BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Special Relativity Is False

Your original syllogism may be able to be appropriately modified to present a counterexample to Special Relativity. However, it seems the counterexample you have attempted to reveal depends on the apparently unconventional view that protons have mass. The view that protons have mass might itself falsify Special Relativity. All propositions are true. "Special Relativity is true" is a proposition. So, "Special Relativity is true" is true. Therefore, Special Relativity is true.
Democracy vs Totalitarianism

Efficiency of DecisionsMy opponent keeps talking about populous support. However, that really doesn't matter in a totalitarian state. The only time it matters is during your rise to power. After that, you can be as unpopular as you want. It doesn't matter if the common person likes you or not, all that matters is the military. Totalitarian leaders give special things to the military. Whether it be more food or more money, you need the army to be on your side. Some of the biggest totalitarian leaders (Stalin and Hitler) managed to keep army and populous support. In a true totalitarian state, the army will turn on their own people. Take the USSR under Stalin; the army killed and deported over 20 million of its own people.Economy"Since Democracy provides the greatest stability for society and market conditions, it also tends to lead to the most prosperous and stable economy over the longest period of time. [1][2]"Greatest stability? Yeah right. In the U.S. from 1950, there were 10 huge recessions and many smaller ones(1). Yes, an economy can flourish. But it will also plummet. However, a planned economy will stay stable for a very long time.Human Rights"One of the most important aspects to maintaining a stable modern populace is the general perception of liberty. Since a Democratic system inherently provides much of what is considered a modern ‘right', it is the greatest available system to ensure such rights, and thus provide long-term stability. [3]"How will it matter to the state if people are treated poorly? It won't. The only people that you need to treat well is the army. Therefore, you can maintain order. Rights will not make a society better. They might in fact do the opposite.ConclusionI believe that I have effectively negated all of my opponents arguments. Vote CON(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy vs Totalitarianism

In this round I will outline the benefits of Democracy and refute my opponents assertion in the next round. Efficiency of decisions While democracy on a large scale does not lend itself to quick change and mobility, it does ensure a greater likelihood of popular support. This in itself tends to lead to a more content society, unlikely to revolt against the government. Thus the stability of Democracy is its most important attribute. While the US federal design of a Democratic-Republic does have its flaws, the smaller scale state level governments and councils act more efficiently. Though the design does make governing slower, it provides a greater likelihood of having popular acceptance. When it comes to national security a much faster system is often employed, whereby an executive elected for a limited term can specifically employ the military to carry out secretive and immediate actions without congressional approval. While this system is slower due to the eventual accountability of this executive, it has managed to maintain societies that generally feel safe. Economy Major impacts on modern economies largely come from large-scale investment, speculation on commodities, or other globally connected influences that have variable effects. One of the greatest ways to ensure the prosperity of any country is to provide a secure location for investors and entrepreneurs to put their money. Since Democracy provides the greatest stability for society and market conditions, it also tends to lead to the most prosperous and stable economy over the longest period of time. [1][2] Human rights One of the most important aspects to maintaining a stable modern populace is the general perception of liberty. Since a Democratic system inherently provides much of what is considered a modern ‘right', it is the greatest available system to ensure such rights, and thus provide long-term stability. [3] Conclusion A Democratic system is better because: a. Long term stability b. Free market democracy leads to freedom and prosperity for the greatest number of people c. Liberty allows for a happier, more productive and stable society. [1] . http://www.timesonline.co.uk... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal) [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy vs Totalitarianism

I will start by providing the BOP. My opponent provides the BOP next round. Efficiency of Decisions One of the biggest advantages of totalitarianism is the fact that decisions can be made with in a split second. The one ruler holds all the power. If he wants to make a decision, he can do it with the snap of his fingers. Big decisions within a democratic system take a very long time. For example, lets take the recent debt ceiling crisis in the U. S. It took months and months of deliberating by the congressmen and women. However, in a totalitarian system, it would have been able to be raised with the snap of a finger by the dictator. (1) Huge decisions that are threatening to national security cannot wait. However, a democratic system forces them to wait. EconomyFirst, I would like to point out something. Over the past few thousands years, there have been very few if none democratic systems with a planned economy. However, many totalitarian states were planned economies (Nazi Germany). Also, most democratic systems so far have been free-market. Therefore, we can safely assume that democracy doesn't imply planned economy and implies free-market while totalitarianism does in fact imply planned economy. The economy of countries like Nazi Germany flourished under totalitarian rule. One of the main reasons for this is that a planned economy is safer. It is theoretically better than a free market economy. A planned economy is controlled by the state. It is better for the country as a whole. On the other hand, a free market economy can flourish, but can also plummet beyond conceivable depths (Great Depression). Therefore, a planned economy (totalitarianism) is better in the long run. Human RightsI know my opponent will bring up this argument so I might as well counteract it now. Many people take human rights for granted. They assume that they have been around forever and will stay forever. However, none of those assumptions are true. Human rights are actually a relatively new idea. Less than 100 years ago, women were not allowed to vote. Lets assume that human rights began when women became eligible to vote. That is about 1920. So, therefore we have had human rights for about 91 years. What many people fail to recognize, is that there were no human rights in the way that we see them in any country before 1920. That is thousands and thousands of years without the freedom of choice, opinion, speech, or voting. I am not saying whether human rights is right or wrong. However in the eyes of history, human rights are not considered correct. ConclusionA totalitarian system is better because:a. Decisions that can be the difference between life and death of a society are made faster b. A planned economy (totalitarianism) is better than a free market societyc. Human rights are not necessarily considered correct(1). http://en.wikipedia.org...
Democracy vs Totalitarianism

I will be arguing for Totalitarianism. (con)My opponent will be arguing for Democracy. (pro) Totalitariansm: dictatorship: a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) http://www.google.ca...Democracy:A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.http://www.google.ca...Rules:Round 1: Acceptance (no arguments)Round 2: BOPRound 3: ClashRound 4: Clash/Conclusion No trolls or very experienced debaters please.
Resolved: Elective abortion is prima facie morally permissible

Use this round to wrap up your argument and close it)No semanticsSources may be posted in the comments sectionThere will be an equal burden of proofPro must fulfill his burden of proof and argue why it's morally permissible, as well as defeat Con's objections and argumentCon must fulfill his burden of proof and defeat Pro's argument, as well as give an argument that shows why it is not morally permissible and defend it from objections. Good luck to my opponent
Voting rights ought to be reserved to veterans of the Military.

I will say, no. I have never served in any part of the military. Pros CaseThe Purpose of Voting, and the Nature of Military Service(I) In a democracy, the purpose of the right to a vote is for the electorate to, as a group, select of course of action that the majority opinion believes will yield results that are most desirable for the group as a whole. Therefore, it would make sense that the most desirable voter will cast their vote with only the social good in mind. They would, in their thoughts, put the benefit of society before their own. This is, however, not the case in a full democracy, where all adult citizens vote. Citizens will often vote for lower taxes, fully knowing that others will suffer due to reduced public benefits, purely so that they will enjoy the benefit of saving more money. Others will vote in favor of going to an unjust war, without even a single thought for the soldiers who will serve and die in combat. In history, people have voted to suppress the rights of others (slaves/women etc. ) as to justify their xenophobia/bigotry. (II) As Plato argued, the primary flaw in a democracy is that the voters are selfish, and not properly educated. The need to disenfranchise certain people is apparent, as to weed out less effective voters. How do you, then, fairly and effectively disenfranchise voters? Require that voters serve a term in the military, before gaining their right to vote. (III) The reason this is desirable is simple. In a nutshell, veterans are the only citizens who have proved without a doubt that they put the benefit of the people, before their own. Members of the military put their very lives on the line, in order to protect the citizens of a country, and do what must be done by force for their government. (IV) Furthermore, only veterans of the military truly understand the nature of war, and the implications of going to war with another country. A veteran is far less likely to vote in favor of an unjust war. Also, many members of the military (especially officers) have gone through a significant amount of post-secondary education. ConclusionAn electorate of veterans is far more likely to always vote in the interest of society, and far less likely to spend countless lives and dollars on unjust/impractical wars. A veteran electorate is clearly much more desirable than a general electorate.
Evolution is not an established scientific fact. Period.

Introduction: The debate over whether evolution or creationism is true has been waged for a very long time to say the least. Frankly, this website is home to too many of them. Unfortunately, due to how debates are structured, we always assume that one side has to be right and we forget our other options. When it comes to evolution vs creationism, the truth is that neither side has enough evidence to back up their claims. We all know God cannot scientifically be proven. Well evolution cannot be scientifically proven either. Definitions: Evolution: Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species. Please note the words "new species" http://www.thefreedictionary.com... Scientific fact: An objective and verifiable observation http://en.wikipedia.org... ------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolved: Evolution is not an established scientific fact. I only have one argument for this debate, but I believe it is stronger than all the arguments in support of evolution put together. 1. The study of Evolution is outside of Empirical Science. For a natural occurrence to be considered a scientific fact, it must first fit all the requirements of experimental science (aka empirical science) simply because only through scientific experimentation can anything be proven to be factual. The first requirement of experimental science is that a natural occurrence must be observable. For example, we can all observe the occurrences of earthquakes. Evolution, on the other hand, happens far to slowly to meet this requirement. Many living species remain unchanged for tens of thousands of years or millions of years, which is well beyond the life time of human observers. The well-known evolutionist Paul Ehrlich says the theory of evolution "cannot be refuted by any possible observations" and thus is "outside of empirical science." The second requirement of experimental science is that a natural occurrence must be repeatable. For example, the rotation of the Earth around the Sun is a repeatable natural occurrence. What about Evolution? According to the evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky, even when evolutionary changes do occur, they are by nature "unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." The third and last requirement of experimental science is that a natural occurrence must be testable. For example, gravity can be tested by dropping an apple. With respect to evolution, Dobzhansky tells us that the "applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted." To summarize: evolution cannot be a fact because it does not fit into the study of empirical science, which is the science responsible for determining facts. http://mall.turnpike.net...
Global Warming is caused by humans

Just because Pluto and other planets are warming, doesn't mean anything to the planet we live on today. You may be correct about the planets warming, but we are talking about Earth. There as, Earth's warming is caused by humans. (1) Natural Geographic News states "Global warming is here, it's human-caused, and it will continue for centuries even if greenhouse-gas emissions are stabilized". (2) "The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past few decades isn"t part of a natural cycle is how fast the change is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius. The warming of the past century"0.7 degrees Celsius"is roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming on average. The second reason that scientists think the current warming is not from natural influences is that, over the past century, scientists from all over the world have been collecting data on natural factors that influence climate"things like changes in the Sun"s brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles such as El Ni"o and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. These observations have failed to show any long-term changes that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of Earth"s temperature." states NASA's earth observatory. Therefore I conclude my argument. Thank you got being a good opponent. Sites: (1) http://news.nationalgeographic.com... (2) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...
Global Warming is caused by humans

Planetary warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and on Neptune"s largest moon Triton during the decades following the peak of the "Solar Grand Maximum" " wonder why " there are no humans there! And Pluto is moving further from the sun in its orbit, thus it should be cooling, but instead it is warming. This is but one blatant indicator that suggests that the climate change on Earth is due to solar changes and our intersellar environment rather than mere human antics. More importantly, the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" may be on the horizon"a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles. Latest science reveals that sharp increases in global warming "precede" sharp increases in CO2"not the other way around. Global warming causes more CO2 to be released form the oceans. Current research also shows that Earth"s oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun.
Global Warming is caused by humans

NASA states that, changes in the brightness of the Sun can influence the climate from decade to decade, but an increase in solar output falls short as an explanation for recent warming. (1) My argument: (1) Volcanoes release very small amounts of carbon dioxide compared to human emissions. (2) Not only have humans admitted carbon dioxide, but other greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, and halocarbons, which are thickening the atmosphere. Thus causing heat to stay trapped close to the Earth's surface. Sites: (1) http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov... (2) http://www.globalchange.gov...
Global Warming is caused by humans

It's the sun! Evidence has surfaced that something potentially more dangerous is happening deep within the hidden core of our life-giving star: never-before-seen particles"or some mysterious force"is being shot out from the sun and it"s hitting Earth. Whatever it is, the evidence suggests it"s affecting all matter. Alarmed physicists first became aware of this threat over the past several years. Initially dismissed as an anomaly, now frantic scientists are shooting e-mails back and forth to colleagues across the world attempting to grasp exactly what is happening to the sun. Something impossible has happened. Yet the "impossible" has been proven to be true. Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that the rate of radioactive decay"once thought to be a constant and a bedrock of science"is no longer a constant. Something being emitted from the sun is interacting with matter in strange and unknown ways with the startling potential to dramatically change the nature of the very Earth itself. In fact, some evidence of time dilation has been gleaned from close observation of the decay rate. If particles interacting with the matter are not the cause"and matter is being affected by a new force of nature-then time itself may be speeding up and there"s no way to stop it. Since the sun"s core is known to blast out continuous streams of particles called neutrinos, some scientists are attempting to find evidence that neutrinos are the culprits behind the mutation of matter. It"s already been proven that the sun"s mass warps time, bends light waves and accounts for mutation of species on Earth. Now this new force may be directly interacting with matter in a way that could not only change Mankind"s understanding of physics, but change Mankind itself"and not necessarily in a beneficial way. Whether the phenomenon has no real impact on humanity, or the worst impact imaginable, nothing can be done to stop it. Once again, the titanic forces of nature rear up to overwhelm our technology"and we find ourselves like the playthings of gods. Utterly helpless.
Global Warming is caused by humans

Good luck. I only have two points at the moment. So here they are: (1) Earth's mean surface temperature has increased about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Scientist are more than 90% certain that human activities' such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, is the primary cause of increases of the greenhouse effect. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that the global surface temperature is likely to rise a lowest of 2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit and a highest of 4.5 to 11.5 degrees during the 21st century. (2) According to NASA, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil have increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) Sites: (1) en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Gobal_warming (2) climate. nasa. gov/causes/
Bit coin is a scam

1. Digital bank accounts aren't a record, keeping track of physical currency. They're essentially a number, which can be exchanged for currency. Basically, digital money is a more liquid form of value that can be exchanged at will for the actual currency. This is exactly the same as the bitcoin. 2/3. This argument is wholly invalid. Bitcoins are created at a fixed rate, and their network is continually improving security and reliability, so the argument that "anyone can create more" is'nt at all based in reality. 4. My earlier point was that you can lose bitcoin files, just like any physical currency. That's the error of the user, not the system. 5. Wether it's a reasonable law or not is rather subjective. However, I believe that it has no effect other than to force US citizens to use the Dollar, the reasons for which are obvious. I believe this law to be unconstitutional, therefore invalid. 6. You can find transaction data here: https://www.biteasy.com... 7. You're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but to suggest that there is no legitimate reason for not trumpeting your identity to the world is absurd. So far you've provided no evidence to suggest your argument that "Bit coin is a scam", merely argued about specific details, such as the legality of the bitcoin. Before anyone votes for this debate, I'd like to point out that as Pro, my opponent recieves the entire burden of proof. All I need to do is deny his statements.
Bit coin is a scam

1. This is different, digital bank accounts may not be physical, but they are a record of something that is. 2. This has nothing to do. 3. Anyone can make . More, there is no limit. 4. More direct please? 5. Actually it was very reasonable. 6. And what device holds these records of bitcoin is decentralised? 7. If I invented the cure for cancer I wouldn't be all hiding in the shadows about it, but if I stole 1000$ there's a reason to be secretive.