BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Democracy is not the Best Form of Government

In your assessment of democracy, you made a common error that most everyone also makes: just because not everyone can vote does not mean that a given society is not a democracy. For example, in Athens, the system of government was in fact a democracy. True, women and slaves were not allowed to vote, but all citizens were given the opportunity. America too was a democracy almost since the beginning; just because women were not allowed to vote does not mean that the government is not democratic. On this matter, democratic nations are generally more successful than other countries. Some of the most successful countries do have at least a degree of democracy, including the United States, the UK, Germany, and even, to a degree, China, which has albeit very few aspects of democracy. Your point that democracy has never been successfully employed is completely ridiculous. Also, the ignorance of the governed is no reason to refuse them the right to have a say in the government. Now, if we were putting these morons in government positions, then problems would arise, but since they are only expressing which candidate they prefer, the Electoral College mostly weeds out the stupid people. Yes, we are susceptible to manipulation, but at least in democracy, we have the option to research options and choose the best for our country. Aristocracies remove this option and puts the manipulators directly into power without the say of the people. The most successful societies grew out of democracy. Athens, Rome, most of European history, there is a call for democracy. Why, look at the greatest example of aristocracy: France, circa 1780 AD. Do ya know what happened? The French Revolution, in which the people overthrew the oppressive upper class and established (you guessed it) a republic. From this point, France grew into the democratic and strong country that it now is. I therefore propose that an aristocracy would bring about issues over social inequality, as it has done in China, and that democracy is by far the most beneficial.
Democracy is not the Best Form of Government

Con - Because of Christmas and New Years, I've been busier than I thought I would be, and I havent had time to thoroughly lay out my position on this issue. I made this argument five rounds partly for this reason, and I hope you can willingly forfeit round 2 (as I am) so we can pick up the argument in round 3. I think thats rounds 3, 4, and 5 should be adequate for each of us to lay out and defend our arguments. Sorry about this, it was a mistake on my part to start a debate between Christmas and New Years.
Democracy is not the Best Form of Government

My argument is that Democracy is not the best form of government, and in fact, many non-democratic forms of government are better. I define best as: The most successful and superior form of government. In other words the best form of government is the government that is most capable of improving the economic, technological, and developmental situations of a state. The inherent flaw of democracy is that equal voting power is given to people who are significantly less intelligent and/or less knowledgeable about important political issues which, due to the fact that a majority of the population is less knowledgeable about these issues, severely damages the national interests of the nation. From a social standpoint, it is logical to prevent less capable citizens from voting simply because they do not understand politics enough to know what is good for themselves or the nation. Con can feel free to rebut me and create his own arguments in his acceptance response, but if Con would rather just accept only, that is equally okay. Two forfeits is an automatic loss.
Wierdman's Tourney- Animal Testing

BOP-I will be against animal testing. My opponent will be for animal testing. Definitions-Animal Testing: the use of non-human animals in research and development projects, esp. for purposes of determining the safety of substances such as foods or drugs [1]. Rules-1. Although this should not be necessary, there will be no abuse of semantics, wordplay, and/or loopholes. With that said, I hand over the next round to my opponent. And thanks to wierdman, who started this tourney. [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com...
Atheism is the default position.

A false dichotomy? I did no such thing. I devoted an entire paragraph admitting that there is a spectrum of belief, and I argued that no matter where you fall on the spectrum, you have reasoned that position. All I got in response was: "that's not possible because non-belief is the default position." Well, that's what we are supposed to be debating. You can't win by begging the question. I extend my arguments and await a proper rebuttal.
Atheism is the default position.

I meticulously argued that non-belief is a conclusion, yet my opponent simply responds by repeating his position. I argued for the distinction between non-belief and cognitive unawareness, and he only responded by saying I'm wrong and repeating his original assertion. I argued that all positions are biased, and he only responded by begging the question and repeating the resolution. I concluded that atheism is in fact not a default position, and he just said I was wrong. Notice the pattern? He hasn't offered evidence or explained why my argument is false. It is just one question begging bare assertion after another. My opponent needs to refute my argument, not merely announce that it is wrong. Until he does so, the resolution stands negated.
Atheism is the default position.

Non-Belief is a Conclusion My opponent claims "Non-belief, therefore, is the rejection of something as true." Nobody has ever seen a baby reject something as true. What my opponent is trying to do is use a logical fallacy by trying to create a false dichotomy: "Either you accept or you reject" The true dichotomy, however, is: "Either you accept or you don't accept." A "don't accept" is not the same as a "reject" A baby doesn't accept God because it has no idea what God is. A baby doesn't reject God, yet doesn't believe in God. Non-Belief is Different from Unawareness My opponent claims "No one is born, for example, with a non-belief in extraterrestrial aliens" Actually, EVERYONE is born not believing in extraterrestrial aliens! You do not have to make a choice to have no belief in something. It's the default position. Inanimate objects don't believe in anything. A pen, is in fact, an Atheist, because it does not believe in Gods. You don't need to comprehend the idea of Atheism in order to be an Atheist. The moment you die, you become an Atheist (if you aren't already one), because you no longer believe in a God. You revert back to the default position! The Problem of Infinite Regression My opponent is trying to claim that "If we follow our lines of reasoning far enough, we will find they rely upon a foundation of assumptions about what is possible and what is not. Once again; Babies don't make assumptions and neither do pens or dead bodies. You don't need any evidence to be an Atheist, but you do need evidence to be a Theist, even if the evidence isn't true. You just need to believe it's true. Atheists don't believe in Gods because of the lack of evidence. The burden of proof is on those who make a positive claim. No claim requires no proof. No belief requires no proof nor any assumptions. All Conclusions are Biased A non belief isn't a conclusion. It's the default position. A sane person only believes something when they can conclude that it's true. It's not logical to just believe in something until it is proved false. If that were the case, you would be born believing in EVERYTHING until it was proved false to you. Conclusion A non-belief in not the "neutral position". It's the default position. You always start off not believing in something before you do believe it. My opponent claims, "Atheism (as evidenced by the suffix "ism") is an ideology." The truth is, Atheism is a NON-"ism" as evidenced by the prefix "a". http://atheism.about.com...
Atheism is the default position.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. The moment we are born, we have no beliefs at all. All babies are born Atheists. That's why it's the default position. The only way to be a Theist is to learn what a God is and choose to believe in it. That means you must BECOME a Theist from the default position of being an Atheist. Nobody is born a Theist. If you lose your faith in a God, you automatically (without having to choose to) go back to the default position of being an Atheist. It's that simple.
Atheism is the default position.

I am finally understanding the gap in communication. My opponent has been accusing me of committing the fallacy of false dichotomy, but the problem is that he is not applying the right fallacy. A false dichotomy occurs when someone presents only two options when there logically exists more than that. I clearly indicated that there is a spectrum of belief, so I am not guilty of this. I think he means to accuse me of employing the fallacy of equivocation. He is insistent that there is a clear difference between "not accept" and "reject. " I understand why he sees a difference. The first term is quite passive, and at first glance lends itself to a sort of default state. Unfortunately, his semantics aren't enough to defeat my epistemological (not merely definitional) analysis of the nature of belief. I argued that belief is a commitment to a truth. Therefore, non-belief is a commitment to a truth as false. I then carefully explained how this differs from a state of unawareness. I then touched on the epistemological dilemma of infinite recursion to show how belief or non-belief is rooted in biased presupposition. None of these arguments were touched upon. I was merely told ad nauseam that I am simply wrong by definition. His entire argument is predicated on the misguided notion that non-belief is the absence of belief. He can assert that if he wants, but since our debate deals exactly with what non-belief is, he must reach beyond mere assertion or his is guilty of question begging. He should have dismantled my epistemology and showed us how his terms are superior, and he did not do that. Instead we are bombarded with false analogies like the guilt/innocence scenario and chess-player/non-chess-player classification. Neither analogy works because I am not arguing that non-belief is merely the absence of belief. No, I have been arguing that it is the rejection of a proposition. I could be wrong about that, but my opponent didn't show us why. His rebuttal is summed up as, "It's just obvious. " Begging the question. My opponent says my definition is better applied to Agnosticism. Wouldn't that make agnosticism the better default position? I believe that still refutes the resolution, does it not? The reality of the situation is that my opponent is not an atheist by default. He betrays the resolution in his ardent defense of atheism. He is not passively sitting there in non-belief. He even ends his last round asking me to "see this for what it really is. " My word, that sounds like he just asked me to accept atheism as propositionally true. That is hardly a position of non-acceptance. That is clearly a position of conclusion. My opponent cannot even live out his own position let alone defend it. Therefore, I think it appropriate to consider the resolution negated.
Rush Limbaugh was slandered by racist charges.

A campaign by Leftists accusing Limbaugh with charges of racism was a success. They succeeded in getting him kicked out of the investor group that is planning to make a bid for the St. Louis Rams. The important evidence against Limbaugh comprised his alleged comments praising Martin Luther King's assassin, his comment "Slavery built the South. I'm not saying we should bring it back. I'm just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark," and finally that he made disparaging remarks about the NAACP. All of these accusations were false. The first two were apparently fabricated by a left-wing blogger named Hooberman and the last by a columnist for the Kansas City Star. (http://www.foxnews.com... ... Oct 15). Some of the comments were repeated, without a source, in Wikipedia. MSNBC and CNN featured them heavily, again without providing a source. http://newsbusters.org... Limbaugh once criticized sports commentators for being easy on quarterback Donovan McNabb because, Limbaugh claimed, they wanted a black quarterback to succeed. That was years ago, so clearly it didn't play any role in the NFL investors decision. Moreover, that comment was about race, but it was not directed against McNabb because of is race. By comparison, some have commented that Obama got a boost in the last election because of his race. That is another example of a comment about the role of race in contemporary society, but it is not an irrational criticism based upon race; in other words, it isn't racist. Commentators and critics should be universally condemned for lying and for repeating unverified accusations against Limbaugh. The resolution is affirmed.
Organic Food over GMO

INTRODUCTIONPro forfeited so I'm going to briefly represent my case as promised in the previous round. My position is agnosticism on the resolution, as GM food has no harmful effects that are common in all kinds of GM Food.MY CASEA- What is GM FoodGenetically-modified food could simply be an organic food with one genetic mutation. The modern-day Banana is an example of GM Food. In the picture below, we can see the difference between a GM and organic Banana: B- Pharmaceutical benefits of GM FoodIt is challenging in third world countries to get everyone vaccinated because of economic difficulties in storing and transporting vaccines, so currently a great method is to embed them genetically in GM food(e.g tomatoes) and spread those in third world countries to save many lives[1,2].c- Economic benefits of GM FoodUnderdeveloped countries that suffer from malnutrition cannot afford most organic food, especially that which is not immune to pests and diseases, and hence does not have a fulfilling production when it comes to crops. Those countries also need food that is rich in vitamins and nutrition. Researches at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences created a strain of "golden" rice containing a high content of beta-carotene, which acts as a cheap and healthy source of high nutrition for many underdeveloped countries[3].D- Right to bad healthFinally, Pro seems to argue that we should ban something if it is unhealthy, which I don't quite agree with. I'm with the FDA using rigorous, long-term studies of every kind of food, and speaking of health-hazards and what have you. Nevertheless, I believe in a free market where people are intelligent enough to read the warning signs, and choose if they want unhealthy food or not. In other words, I don't see how or why people should be forced into good health. Nevertheless, Pro doesn't come close to proving that GM food is actually hazardous, but uses propaganda propagated by people already selling organic food and making money of attacking GM food since it is a new technology in the market.CITATIONS[1] Medical molecular farming: production of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines in plants(Trends in Plant Science, Vol 6, No 5, pp 219-226, May 2001)[2] Oral immunization with hepatitis B surface antigen expressed in transgenic plants (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol 98, No 20, pp. 11539-11544, Sep 2001)[3] Genetic engineering towards carotene biosynthesis in endosperm (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences) cited from http://bioserv.fiu.edu....
Organic Food over GMO

I'm guessing the burden of proof is solely on Pro to prove that "organic food should be subsidized over genetically modified (GM) food, and why GM food should be banned all together. "My arguments will consist of the advantages of Genetically-Modified food and the right to bad health. Nevertheless, I'm taking the agnostic position. Pro has to prove that Genetically-Modified food is hazardous and should be banned. I only have to undermine her arguments to win this debate. I await my opponent's case.
Peyton Manning SUCKS!

At the end of the 2008 season, Manning was named NFL MVP for the 3rd time, tying Brett Favre for the most MVP awards in NFL history. Manning was selected first overall in the 1998 draft by the Indianapolis Colts. In his rookie season, he passed for 3,739 yards with 26 touchdowns, set five different NFL rookie records, including most touchdown passes in a season, and was named to the NFL All-Rookie First Team. One of only two three-time NFL MVPs. This is why he doesn't suck. http://en.wiki...
A battle of wit

You mean no disrespect?! Ha! Crom laughs at you, So much hidden message just to disrespect in secrecy. Your gift to manking will be your hectic heresy Of words, pray to your God for clemency. Scarlet Pimpernel? More like pimples from Hell, In your past life you were killed like Jor-El. Rhetoric is to persuade, air moving water to waves, Turning potatoes into Lays and consuming protein in whey! You fool, you think you have it your way But this isn't Burger King, I'll destroy you like Ragnar Lodbrok in Vikings! Con, I have to admit, you're strong, Nevertheless, soon you'll be alone, My lyrics will strike you And you'll forget what's going on.
A battle of wit

Perhaps my foe that prosaic Pro could help me out a bitI dare not guess, so please redress; pray tell: what's 'rethoric'?Don't be alarmed, you rhyme ok, I mean no disrespectwhen one has so very much to learn what else should I expect?I consider this my duty, a gift to all mankindtake a seat, the bell has rung, your schooling now beginsWhen you wish with poetic formto demonstrate pure skilla burried meaning hidemessage in each linehalf lines; worthy middlerhyming couplets, meaning hidpaying close poet's triedattention find you willtrue brilliance: artist's normI can pull more from deep insidelike water from a wellperhaps I was in past life calledthe Scarlet Pimpernell
A battle of wit

Woah! your rhetoric is whole, But I'll tie you in the Tree of Woe. For it is true that my words aren't knife But they cut deep just as the Lord's words are life! I do see your lower intent: Whence Hideous Rethoric Arguments falls-on-me! Your rethoric is like when Minime's high. Hurl all you want you punny con, But your wife anymore won't call you "hon". 'Cause when she reads all my worthy jive She'll leave you for another wife! It is true I may be feeble But in this language I kick butt Even if my rethoric isn't so HOT! "Oh Lord!" people would say in my crib, For my words are worhy and put you to sleep. And if sleep isn't so evil just remember: Darth Plageis was killed sleeping for no reason! I tried my greatest best to smite you... But Debate.org's policy on profanity is greedy like a rich jew!
A battle of wit

Touché to Pro a worthy foe: he made me stop and thinkfor him to 'smite [me] like an onion' was a threat I'd never heardbut then I read that poetry and realized he meant stink'twas really less like onion than an odorif'rous turd.I think I'd have less confidence in you than in a knife,even so I'll carry through this pro/con interactionperhaps your future insults will have just a bit more tractionat least a blade could cut me unlike cracks about my wife.Pro's hubris really isn't all that evil(on this you should take note)for when judges cast their votethey'll choose the lesser of two feeblesLike a pirate of puns the jolly rodger I unfurl!(but if your next rebuttle is as bad I may just hurl)
A battle of wit

Alas! I accept thy batttle, con-warrior, And I shall smite thee like an onion, For Shrek is love, Shrek is life" Oh no, He already wrecked your wife!! I shall strike you greater than a knife, Hence, my greatest confidence in action In this feeble interaction between con and pro. Behold! My rethoric may be disastrous In this intellectual interaction But by my side is Crom with the riddle of steel. So kneel! To your new god now you're doomed, Bow! All looks glimmer and gloom for you con, Dark as noon.
A battle of wit

This is a battle of wit, linguistic skill, and humor.The objective is to use hyperbole, entedre, alegory, rhyme (or unrhymed poetic forms) and acerbic humor in a battle.Voters are instructed to give bonus points for humor, the 'oh snap' quotien (i.e. that's gotta burn), artistic and/or literary style.In addition, voters are instructed to take into account both offensive and defensive styles. Outwitting your opponent through use of langauge, especially to turn an insult back on the other person, is preferred. This can include, but is not limited to, double or even tripple entedre. Cultural meanings of words that have secondary or tertiary definitions as well as contextual meaning in common euphamisms, especially due to punctuation, are valid.Example:- ArgumentMy opponent has clearly shown a lack of intellect in choosing to call me a toad. - RepostéCon/Pro has called me on my transparency, and this I must confessthat had I used more intellect his wit could not undressthe barb of word and wit you see is not a hidden disswe all have heard the addage that in ignorance is bliss : Shakespear - Love's Labor Lost:: Act V Scene II:: Prepare, I say. I thank you, gracious lords,: For all your fair endeavours; and entreat,: Out of a new-sad soul, that you vouchsafe: In your rich wisdom to excuse or hide: The liberal opposition of our spirits,: If over-boldly we have borne ourselves: In the converse of breath; your gentleness: Was guilty of it. Farewell, worthy lord!: A heavy heart bears not a nimble tongue,: Excuse me so, coming so short of thanks: For my great suit so easily obtain'd.
A battle of wit

Yes, I've mentioned Crom, From movies we also learn. It seems that your mom only teached you books to learn. I could choose my culture's gods But you would see me fail When Debate.org says "profanity won't prevail". Our short encouter soon will end I hope that after school You watch Conan, or maybe Terminator too. This battle of wits has been fun, And I hope my rhetoric was up to your standards, We shall see who wins in the long run. For know I'll listen to Tankard. I salute you Con Even if I insulted you For a great battle this was Just like Trump and that other jew.
A battle of wit

-- Dramatic Monologue --The Zen of PotatoYou've invoked the name of Cromtwo times that I have seenIf this is some attempt at domwhy choose a mediocre dream?Hyperbole is best you seewhen drawn from culture wholeWere I to select a divinity Cthulhu seems a better goalCapricious, jealous, unconcernedand mean as spit to boothis motives man cannot discernall explanations mootI must confess I fail to seehow I am like a rapperphonomic slang is not like meI'm really far more dapperIn average culture it is truerappers would call me lame.But I avoid that bestial zooculture is far more sane.Now as to rhetoric it seems persuasion is the goalHowe'er you've missed the second memecollapse meanings (themselves not whole)sewing a thread sans seamsYou watch too many moviesit's literature you lackto be like mighty Potato wefind comfort in the sack.