BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Open Question Argument by G.E. Moore

For reference, the debate shall only be 3 rounds (seeing as that's the number of rounds are in this debate - post a comment if I am blind). The debate is strictly no plagiarism, with 7 points lost by anyone who does plagiarise. I shall defend the Darwall-Gibbard-Railton formulation of the Open Question Argument, which goes as follows: Premise 1: If X is good, then X will in itself motivate an individual to pursue it. Premise 2: A cognitively sound and competent speaker of English (or whatever language the OQA is made in) can understand that Action X* produces X, yet not pursue X*. Conclusion: X is not (analytically equivalent to) good. The argument's conclusion, then is to show that no moral property is identical to a natural property[1]. I'll await my opponent's rebuttal. . http://books.google.co.uk...
The vaccine empire has collapsed

Normally I dont accept one round debates, but anyone who yells "Boom! " after their arguments is just asking for an a** whipping. .. .. As for the Pros arguments: "A review from The Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected research-analysis team, went over all the evidence, and entered its conclusion that in healthy adults, no flu vaccine delivers protection from the flu. .. .. .. .The Cochrane review, published by John Wiley and Sons, appeared online on July 7, 2010. "This is the article the review published on July 7th 2010. . http://summaries.cochrane.org...If you click "PEARLS- Practical Evidence About Real Life Situations" tab and read "Bottom line" you read that:"There is insufficient evidence to decide whether routine vaccination to prevent influenza in healthy adults is effective. Influenza vaccination did not affect the number of people needing to go to hospital or to take time off work (the follow up period was up to 3 months post vaccine). "Basically, the study only found that the effectiveness of vaccines against the Flu cannot be proven to be effective or ineffective in healthy adults, and that there is not enough evidence to even DECIDE if routine vaccinations are effective. It says nowhere that the vaccines offer zero protection from the Flu. Now the debate resolution is "The Vaccine empire has collapsed" not "Vaccines cannot be proven effective against the flu in healthy adults"Lets look at the rest of Pro's arguments though:Evidence the Pro has offered saying there was a vaccine empire = 0Evidence the Pro has offered saying that such a vaccine empire collapsed = 0So what evidence has the Pro even offered to support his outlandish claims? - 1 - His first source is a link to the home page of gaia-health. com which shows nothing in relation to what is being argued in this debate. - 2 - His second source is a link to a page about the original study that under "Authors' conclusions" even states states that"The results of this review seem to discourage the utilisation of vaccination against influenza in healthy adults as a routine public health measure. As healthy adults have a low risk of complications due to respiratory disease, the use of the vaccine may be only advised as an individual protection measure against symptoms in specific cases. "So all in all. The pro has misread his own evidence, the study itself never says that Flu vaccines do not work at all and that they can even be useful, the pro provides no evidence at all suggesting that a vaccine 'empire' even exists, and the pro doesnt even provide evidence reinforcing his claim that this imaginary vaccine empire has somehow fallen.
The vaccine empire has collapsed

You may not have heard the explosion, but it happened.A review from The Cochrane Collaboration, a widely respected research-analysis team, went over all the evidence, and entered its conclusion:In healthy adults, no flu vaccine delivers protection from the flu.Boom!It doesn't protect against transmission of flu viruses from person to person, either.Boom!So all the promotion and all the pandering and all the scare tactics and all the "expert medical opinion" and all the media coverage...useless, worthless, and irrelevant.Billions of dollars of financed lies about flu vaccines were just that: lies.It gets worse, because the entire theory about how and why vaccines work is sitting on a razor's edge, ready to fall into the abyss of discarded fairy tales.We've been told that vaccines stimulate the immune system with a "rehearsal" of what will happen when an actual disease comes down the pipeline. When the disease does show up, the immune system will be locked and loaded, ready to destroy the attacking germ.But since flu vaccines don't protect against flu or even stop the transmission of flu viruses from person to person, the so-called "rehearsing" of the immune system is merely somebody's fancy story. A legend. A myth.Also, you can forget about the widely sold herd-immunity tale. How can the group be immune when vaccines are doing nothing to prevent the free movement of germs from person to person?As always, The Cochrane Collaboration did an exhaustive review of all previous studies on flu vaccines they could discover. They rejected the studies that were badly constructed. In some cases, to expand available data, they contacted individual researchers who had conducted studies.Therefore, Cochrane's findings represent the best of the published literature on flu vaccines. However, because the Cochrane team owes nothing to pharmaceutical companies, they analyzed the literature with sober eyes and minds.Here is an interesting comment from the analysis: "The review showed that reliable evidence on influenza vaccines is thin but there is evidence of widespread manipulation of conclusions..."Now who in the world would benefit from such manipulating?Oh yes. One other thing.The Cochrane review, published by John Wiley and Sons, appeared online on July 7, 2010.Over two years ago.We must have missed the massive mainstream media coverage. Perhaps we were fishing that day, or buying tires for the car, or vacationing on our yachts in the Mediterranean.What? There was no massive media coverage? Impossible. I mean, surely...Sources: http://gaia-health.com...http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... (registration required)
Baha'i Fulfills "Great News" of Islam

The Baha'i Faith Fulfills the Great Announcement of Islam mentioned in the Qur'an. The Quranic Verse in question is as follows. In Quran's Chapter (Surat) The Tidings (An-Naba') - سورة النبإ it states: "Concerning what are they disputing? Concerning the Great News ( النبإ العظيم), About which they cannot agree. Verily, they shall soon (come to) know! Verily, verily they shall soon (come to) know!" Due to differences in translation style the Arabic term النبإ العظيم is translated as "Great News" in most English Qurans but is translated as "Great Announcement" in Baha'i writings. Baha'u'llah claims that He fulfills this Great News of the Qur'an in the following verses, for example: "Likewise, in the Qur""n He saith: "Of what ask they of one another? Of the Great Announcement." This (The Revelation of Baha'u'llah) is the Announcement, the greatness of which hath been mentioned in most of the Books of old and of more recent times." "Fear ye God, then observe equity in your judgement of this Great Announcement before which, as soon as it shone forth, every momentous announcement bowed low in adoration." "This (Baha'u'llah's revelation) is an Announcement whereat the hearts of the Prophets and Messengers have rejoiced." "...that day (the birthday of Baha'u'llah) on which We raised up the One Who announced unto the people the glad tidings of this Great Announcement." "O Jalil (An early Baha'i)! He hath made known unto you His straight Path and hath acquainted you with His Great Announcement." "As a token of grace from God, the Revealer of this Most Great Announcement, We have removed from the Holy Scriptures and Tablets the law prescribing the destruction of books." "Take heed lest the word "Prophet" withhold you from this Most Great Announcement..." "The Almighty, however, in spite of them and those that have repudiated the truth of this "Great Announcement," hath transformed this Prison House into the Most Exalted Paradise, the Heaven of Heavens."
Baha'i Fulfills "Great News" of Islam

Your new argument is that since a verse can have multiple meanings, Baha'u'llah can claim it is referring to him without providing a shred of evidence as why it refers to him and we have to accept it at face value! That was his exact attitude in the quotes you provided in the first post. I don't find that convincing at all. My grandma can make such a claim as well but she's got to prove it before I accpet it.As for the multiple new topics that you have put forward, I don't have the slightest idea how most of them can be used to prove Baha'u'llah is the fulfillment of the verse. The rest are as yet merely your claims, nothing more. You are supposed to prove he is what the verse is referring to, not jump to multiple secondary issues and give lectures on them. If all these new secondary issues are needed to prove what Baha'u'llah said, then why start this debate in the first place?
Baha'i Fulfills "Great News" of Islam

1-Your response to the first point was not a response. You simply re-affirmed what I had already stated with some more explanation.2-Your response to the second point was that Sunni's bring forward the counter argument that the verse refers to "the Great Resurrection or the Hereafter when people die." So basically the Shias state it refers to the announcement of Imam Ali's Guardianship, the Sunnis state it refers to when people die and are again resurrected, and Baha'u'llah comes along claiming you've got it wrong, and this verse refers to ME! Yet he fails to provide a shred of evidence as why it refers to him. You followed the same path and claimed the verse has seven levels of meanings and you too fail any evidence to back up your claims about these meanings.3-Your third response is based on your unproven claims in 2.4-When someone bases their claims on the scripture of a previous religion, his claims must conform to it. Baha'u'llah's claims do not conform to the teachings of Islam (Shia and Sunni) in that verse. That is why no one accepts it from him unless he bring conclusive proof instead of a simple inconclusive claim that "I am what that verse spoke about."5. You just demonstrated that neither Shia and nor Sunni teachings about the verse conform to Baha'u'llah's claims.
Baha'i Fulfills "Great News" of Islam

Baha'u'llah was a Shia Muslim before he became a Babi and then subsequently claimed to be a Prophet. According to Shia Islam commentaries of the Quran from the Shia Imams, that verse is speaking about the announcement of the Guardianship of the first Shia Imam, Imam Ali. When his guardianship was announced people differed greatly on the subject and that is how Islams two most important schools were formed: Shia Islam and Sunni Islam.Abdullah ibn Kathir says I asked Imam al-Sadiq (sixth Imam) about the aforementioned verse. He said "the great news is about the Guardianship (of Ali)." al-Kafi, 1:418The author of Tafsir al-Burhan (Commentary of al-Burhan) mentions a number of similar narrations from the Shia Imams, that state the aforementioned verse refers to Imam Ali's Guardianship.Baha'u'llah in contrary to these clear narrations made a claim that contradicted them without providing a shred of proof why we should accept his words.So, no. Baha'u'llah didn't fulfill the "Great News" of Islam, it was fulfilled by Imam Ali and Baha'u'llah basically contradicted it.
Kittens want to kill us all

This is a Hard one. I present to you my BoP, the Fact that there is an absense of Proof. Kitten Murder rates globally are at an all time high, In the US alone, 0 people were killed by kittens, which is a whopping increase of 0.00% from Last year. These stats surpass the previous century of kitten Murders! One shudders to think of what goes through the Head of Kittens......
uniform is a waste of time

To me uniform is not a waste of time. It is a form of identity mostly used by educational institutions. Sometimes workplaces also stick to uniforms. As far as schools are concerned a uniform serves many purposes. It creates a sense of identity. All kids do not come from similar backgrounds and allowing them to come dressed in their normal clothes may cause a division and lead to harassment and teasing. With uniforms such crisis would not occur. If school kids were to be taken out then being in uniform would make identification easier. A sense of belonging also occurs in a uniform. I shall limit myself to this much and wait for your opinion and clarification of what exactly you wanted to debate on before any further response.
Pro-Minority Affirmative Action

Affirmative action - http://en.wikipedia.org... "The terms affirmative action and positive action refer to policies that take race ... into consideration in an attempt to promote equal opportunity or increase ethnic diversity." This does not include jobs in which a certain race is obviously preferable, such as casting for the role of George Lopez's son for the TV show "George Lopez." A Latino actor would obviously be preferable, and was therefore chosen. Let the debate begin.
Soccer vs Football (Futbol vs "American Football"

Hmm... I suppose I get it now. You're probably saying soccer is better than American Football (NFL). (The way it was worded was a bit confusing.) In that case, NFL football is better because it is a sport that is "just for us". FIFA Futbol is international, and therefore with things like the World Cup, there is lots of nationalism going on (just look at what the players do when they score a goal for their country.) If a person's country wins a game, then there will be nationalism going on. With NFL football, people can just pick a team and cheer, without any pressure to root for their home country. Yeah, I don't really watch NFL football very often, and I watch soccer even less. I was thinking the question asked which name should be used, but now I highly doubt I'm winning this debate.
Soccer vs Football (Futbol vs "American Football"

Well, now that I read the comments, I don't even know what I'm supposed to debate, so I'm assuming it's whether we should internationally say "futbol/football" instead of soccer (If I'm wrong just tell me :) ) So, I think that we should use futbol/football. Why? Well, I personally think that since the word "futbol/football" is already used throughout most of the world, we could all just use it. To make a comparison here, in the book "Frindle" almost everyone was saying "frindle" and only a small percentage of people still said "pen". It was easier for that small percentage to start saying "frindle" because it would be easier for everyone to understand. Therefore, I believe that we should internationally use the word "futbol/football" because it is easier for people in other countries to understand.
A Just society would never deliberately initiate war

(A) Genocide is a declaration of war against a particular race(s). My opponent offers no sources or legislation to back up his claim, he simply asserts a weak point in order to provide an already official war, before a pre-emotive one can begin. This is unfortunate because historically speaking genocide is not an act of war and does not directly lead to war every time. My opponent is on a weak defence if he believes this is an official act of war, let alone an act of war against a far away country with no involvement. (B) Nation X attacked neighbouring countries. I stated small skirmish squads we attacking border areas, and artillery was shelling land of another country. I stated that the country had no relation to our 'just' nation. Not to mention if an official war has not begun you cannot assume that a war has started if neither states have claimed a war has begun. 'My opponent is saying that we shouldn't care if thousands are left homeless and in poverty. This argument is inhumane.' I stated temporary economical setbacks are more favourable than allowing an entire nation be subjected to poverty and famine, my opponent ignored that point and chose to use a straw-man argument. My opponent is saying that nuclear war is HUMANE. Under no circumstances should we WIPE OUT THE PLANET (refer to Assertion 5). Like I said earlier if a war is not enacted then 75% of the world is destroyed due to nuclear weapons. A pre-emptive war including pre-emptive strikes can destroy a large majority of facilities and weapons. I never said our 'just' state had nuclear weapons. The 'evil' state has 6 nuclear weapons, and two nuclear facilities. A pre-emptive strike would be the best course of action. My hypothetical proves that a just state can initiate a war and with just reasons for doing so. I have met my burden of proof and refuted all arguments against my position.
A Just society would never deliberately initiate war

Refutations ONLY round:His story is wrong for a couple of reasons:(A) Genocide is a declaration of war on a particular race(s).(B) Nation X attacked neighboring countries (initiation of war).His refutation to my assertion one- three was just my assertion 5. This helps me."Economic issues are not morally justified approaches to whether wars should be started."My opponent is saying that we shouldn't care if thousands are left homeless and in poverty. This argument is inhumane."Assertion 5 simply highlights this again, and like I stated above with limited choices war is the most humane."My opponent is saying that nuclear war is HUMANE. Under no circumstances should we WIPE OUT THE PLANET (refer to Assertion 5).My opponent didn't mention anything about assertion 6 therfore assertion 6 still stands.I have refuted my opponent's one and only point and defended some of my arguments therefore I win.Note: This round is a refutations only round, if con tries to make any changes to his story or make any new points it will count as a forfeit.I have proven my point in a simple and efficient manner. Vote Pro!I look forward to the opposition's response.
One is never the same person twice.

I hope that it will be a great learning experience for me. I accept the definition, and without more ado will go to the meat. .. The changes Pro is talking about actually has a probability to occur again. Low, I know, but still a probability. Thus it is possible that one can be physically the same person more than once. In the first paragraph of logic, (I like to call it this) I agree with Pro"s P1, but not with his P2, or the conclusion. I will first show why I disagree with the conclusion. It commits the fallacy of whole-to-part [1]. What is true of the whole may not be true of the parts. This leads me to why I think P2 is false. What is the "mind"? Until the mind is defined, how are we to know the truth of P2? Furthermore, the mind is capable of being creative. Is that merely due to chemical reactions? Or is the view that that is due to chemical reactions itself due to chemical reactions? In the second paragraph of logic, In P2 and P1, there is something I don"t understand. What is the "essence"? In all of this, there is the underlying assumption that change can never return something to its former position. Can this assumption be defended? I suppose not. Back to Torvald. 1. . http://www.fallacydetective.com... (Fallacy 5. )
One is never the same person twice.

I too hope that it will be fun. It seems to me that a large part of this debate depends upon how 'person' is defined. I will make a rudimentary definition, though I wish it to be clear, I am not adverse to amendments upon definitions. Person: A biological (physical) entity, comprised of cells and nutrients, as well as a specific mind, or set of neural patterns, with unique thought, expression, and identity. This may not be a dictionary definition, but for now, unless my opponent has any suggestions for it, I think it shall suffice. This much said, it is obvious that one is never the same biological entity for two separate instances. True, the neverending changes of the body may be very minor, between a single instance (an instance being a single event in time, with no energy, thus, totally stationary, and infinite, yet unimaginably brief), however, the changes are there, even down to the movement of a single electron [1]. The issue at hand, therefore, will be not whether one is the same physical person, but the same person mentally. I shall make my case short and forthright. P1: The body is constantly changing, however minor the changes may seem. P2: The mind is a product solely of the body. C: The mind is constantly changing, however minor the changes may seem. P3: The body is the first essence of a person. P4: The mind is the second essence of a person. P5: Both of these are constantly changing, however minor the changes may seem. C: A person is constantly changing (and thus never the same twice). And now to my opponent. Sources:[1] Life: The Science of Biology, Fifth Edition
One is never the same person twice.

Now that Torvald has provided documentation of his claims, I will explain my own. My reasons for stating that creativity is due to imagination and originality is that it is part of the definition of creativity. From Google Dictionary: The use of the imagination or original ideas, esp. in the production of an artistic work. While I agree that computers can do certain things faster than the human mind can, I disagree about its creativity. I would say instead that what we see algorithms do is pseudo-creativity. Originality may in some form be reproduced, but not imagination. These qualities are not in any way mysterious, by the way. Chemical chaos is not arbitrary. Yes, we would get an explosion, heat, etc. These are after all just characteristic of this particular chemical reaction. Not in any way arbitrary. I agree absolutely with everything under the header "The things too small to Feel and See." However, this was not the point of my argument. My argument was about the Uncertainty Principle, which I assume everyone is familiar with. In this argument I was conceding the idea, before it came up, that the exact way chemicals react, as in which molecule with which, is arbitrary. I will not dispute much under the header "What is a person?" This is because I have already addressed the idea, logically false, of parts-to-whole. Let us look at the quote and use that as an analogy of what happens to the human body. The Earth is a mostly, if not totally, closed system in regards to its water. The water runs away. true. What about the water running back? Is it the same water in the river? (Assuming it is untouched by organisms) Yes it is! There is actually a high probability, I won"t give the number, that every molecule of water would return to the place where the observer steps in. How do we know that? Because we looked at things from a wider point of view and thus is able to draw a more accurate conclusion. It is like gathering much data to find a small insignificant conclusion. With this, I will pass the debate to the voters. This has been an interesting debate. Thank you Torvald for starting it. :D