BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

I would first like to give credit to my opponet, he refuted many of the questions not as I had anticipated which made it difficult to point out contradictions in this debate. However, I did in the end find two contradictions. The first contradiction was the atheism/agnostic contradiction. I do apologize for jumping to the conclusion that my opponent was an atheist since he didn't believe in the supernatural. However, there is still a contradiction even if he is an agnostic. The definition of agnostic according to the merriam-webster dictionary is "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god." However he previously stated that he didn't believe in the supernatural which hints at the fact that he is fairly sure that god doesn't exist. For example: the appropriate response of an agnostic to the supernatural question might have been "I don't know." In the end, there is a contradiction between the title that he assigns to his beliefs and his beliefs themselves. Secondly, the stronger contradiction that I found was the first question that he answered in round 4. It asked if I had broken any rules of the debate. He said I had broken a rule because I only had 9 questions in round 3. However, I did in fact have 10 yes/no questions that followed the rules of questioning. Look to my first sentence in round 3. That is a yes/no question is it not? So I did not in fact break the rules of the debate and he did contradict himself by answering the same question (have I broken any rules in this debate?) with two different answers.
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

First of all, I am agnostic not atheist. I like arguing about religion but, that does not make me a theist. You never said anything about agnosticism. You have only asked 9 questions this round that is a breach of rule number 1. 1. Have I broken any rules in this debate? Yes. 2. Is it permissible to kill yourself? If you are talking about in a legal sense, Yes. 3. Do you support PETA? Yes. 4. Is it possible for an amino acid to become a functioning cell? no. (http://biology.clc.uc.edu...) (http://en.wikipedia.org...) 5. Do you like animals? Yes. 6. Do you like Cherry Pie? Yes. 7. Do you support euthanasia? Yes. 8. Do you live in the USA? Yes. 9. Do you pay taxes? Yes.
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

Has my opponent made his first mistake? The first contradiction that I have found (even though I wasn't really expecting it) was that my opponent said in the second round that they don't believe in supernatural events but in the third round they said that they are not an atheist. Well according to the definition of atheist which is "a" meaning "not" and "theism" meaning "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world [1]" we must see that if my opponent doesn't believe in supernatural events, then they cannot believe that a god created the world and/or mankind (which are supernatural events) and as a result, my opponent is an atheist revealing the first contradiction of this debate. Have I broken any rules in this debate? Is it permissable to kill yourself? Do you support PETA? Is it possible for an amino acid to become a functioning cell? (please sight the source) Do you like animals? Do you like cherry pie? Do you support euthenasia? Do you live in the United States? Do you pay taxes to the government?
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

Do men have the right to live? Yes. Do men have the right to die? Yes. Since you are an atheist, do you support the separation of church and state? Yes. (although I'm not an atheist...) Do you trust the US government? As long as US refers to the United States, No Do you trust Obama? As long as this refers to the President of the United States, No Have I broken any rules in this debate? No. Does global warming exist? According to the United States Government no. According to some Science, yes. According to other science, no. Is it possible for a protein to become an amino acid? Yes. Do you invest in the stock market? No
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

Do men have the right to live? Do men have the right to die? Is it possible for matter and energy to appear out of nothingness? Since you are an atheist, do you support seperation of church and state? Do you trust the U.S. government? Do you trust Obama? Have I broken any rules in this debate? Does global warming exist? Is it possible for a protein to become an amino acid? Do you invest in the stock market?
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

1. Are you a christian? No 2. Are all men born with rights? Yes. 3. Is the Bible the Word of God? No. 4. Do you believe in supernatural events? No. 5. Is debating a fun activity for you? Yes. 6. Is the United States headed in the right direction politically? There is no completely right answer to this question because in politics there is no true black or white (right and wrong) only shades of grey. 7. Do you support Obama's leadership and policies? No. 8. Do you support any of the GOP candidates? As long as your referring to the "Grand ole Party" (Republican Party), yes 9. Have I broken any rules of this debate? No 10. Do you believe in evolution? Yes.
Je ne vais pas me contredire (I will not contradict myself)

It seems interesting....I've done one in the past yet I was the question asker. I'd like to try it the opposite way. Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions per round. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers, citing all questions and answers involved in the contradiction. No new contradictions may be pointed out in Round 5. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 6. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, CON wins. 7. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. However, it is still important that debaters back up their arguments with sources when appropriate. 8. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 9. If PRO ever fails to abide by any rule, PRO automatically loses. 10. If CON ever fails to abide by any rule, CON automatically loses.
Seven is better than three

"3) 3 is obviously better that 7 in the toy story films because there are only 3 Toy Story films making this statement useless. " The third is recognized as the best. . http://www.imdb.com... . http://www.imdb.com... . http://www.imdb.com... "Secondly in the Prisoner of Azkaban," Is the third book and recognized as the favorite of most Harry Potter lovers. . http://www.nairaland.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://www.youtube.com... Vote Con. He can not prove that 7 is better then 3.
Seven is better than three

Ok, I will admit that I did use the phrase 'It's a well know fact' in the wrong place and dwalves was a stupid thing to add. However, stand by some of my points. 1) Firstly 7 is considered more lucky as it is the result of two lucky numbers (3 and 4) added together (however I could not find Internet proof only proof in books. The 7 'Lucky' Gods in Japanese Mythology. This doesn't have anything to do with the number being lucky but there are 7 lucky gods. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) I found a website that contradicts your statement on the oceans. It does show another term for the 7 seas but it also shows there are 7 oceans. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) 3 is obviously better that 7 in the toy story films because there are only 3 Toy Story films making this statement useless. Secondly in the Prisoner of Azkaban, Harry Potter's quiddich Robe has the number 7 on the back, he was born in the seventh month & seven is the most powerful number.
Seven is better than three

Your argument about the number is grandiose at best. You claim that "It's a well known fact" that the number 7 is the better number but fail to provide any reference that back you up. "1) In many cultures the luckiest number is 7 of all. " A lucky prime is a lucky number that is prime. It is not known whether there are infinitely many lucky primes. The first few are 3, 7, 13, 31, 37, 43, 67, 73, 79, 127, 151, 163, 193 . http://en.wikipedia.org... Three is shown as lucky as 7, not more or less. "2)" The Arctic Ocean The Atlantic Ocean The Indian Ocean The Pacific Ocean . http://www.whoi.edu... "4)" There are 3 musketeers, so what! . http://en.wikipedia.org... I'll tell you when the number 3 is better then the number 7. In Golf, STD's, Toy Stories, MMA fights (rubber match), and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.
Seven is better than three

The number 7 is better than the number three. It's a well known fact and my first argument has seven points to back this argument. 1) In many cultures the luckiest number is 7 of all. 2)There are 7 continents and 7 seas on the planet. The 7 continents are Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Oceania, Europe, North America and South America. The 7 seas are Arctic, Antarctic, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, North Pacific, South Pacific and Indian Oceans. 3) If you ask someone to pick a number from one to ten more people choose seven than any other number. 4) There are seven dwarfs in the story of Snow White. The are Sneezy, Grumpy, Dopey, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful and Doc. 5) In acids and alkalises the neutral in pH7 on the pH (potential of Hydrogen) Scale. 6) According to Shakespeare's play 'As You Like It' there are seven ages of man. Infant, School Boy, Lover, Soldier, Justice, Pantaloon and Second Childhood. 7) This argument has 994 characters which is a multiple of seven.
Seven is better than three

From my last round. "2) I found a website that contradicts your statement on the oceans. It does show another term for the 7 seas but it also shows there are 7 oceans." Really! 7 OCEANS! If you remember back in school, they teach 4 oceans; some schools teach that there are 5 oceans, but 7 is unheard of. http://geography.about.com...... http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...... http://www.nationalgeographic.com...... ............................................................................................................................................................................................ It is round 3 and he has not proved that the number 7 is better then the number 3. (By the way, this debate only has 3 rounds) My opponent has listed a bunch of coincidence and is trying to pawn them off as absolute, sounds like some religions. Allow reason and logic to dictate the winner of this debate and you will vote con. It is not "a well known fact" that 7 is better then 3
Seven is better than three

I know this isn't a Harry Potter debate but the 7th books is better because. 1) In the 2009 Guiness World record book and on her own website J.K Rowling States the seventh book is he favourite. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) The seventh book sole 15 million copies in the first 24 hours. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) It was awarded alot of awards. http://en.wikipedia.org... Now onto the number. 1) 7 Visible Colours in a rainbow 2) 7 Electron shells. 3) Prime number, Newman-Shanks-Williams prime, a Woodall prime, a factorial prime, a lucky prime, a happy number, a safe prime and the fourth Heegner number. 4) Cats have seven lives. 5) 7 days to create the earth (including rest). 6) James Bond is 007 7) US independence was declared on the 7th month. 8) A British 50 coin has 7 sides. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Stalin did not Practice Communism Effectively

First of all we have to aknowledge that there is a huge difference between theory and practice. If i write a theory where i believe that if drop an apple from my hand, it will not hit the ground, instead it would float up to the clouds. When my theory would proven to be wrong in practice, i can't blame it on the nature of gravity, just like communists today can't blame that communism didn't work in USSR or China because of the fact that men are not robots. If you come up with a theory that does not work in practice, then it is obviously doomed to fail. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is if it ends up with a totalitarian regime that starts killing it citizens, or a failed economic plan which end up starving million of people to death. Both of these cases were true to the USSR under the rule of Stalin. Communism is an ideology responsible for over 100 millions of deaths, the question one should ask is whether it is worth to replace a working system (capitalism) which have brought billions of people of poverty, to a system which haven't done anything else but to oppress and slaughter it citizens. Second of all, you have to explain how the working class should control the means of production. What we have in the west is that labor, capital and management works together. Explain why Marx idea is better compared to our capitalist system, give us hard evidence of history that Marx theory works. Governments as we all know it, turns tyrannical when it gains to much power. We have seen this throughout history, not just the 20th century, we have seen it all the way back to when the Roman Republic became an empire. Governments and politicans does not work in other peoples interest, they work in their "own" interest. To give the government the control of ordinary people's lives is suicidal for an entire nation, and it is also morally wrong. There is no way possible to make a government work for the people, because governments will always go corrupt. Instead government should get out of peoples lives and let the people, on their own, create businesses, jobs, charities etc. Because money is just a symbol used for trade. Money is a symbol of hard work, production, rarity and time. If few people in a society are working, then money becomes useless. If you don't have enoguh supply to meet the demands, then your system won't work. It is as simple as that. The communist system will result in low production, it will result in massive inflation, it will result in huge unemployment rate and it will result in massive starvation. Now if you don't believe in money or currency in your system, it doesn't change anything. You still don't have enough supply to meet basic demands. Since reward is the only motivation for working. And there is no reward, what should keep people motivated to work? My final question, why is it that the government or one dictator are better fitted to control other peoples lives than people themself?
Stalin did not Practice Communism Effectively

Pro According to Karl Marx, Communism was simply or generally defined as a nation or system that involves "the working-class controlling the means of production, Marx argued that Communism involves forming a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" for the purposes of benefiting the interests of working-class citizens of a nation or system. However, based on historical accounts of proclaimed Communist nations throughout the planet, dictators should as Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, Kim Il-Sung, and Kim Jong-Il have displayed a poor representation of income-equality AND creative-equality of working-class citizens. For example, if a nation were to be truthfully governed by a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" that provides citizens with overall political, social, and economic (income) equality, dissidents would not be imprisoned, tortured, or executed for possessing opposing opinions of a dictator and/or party. Thus, previous so-called representatives of Communism had served the interests of themselves rather than the working-class for the purposes of preserving their power and control of the means of production (including human labor). Hypothetically, if a nation were to be governed by a representative of the working-class, the state would consist of a "Pure-Democratic" system that provides working-class citizens with the ability to elect and enact Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Laws and policies through Universal Suffrage, rather than resorting to a representative-democratic system that elects "Dictators of the Bourgeoisie". One may question: How is a nation governed by a "DICTATORSHIP of the Proletariat" if the state is not governed by a representative of dictator? According to the Encyclopedia Britannica of 2013, a dictatorship is defined as a "... a form of government where a country is ruled by one person or political entity, and exercised through various mechanisms to ensure the entity's power remains strong.". Thus, the "POLITICAL ENTITY" would be identified as "The People" or "The Proletariat" within a Pure-Democratic Communist (or Pure Marxist) system that truthfully represents the interests of the working-class citizens of a nation or system. In other terms, the "Dictatorship [political entity] of the Proletariat [working-class]" would be "The Proletariat" or "The People" of the pure-democratic nation. Thus, based on the arguments that were presented within the post, Joseph Stalin did not truthfully practice Communism considering that his oppressive activities towards working-class citizens or the proletariat, such as mass-executions, served the interests of himself and the elite members of the party than the interests of the working-class citizens of the USSR.
Schools should have uniforms

Rebuttals "decrease in bullying and teasing" So like no. Not at all. Having been in school in the past I can say that this is not true at all. No matter what kids are going to bully each other. they aren't bullying because they don't like Brenda's clothes. They're bullying Brenda because they don't like her. A nerd they call her. It's just ammo for their guns. "Many experts believe..." These are the type of things you have to cite. There is no merit to your claims without proper citation. "Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical." The average school uniform is $249[1]. Yep super economical. Every time you go to school for another year unless you're some rich chick with all the money in the world you don't buy a completely new wardrobe. You throw out a few stuff that's old and doesn't fit anymore and but some new shirts and pants. The average amount of money spent on clothes per month for children is $5[2]. So if you do the math it comes don to much less than the ridiculous price of uniforms. "positively to students' behavior. " So no. When I had uniforms at school me as well as plenty of other students were pissed. Nothing positive about that. "fashion trends and status symbol clothing." Never has anyone ever said "Teacher, I can't focus on my test because of Billy's shirt." Fashion trends aren't brought up in schools. The most girls at least may be distracted by beauty related is their make-up. Girls get late for class and miss their buses because of that not deciding whether to wear the pink shirt or the red shirt. [1]http://www.statisticbrain.com... [2]http://www.statisticbrain.com...
Schools should have uniforms

Contention 1 - EqualityOne of the most obvious argument for school uniforms is that by having all children dressed the same, there is a decrease in bullying and teasing. In this era of status brands and high-fashion trends, clothing has become the definitive status symbol for children and teens. By evening the playing field with uniforms, there is less opportunity for children to be picked on or shunned for their clothes.Contention 2 - School Spirit and Identity Many experts believe that when the entire student body is dressed in uniforms, they develop a stronger team mentality. When they are all dressed alike, their all-for-one-and-one-for-all comradery is boosted.Contention 3 - Simple Economics Buying a few school uniforms instead of a new school wardrobe every fall is much more economical. School uniforms are designed to stand up to everyday wear and repeated washing so most parents find that they can get away with buying a few sets.Contention 4 - Unity Educators and experts who are pro school uniforms believe that uniforms contribute positively to students' behavior. They believe that when students wear uniforms, they feel more professional and behave accordingly. Many educators believe that students can become distracted by fashion trends and status symbol clothing. Therefore, when all students are dressed in regulation uniforms, there is less focus on fashion in the classroom and more focus on learning.
Schools should have uniforms

1.It hinders creativity and Individuality. At the beginning of the school year schools usually tell the students that the school supports their individuality. When uniforms are enforced there is no individuality when everyone is wearing the same thing. 2.It prepares children for the worst. A common argument is that it prepares children for the future. I think it does the opposite. When you get an office job you get a dress code. This is the case with most other jobs. You have to wear proper attire and on Fridays wear whatever as long as it's a appropriate. Jobs that require uniforms are usually for fast food restaurants, janitorial duties and waiting jobs. It's telling kids not to reach for the stars but keep your expectations low. 3.Independence When a child is told what to do they never learn. They just follow direction. So if faced with a challenge in real life they never know what to do. If you give a child a uniform it stops them from being independent. In the mornings when they get dressed when all they have to do is reach for that same pair of slacks and blouse there is nothing independent about that. When they have to work for a real job they will see that there is more to getting dressed then throwing on what they have to where. You have to make sure it's appropriate and fits properly. You have to make sure it matches. This prepares kids to understand how much time they need in the morning and wake up accordingly. I await pro's arguments.
satan

Okay, now I don't mean to sound disrespectful or rude, but you are making no sense anymore, you're just contradicting yourself all over the place now. How can you not believe in God, but want to accept him as the truth? if he doesn't exist to you, why is he so important, earlier you said, and I quote "to believe in Satan one must believe in God". So for you not to believe in god but still make such a huge fuss over Satan is ridiculous. This doesn't make any sense at all.