BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
intelligence+stupidity=mistake

I will address a counter argument that my opponent has stated. "i dont have beliefs" The definition of belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof." citation: http://dictionary.reference.com... . So if you have no beliefs, than your statements can not possibly be truly believed by you in yourself. I see a loop hole in your second statement. If you are stupid, than you can't accept you are stupid. But what does stupid really mean. An equal sign (=) represents a Direct equivalent, so if no other definition is given for it, than the statement is paradox-ed. Imagine if the only definition of stupid was the one given in the third round by my opponent, than it would paradox. It relates to how the equation of x=x, because it has all solutions, but no definite solution can ever be given. Please vote con, because my opponent has: Failed to make a good argument that is even on the already confusing topic. Has not addressed ANY of my arguments. And they have barely even spoke in the debate, allowing for minimal communication. P.S. My opponent has only used 52 words in this debate, thus I can't see any way he could possibly win.
intelligence+stupidity=mistake

Alright, math class was my least favorite class, and why your using equations is quite strange to me. But nonetheless, I understand what you mean now by "intelligence+stupidity=mistake. I see that you believe that intelligence with a mistake will cause the person not to learn. I think that people who make mistakes and are intelligent won't always necessarily not learn a lesson. I know how being Intelligent is the want to learn, so if you made a mistake and you were intelligent, than wouldn't you learn from it? I do know "intelligent" people who just never learn from their mistakes, and I think that you are seeing all intellects as being of this following. This is my case, and I don't see intelligence as a mistake, because most intellects will learn from mistakes. Now I will rebuttal what my opponent has said, "my stupidity is my teacher, and my intelligence is me as the educated student of stupid." I see that they have said that the one who passes on knowledge is stupid. This may be an analogy worth more dissection. Now, I also see that this creates stupidity in the educated as said by my opponent. I don't see how this even relates to the debate. And a one sentence debate won't get you very far, so I will be ready for whatever you have up your sleeve, as this second round was quite a short and confusing/irrelevant debate on your side. My opponent has given an irrelevant and confusing argument, so without further ado, I think my position is currently stronger that my opponents.
Animals should be used for testing

Yes, it is true that it would be better for an animal to die than a human. However, the reason I am against animal testing is its inefficiency and lack of necessity. We have more effective, alternative methods than causing the suffering of fellow mammals. The saddest part is that we have to use animals that are similar enough to humans that it may work, so we use creatures with an actual form of consciousness, versus, say, a lizard. https://www.neavs.org...
Animals should be used for testing

"lesser than humans"- First off, humans are just a more complicated species of animal. You can read this if you don't believe me: https://io9.gizmodo.com... http://www.zo.utexas.edu... https://www.smh.com.au... Basically, other species are more intelligent and emotional than we tend to believe, and we run on more instinct than we tend to believe. Second, the animal species we use in these experiments are semi-intelligent mammals. Remember, they also feel pain and, despite not understanding what is going on, will understand pain. Look at this: https://www.psychologytoday.com... https://www.npr.org... I did not use PETA as a resource, as they exaggerate the facts on most subjects like this.
Animals should be used for testing

Yes, a lizard would not work, and that's the problem. The point is, no scientific method is perfect, and with numerous diseases encompassing the planet, we can't come close to dealing with all of them. We don't need to waste animal lives to achieve an impossible goal. Alternate methods may not be superior to animal testing, but they aren't inferior either, and they don't involve killing or causing suffering in animals. https://www.rspca.org.uk...
Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

The Non-Aggression Principle My opponent seems to misunderstand what the NAP is exactly. This principle is a measure in which we can rate which society is better than another. In my beginning rounds, I argued how that, if one society is morally superior than the other, this makes the society better. Since this is what we are debating, it is imperative that we judge societies by the NAP. The more unjustified force that is applied on innocent citizens, the less justification for that construct of society. My opponent then argued that, still, his system does not initiate force. He argues for a voluntary tax and loan system. However, if the tax system is voluntary, what separates it from an anarchist society? I fail to see how this method would work in a minarchist society; it isn't feasible. I've already explained how an invading army would prefer to attack a minarchist society, with an organized center that upon invading immediately grants them control over the entire society, rather than the major difficulties of invading an anarchist society with no center and no ability to control all of it without having to use vast amounts of manpower, allotted all over the society, to force the conquered people to obey. This has not been refuted. In a minarchist state, if the central army is taken over, all of the resources then belong to the invading army. It would be difficult to disobey them, because they have control over the resources. In an anarchist society, resources are not centralized, and the army would have to take control over all of the resources spread out over the entire land to gain control- an option that isn't easy to do. Hierarchies Capitalism allows for private ownership, rather than the state. This doesn't imply hierarchies at all. Also, within a company, some forms of hierarchies are morally acceptable, like when a person buys a building, becomes the owner, and then contracts workers who voluntary work for a fraction of the total revenue. What isn't morally acceptable is the idea that some people have political or moral authority over another human being. My opponent didn't concede that it is wrong for people to have power over another, but gave nothing in the way to justify his position. If all men and women are equal, how then can we have governors, and leaders, who have moral authority over other people? This is where statism fails- any version of it- because people are inherently equal. Statism requires disrupting this moral truth. Thank you for the debate.
Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Thanks, Pro. The main reasons that an anarchist society is preferable to a minarchist society were already explained in my rebuttal rounds, but I will attempt to reiterate them in a new and organized fashion: Argument 1: The Non-Aggression Principle The minarchist society necessarily violates this principle by forcing a community to support certain organization, like an army, police force, etc. Even with some type of loan system (which my opponent theorized yet needs to explain in more detail) isn't a way around this- it still initiates taxation on the citizens, just at some point in the future. Also, even the fact of having an army itself is a violation of the NAP. I myself do not support any cause of war, and given that there are others who share my opinion, it would be morally wrong to force pacifists to supply an army with money. And, as I explained in my rebuttal section, a society with no army at all is superior to a statist society with an army, because the invading army would have so much more land and resources to conquer and maintain, whereas they would have less efforts in conquering a state. Argument 2: Hierarchies There is no legitimate authority in humankind. Every interaction ought to be through voluntary exchange, and any exchange that is by the means of a dictator is inherently immoral. A minarchist state requires some level of hierarchy, in order to organize the police and army. An anarchist society would have every exchange be completely voluntary, with no one human being having political power over another. If you concede that no human has any authority over another, you concede that anarchy is morally superior. If you do not, please give arguments that justify hierarchy in society.
Minarcho-Capitalism Should be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism.

Hello, Debate. org! After a very long hiatus from this website, I have returned and I am ready for a debate. I have dabbled in many political economic models and I find libertarian ideologies very intriguing and thus I look for a discussion about it. Resolution:Minarcho-Capitalism Ought To Be Preferred to Anarcho-Capitalism. Rules: Obviously no personal attacks. Whoever is chosen for this debate shall assume con's position and will argue that anarchism is preferable to minarchism. This debate should be considered impossible to accept. If a contender accepts this debate and has not been chosen they shall forfeit and the judges will consider the debate a loss for him/her. Rounds: R1: Challenge & Acceptance R2: Pro's Opening Case, Con's Rebuttal R3: Con's Opening Case, Pro's Rebuttal R4: Refortifications & Closing (No New Contentions May Be Submitted) Both Pro & Con agree to the following definitions: Minarchism: the libertarian political philosophy advocating the minimal existence of a government and legal regulation of a market and social activities. Anarchism: the libertarian political philosophy advocating the complete absence of a government and legal regulation of a market and social activities. Capitalism: the economic model advocating the private ownership of the means of production and the exchange of capital for goods and services. Violation of these rules will result in loss of conduct (not the entire debate). I have decided to challenge the user Lupricona for this resolution.
Greatest Political Speeches

The Roman Senate was considered a place where oratory flourished. The one of the most notable senators was Marcus Tulius Cicero. Marcus Tulius Cicero is considered one of the greatest orators of all time. Most notably, Cicero's vicious criticism of Catliline. Catiline's coup was exposed as a result of this speech. http://www.youtube.com... http://ancienthistory.about.com...
Greatest Political Speeches

Interesting choice. My second choice will be Pat Buchanan's 1992 "Culture War" speech at the Republican National Convention. Buchanan had ran in the primary against George Bush and lost. But the speech by Buchanan at the RNC was emotional, captivating, and the best speech of the convention that year. I would say it is one of the best convention speeches in the last half century. There are too many high quality memorable lines to choose from in the speech. For example, "When Bill Clinton's time came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory room in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft." http://www.youtube.com...
The square of any even integer is always even

Rebuttal My opponent seems to have missed the points of my arguments in which I stated that there could be extraneous circumstances that could happen to the universe that could change what we today perceive as "laws". Here merely repeated his point in that the statement is always true without any real backup of such a statement. He did nothing to refute my points about the changing nature of the universe, which I will elaborate on shortly. 1. The Universe Has Changed In the Past and Could Change In the FutureThe universe started out as a tiny hot ball in which, we believe, everything in existence was contained inside of it in a singularity. Singularities are points of extreme gravity and microscopic proportions and the laws of gravity, general relativity and quantum mechanics break down when exposed to a phenomenon like a singularity [1].What this tells us is that the universe once existed in a state where things that we today consider law did not apply. Therefore, perhaps at this time this law of square integers also did not apply. The universe changed from a point, evolved, expanded and became the universe we see today but we still cannot, and my opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof, in proving that this law of square integers is and has been and will ALWAYS be true. 2. Speed of LightWe used to believe that the speed of light was a universal constant sort of like your law of squares. It is a pillar of modern physics and thought to have been true always. However, now it seems as though it has come to light that the speed of light could be variable and subject to change by changing conditions of the universe [2]. Just because we think things to be constants because in our limited history of viewing them they haven't changed yet this is not always the case.ConclusionMy opponent did nothing to effectively refute my previous arguments and points and merely claimed that his statement is a law. A simple repetition of his opening argument and main assertion. I have laid out multiple ways that this law is not always necessarily true ALWAYS and cannot be proven as such which is a main point for his starting assertion. He has the burden of proof to show that this statement is always true on all occasions which he has not done. There are many occasions we have discovered in which rational laws and ways of thinking simply don't work when exposed to extreme forces of galactic nature and we could be subjected to universe-wide conditions such as these in the future and have had some instances (black holes, singularities, Big Bang) in our universe's past, present and future which have bent the laws of reason and science into things that don't work with our conventional way of thinking.Therefore, my points stand and the square of any even integer is not necessarily ALWAYS even. Thank you. [1] Zebrowski, Ernest (2000). A History of the Circle: Mathematical Reasoning and the Physical Universe. Piscataway NJ: Rutgers University Press. p. 180.[2] http://www.techtimes.com...;
The square of any even integer is always even

The Nature of LawsIn his post my opponent said on multiple occasions that the components of maths; numbers/integers and squaring are merely Ideas which in a universe without sentience to perceive them would become "gibberish". That is the main downfall of his rebuttal because mathematics is not merely a construct of our imagination, it is a universal law that is constant throughout the entirety of time and space inside of this universe. For that reason it is arbitrary whether I know how long the universe will exist or not. By definition Mathematical laws will exist whether they are perceived or not because laws are principles that must be obeyed at all times. Also, the fact that you said if there was no sentience then it would become gibberish, to me it begs the question, gibberish to what exactly?I would have written more however I am short on time.
How Social Media Affects the Minds of Young Adults

It's pretty common for parents to fear technology, Especially when it involves their kids. I was a teenager when social media first became popular and back in the old days, You might have been right. Our understanding of the internet has improved since then and our kids tend to know technology better than we do. My first point will be that social media is healthy because it allows young adults to see the views of people who aren't in their communities. It allows them to escape thought bubbles within their community. It helps them escape religious indoctrination within their communities (An extremely serious problem) Would you rather have young adults getting their wisdom from some random person in their community? I'd think not. My second point will be that technology is inevitable and to fight it is silly. Facebook, For instance, Has one of the my strict censorship policies on the internet. They couldn't make it safer if they wanted. As for the thing you said about facebook feeding you stories based off what you do, It's actually possible to get around that and the young adults know how to do this better than us. All you have to do is change a few facebook settings, Clear you cookies, Set up a VPN and turn off location. It's not hard actually. The ugly truth is that the way that we got information as kids was worse. Before the internet, I believed in all kinds of nonsense from people. Social media isn't exactly the pinnacle of truth. But young adults are going to get bad info even there was no social media and shutting it down is just sheltering them from the inevitable. The best way for them to learn is to use it. So I reject that we should do anything to it at all. Also, How can you brain wash someone into what they want to hear? If they want to hear it and they aren't making an effort to see if it's true, Then they have already brainwashed themselves into it. Your floor.
How Social Media Affects the Minds of Young Adults

Social Media is very harmful to the mid of young adults. We are able to be brain washed on items that we specifically look into. For example, When scrolling through the media an advertisement will pop up on something you searched a few days ago. Another example, If you watched videos of how much trump is hated then the reality is you'll get pop up ads with possible memes saying how trump sucks. Social Media is taking the lives of young adults and transforming them to not interact as much and brain wash into what you want to hear.
Exponential tax will end all of financial crisis

Rebuttal: Pro's Case.I will summarize my rebuttal like this:"Equal or not, but exponential tax works (Examples? How does it work?) which will allow massive growth in economy (How does it? Explain...) for great good, for future. (I are English too.)" Sorry about the last part.Argument II: Flat Taxes:It's believed by many that a Flat Tax can't work financially, but this isn't true. Current Income Tax revenue is $1.4 trillion (1). In the US, personal income exceeds over $13,400,000,000,000 ($13 trillion)(2). With that in mind, a 15% flat tax rate would create $2.01 trillion in tax revenue, $650 bn more than the current tax brings in.Now there is this belief that a Flat Tax can't have Tax Cuts. This isn't true. Giving cuts as an incentive or aid is entirely acceptable in a Flat Tax system. Using a 15% tax rate, you could cut as much as 6.9% off everyone's tax rate. You could also cut $6300 off the taxes of everyone earning $50,000 or less a year (71% of the population)(3). People with $50,000 taxes would pay $7500 a year in a 15% tax rate, meaning they would pay near to nothing. The thing is, not all of those 71% of earning $50,000. Most earn (and therefore pay) far less, meaning you could cut the taxes of everyone earning less than $50,000 down to zero and still have billions left over. This doesn't imply we should, but based off those numbers, we know that tax cuts are easily affordable. Based on currents estimates, 47% of the US isn't even paying income tax. You could recreate that (hopefully not have to) and still be far over. It's highly probable that you could even retain tax revenue after financing the needed tax cuts.Again, reminding the audience that a Flat Tax can have tax cuts for people who need them.The Tax Code costs Tax Payers $500 billion to comply to the 4 million word Tax Code. The sheer complexity of Taxes in the US is expensive to maintain. A simplier tax system, such as a Flat Tax system, could essentially save Americans billions of dollars.[1] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...[2] https://bber.unm.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...Argument II: Progressive Tax.Pro says that a Progressive Tax would work and end Financial Crisis? The US has a Progressive Tax Rate, and financial crisis's still very much exist. Pro's Resolution is negated.Conclusion: A Flat Tax rate can accomplish the revenue needs of the Government plus some. Financial Crisis's exist despite the Exponential Tax Rate that the US has.Exponential Tax Rates will not end all Financial Crisis's.
Alchemy is in fact real.

I do accept, and I am not going outside of my rights here, as I am simply concreting what we are defining. It appears with the lack of detail with your argument, you could run away and use logical fallacy in order to defend what you are saying or avoid my counter arguments. I will not crack down on the sites you are using to back up your claims as I am aware no respectable paper would include Alchemy, as a result you have no choice but to use what ever you can. I will be happy if you agree to the same definitions as I have posted. Also assuming by Alchemy you are referring to cold fusion. Alchemy: the medieval forerunner of chemistry, concerned with the transmutation of matter, in particular with attempts to convert base metals into gold or find a universal elixir. Alchemy: The process of turning invaluable metals/elements into gold or other highly valuable elements. Cold fusion: is a hypothetical type of nuclear reaction that would occur at, or near, room temperature, compared with temperatures in the millions of degrees that are required for "hot" fusion, which takes place naturally within stars. We are assuming that Alchemy and cold fusion are one in the same. Sorry for the overly long winded way of saying... ~ I accept. ~ Good luck :)
Alchemy is in fact real.

Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2 Pro: Opening ArgumentRound 2 Con: RebuttalRound 3: RebuttalsRound 4: Closing StatementsResolution: Alchemy is in fact real.Alchemy: The process of turning invaluable metals/elements into gold or other highly valuable elementsAs an Organic Chemistry student and Physics enthusiast, I feel the need to defend my brethren of the Middle Ages, the only interesting part of history to me. Good luck to any opponent who chooses to accept. Dost thou accept?Rules: You must follow the debate structure. The definition given is indisputable.~Pointless Picture~
Roe V. Wade miscontrued the U.S. Constitution.

Greetings, I am very excited to instigate my first debate on Debate.org. The resolution to be debated is as follows: "Roe V. Wade misconstrued the U.S. Constitution." Misconstrue is given its regular definition: "to misunderstand the meaning of; take in a wrong sense; misinterpret." (Source: http://dictionary.reference.com... ) This debate is structured as follows: Round 1 - Opening Statements (No sources) Round 2 - Constructive Arguments (No rebuttals; sources required) Round 3 - Rebuttals (Sources are optional) Round 4 - Rebuttals (Sources are optional) Round 5 - Closing Statements (No sources) Both sides may skip only one round without forfeiting the debate. As for the burden of proof, it is straightforward. The Pro (which I have chosen) must prove that Roe V. Wade misconstrued the U.S. Constitution. The Con (which belongs to the challenger) must prove that Rove V. Wade did not misconstrued the U.S. Constitution. Any further questions are reserved to the comment section. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Opening Statement: When the Supreme Court decided Roe V. Wade in 1973 - ruling that women had the right to obtain abortions in their respective states, it misconstrued the U.S Constitution by arbitrarily creating a right where none existed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ I look forward to whoever challenges me and to the debate that follows. - Mr. Speaker.