BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It is impossible to define art

Now in your previous argument you said that it would be less interesting if i were to say art can not be perfictly defined, i totally agree with this, infact most things cannot be perfectly defined. but i also believe that art cannot be defined well. there are so many different kinds of art that finding a few words to describe how one feels about it would be impossible to give it and so called "definition" Now i am glad you agree that with me that art does not nessesairly have to be beautiful, that makes our disscussion a bit easier. now in your previous argument you said you believe art is an expression, now to an extent art can be an expression. but this "definition" does not cover all of the different kinds of art. the definition of expression is. .. . "The act of expressing, conveying, or representing in words, art, music, or movement;a manifestation;" Now with this definition, it would cover such arts as, literature, music, and dance/martial arts/ and so on. now the term manifestation, would reffer to something being revealed as art. i believe that the art dosent nessessairly have to be revealed to become what it is. now i do believe expression would cover some braud parts of art, but like in my previous argument, an expression would have to be a consence act to peform. if you dont know it is happening, than it wouldnt be a liberal expression. Now for me to be one to create art, (like you said in your argument) of course it may seem like art in my eyes, and than someone may say different. this is why one person may not be able to give a definition of what an art is because their views may seem different from the person next to thems. Also (not saying you are but. .. ) if you were to say art can only be created by an artist, or someone whom's goal was to create an art it would be somewhat like discrimination to say a non artist cannot create art, because it may very well be art in their eyes. so in a nutshell, the same definition of art cannot be used for all the different kinds of art, or different people in the world. art would have to be something that each individual has to feel for. but if you were to take the different kinds of art like; photography, painting, cooking, martial art, dance, and so on, and give them each smaller definitions for each of their similarties than you can get a more narrow idea on what art might be, but still you wouldnt be able to define it well enough for all of the arts and for every persons belief. Sorry if this seemed a bit confusion, (im sorry my darn cat annoyed me through the whole thing) but please try and understand my point. I look forward to the conclusion of this debate sincerily - DeATHNOTE
It is impossible to define art

what ever you say, it is impossible to define art. in fact it is impossible to define mostly anything with a sentence, but this debate is about art. you can give counterexamples for what others say. (this means not the definition but what is it) the book "Philosophy Gym" has a catagory on "what is art" if you have time find the artical and read it, its about a debate between two imaginary people. this only proves my point, you cant tell what "art" is Giving art a definition like being "beautiful" doesnt mean art nessesarly means its beautiful. Tracy Emins bed photo was potrayed as art, but many people dont believe that it is beautiful. and if you take that into consideration, the martial arts are not nessessairly beautiful. although you also may say art is a form of self expression it is not nessesairly a need to be a literal form of self expression, random blots of paint of a canvas can be considered art but there is no need for this expression to have come out in the form of a conscience act. to whomever accepts this, please try to give art a simple "definition" like what i have shown you. because a counter example can be given to what ever you say.
Global Warming is a complete lie

Well scientists are notrius for lying and being sinful and decetful, they have come with lies like evolution, the big bang, homosexuality being natural, the atom, etc. I couldn't tell you why, perhaps it is to pander to the unfaithful, perhaps it is just so they can continue to get money for their "research". But Its is no suprise they would come with another lie. I don't know if there are any good scientists left honestly who would tell the truth, and if there were I'm sure the liberals would put a bullet in their heads. Liberal politicians are HUGE liers. They are the ones who reject and denounce God and the ones who claim to be Christian always seem to find new ways to oppress us. Obama himself lied about his religion, where he was born, that he didn't know what Benghazi was, that he was white, etc. The list goes on and on. I wouldn't put lying about anything past liberal politicians. As I said and will always beleve, liberals are obsesed with power. They just want to tax us to death and infiltrate good, God loving oil businesses and whatnot. If they can dupe us all into beleving this dumbness, than they can run free and instill carbon taxes and every environment-related tax they can think of. There are plenty of reasons to lie abut such a huge thing,. Looking foward to the response
Global Warming is a complete lie

Humans have been dramatically evolving over the last tens of thousands of years. From stone tools to bronze, bronze tools to iron swords, to wooden boats with sails, to motorized boats. We have electricity, which has benefited us largely. How shouldn't that be hurting for the world? Also, God may exist to some people, to others God is just utter blasphemy. Even if he has plans for the world, when he is going to carry out his plans? Has he been there with us for the last thousands of years? We have evolved on our own with our technology. If you worship God, then please forgive me for being so sinful and rejecting God. Yes, there may be stories out there that Global Warming is really happening. If it is happening, then why has other scientists who is truly committed to their jobs has not debunked this myth as false? If there were such corrupted scientists, why would there not be Scientists who do are selfless and are committed to the world? They should have tried to debunk this myth by now, but they haven't, so that's another shard of proof. Liberal Politicians don't work that way. Do you think a man qualified to be a politician would even be taking bribes? The scientists would have had proof of Global Warming, and so they bring it before the Politician and they explain thoroughly, and the politicians logically look at this. If Global Warming was fake, then why would the Governments start spreading out Global Warming? Even if the scientists try to leak it out, Government officials would have tried to prove it false and they would have taken down the websites anyway.
Global Warming is a complete lie

1) My first point is a bit abstract here so bare with me. The thought that humans can have such a huge impact on the environment is really arrogant and self centered in my onion. Humans are only capable of doing so much to the world around us. Major things like the climate and whether can, at the end of the day, only truly be determined by a god. No amount of CO2 can change His plan for the world. And he would never let something as disastorous as global warming happen if it is as bad as scientists claim. 2) so there are some studies out there that may say that global warmign is really happening, realise that the people who 'report' these studies are LYING. Why? Because their entire job is to study climate change and if if it becomes obvious that there is NO climate change, then these scientists will get NO FUNDING. Of course they are going to fabricate studies. They want jobs and liberals like Obama are happy to give them, even though they probbly know themselves that is all one huge lie. 3) Which brings me to my next point. i believe liberal politicians exploit these faux global warming claims ON PURPOSE (i don't claim to know whether politicians are telling the scientists to make this up or whether or not they just go along with and eat up what they say (of course some are dumb enough to actually believe it like I'm sure Al Gore was)) to make the government larger and make more restrictions on business and corporations because they staunchly seem to believe that corporations are evil, which is not the case, and want to do anything they can to destroy innocent businesses. They just want to make the government larger so that they can carry out their plan to eventually control every faucet of our lives. 4) This winter has been consderably colder than normal, as it has even snowed in places like Las Vegas. If the world climate really was changing than why would this happen. it has been very cold where I live, and I am yet to see a hint of any kind of "warming" here. Not to mention, the polar ice caps are actually growing larger year by yeary, and are larger now than last year. I'm also yet to see a report that actually indicates that the world is getting warmer year by year, and anyway, how would you measure that? Some places are hotter than others year round anyway, which would make the results take a falsely upward trend. 5) My last point is just a whole in teh story scientists have been spewing, particularly concerning the extreme lie that global heating is caused by human activity (I feel to debunk global warming, you have to debunk scientist's entire BS beliefs in it). Scientists always say "global warming is happening and its humans's fault." But if that's the case, then why exactly has the earth only *supposedly* been warming the past few hundred years? Humans have existed for 6,000 years, and never had a single problem with any CO2 until the profession of "climate scientist" started to become a thing? Coincedence? Thanks for reading.
Presidential Term Limits (US)

Pro concludes that “The decision of the people is who to elect, not how. So this amendment does notaffect anyone negatively”I am not sure I follow, whether who or how, this amendment limits the people’s choice. Pro restates the contention that “Truman's administration totaled to having a democratic president for twenty years in a row, which is in reference to my argument that without a term limit there would be unrest. ”Even with term limits this could happen thus the impact of term limits on this problem is nill. Pro says “Con has concluded his side too early. He failed to realize there is still one round remaining. He either didn't see Round 4 or he has given up. Both are bad mistakes. ”Quite the contrary. I have clearly won this debate. Pro claimed there was a consensus on the matter but did not link any evidence to support this claim. Pro claimed that it is logical to have term limits but did not provide an argument to affirm this only claiming fatigue. This also is not impacted by term limits as elections occur every four years independent of them. Pro has failed to contribute a convincing argument to affirm the resolution. My arguments remain intact. The harm of term limits is tied to limiting the power of the people. It also keeps experience out of consideration which is foolish. Thanks for reading.
Presidential Term Limits (US)

"If the people choose not to elect someone, did they not limit then to the number of terms already served?" No. All they did was, quite simply, not re-elect that person. An election does not stand as a form of a term limit. If elections were considered term limits, it would say so in the XXII Amendment. Say there was no term limit, the XXII Amendment was never made. A president completes two terms and runs for a third, but loses that election. The loss is not a term limit, all it means is that their campaign failed. A limit says, like I said in the last round "you get x amount of years possible as president, then its over". An election obviously does not set an x number. An election says "you either win or lose this. If you win, keep going, if you lose, get out.""The impact of this amendment is to limit the choice of the people." The decision of the people is who to elect, not how. So this amendment does not affect anyone negatively, as it sets a fair requirement for office restrictions and keeps the public with a new leader."The people would have the ability to remove the president from office every four years." Yes, but as I said, four years is a large margin. And fatigue/conflict is not valid enough reason to impeach an official."Pro than argues that FDR was not a good president. I am not sure what this has to do with the debate." Exactly. I said myself that it was irrelevant. I said, and I quote, "While many say FDR was a great President, he really wasn't. But that's a whole nother debate." Con has either misunderstood or twisted what I said."Clearly the people in FDR's time thought he was best suited for the job as they re-elected him. Pro also notes that Harry Truman was also a democrat. This is entirely irrelevant..." The only reason FDR was re-elected so many times was because of WWII. He was handling it well, so both democrats and republicans alike were afraid that if they elected someone else they wouldn't do as well. No world war is going on today, so FDR's approval as of that matter is irrelevant. It is not irrelevant that Truman was a democrat. As I said, Truman's administration totaled to having a democratic president for twenty years in a row, which is in reference to my argument that without a term limit there would be unrest. Again, notice how directly after those two decades, a Republican was chosen. The absence of a term limit would obviously cause political unrest, as seen in history. We do not need anymore political unrest in this nation."Many of his arguments are hardly relevant to what is being discussed. He has not addressed my contentions so I extend them." Con is misled again. All of my points are relevant, they just need to applied to the matter, which Con seems to continue to misunderstand. He also claims that I have not addressed his contentions. In each round I have posted rebuttals to his contentions, which is indeed addressing them. If anything, Con is not addressing my rebuttals.___________________________Con has concluded his side too early. He failed to realize there is still one round remaining. He either didn't see Round 4 or he has given up. Both are bad mistakes.
Presidential Term Limits (US)

Rebuttals:Pro says I am wrong in saying elections serve as natural term limits. “Con says that an election is a term limit in itself, however elections choose individuals, not limit them.” If the people choose not to elect someone, did they not limit then to the number of terms already served?Pro seems to misunderstand the point I am making. I am not saying “the term limit should be a separate choice the people make.” I am saying that when the people vote they determine who should be elected. If the people do not re-elect a sitting president they have effectively limited the number of terms that president will serve. Pro says I “seem to misinterpret the XXII Amendment. He seems to think that it dictates who the best-fitted would be, when all it does it set a limit for how long such a person can serve.”It sets a limit to how many terms one may serve. The impact of this amendment is to limit the choice of the people. Pro says without term limits “a president's time in office without a limit could double up to twelve, sixteen, maybe even twenty years.” The people would have the ability to remove the president from office every four years… this is in line with the status quo. This does not really in anyway show why the people should not retain the right to re-elect a president who has just finished his second term. Pro than argues that FDR was not a good president. I am not sure what this has to do with the debate. Our individual preference on specific presidents is irrelevant. What matters is who the nation collectively elects. That outweighs pro’s personal opinion. Clearly the people in FDR’s time thought he was best suited for the job as they re-elected him. Pro also notes that Harry Truman was also a democrat. This is entirely irrelevant to this debate as even with term limits the people could easily vote in presidents from the same party back to back. Conclusion:Pro has not affirmed the resolution, many of his arguments are hardly relevant to what is being discussed. He has not addressed my contentions so I extend them. The repeal of the XXII amendment would keep experienced candidates in consideration, allow our Democratic Republic to function as intended via elections, and allow Americans to decide for themselves. Therefore, the XXII Amendment should be repealed.
Presidential Term Limits (US)

22nd Amendment The 22nd Amendment to the US Consitution says, "SECTION. 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once." As with the debate over if it is logical to have term limits for a President, Con must argue that it is illogical to have a term limit and that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed. For anyone who may be unsure, a term limit is something that restricts an official's time in office (ex. A president can only a serve a maximum of eight years, which is two terms). Consensus A consensus of opinion amongst American citizens to have a term limit is shown in a Gallup Poll from January 2013 below: Though this poll is asking about Congress and Senate members, this same agreement can be seen for any federal idividual. Most US citizens don't want a politician's service to be limitless, so why wouldn't they feel the same for the president?The president is obviously in a higher position than a Congressman/Senator, and already most people feel that the smaller two should have limits. Notice how the title of the poll is "Americans' Support For Establishing Term Limits For Federal Lawmakers". Though the description beneath it more specifically questions Congress and the Senate, the President and everyone else above the Congress is also considered a "Federal Lawmaker". LOGIC It makes sense that a president's time in office should be limited. Imagine the partisan conflicts that could arise if a president could serve as long as he/she were elected for. Current President Barack Obama's current disapproval rating is higher than his approval rating, mainly because most of the American voters who participated in the Approval Rating Poll are either conservative or just don't like the way he runs things. People would get tired of a person being in office for too long, and "being tired of a leader" is not a constitutional reason to impeach someone. Therefore, we would be stuck in a disapproving country until the next election would come around and we would choose someone else. Currently President Obama's approving percentage is 47%, and his disapproving percentage is 49%. This data comes from a poll taken over the course of May 31st to June 3rd. ______________________________________________________SOURCES: (1) The Twenty-Second Amendment: http://constitutioncenter.org... (2) Term Limit Gallup Poll: http://www.gallup.com... (3) Approval Rating: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu...
Atheists are irrational in their thinking

Con:"If atheists eradicate Christianity and leave a void for Islam… so what?"Because Atheism has generally thrived in Christian dominated societies peacefully overall. Islam is congenitally hostile towards Atheism and demands death, per the Quran, Sunnah, and Hadith to Atheists. It's the equivalent of getting rid of your neighbor who bakes you cookies, and replacing them with a new neighbor who burns your house down, kills your family, and now tries to kill you, then asking, "What's the difference?" It's the equivalent of handling a cat, and it annoys you, so then you replace it with a lion which eats you, thinking the cause and effect don't matter. This is irrational. --Con:"since depression, and suicides again are not inherently linked to rationality."They are if you consciously hold tight to them knowing a more psychologically productive worldview is available. Negative loops and circular negative thinking are irrational to the point of being labeled a "mental disorder" and prescribed medicine for its effects. http://www.goodtherapy.org...--Con:"How does this have anything to do with atheists ability to think rationally?"Insanity is doing the same thng over and over expecting different or better results. Many Atheists claim to be depressed or anxious, yet refuse to adhere to any such cures for it out of a clinging to a defeated, negative atheist worldview and chosen perception of reality.--Con:"Moreover, rationality entails using rules of reason and inference, which is a branch of philosophy."And Atheism blindly ignores the philosophical concept of "regress of infinite causality" and the laws of mathematical infinity to hold togeher their worldview.--Con:"Given that atheists are capable of doing math, sciences, arts, and exist functionally in virtually every sector in the public, then it cannot soundly follows that atheists are irrational in their thinking."So was Jeffrey Dahmer. He imprisoned people in cells, dungeons, and wells, raped women and boys, skinned them, wore their skin, and ate their meat. These are not automatic qualifiers or true correlations. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...--Con:"Atheists are no less rational than theists."One chooses death. The other chooses eternal life. Apple or roach trap food? Apple right? Not with the Atheist. It's the roach trap food, and by conscious choice.--Con:"the resolution implies that atheists are irrational in any and all of their thinking."Nope. Jeffrey Dahmer had some coherant thoughts. He was still irrational and completely insane.
Atheists are irrational in their thinking

Thanks Pro.Atheists are no less rational than theistsAtheists by definition do not believe God exists. That is the only factor tying all atheists together as a group. This is a single answer to a single question.. Regardless of whether or not God exists, and whether or not atheists are right or wrong on this question, the resolution implies that atheists are irrational in any and all of their thinking, full stop. If we are to assume that at least some theists are rational in their thinking, and some of that thinking is about things not linked to theology, then it stands to reason that atheists who reason about comparable things are also rational, lest they not come to sound conclusions on anything.Given that atheists are capable of doing math, sciences, arts, and exist functionally in virtually every sector in the public, then it cannot soundly follows that atheists are irrational in their thinking. Full stop.https://en.wikipedia.org...http://www.thebestschools.org...Moreover, rationality entails using rules of reason and inference, which is a branch of philosophy. Given that 72.8 percent of surveyed philosophers (much higher than the background proportion of atheists of virtually any population in the world) from a range of backgrounds identify as atheists, this stands as evidence that atheists are not inherently irrational in their thinking.Rebuttals1. Hierarchy of Psychological NeedsAssuming that atheism is inferior to Christianoty in meeting the hierarchy of psychological needs... so what? How does this have anything to do with atheists ability to think rationally? Anxiety and tension are emotional conditions, not conditions that rationality depends on.http://www.mind.org.uk...Extend this rebuttal to Pro’s ‘Negative beliefs’ argument, since depression, and suicides again are not inherently linked to rationality.2. Atheism in Islamic Countries.Some countries have laws against atheists. So what? If atheists eradicate Christianity and leave a void for Islam… so what? How has this got anything to do with the resolution at hand?