. C: The concept of truth must be immaterial and the intellect must also be immaterial in order to interact with and therefore know the concept of truth. The above argument is logically valid. Con must provide a reason as to why one of the two premises should be doubted in order to doubt the conclusion. Thank you
The intellect is immaterial

I thank Con for his rebuttal. Obviously it is not central to the debate, but while Aquinas is a fugure from the past it does not mean that his argument is necessarrily out of date. Philosophical arguments don't necessarily rest upon claims of modern science, but are timeless reflections upon the logical framework of reality. Also, some philosophers today still do use this type of argument. Now, do I have to concede that there is an implicit premise from the original argument that needs to be said, so here it is. "Only something immaterial can interact with something else that is immaterial". So, if the intellect is to interact with an immaterial thing then it must be immaterial. Of course I am arguing that the concept of truth is immaterial. The reason for this is found in the premises of the original argument. To expand, the concept of truth is not something that we can find located in the physical world. I can't go on a walk and say "oh look there's truth sitting over there on a bench". Rather, it is a universal predicating idea. Now as a Christian I believe that Jesus has a material human form and that He is the Truth, but He is the Truth because He is the universal predicating form of truth in His divinity, but that is an aside. So, the overarching point is that truth is a universal concept, it is not a particular thing. And no set of particular things can grant one an overarching concept. So, while Con says that saying a sentence is a material action I can agree, but the overaching concept of truth that predicates the meaning of the words in the sentence cannot be produced from a material object nor the material objects that the words produce. Thank you
Will Skyrim be better than MW3

While I agree that Skyrim has more variety in weapons and classes, and open world gameplay, it seems very similar to games like Fable, and we have all seen RPG's before. This one looks like all other RPG's out on the market. MW3, meanwhile, is much more action-packed and adrenaline fueled, and people have been waiting for it for over 2 years. It will be the culmination in one of the most popular game series IN THE WORLD, and it will have a larger variety of missions, from hijacking a Russian Submarine to parachuting into Moscow to helicopter chases through Wall Street. In Skyrim, the gameplay will be the same everywhere. Let's not forget that the Modern Warfare series has already beaten the elder scrolls series, which I had never heard of before this debate. Your move.
Will Skyrim be better than MW3

First I would like to provide a little bit of background information behind each game. Skyrim is the fifth game in the Elder Scroll series and is right after Oblivion. Even though the game has not been released, there have been plenty of game-play videos over the web. The graphics in these videos have so far been amazing, and will most likely be the best graphics to appear on the PS3, PC, and XBOX 360. It is being developed by Bethesda Studios and published by Bethesda Softworks. Bethesda Studios previously made Fallout 3 and partnered with Obsidian Entertainment to create the RPG of the Year for 2011. Fallout New Vegas. MW3 is the third installment to the Modern Warfare series and the eighth addition to the call of duty series. It is being developed by Infinity ward and Activison who published the extremely successful Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare and Modern Warfare 2. Skyrim will contain tons of weapons as well as items and armor. You will be able to duel wield weapons or have one weapon and one shield, one shield one spell, duel wield spells, or 1 weapon and one spell. You cannot however duel wield bows because that is obviously illogical as well as duel wielding shields. There are 18 skills that are divided equally between, stealth, Combat, and Magic. They will also have 4 main guilds, the dark brotherhood, the thieves guild, the mage guild, and the fighters guild. This game will be loads better than MW3 because most importantly, you are free to travel throughout the world. You can go wherever you want inside the set world. You also have the ability to do quests which just makes the experience so much more realistic. MW3 doesn't cut off from the main story line at all and it will not have as many items and weapons as Skyrim. I believe that the only reason people buy Modern Warfare is for the online mode. I admit that I have spent many hours playing MW2 non stop. The problem with the online mode though is the servers. The servers are not dedicated and is based on the connection of one persons internet. If they have a bad internet connection then it will cause everyone else in the game to lag. If the person disconnects, then the game must attempt to find a new host fast or it will quit the round. That is my opening argument.