BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no cure for autism. Pro/For is what I am saying I believe.

If you would like a debate about what you seem to have very little idea about then just try me. So called high functioning autistic degree in what social science or is it philosophy. Surprise me with your vast IQ level of 200+ as I would take an educated guess in wisdom that you are a narcissistic sociopath that borderlines on psychopathy just like backwardness Eden. There is no cure for autism.
Communism

Capitilism is clearly better than communisn. It can be shown on a purely moral level, but also historically. I will get into the main idea of my arguments and will follow up in later rounds as needed. Moral Argument: Communism is based of many flawed principles. First it assumes the collective is more important than the indivual. It says that for the good of everyone we must make sacrifises. People are not free to create a company or enter certian types of volunteary agreements. For example communis says enployers are always abusive of workers. This logic does not make sense because both parties end up benfiting. The worker gets a job and the employeer gets the employees skills and labour. If anything makes the emgamemt unfair it is the governments involment. Things like welfare benefit the employer. It allows them to pay their employees less than the should knowing the government will do the rest. Minumium wag laws or garuanteed wages hurt employees since it makes it impossoble for low skilled people to get jobs where they could gain skills and eventually move into higher paying jobs. In a capilist society both the workers and employers have power. If the employee does not like the job they can find a better one. If they can not this is proof the employeer is doing them a favor. If the employeer is unsatisfied they can hire someone better. If they can not it shows the employee provides the best value or that they need to give other people reason to take the job such as higher wages or benefits. Communsim also gives people a reason to be lazy. In an ideal communist society productivty does not effect the distribution of resources so why would anyone do a hard job such as collecting garbage. If there will be food on the table and a house over your head regardless people will choose to do nothing instead of a job they dont like. Capitilsim encourages people to reach their potenial by rewarding those who do. This clearly does not make sense because without people doing hard things many of the benifits we experince today will go away or somebody will be forced against their will to provide services for the collective. Historical: Millions of deaths, major tragidies and suffering are all historical outcomes of attempting to implement communism. I would challange you to name one succesful communist country.
vi_spex cannot lose a debate

vi_spex has claimed in comments before that he literally can't lose a debate. I negate that claim by making two points. 1. I myself have beaten vi_spex at debating twice. Debate: http://www.debate.org... Result: Post Voting Period. lol101 wins 4-0 Debate: http://www.debate.org... Result: Post Voting Period. lol101 wins 6-0 2. As of right now, vi_spex has lost 177 debates and has a win ratio of 6.35 %. http://www.debate.org... Thus, I have proven that vi_spex can lose a debate. My opponent must prove otherwise using evidence to debunk my argument and sources.
God probably exists

In your opening statements you have deemed Quran and myths in the same light what are you ,implying by saying Quran and myths? A myth is something that is unverifiable, when the Holy Quran is the most revered authentic Book in the world there is no book on the face of the earth were a every single letter, puncation, and structure has never been altered. My friend the Quran is a Miracle in its preservation itself were it can be traced back through numerous unbroken chains of narrations directly to the Blessed mouth of the last and final messenger of God Muhammad pub.
The War In Afghanistan Is Winnable

Well I don't want to bore my readers, so I'll post a few arguments. My point: Its goals have not been accomplished and it isn't working. The problem: "The appropriate question is not whether the war is winnable. If we define victory narrowly, if we are willing to apply the resources necessary to have a reasonable chance of success, and if we have capable and credible partners, then of course the war is winnable. Any war is winnable under these conditions. None of these conditions exist in Afghanistan, however. Our mission is too broadly construed. Our resources are constrained. The patience of the American people has worn thin. And our Afghan partners are unreliable and unpopular with their own people."[1] What's the effect: "Tuesday night, President Barack Obama unveiled his new strategy regarding the war in Afghanistan: to begin deploying 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan in the next few weeks. However, no matter how many troops we send, how many resources we exhaust and how many lives we lose, the war on terrorism that we have been fighting for more than eight years is an unwinnable war. Fighting an entity is one thing, but fighting an idea " fighting an ambiguous group of people who harbor terrorism and hatred is a completely different story " something that we cannot accomplish by sending 30,000 more troops to the Middle East."[2] Conclusion: "After a decade of major security, development and humanitarian assistance, the international community has failed to achieve a politically stable and economically viable Afghanistan. ..."[3] The war has been a failure; there is no reason for it to turn around. Sources: [1]: http://www.cato.org... [2]: http://www.dailyillini.com... [3]: http://www.war-times.org...
Anything in Tech

Well , It's clear that for whatever reason my opponent forfeited this round, the argument from his or her statement cannot be fairly justified. The fundamental reason for that is the lack of understanding of the topic itself . And there is no point in arguing something that is ambiguous without a clear definition. My opponent should have already known the comparison he or she made was quite inappropriate and therefore its following arguments have just deviated from the topic and cannot be cited as supporting points. My conclusion here is not everything is included in technology as technology is just a broad term in describing some advanced methods or models we have developed in the modern society.We have been using or even being immersed into the technology in so many aspects of our lives A292;but it doesn't necessarily mean everything on different scale or level can be classified under the category of technology. There are lots of stuff which we have witnessed, discovered more complex than just a technical term , let alone those which are even beyong our comprehension .
Anything in Tech

Well, basically, You have still been stuck in the situation arguing that technology belongs to the category of tools or device. However, the statement is imperfect . The explanation sounds rather far etched especially the illustrations you cited. You said that a wall, a book ,a backpack and a sea(of course you cannot use the indefinite article with this noun ) are all considered to be devices. So there is a reason to believe that every object on earth can be recognized as device. Yes, A device is usually a constructed tool, but may refer more specifically to a range of category such as music,arts,science,engineering,ect. That is to say, a device shouldn't be counted as a new class that includes similar subjects which are more specific because device itself can be concrete enough as a concept. Overrall , you have to consider the range that the concept refers to , the term technology covers a broader spectrum of subjects than device or tool. Or you can say device or tool belong to the technology itself ,but you cannot equate a wider term (technology) to a more specific subject(tool) . Therefore ,that argument that everything is in Tech is untenable from a logical standpoint in the first place.
Anything in Tech

I apologize for the poor writing last round. I was in a rush to post the argument. I will rephrase my arguments in this round. Since this is a rather hard argument, not all sources may be accurate, for they can be proven wrong. Thus, sources and links are of no use in this argument since the whole point of my arguments are to prove them wrong. First and foremost, technology is the devices and things in the world that can be utilized. Some may believe that tech is a scientific device. For example, the wall is a piece of technology that blocks and protects but yet it is not science related. Thus, not all technology is scientific. Also a book is an article of technology generally used for reading, which counts as a device for reading. In other words, the book is a tool for reading, tool=device. Thus, all tech=>scientific device=>proved scientific wrong=>device =tech. Thus, technology is a device that is helpful to humans. Next, now all is left is the simple act of trying everything out to see if it is a article of tech. For example: A book is an article of technology for reading. A backpack is an article of technology for transporting things. A sea is an article of technology used for leisure, travel by ships, and discovery of new things by humans. Therefore, everything is Technology
Anything in Tech

My argument will rest entirely on logic, for this topic is especially hard to debate on. Proof that Everything is Tech1)Tech is built around the concept of convenience2)The definition Tech=a tool3)Tools are something that affects humans lives' in some way shape or form4)Humans' main goal of life is convenienceTechnology is all built around the basic concept of convenience. Our lives have become more and more convenient with every new technological advancement that humans make. For example, the invention of the first wheel thoroughly shows that humans have long aspired to make life more convenient even with the smallest and most basic inventions. The wheel may not seem like a big invention now; but was still a new idea that made life more convenient long ago. In 3000 BCE when the wheel was invented, it was a new invention that came in handy in the means of transportation whereas it is just something we take for granted nowadays. By having a wheel, people could make carts and take transportation to a new level and also ride across adverse landscapes where walking would be hard. All the tools and types of technology that humans have developed have all been built around the main idea of convenience. Not only is convenience the main concept that all technology is built around, but is also what humans value greatly.The definition of "tech" is as follows : A tool used in some way that does NOT have to be beneficial to humans. (A definition is what one says a definition is. For example, "blue" does not actually mean the color blue, it is just a clever tool humans use to convey the word blue. Thus, the definition of "blue" is blue because we say it is. Likewise, tech is a tool because that is the definition of it.(it.https://www.google.com... q=technology+definition&oq=technology+defini&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57.6722j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8) Everything therefore is technologyie)eraser: tool for erasingPluto: tool for humans to know more about the universe and to enlighten our curiosityuniverse: tool for humans to live ineyes: tool for humans to seehttps://www.google.com...
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

Indeed, they are grand stories. But then again, isn't everything a neat story to a blind person? Aren't clouds, colors the sky and space all just stories to a blind man? You can taste and absorb the power of the rainbow via skittles. Even sour rainbows! Either way, they just taste alright. As for your question ... the only time it is "accurate/true" for a blind person to say there is a rainbow in the sky, is when there is a rainbow in the sky. If they say there is a rainbow in the sky, they risk being inaccurate/wrong. It simply depends if there is one or not where they stand at the time. Currently, only people who can see can tell them if there is truly a rainbow or not. But one day, it is said seeing eye dogs will be delivered by Santa to the blind, which will bark at rainbows so the blind may know whenever one is near.
rainbows dont exist to a person born blind

The more likely scenario is that Santa killed the man, and framed the leprechauns for the man's death. Allowing him to enslave them and rebrand them as "elves." This is nothing but a story to discriminate against leprechauns with no evidence to back it up. Granted, neither do I have evidence to back my claim up. But which seems truer? Leprechauns existing and killing people, or Santa enslaving the leprechauns to work in his factories as "little helpers," (a derogatory term) as he swims in all their gold he was allowed to steal? Which might I add Santa uses to fund his devilish operations, which further pollutes and melts the North Pole? But I've digressed enough. So does a rainbow exist to a blind man? Of course. Because rainbows exist. We can see the rainbow and just because blind folks can't see them does not make them suddenly non-existent. For we all exist on the same planet, in the same physical world. Plus, they can still taste the rainbow. http://skittles.com...
Income should be put ahead of doing what you like for a career

I don't really believe this, but thought I'd play devil's advocate. I imagine most people are of the opposite opinion so I figured I'd more easily get an opponent by taking the pro position. Rules:1) No ad hominem, insults, personal attacks2) Since we each only have one round for debate, my opponent should only use their round to either rebut my arguments or offer their own arguments, not both. This is to make it more fair for me since I am unable to do both. If either of the rules are violated, the voters should vote for the one who didn't violate them in terms of "conduct"Main ArgumentThe amount you make should be put ahead of what you like to do for a career, because if you make a lot of money, you will more likely be able to do leisure activities when you're not working that you enjoy doing. Sure, if you have a career you like doing, you would be doing something you enjoy for 8 hours or so a day, 5 days a week, but what about the free time you have? What if what you enjoy doing doesn't pay well enough for you to do leisure activities that you enjoy doing on the side as well? I contend that a 8 hour a day job that pays more(but may not be your ideal job) which allows you to do more hours of leisure activity you enjoy to do, is better than a job which is your ideal job but you can't afford to do other things you enjoy. While it is possible to have both a job you enjoy and one that pays well, it's not always possible. If it is the case you get both, that's great, but I am limiting my opponent to not being allowed to take that position, they must take the position that it's better to do what you enjoy, and not necessarily that it pays well. I turn this over to my opponent
Income should be put ahead of doing what you like for a career

I do agree with my opponent that if you have a job that pays a good salary you will be able to do more leisure activities, but if you are doing a job you don't like you will get more stress overall even with leisure activity. For example, the article "Junior lawyers open up about stress" at http://www.legalcheek.com... states "A 2012 survey by LawCare " which is staffed by volunteers, themselves lawyers " found that 50% of the 1,000 lawyers questioned felt stressed." Keep in mind that lawyers make a median salary of $115,820 a year. (Source at http://money.usnews.com...) The article "How Many Hours A Week Does A Lawyer Work?" at http://www.careerigniter.com... states "According to the results, there was an average of 2200 hours of work billed each year. That comes out to about 42 hours a week." This means that lawyers do have time for leisure activities. Overall leisure activities probably won't be enough to help with the stress of the job. So, in summary, I argue that making a good salary in a stressful job is not as good as making a bad salary in a job you love.
The Declaration of Independence

Because, just as is the case with most every document written by the founding fathers, there are truths it contains that have been forgotten as time went by and society changed from a mostly devout Christian and struggling economy to what we have now. The Declaration holds lessons that people should be taught again, one of which being that in any confrontation, it's common decency to state the reason for the conflict before making any judgments. We see in society all too often that people get offended and hold grudges because someone else did something that offended them, and instead of trying to resolve the issue, they escalated the issue and caused a big conflict that could be avoided if they were just decent. This is just one of the lessons available. The overall theme may not be as applicable today, but it definitely seems that it may be in the future. This is why we should keep it.
Everything in the Bible is not true, and it is not a valid source of evidence.

What you guys need to realize is that I am con. My only goal is to disprove a part of the debate title which is: "Everything in the Bible is not true, and it is not a valid source of evidence. " In order for me to do that, all I have to do is prove merely one of the Bible's tens of thousands of words, and I did my job as con. First off, the Bible has many individuals that did exists. To make the claim that "everything" in the Bible isn't true would to say that people who archaeology confirms as real people didn't exist. It wouldn't just be doubting the Bible, but it would be doubting science. Let me list a lot of those. This is from ucg. org, and this is just the old testament people that have been proven archeology (1): Ahab, king of Israel Ahaz (Jehoahaz), king of Judah Artaxerxes, king of Persia Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria Azaliah, scribe Azariah, grandfather of Ezra Baruch, scribe of the prophet Jeremiah Balaam, Moabite prophet Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon Benhadad, king of Aram Cyrus II, king of Persia Darius I, king of Persia David, king of Israel Esarhaddon, king of Assyria Evil-merodach, king of Babylon Gedaliah, governor of Judah Gemariah, scribe Geshem, Nabatean dignitary Hazael, king of Aram Hezekiah, king of Judah Hilkiah, high priest Hophra (Apries), pharaoh of Egypt Hoshea, king of Israel Jehoiachin, king of Judah Jehu, king of Israel Jehucal (Jucal), court official Jerahmeel, prince of Judah Jezebel, wife of king Ahab of Israel Johanan, grandson of the high priest Eliashib Josiah, king of Judah Jotham, king of Judah Manasseh, king of Judah Menahem, king of Israel Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon Mesha, king of Moab Meshullam, father of Azaliah the scribe Nebo-Sarsekim, Babylonian official Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon Necho II, pharaoh of Egypt Nergal-sharezer, king of Babylon Neriah, father of Baruch the scribe Omri, king of Israel Pekah, king of Israel Rezin, king of Aram Sanballat, governor of Samaria Sargon II, king of Assyria Sennacherib, king of Assyria Seraiah, court official of Zedekiah Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria Shaphan, father of Gemariah the scribe Sharezer, son of Sennacherib Shebna, royal steward of Hezekiah Shelemiah, father of Jehucal (Jucal) Shishak, pharaoh of Egypt Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria Uzziah, king of Judah Taharqa (Tirhakah), pharaoh of Egypt Xerxes I, king of Persia Zedekiah, king of Judah That by itself is proof that at least something in the Bible is true. Therefore, your point is nullified, and it does not function. Even if you respond to me saying that there are "issues" or "things that aren't true" about the Bible, you will have to disprove the existence of all these people in order to fully support what you're trying to prove. (1) . http://www.ucg.org...
belief=religion

Thanks, Pro.Rebuttal"there can be no religion without belief"Even if this were true, it would only goes as far as to show that belief is an aspect of religion, but that does absolutely nothing to show that belief and religion are identical. There is a clear difference (as I pointed out in the opening round)."belief goes to nothing, i cant believe in reality, and i cant know imagination"I'm not sure how that's relevant to this debate."i cant drink 0 sodas"Again, this is irrelevant."if you have the skin of a bear, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, I know you got it from a bear"More irrelevance."am i just answer this question, am i holding a rock in my hand as i type this?"I'm not sure if you're holding a rock or not.SummaryMy opponent has failed to show that (1) belief and (2) religion are identical. Furthermore, I have shown that there is at least one clear difference between (1) belief and (2) religion.Thank you.
belief=religion

Thanks, Pro.AcceptanceI accept. I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.Burden of ProofMy opponent will be responsible for shouldering the burden of proof in this debate. As such, he must show that belief and religion are identical in order to win the debate.RebuttalMy opponent argues that there is no difference between (1) belief and (2) religion. I will show at least one difference by presenting clearly differing definitions of the two words:Belief: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thinghttp://www.merriam-webster.com...Religion: the service and worship of God or the supernaturalhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...SummaryMy opponent has failed to show that (1) belief and (2) religion are identical. Furthermore, I have shown that there is at least one clear difference between (1) belief and (2) religion.Thank you.Sources http://www.merriam-webster.com...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
belief=religion

Rebuttal"what could make you know i am holding a rock in my hand yet you still have to imagine it?"How is that at all relevant to this debate? "theist=yes=doubt=false positionatheist=no=Doubt=false positionagnostic=i dont know=sure=true" Again, I fail to see how this is relevant when considering whether or not belief and religion are distinct or not.SummaryMy opponent has failed to show that (1) belief and (2) religion are identical. Furthermore, I have shown that there is at least one clear difference between (1) belief and (2) religion.Thank you.
Why the Boston Celtics will not win the NBA title

Look, I love the Celtics. KG, Pierce, and Ray Allen are all exciting players to watch. Their personalities and determination have yielded them a lot of love and the best record in the league. BUT, we've seen before that the regular season does not guarantee anything. The consensus of basketball fans I've surveyed, all say that Boston is going to win the title come June. I would love to see this, however I have to be critical and consider the many factors...Factors supporting my opinion why Boston will not win the NBA title!!!
We should all be vegans

Heres ONE example of how going vegan helps the environment, "The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, determined that if every American went vegan, agricultural greenhouse gas emissions would decrease 28 percent. That's a lot, but that figure does not fully counterbalance the current animal contribution of greenhouse gases of 49 percent in the team's model". You said that people have a right to eat what they want. So, can I eat a toddler? If you say no, then whats the difference between me eating a toddler and me eating a cow. Can the toddler feel more pain when hanged upside-down and beaten to death conscious?