BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no such thing as a self

I'm not 100% sure on the BoP split for this debate, but I feel Pro's first argument is lacking a compelling argument and contradictory at points. So for this round I will just show why Pro's impression based rejection of self does not follow. If necessary I will establish an argument for the self next round. Definition: Impression - the effect or influence that something or someone has on a person's thoughts or feelings; an idea or belief that is usually not clear or certain [1]. P1: All ideas come from impressions This may be true if we accept that everything we come in contact with is an impression, from 1st impressions to 2nd impressions ad infinitum. But if this is the case this is no more than a truism. This also denies the possibility ideas can come from hours of careful thought too. P2: You never have an impression of yourself. This is most definitely not true. Being self aware we are always looking inward at how we are perceived by others, how we impress upon others. We are capable of introspection and taking abstract ideas and combining them to get something new. Furthermore we are capable of impressing ourselves, the phrase "wow I didn't know I had it in me" comes to mind. Therefore Pro's conclusion does not follow. "When you reflect/ look inwardly you can never catch yourself without a perception and can never observe anything other than perception." To me this sounds like a concession. The given definition of self is in part based on one's perception. So of course it follows from our own (self) perception we perceive things. Pro brings up Theseus' Paradox, the changing ship over time. However it is human nature to change over time, physically and mentally, as we age and have new experiences. Just because the self, our own perception of who we are, is not static does not mean that the self does not exist. We can hold pain, joy etc. at the same time, we have memories and can perceive the present, at all the same time. Finally Pro's 2nd concession: "it is more likely we are just a bundle of thoughts than the traditional self. The mind is just a collection of perceptions which just succeed each other." Again, the given definition of self contains perceptions and thoughts. These encompass the self and Pro has admitted to their existence twice. What is important to understand is that these perceptions, thoughts and emotions that we feel are our own. They are separate from others and the outside world and exist only within us as ourselves. We may be influenced and impressed upon, we may change over time, but remember that boat still exists, just as the self still exists. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
There is no such thing as a self

P1: All ideas come from impressions. P2: You never have an impression of yourself. C: Therefore, the self does not exist The self's nature is such that it exists throughout our lives unchanging. An impression of the self must continue unchanging through time. There is no such impression and therefore the self does not exist. There is no unchanging impression. When you reflect/ look inwardly you can never catch yourself without a perception and can never observe anything other than perception. Pain, pleasure, joy etc. succeed each other and never exist all at the same time and therefore these impressions cannot cause the idea of a self. We only believe we have a self, which continues to exist through time because the fluidity of the transitions between perceptions is such that it tricks us into believing we haven't changed at all. Take the example of a ship which gradually has things break on it and one by one are replaced, one day the rudder, the next the keel, all the planks, one by one, the sail. By the end of the process you end up with a different boat but you don't realise the change because it is so gradual. The same thing happens to give us an idea of the self, as the perceptions change one by one it makes us feel like you are the same you as yesterday. Therefore surely it is more likely we are just a bundle of thoughts than the traditional self. The mind is just a collection of perceptions which just succeed each other.
The Usa WILL soon be the first true socialist state

Marx said for socialism to work it had to start in an advanced nation like the uk germany or the usa not some backwater. We are rome, We rule the world, Once comrade bernie and that puerto rican chick take over there will be rainbows and free ice cream for all. . Its coming. . FDR tried to save capitalism but would you listen/ no now there are mobs of angry poor people and we are going to take over now! We warned you, You would not listen
It is morally permissible for Catholics to vote for Obama

I will take the Con position. Opponent may begin in this first round. The only definition I think is worth pursuing is "Catholic". Catholics: Those baptized in and who affirm the totality of the teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. The ordinary rules: no trolling, semantics or general douchebaggery. I would like my opponent to be a pro-Obama Catholic. If not, then please assume Catholic viewpoint.
The West Coast Doesn't Exist

Thanks Pro. Preface: - I should remind the voters that the burden of proof is on Pro to prove the non-existence of the West Coast. Rebuttals: 1) How do I know that's a real map? It could be faked. Anyone with basic artistic abilities is capable of creating a fake map. - Pro has to prove that the map is indeed fake. Saying “it could be fake” is not a proof, for the chances of a given map being fake is strictly less than 100%, otherwise all maps will be fake, which is an absurd generalisation. >>> fallacy of appeal to probability [1]. - Furthermore, even if we concede that the map is fake, this would not constitute an evidence for the non-existence of the West Coast. >>> fallacy of denying the antecedent [3], which can be formulated into the following false syllogism: 1. If map of A is authentic, then A is existent. 2. map of A is not-authentic. 3. Therefore, A is not existent. > (1) is true, by design. (2) is the assumption that Pro made. The truth of (3) is independent from the truth of (1) & (2), thus non sequitur [2]. => Therefore, even assuming that the map I provided is fake (as suggested by Pro), this would not mean that the place which the map indicates (the West Coast) is non-existent. 2) "Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence" However, until the 20th century, feats such as airplanes and space travel were deemed impossible simply due to improbability. Since no evidence has yet been provided, improbability is similarly high. - Pro here seems to, ironically & unknowingly, argue for my premise ("Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence”), instead of arguing against it. Conclusion: - It is clear that Pro failed to uphold his burden of proof as to establish the non-existence of the West Coast, for he resorted to logical fallacies (bare assertions, argument from ignorance, denying the antecedent, faulty generalisation. . .) to get to his conclusion, thus, a fallacious one. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
The West Coast Doesn't Exist

Resolution: - The West Coast [*]: - Exist: have objective reality or being [**]. BOP: - The burden of proof is on Pro to prove that the West Coast does objectively not exist. [*] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [**] Google Definitions. Rebuttals: “There is no solid evidence that the North American West Coast is a real location. ” 1. Bare assertion fallacy. 2. Absence of evidence =/= evidence of absence. This is an argument from ignorance fallacy, thus does not prove the inexistence of the West Coast, which is Pro’s entire BOP. => Awaiting Pro’s arguments.
God will let you go your own way, all of the way to Hell.

God will let you go to Hell. If you think God won't let you go to Hell, please tell me why. "God does not exist" is not the debate, the debate is not about the existence of God. This debate is about you going to Hell and God not stopping you if you don't care that you are going there. This debate is not about "Hell does not exist" or "God does not exist". This debate is about why God should not let you go to Hell or why He should let you go to Hell. God is God. No "define God" demands. Hell is Hell. real fire where sinners are confined in the heat forever. No "define hell" demands. Let's just have a debate. Hell is reasonable and fair, it is appropriate justice from God against His creatures who have rebelled against Him and not sought His mercy. You can't say you have sought God's mercy if you never turned away from your favorite sin, be that pride or perversion (or both)God will let you have and enjoy all of your sin as you go your own way, and He will let you go to Hell. He loves you and does not want you to go to Hell, but He will let you go there. Anybody who takes this debate and says "you have to prove God is there" or "you have to prove Hell is real" or "define God" or define "Hell" forfeits this debate. If you don't' want to debate the topic, don't accept the challenge. If you violate these requirements, I will repeatedly copy and past these requirements in place of my arguments and declare that you have forfeited as clearly spelled out in these guidelines. You will probably win because a lot of voters have no respect for rules (which by the way, is their problem with God), but I will not argue anything other than within the debate challenge and guidelines, If you do not argue within the guidelines, we won't have a debate, and you are going your own way and you can guess where it will get you. By accepting this challenge, you agree to all terms.
God will let you go your own way, all of the way to Hell.

Apparently, my opponent completely agrees with everything I have said here. God is the God of Justice. He will let you go your own way all of the way to Hell fire if you dn't care about His offer of mercy through the blood He gave to pay for your sins when He took your death on Himself. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotton Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. God will let you perish in Hell if you don't care what He did for you by taking your death to save you from Hell. If you are not saved from Hell, A. Admit you are a sinner. B. Beliieve Jesus died for your sins and rose from the grave bodily C) Call on God in Jesus's name to save you and Jesus will come in to you and you will be a child of God, born of His Holy Spirit, and heaven will be your home forever.
God will let you go your own way, all of the way to Hell.

Sure. Why not? I take it you won't believe it as long as you are not in Hell. God loves you and He does not want you to go to Hell and neither do I. Because God loves you, He will allow you to reject Him. The loss you suffer in rejecting Him will be all of His comforts, and there is only one place where you can get what you deserve for rejecting His love and refusing to willfully give your Creator the honor and the glory He is due for creating you. I think you know the name of that place, but I doubt that you want to believe you are going there.Again, in answer to your brief but loaded question: Why not? Why should God not let you go your own way all the way to Hell?
Dueling should be legalized

I must say that you have introduced me to certain concepts that I now wish to explore more thoroughly, and that is much appreciated. I'll be very brief here as this is just for a conclusion and I can't introduce new arguments or rebuttals: I believe that the most significant argument I had to make was in regards to rights, and I don't believe my opponent was able to sufficiently refute that. I wasn't satisfied that a clear line was drawn in terms of what places dueling into a separate category than the wide variety of legal but "harmful" activities and behaviors we touched upon. I also believe I refuted the objection that if states provide services, individuals should therefore be ethically or legally obligated to modify their behaviour on the basis of being subjected to these services that they did not elect to receive. I also believe that, although my opponent had some very cogent points more broadly, he made a number of arguments from analogy that were not sufficiently relevant or similar to the scenarios they were intended to criticize, and that I was able to point this out and refute them. Thanks to JCDenton for participating and thanks to anyone else who reads or votes on this.
Dueling should be legalized

Hello! This will be my first debate on this website. I look forward to a rousing yet logical exchange. I believe I can establish through multiple means why dueling should remain illegal. For the purposes of this debate, I will be referring to various social mores and/or legal structures in reference to two concepts, defined below: Public benefit / public detriment: With respect to a given action by a person or persons, all the associated drawbacks and benefits OF that action TO the general public and/or people unassociated by any particular relationship with the actors. Actions which have a net positive effect (without undue burden on a minority) on the populace's quality of life are a public benefit. Net negative effects of the same are a public detriment. This could include but is not limited to externalities, psychological effects, monetary impacts, social pressures, property gain/loss, etc. Synonyms: Social good, social ill. Morally good/evil: Any action of one individual which has an effect on another individual of a non-neutral nature. Good actions are defined as that set of behaviors and standards which, if all members of that society were to follow the mores associated with that action, results in a net positive increase in quality of life on average. Evil actions are the actions that, if all members etc., incur net negative decreases in QoL, most particularly incurring or allowing nonconsensual pain and suffering. Quality of Life: An individual's circumstances and environment as it relates to the opportunities given and pressures on that individual's happiness. An increase in Quality of Life (QoL) is associated with a higher chance of an individual experiencing happiness and satisfaction, whereas a decrease in QoL is associated with a higher chance of stress, pain, and loss, risk, and negative emotions. I'm hoping that covers everything, and that these are acceptable definitions. I think they may be unnecessarily specific, but.. *shrug*
Dueling should be legalized

"Dueling" is defined as "an arranged engagement in combat between two consenting individuals with matched weapons in accordance with agreed-upon rules." I will argue in favor of this up to, and including, the death of participants. Structure: Round 1 - Acceptance. Round 2 - Debaters state their case. Round 3 - Debaters rebut one another's cases made in Round 2. Round 4 - Debaters defend their cases against rebuttals made in Round 3. Round 5 - Debaters make closing statements, argue as to why voters should select them.
Alexender was great

in this debate we are not talking about naboleon we are talking about great porus of India and alexenders war of Hydaspes,great porus faced difficult challenges in his life, he tell most country about unity he bring peace in the southern asia,in the war alexender was having triple army than great porus but he defeated hi army alexender caugh him unhonesly ny breaking the law of war, great porus can win the war but he did not beacause alexender was having no weapon, great porus throun a arrow to alexender and he fall from horse ths was first time with alexender that he fall from a horse with serious injury. alexender was cruel and killed many innocent people for his mean.While porus did not attack for his mean, we cant say anyone great who had murdered the innocent people for his people.at the end of the war porus won the war but greek historians had written wrong deliberately. other country histry tells that porus was great and won the war. thank u i you are true persons vote for true
God (Judeo-Christian) is not omnipotent.

The answer is yes.Violation of a rule only occurs if God chooses not to destroy the rule of no creation or destruction itself.God has the power to completely abolish the rules of energy conservation and mass conservation and can, at his/her/its will make nothing from something and something from nothing without ever violating this rule. Can you violate a law if there isn't one?God can alter history at will, making sure that he/she/it creates that thing at the very origin of a new universe and within that universe leave nothing created or destroyed.Thus, the answer is most definitely yes.God is omnipotent.
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

I understand you are trying to pin Eagles as a sort of "one hit wonder" with that album that was #1. However, if you'll look closely, you'll see this is not true. The album we're talking about is "Greatest Hits". So where do Aerosmith and Kiss rank? Well, Kiss doesn't even make the list of Top 100 Albums. Aerosmith's best selling album was "Aerosmith's Greatest Hits" which reached Level 11. For reference, Eagles had "Eagles/Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975" as Level 29, "Hotel California" as Level 16, and "Eagles Greatest Hits Volume II" as Level 11, all better selling than Aerosmith's Greatest Hits album. Also, your links just go to the RIAA search page and don't provide any statistics. You may want to fix that for the next round. I look forward to my opponents response.
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

I respect that the most sales of any American album has gone to the Eagles, however, a band cannot be judged on a single album. That would be like saying that Australia is the best international soccer team because it had the largest victory in the history of the international sport. In terms of consistency, Aerosmith has had 25 Gold, 18 Platinum, and 12 Multi-platinum records. The Eagles Have only 19 Gold, 16 Platinum, and 12 Multi-Platinum records. Clearly, the Eagles can't match Aerosmith, or even Kiss. Additionally, I reserve the right to decimate the Eagles in terms of musical capabilities. (Inability to keep in time, etc.) http://www.riaa.com...# http://www.riaa.com...#
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

I would also like to include Country Rock as a subcategory. Eagles are categorized as Soft Rock/Country Rock. Let's begin! I believe the Eagles are the greatest American rock group to date. Here is my reasoning. The album "Their Greatest Hits" is the 2nd best selling album of all time, only behind "Thriller". . http://www.riaa.com... If you look at the RIAA list of top selling artists, Eagles ranks #5 overall, #3 in bands, and #1 in American bands. . http://www.riaa.com...
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

I accept your challenge. I would like to begin by stating the definition of greatest by either being the most skillful or most popular (As evident by total sales) against all other American rock bands. (For this scenario, I feel that Pop music should not be included in the definition for rock music. Rock and Roll, Heavy Metal, Alternative Rock, Soft Rock, Rock Ballards etc. should be included.) If the opposition disagrees, I would ask the opposition to state alternate definitions.
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

We will be arguing if the Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date. By the Eagles, I am referring to the musical group with Glenn Frey and Don Henley. We can discuss what defines the "greatest" during the debate. R1 - Acceptance R2 & R3 - Clash R4 - Closing Arguments May the best win! Please note that you will be accepting the role as CON. I've had too many mix ups in the past few days.
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

My closing remarks will be short, as there is not much left to say. All I have left to state, is that if bands were based solely upon mean sales, then one-hit wonders would be the best bands. Rather, in music, like real estate, it is better to compare medians. And since Aerosmith has had more records with higher sales; those of the Eagles are spread thinly over their albums, the median suggests that the Eagles are not America's greatest rock band. Moreover, wouldn't a band that has released more hits be a better band? Just like U2 are a better band than Coldplay, even though Coldplay's sales are approaching those of U2. Thanks to my opponent for their efforts, they've been a great opposition.
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

You have not brought up the skill arguments in Rounds 2 or 3, so it'd be pretty cheap if you slipped it in the last round so that I couldn't respond. Round 4 shall be the closing arguments as I stated earlier. Anyways, Aerosmith only won 4 Grammys compared to Eagles winning 6. Your comparison of 150M to 120M is not apples to apples. Aerosmith has released 15 studio albums, Eagles have released 7. So lets compare them side to side. On average, Aerosmith has sold an average of 10M/album, while Eagles have sold an average of over 17M/album. As you can see, Eagles dominate worldwide as well. As far as the Jay Leno quote, that's just an opinion. People have varying opinions on things. For instance a Georgia newspaper did a reader's poll and found that Eagles were voted the greatest American rock band. . http://onlineathens.com...
The Eagles are the greatest American rock band to this date.

Right, apologies for the links not working. I am uncertain how that occurred. Nonetheless, I will continue. Since this debate has obviously left the skill side, that I continue to elude to in my arguments, behind, I will question my oppositions certainty of the Eagles' skill. Additionally, my opposition has not stated sales outside of the US. For example, the Eagles experienced a very small amount of off-shore success. However, Aerosmith had no. 1 records around the world. In fact, many people regard Aerosmith as the "single-handed icon of American rock" (Jay Leno, 2002). Moreover, the total of global sales of Aerosmith top 150,000,000. The Eagles hit only 120M. The RIAA just gives details on US sales. http://en.wikipedia.org... (Unfortunately, Wikipedia was the only known source to give a comprehensive list of all groups and their sales, (of artists with 50M sales and more) world-wide.)
Let's just talk but like, agressively

I don't want to talk aggressively so no I refuse to. This is totally not an aggressive paragraph: I refuse to talk to scum like you. Why would a person even think that?! You are an absolutely horrible human being and I hope you get banned on DDO because you're encouraging hate and aggression and I'M TOTALLY NOT!!! ARGGGGHHHH! WHY ARE YOU BEING SO ANNOYING I SWEAR I WILL BAN YOU WHY WOULD YOU DO SUCH A THING??!!!?!!?!!?!!?!!!?! Lol that was fun. Your turn! :D
People should feel free to speak plain English

In response to the main arguments of my opponent, it is important to acknowledge that language is always evolving. Words change meanings over time and new words are always created, often based off of other words. If you look at the English of the Dark Ages, the English of the Renaissance, and Modern English you will barely to be able to tell they are speaking the same language. Humans are therefore being lazy when they cannot adapt and create new words as the meanings of words change, and help the process of linguistic evolution. As well, in response to my opponents earlier argument about how the word GRID was replaced with AIDS, imagine if malaria was called NID (Negro Infectious Disease), sure it is easier to say, but think of how bigoted it is to name a disease after one group in an offensive manner.