BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Canadian non interventionism.

CJB, I did not understand your comment from Round 3. Please explain in the comments section. Since PRO has not provided a rebuttal. I will extend my Round 2 arguments, that we cannot mirror Canadian non-interventionism because Canada is not a country with a non-interventionist foreign policy. My rebuttal of PRO's round 1 argument: A) PRO has failed to provide proof that non-interventionism would lead to fewer terrorist attacks. B) PRO has failed to provide proof that it is possible to be a non-intervention country in modern times (current global politics) C) PRO's reference to Ron Paul, without proof, amounts to argumentum ad verecundiam.
Canadian non interventionism.

First, let's define interventionism: "The policy or doctrine of intervening, especially government interference in the affairs of another state or in domestic economic affairs." (1) I understand PRO's premise to be: "The U.S should engage in non-interventionism like Canada". PRO, please correct that if it is incorrect. The premise cannot possibly be considered truth on the basis that Canada is not a country that engages in non-interventionism. As a country, Canada actually very much engages in the affairs of other states, especially regarding foreign wars. In fact, in comparing lists of wars involving both Canada and the U.S, you'd see that they have very similar resumes, so-to-say. (2) (3) Canada joined the U.S, as well as many other nations, in the following 21st century wars: War against ISIS, Libyan Civil War, and the War in Afghanistan. If we are talking about farther back in history, Canada joined the U.S in the following wars: Bosnian War, Persian Gulf War, Korean War, WWII, the Russian Civil War, and WWI to say only a few. Involvement in all of these wars proves that Canada is like the U.S in that they involve themselves in the affairs of other states from time to time. I look forward to rebutting PRO's Round 2 arguments in Round 3. Thanks! (1) http://www.dictionary.com... (2) https://en.wikipedia.org... (3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Westboro Baptist Church should be shut down

Many thanks to my opponent for his timely response. Pro's first point in his rebuttal is that "they [the WBC] indoctrinate all those plentiful children they have" and thus should be shut down as an organization. However ALL religious institutions "indoctrinate" children in the sense that people are born into families that practice or encourage a particular ideology/faith, which the child usually comes to accept and embrace. My parents were Roman Catholic, baptized me as an infant and sent me to Catholic school throughout my life. Should the Catholic church be shut down? If not then why should the WBC? Indoctrination is not a good enough reason. People are indoctrinated into all kinds of things. Some children are indoctrinated to believe eating junk food constantly is acceptable. It's upsetting, but it doesn't mean the law should interfere. Pro says "Those children are never given any choice in what they believe" which I don't think is true and this was never supported by my opponent. Pro also mentions psychological abuse but fails to give any evidence, proof or examples. Just because he disagrees with the message and practices of the WBC doesn't mean they do not have the right to carry on, or that they are in fact abusive. Pro continues to talk about how the WBC encourages hate speech and whatnot, though I've already addressed this in Round 1. Not only did I talk a lot about the nature of hate speech, but what people could do to avoid it. I also mentioned how hate speech, however harmful, is not a good enough reason to shut an organization down -- especially because an *organization* is not an entity that can be punished. My opponent's entire argument thus far has been that the WBC ought to be shut down because they are intolerant, hypocritical, hateful and offensive. None of these things are illegal. The job of the law isn't to make sure that everybody is a moral human being. Instead it exists to protect people's rights -- including the rights of those we do not agree with. As I said in the last round, if any member of the WBC violates the rights of another person, that offending individual ought to be punished. However you cannot violate the right of free speech (which Pro never denied is a legitimate right) to protect hurt feelings or feelings of dissent. We cannot all be expected to agree. Part of living in a free society is respecting other people's right to be heard even if you disagree with what they say. If one is offended, they can/should take measures to avoid it and also ensure that their rights are being protected. For instance funeral homes can enforce property boundaries to ensure funerals are not disrupted. Just as the WBC pickets, screams things, creates websites, etc. their opponents are allowed to do the same. Ultimately the WBC's disrespectful actions speak for themselves. They're not trying to change people's minds; they're seeking publicity. It's terrible but it's not illegal. Infringing upon their rights to protect people's feelings is not only illegal but immoral. Pro has not proven otherwise thus far. Thank you.
Westboro Baptist Church should be shut down

First, I'm greatly relieved that my opponent and I agree on our strong disapproval of the hate that WBC preaches. I was afraid a WBC apologist would come in here saying everything WBC stands for is correct, and that wouldn't have been any fun at all. One of the reasons I believe that WBC, as a singular case, and not an amendment-changing political action, should be shut down, is that they indoctrinate all those plentiful children they have, who would otherwise have been functioning members of society, into their own belief of hatred and intolerance. Those children are never given any choice in what they believe, because their parents decide for them. I consider this psychological abuse/bullying, as I'm sure a psychologist would. Threatening not only to cast them out of their church, but even their family, if they start to question the hatred they're being taught. This is blatant psychological child abuse. The WBC also preaches every hate-speech you can think of. They're homophobic, anti-america, anti-free speech (ironically), etc. They believe that everyone who disagrees with them on any of these things will suffer unimaginable torment for all eternity, and they have no qualms about telling this to every passerby within preaching distance. Their influence has been the direct cause of many religious zealots from oither churches believing that gays should be put to DEATH, of all things. Whichever way you look at it, WBC is POISONING our society, and they are as vehemently preaching hatred as the mobs of muslims holding signs saying "Massacre those who insult Islam" On a final note, when they go to funerals of the fallen heroes of our army, they directly mentally abuse the mourning family of the soldierin question, constantly shouting how the soldier is in Hell, and he was a "f*g-enabler" (Their way of saying "tolerant") and that they're going to Hell for raising him, and that all his friends are going to Hell. This is indescribable hatred toward every point of view that is not directly parrallel to their own. If you'd like me to try and refute anything, just directly ask me in your next argument, and I'll try my best.
Westboro Baptist Church should be shut down

I am here to argue that Westboro Baptist Church should be closed. For those of your who don't know, WBC is home to the infamous "God Hates F*gs," and "Thank God for IEDs" people. I feel they should be shut down on the basis that they are promoting an extreme degree of hatred, taking part in anti-semitic, anti-american, homophobic, and incredibly offensive behavior, like toting "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" signs at the funerals of our fallen heroes, shouting hateful remarks at the horrified mourning family. They have already been told not to come within 500 feet of the soldiers' funerals, but they also picket pretty much anything that will get them publicity, and never cease to amaze people with how intolerant and hateful ways. I say that they haven't gone far enough, and that WBC should be shut down on the basis that they are a hate group, spreading a venemous message, and saying that we should be thankful for 9/11. I think they went too far a long time ago, and they should be disbanded, with their various websites taken down. I am not going to argue about any of their beliefs, albeit I stand at odds with every single one of them. What I'm arguing is that it would have a positive effect if they were in some way barred from openly preaching such unguarded hatred. Before anyone incites the 1st amendment, much of what they do falls under defamation of specific people, verbally abusing the parents of dead soldiers, and inflicting so much unnecessary turnoil on innocent people.
Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

I negate: Same sex marriage should be federally legalized. Definitions: (Since my opponent failed to define the resolve, my definitions will be used for the round) Same Sex: Homosexual Marriage: religious institution solidifying the love between a man and a woman. Legalized: Made legal, under regulation of the State Observation: Marriage is a religious institution. Same Sex Marriage is NOT Civil Union. For this reason I negate. Pro Burden: My opponent must prove that it is constitutional to regulate marriage in a religious setting ========================================================================= I will make my own case, then refute my opponent's Case: I. Since Marriage is a religious practice, legalizing gay marriage violates the 1st Amendment. Marriage is a religious institution. Once the state regulates marriage, then each religion is being denied their 1st amendment right. Gay marriage is NOT civil union. A religion has a right to make it's own decisions without the interference of the State, provided nothing illegal is occurring. I.e. Separation of Church and State. By legalizing gay marriage it is telling a religion what to believe. All major world religions believe marriage is between a man and a women, and they have a right to believe this. II. Legalizing Gay Marriage with result in a slippery Slope. If the Federal Government condones gay marriage then a slippery slope would occur. Polygamists would claim their right to be legally married to multiple people. It would lead to cult rapists and prostitutes to claim their own rights. The results would not be good in the long run unless the State actively work to let a religion decide what marriage is defined as. I will now refute my opponents case: My opponent has used the 14th Amendment to defend his position. I have 2 responses about this. 1) This amendment is superseded by the "general will." According to the Supreme Court, if the US people feel that a specific should not be given certain certain rights, e.g. polygamists can't marry, then the Legislative Branch can over go the Judicial. A poll taken by realpolitics show that 70% of the population feels that gay marriage should not be legalized. 2) Certain amendments supersede the 14th Amendment. In this case, the 1st Amendment. As I have shown already, Gay Marriage violates the right of private religion/Separation of Church and State. You can drop my opponent's case. Key Points: A) Violates the 1st Amendment B) Slippery Slope
Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

Amendment 14, Section 1 has a clause in it called the Equal Protection Clause. It states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This proves that same-sex marriage should be legal. The case Loving vs. Virginia is the case that overturned the ban on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia was being discriminatory. The Court unanimously voted against Virginia, against discrimination, and in favor of the Loving (no pun intended) family who was allowed to marry. This law must be federal in order to extend federal rights. These rights include immigration rights. If an American wife marries a foreign husband, that husband becomes a citizen. This law should be extended to homosexual love. Over 1,138 rights and protections are are given to citizens for being married, they should be extended to gay couples. These rights include hospital visitation. If a spouse is dying, their spouse should be allowed to visit them before they die. Allowing these people to die without seeing their lifelong lovers, is more than immoral, more than prejudice. It is inhumane.
Same sex marriage should be federally legalized.

Ok, in my opponents last rebuttal he made it clear how either of us should win. I will concede this burden for the round. What is marriage? My opponent seems not to understand my point. Civil unions are already allowed in the US. Civil Unions is the States way of joining too people. In today's society they inter use civil union and marriage. Marriage is not a civil union. Marriage is only a religious institution. Syllogism: 1) Marriage is a religious institution. 2) Most religions are against gay marriage. 3) Gay Marriage, if made total by the state, violates the 1st Amendment. 4) Therefore, Gay MARRIAGE can not be allowed in the US. Ok, my opponent has also failed to attack my slippery slope contention. He attacks it by saying, well interracial marriage hasn't led to this. I responded by saying yes, thats true, but his examples dont undermines the real reason for marriage. Making a family by a man and women. A black man and a white woman can get married. THEY ARE STILL MEN AND WOMEN. NOT MAN AND MAN/WOMEN AND WOMEN. ===============================================================================Voting Issues: 1) Gay Marriage violates the traditional definition of marriage. (A Priori) 2) Gay Marriage violates the 1st Amendment. 3) Slippery Slope. 4) The real debate has be won by me, gay marriage is not civil union. My opponent confuses the 2. It's a clear negative ballet. Thank you ladies and gentlemen.
It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

In order to prove something to be more probable, real numbers must be used. My opponent has taken on the burden of proof, which also means he must provide the actual numbers that prove that it is more probable the God exists. Without the numbers, there is no proof. Without proof, my opponent must admit defeat. Since it is impossible to obtain actual numbers that are accurate as to the probability of a God, I declare myself the winner of this debate. Thank you for the easy win.
It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

Ave! This is a debate challenge to the DDO user qopel. If anyone who is not qopel should accept this debate, then it results in an automatic forfeit and win for myself. Qopel does not allow challenges or messages, so I'm simply hoping that he would read this while browsing around DDO.God is a maximally great being, and by definition, you cannot conceive of anything greater than god.Most probable is inferencce to the best conclusion. If we have competing hypothesis, then the most plausible one should be accepted.Exists means to be a part of reality.For rules, I think we should just follow general ideas of DDO conduct. Sources are not needed for this debate, but they can be included. Burden of proof is on myself.Vale!
It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

OK, I stand corrected. Probability is anything over 50% My opponent suddenly uses NUMBERS "Assumptions made by hypothesis 1: zero Assumptions made by hypothesis 2: at least three" The funny part is, the numbers are wrong! Dogs also want to ruin presents, Dogs also exist, Dogs also can travel into apartments So the assumptions are equal. 3 : 3 Well, thanks for proving my point. Numbers are needed to prove probability. If you can provide numbers for your example, you can provide numbers for your existence of God. So, extend your arguments all you want. Without numbers it's worthless.
It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

Ave!Probability'The only way to determine the probability of the best conclusion is through numbers.'We are making inferences to the best conclusion by way of abductive reasoning. I showed in the last round, abductive reasoning does not require mathematics. It only requires data (not in the math sense) and facts about the situation.'51% or higher is the best conclusion.'This is a bare assertion. Even if I accepted the logic, wouldn't 50.1% be the minimum?'The example my opponent gave can only be proved with real numbers.'Refer to the above statements.'There is an equal chance that both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 can happen.'Hypothesis 1 and 2 are only in equal in the sense that they are both possible. With abductive reasoning, we are trying to decipher which one is the most likely. Abductive reasoning isn't about impossibility or possibility, it's about probability and improbability. This observation does not recognize that distinction.We know that dogs are capable of chewing the wrappng paper off of the presents. We know that dogs have been known to do such events in the past. We know that there is nothing unlikely about a dog doing such a thing. Why invoke aliens if the dog hypothesis is plausible?'Without the use of data using numbers, inference to the best conclusion is just a guess based on what you believe happened.'No. It's an inference based off established facts and data (not in the mathematical sense, again). It is not an inference based on your own belief.'It's based on faith...Just because dogs have teeth, doesn't mean aliens don't have teeth.'Con is missing the point: why think that aliens with teeth did it, when the dog hypothesis makes the least amount of assumptions? It's not that aliens couldn't have done it. It's that the hypothesis is implausible because it makes more assumptions than competing hypothesis.'To really find out the probability, you can find out how many times hypothesis 1 occurred by looking up the amount of reported instances that such a scenario happened. Then you can also do that with hypothesis 2. Once you have the data, you can clearly determine the best conclusion with NUMBERS.'Assumptions made by hypothesis 1: zeroAssumptions made by hypothesis 2: at least three(aliens want to ruin my presents, aliens exist, aliens can travel into my apartment)We can choose hypothesis 1 over 2 because it makes the least amount of assumptions, so it is more plausibe. The 'data' in this case is the assumptions that each hypothesis makes. Based on the data, 1 is more plausible than 2. You do need numbers to determine which of these hypothesis are more plausible.Inferences to the best conclusions are based on the plausibility of the hypothesis, which is determined by the assumptions of the hypothesis, the explanatory scope of the hypothesis, the ad hoc-ness of the hypothesis, etc. It does *not* require numbers.Contingency ArgumentExtended.Ontological ArgumentExtended.Moral ArgumentExtended.Vale!
It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

My opponent started out by saying "Most probable is inference to the best conclusion." The only way to determine the probability of the best conclusion is through numbers. 51% or higher is the best conclusion. The example my opponent gave can only be proved with real numbers. There is an equal chance that both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2 can happen. Without the use of data using numbers, inference to the best conclusion is just a guess based on what you believe happened. It's based on faith...Just because dogs have teeth, doesn't mean aliens don't have teeth. To really find out the probability, you can find out how many times hypothesis 1 occurred by looking up the amount of reported instances that such a scenario happened. Then you can also do that with hypothesis 2. Once you have the data, you can clearly determine the best conclusion with NUMBERS. The debate clearly is about the probability that God exists. Probability is based on NUMBERS. I'm not trying to re-define what probability means...my opponent is trying to do that by avoiding numbers. Unless my opponent can provide numbers to support the "inference to the best conclusion", there can be no clear proof of probability. I accepted the debate expecting numbers to support the inference to the best conclusion based on the definition of the word "probable". Now my opponent refuses to provide numbers. No numbers=no way to determine probability.
It is more probable that god exists: qopel debate

Ave!ProbabilityIn the first round of the debate, I defined the most probable hypothesis as the hypothesis that is reached when we make inference to the best conclusion (or explanation). Inference to the best explanation is when you choose the hypothesis that most plausibly explains the data and relevant evidence. Inference to the best explanation does not require any numbers. Let's think of an example.I live in an apartment with a pet dog. I have wrapped several Christmas presents to send to my relatives for the holiday. As usual, I leave to go and work for most of the day. When I return home, the Christmas presents have been chewed up, and there is wrapping paper everywhere. There are no signs of forced entry, and my dog was the only living thing inside the house. Now, there are many explanations of why the presents might be destroyed. Hypothesis 1 states that the dog chewed off the wrapping paper and spread it around the house. Hypothesis 2 states that extraterrestrials transported themselves into my apartment, unwrapped the presents, and threw the wrapping paper around the house. Using inference to the best explanation, we would naturally choose Hypothesis 1, because it fits best with the evidence and data. Nowhere in that exercise of abductive reasoning did need to use numbers.(Note: data just means a set of facts about the situation. I live in a house. I have a dog. Dogs have teeth. It does not mean mathematical data.)For the purpose of the debate, the most probable hypothesis is the one reached through abductive reasoning, or inference to the best explanation. If Con doesn't like this definition, he shouldn't have accepted the debate. Instead, he accepted the debate, and is now trying to redefine probability differently from the definition he agreed to. Ladies and gentlemen, this is simply poor conduct on the part of Con.Contingency ArgumentExtended.Ontological ArgumentExtended.Moral ArgumentExtended.Vale!
Evolution

Here are my best arguments Why evolution is wrong: 1. Evolution teaches that in the beggining there were fish that started to jump out of the water and catch nats and bugs above the water. Then the fish developed wings. All I can say is LOL why would you believe something as silly as that! And where is this fish with wings are u telling me that ALL transitions died and didn't get fossilized. 2. Evolution has destroyed society. Crime has gone up thanks to evolution. Or as it should be EVILution. 3. Hitler used evolution and used darwinism to justify murder of the Jews. 4. Abiogensis is flawed and has never been proven. 5. There are NO transitional fossils. The transitional fossils that are taught in schools like Piltdown man and Nebraska man have been proven to be frauds. 6. The speed of light is not constant. Therefore the starlight problem is solved. This is why evolution is wrong.