BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Solipsism disproves nihilism.

There's so much wrong with the resolution and case made by Pro that if this were a competitive debate in a professional arena I may very well e**culate from the sheer joy of the ease of victory. http://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=i6MxaDWSQlIOh baby let's get rolling with a nice theme tune for this a**-whooping and them come in hard with those moves AYOOO LET'S GO:1. What if Solipsism isn't true? If it isn't true then even if it disproves Nihilism if true, It is failing to disprove Nihilism due to being false. HOOYA! 2. What if Nihilism is true? If it's true then even if they are mutually exclusive, It would be Nihilism that disproves Solipsism. BIM! BAM! BOOM! 3. So. . . Since we're gonna be sticking to Pro's oversimplified definitions which is fair enough as I accepted the debate with the definitions in place, We have to play around with the simplicity of them, Right? If Solipsism is the theory that the self is all that can be known to exist then one must wonder if the well-being of anyone other than 'the self' matters at all. If no one else matters or even exists then wouldn't that mean that the self is then meaningless in any objective manner since there's no one else to matter to? OHHHH WHAAAAAT HOOLA HOOLA KICK-TO-THE-HEAD. . . That's right let's repeat it for a replay knockout: There's only the self The self matters to no one and nothing since only the self exists and something can only "matter" or "mean something" relative to things other than itself in some shape or form. If we stick to the subjectivist means of drawing 'morals' or 'religious principles' we are completely conceding that we operate on a self-serving system whereby the only 'good' is what in that moment the self feels like doing and what maybe in a future moment the 'self' will hate us for having done. That's right, Even the self is totally neglected in solipsism as we have to begin to only consider the present self's urges and outlook and not even fathom the 'future' is real since there's only the self and the entire outside influence is all a lie. Oh darling, That's SO MUCH MORE let's go round 2 hardcore yeah? I await your crippled response before I finish you.
Solipsism disproves nihilism.

Nihilism is a misguided belief (or lack of belief). Solipsism proves that you cannot ever truly know whether something actually exists, Therefore you cannot deny anythings existence. Solipsism demands empirical evidence of existence or nonexistence whereas nihilism just takes that extra step of denying something's existence without any empirical evidence. Nihilism is false. Solipsism is an undeniable truth. Solipsism: the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist. Nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, Often in the belief that life is meaningless.
Dogs are better than Cats

I agree with CON's definition of "better". My Opponent: "my opponent claims that it is completely natural for a dog to be submissive to a master." Because they are. It is more natural for a dog to be submissive than a cat. Movies like "Marley and Me" that show "bad dogs" are not the fault of the dog, but the fault of the owner. I'm sure that their have been cats just as bad as that too. I have a question to my opponent: Have you ever personally encountered a cat that could fetch and obey commands like that of a dog? Also, dogs are smarter than cats, which makes them more trainable. http://www.telegraph.co.uk... My Opponent: "Cats are able to feasibly capture unwanted mice in a household that may contain family members afraid of these "little critters." Dogs can too, my friend. Even though cats are more likely to catch mice and other rodents. Dogs are more inclined to catch garden pests such as gophers and squirrels. These animals can account for loss of hundreds of dollars of year because they damage gardens and lower property values. Mice only "scare people" as my opponent claims. My Opponent: "In comparison to dogs, cats are able to see much better in the dark, which can come in handy in case a burglar decides to roam the neighborhood looking for potential subjects. The cat can immediately see this disturbance and alert its master." It is true that cats can see better in the dark, but dogs can smell substantially better than cats. And if a cat does see a burglar or other intruder on someone's property what are they going to do: Meow to death? A dogs bark is much louder than a cat's meow. In fact, cats are more passive to strangers than dogs. Dogs prevent more burglaries than cats. http://berda.com... http://berda.com... Also, my opponent can still not cite an example of a cat leading the blind or rescuing avalanche victims. My Opponent: "There are also various stories where cats themselves have saved dogs from being killed or seriously injured." Dogs have also saved cats in the same manner. My Opponent: "Similar to dogs, there are hundreds of unique breeds of cats to choose from as well. My opponent's argument focuses on the point that "there is a dog for everyone" and that dogs are quite suitable. However, my opponent's exact argument can also be applied to cats as well. My opponent has not given a real reason as to why dogs are a better choice than cats." There is more variety in dog breeds though. Like for instance, a Chihuahua and a St. Bernard are both dog breeds but are vastly different. Cats do not have this type of variety. The only differences in cats are maybe color, size, and temperament. Dogs have all the same and more.
Dogs are better than Cats

Even though the topic is completely subjective, I think there are a few reasons why dogs are better than cats. === Definitions === I think we all know what cat, dog, and better mean. (Even thought I'd probably be surprised). === Arguments === a) Trainability. How many cats can sit on cue, or fetch? Not as many cats can do these things as dogs. It is completely natural for a dog to be submissive to who it finds to be its master. A cat on the other hand likes to "rule the roost". b) Service. How many cats do you see leading around blind people or rescuing avalanche victims? c) Cleanliness. Seriously, do I even really need to discuss this one. Cats are gross! They have to go the the bathroom in a box that has to be periodically cleaned by the owner! Dogs go in the yard... Also, I've heard of cat-scratch fever but have never encountered somebody who suffered from dog-bite fever. d) Choice. There are hundreds of unique breeds to choose a dog from. If you live on a Montanan Ranch and like the outdoors, then a Labrador Retriever would suit you. But what if you live in a cramped NYC apartment, well, a Chihuahua or other "low maintenance" dog would be perfect. With cats its the same old, same old with any breed: Litter boxes, de-clawings, etc. There is a dog for everybody. I thank whoever accepts this debate.
The democrats show their true colors - stalinist marxist socialist communist - corrupt to the core

Your resolution says that stalinist marxist socialist communist ideals are corrupt to their core. I would ask that you show me exactly how. Becuase (1) they make man God, and the State God, and are TRULY EVIL They OPPOSE the ideal of man being free and independent and liberty Everything is the masses, and groups, not individualism. They BAN religion and PERSECUTE those of faith ! look at the history of communism - MILLIONS DEAD and STARVED TO DEATH Stalin - DITTO Marx and Engels had interseting notions, but in practice they produce EVIL results. and FAILURES Over and over again. Socialism is communism lite- forced secualrism, and government control over most aspects of health, welfare and economy. It fails every time, becuase it doesnt encourage individual effort and achievement. " I do not concede the point that democrats show themselves to be stalinist marxist socialist and communist " Only Clinton is truly Stalinist of the presidential candidates Obama is mostly just a far left European socialist. There are MANY democrats, however, that are OUT AND OUT Marxists and Communists And Communism IS a dirty word Communism is an INSIDIOUS EVIL that has resulted in MILLIONS OF BRUTAL DEATHS the Communist party USA is 100% deomcrats So are the rest of the far left It is their HOME And democrats in general, use demonizing and inaccurate rhetoric in trying to oppose conservatives - they are STALINIST in nature and use SHOW TRIALS AND HEARINGS all the time "Can you explain to me what exactly they are clueless about?" (1) The nature of the THREAT of ISLAM (2) The nature of the ECONOMY (3) the LIMITS set forth in the CONSTITUTION (4) the nature and motivations of good conservative American folks there is plenty more In essence , the democrat party is ANTI AMERICAN in their rhetoric. They are BAD NEWS and POOR LEADERS for this nation in this dangerous and critical time They are ONLY concerned with THEIR PARTY POWER, and NOTHING ELSE SOLARMAN
The democrats show their true colors - stalinist marxist socialist communist - corrupt to the core

I negate. Your resolution says that stalinist marxist socialist communist ideals are corrupt to their core. I would ask that you show me exactly how. I do not concede the point that democrats show themselves to be stalinist marxist socialist and communist at this point but do not feel it needs to be argued until you can prove the later part of your resolution. Also you say in your contention this, "Furthermore, they are both clueless about the threats that face America, and would really just rather try and investigate Republicans and try people in soviet-style show trials , rather than protect our citizens." Can you explain to me what exactly they are clueless about?
Education Has Nothing to do With Race..

----Counterarguments---- It is very hard to argue with my opponent because she keeps on changing the resolution. It should be clear to the audience that the debate is whether or not "Education Has Nothing to do With Race". The debate is NOT which race is doing better; the debate is NOT whether or not to take education seriously; and the debate is certainly not about people preventing others to value their education. This entire debate, my opponent has been mindlessly ranting. I had the courtesy to address my opponent's argument, so why then is my opponent not addressing mines? ----Conclusion---- This debate has become nonsense. The winner is clear.
Education Has Nothing to do With Race..

Wow ?! Hold on a sec poejoe (trying not to be rude because the words i want to use will make me look completely mean) i did say that we havent been taking it seriously but that does not mean i am on your side with this because i am not... And this must be very important to me because if it wasnt i would not be wasting my time here debating with you. And i am arguing about what i feel is right... Now i know that we are all entitled to our own opinions BUT my opinion to me is a fact... the fact is we all have a brain and unless you fall and hit your head and damage it then you may use it freely! so nobody or anything can stop you from getting an education. In my mind race will never be an excuse for not having an education and it shouldnt be. --And i dont believe that a 2004 report can be used in 2008 {i dont know}-- What i really want to know is, since you think race plays a part in education, what race do you think is doing the best right now? and mind you.... i am not trying to be rasict... Im not really here to win {well yeah} but im mainly trying to make a point
Education Has Nothing to do With Race..

----Counterarguments---- Ummm... my opponent hasn't made any new arguments. She just continued ranting. I'm not sure what I'm supposed to rebut. ----Arguments---- In defense of my argument that there are significant correlations between race and test scores, the information on Wikipedia was copied from the "National Center for Education Statistics" 2004 report. It was NOT original research. My argument still stands. My argument about affirmative action still stands because it was never addressed. Furthermore, my opponent admits that there are correlations between race and education: "...my race and many others really haven't been taking education seriously". In other words, my opponent has conceded this debate. The winner is beyond clear. VOTE CON!!!
Education Has Nothing to do With Race..

PoeJoe... I do understand what you're saying... but what i'm trying to say is everybody lives on earth for a purpose and its to live and grow. Now as ive been seeing, my race and many others really haven't been taking education seriously which is a big threat to the world because without education you cant get anywhere in life and if you dont you're just killing life itself {{but that's a whole other topic}} Now i do believe you are a smart guy and the reason is not just because of your parents killing you but because you want well for yourself. All you have to do is want it for yourself and you can succeed even if your parents pay isnt high enough or you cant find the right school. All races should be given the chance to succeed and they do and always did since the day their mothers gave birth to them. So as i said before i still don't believe education has anything to do with race because we are just people with different skin colors... no different! ----And if you didn't already know, wikipedia.org is not a certified web page. It can be edited without anyones aproval or guidence meaning anyone can go on and change up the right information that was posted earlier----
Education Has Nothing to do With Race..

----Disclaimer---- I am not a racist, and I may not believe anything I argue in this debate. ----Counterarguments---- I am an Asian American who is constantly pushed to succeed. To my parents, a 4.33 GPA is pathetic-- a 4.0 is certain death. In my parent's eyes, I must succeed; I must be outstanding; I must shine. It is because of my struggles to wield off my Asian heritage, that I am certain that race plays a tremendous part in education. However, I will not use my personal plight to disprove the resolution. Instead, I understand that personal anecdotes hold no value. Trust me, I sympathize with my opponent: The racial stereotypes affixed with African Americans are often times patronizing and disgusting. I believe that minorities of America need to take a stand. To fight for the right to succeed just like every other American. To live the American dream just the same. But back to my point. A personal anecdote does not prove a resolution because (1) her situation is completely unverifiable, and (2) her situation does not provide even a glimpse of the complex issue. As my opponent's entire argument relies on such an anecdote, my opponent's argument becomes void. Again, her one personal anecdote does not prove the resolution. She must provide further evidence for her position. ----Arguments---- My opponent has submitted, "Education has nothing to do with race." Therefore, finding even one correlation between education and race wins me the debate. To that, I provide two arguments for my first round: 1) There is a significant academic achievement gap between whites, blacks, and Hispanics as determined by the US government.[1] 2) The very existence of "affirmative action" shows that there are distinctions between races in an academic setting. Thank you for your time. VOTE CON!!! ----References---- [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Education Has Nothing to do With Race..

Education and race are to different things. African Americans succeed, Whites succeed, Hispanics succed even though other education rates may be higher than others. Believing racial issues effecting education plays a big roll in kids today makes no sense because i as an african american am on the honor roll, get grades over 85%, and already got the opportunity to stay at a college dorm for a week {not trying to brag at all, just making a logical point} Now i understand that im only 1 person but i know thet're plenty of people my race (and many others) that are heading in the right path like myself. So mainly, my opening argument will be ended by saying " NO, EDUCATION DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RACE"
Should have Socrates Drank the Hemlock

In your first argument you mentioned that the life of a man is no more significant than that of an oyster. But can an oyster compose a symphony or paint a masterpiece? Can an oyster question reality? In my opinion, that elevates the value of a human life. There is a certain wisdom that comes with knowing what is and what is not in a person"s control. This was a situation that was in his ability to control, and, because he was falsely accused, he should have taken advantage of it. As far as freeing oneself from their mortal body in order to gain truth and knowledge and wisdom, if you were to ask a Buddhist he would say you do not need to be separated from the body to attain enlightenment. In all of Athens' infinite wisdom and glory, one of the great civilizations the world ever saw was eventually taken over. In the end, it is no surprise that that they were not wise enough to see the value in keeping Socrates alive and as one of their own.
Should have Socrates Drank the Hemlock

*Note- The meaning of the word, "parent," above meant the government of Athens which has raised him in this society. It wasn't that he was too attached to Athens, but it was the journey he set on to discover if he was the wisest man. He questioning the oracles prophecy, which was that he was the wisest man lead to his own destruction and to court. He should drink the hemlock because he knows he has not corrupted the youth or believed in false gods. By socrates drinking the hemlock it means that he was willing to die for what was right instead of escaping. Socrates does not need his body to acquire wisdom and understanding. In the Phaedo Socrates states: "When does the soul attain truth?- for in attempting to consider anything in company with the body she is decieved." The body and the senses innacurately portrays the real truth in things. The body needs to be seperated from the soul for one to see the true understanding of things. Another reason why Socrates should drink the hemlock.
Should have Socrates Drank the Hemlock

Because the Athenian social contract is tyrannical and inherently flawed, it was null and void from the start and therefore not binding. He was the wisest man in the land and should have passed on that knowledge elsewhere. His problem was that he was too emotionally attached to Athens in the first place. To paraphrase, Epictetus would say "don"t say "I can never return to my city" but simply that it is another city one can never return to." And as a philosopher he was not preoccupy his mind worrying about what other people thought about him and what kind of reputation he would have. These things were out of his control. Not knowing what came after death was not a good reason not to fear it. On the contrary, BECAUSE he had never experienced death and didn't know what was on the other side of it, it's entirely possible that there was nothing after death...just empty blackness. He needed his body to continue learning and growing and acquiring wisdom and understanding.
Should have Socrates Drank the Hemlock

Although Socrates may not have corrupted the youth it is obvious that Socrates stayed in Athens. He had the opportunity to leave if he did not like the way the Athenian laws and society were. He commits and abides by the rules of Athens. If Socrates leaves then he has unjustly broken his commitment to the Athens laws. If he takes "moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" he then proves to the judges that he did corrupt the youth. He also will be looked down upon by many while in nearby cities. In "The Crito" Socrates creates a fallacy with Crito and states: "We brought you into the world, we raised you, we educated you, we gave you and every other citizen a share of all the good things we could. Yet we proclaim that if any man of the Athenians is dissatisfied with us, he may take his goods and go away..." By escaping from prison, it is like slapping his parent's faces, of which has raised him in this society.
Should have Socrates Drank the Hemlock

Socrates should not have drank the hemlock because his conviction was unjust. There is nothing unjust about having a law against the corruption of Athenian youth, but in reality, Socrates did not corrupt the youth. All he was guilty of was provoking the youth of Athens to question and think critically which those in power have, historically, never been fond of. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote: "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws" Because those in power are made of nothing more than flesh and bone, their rules are subject to fallibility. Because the jury is erroneous in its conviction, he has a moral obligation to not abide by their punishment.
Should have Socrates Drank the Hemlock

In Hume's "On Suicide," Humes states "But the life of a man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster." Socrates should drink the hemlock because his death will not disrupt life. His death will not be of great importance to many since he has been already labeled as some one who has corrupted the youth. Also, he should drink the hemlock because his demon told him to. Therefore he committing suicide is what god wanted him to.
Big ads by Wally World here!

Pro continues to fail to fulfill his burden of proof.Furthermore, Pro asserts that I have editted my screencapture, without evidence.REASONS TO VOTE CONConduct: Pro has asserted that Con cheated, without proof.Grammar: In Pro's last speech, "The little green men." is not a sentence.Arguments: Pro has failed to fulfill his burden of proof throughout this entire debate.Sources: Con has provided a picture, while Pro has provided no pictures.
Big ads by Wally World here!

Wally World, AKA Walmart. Here making the big bucks, subsidizing our ability to make sense of things. Look at your sidescreen. freedom does not ring. Mother T thay aint, and a saint not. for sure Suck my buttolicus Wally Maximus. Your pills kill more then they help. Argue that capitalists in commie garb. Get up on your podium wally, by golly! C'mon. Walmarters, you must be smarters! Richie pants!
It's OK to have a fling while in a relationship and not tell your partner about it

Why is it wrong to do so behind your partners back, you can say it is immoral, but you need to justify your morality, not just "put it out there". My opponent makes the argument that having a fling behind your partners back is cheating, but you do not prove why cheating is wrong. You had the burden of proof to show that "cheating" is wrong, but you simply said it was wrong, which holds no clout.
It's OK to have a fling while in a relationship and not tell your partner about it

In oppose to what my opponent claimed, I didn't say having a fling is wrong. I said it's wrong to do so behind your partner's back.You can clearly sea it in my first and my third argument. In my first argument I said that trust is more valuable in a serious relationship than exclusivity. Therefore, you may have a fling with someone else as long as you don't hide it from your partner. When your partner will find out you did something behind their back, not only they will be upset about you going with someone else, but also about the lying.In my third argument I said that if you have a healthy relationship, and feel the need to have someone else on the side, than probably your partner will approve.Of course cheating is bad, but having a fling is not necessarily cheating. I would also like to add that the word CHEAT is referring to cheating on someone's trust and not to go with someone else while in a relationship. If you have a fling with someone while in a relationship, and your partner knows about it - it's not cheating.