BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You can't reasobly be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate, but you R fairly sure.

"Jean Baudrillard never existed and has chosen this moment to disappear" Not quite the same as what you saying, but its the closest thing to an intelligent argument I can make from you dangerous dialects. I've read your other debates, and it's seemed to be that you have stuck to a Lacanian/Platonic style of logic, this however is not supported by that logic. First, This type of dialectics is dangerous because if we allow ourself to slip from direct awareness, that is the belief that the world around us is as perceives, into partial awareness we lose self to self ethics. These ethics are the only things that prevent rational people from becoming Hitler equivalents. "You can't reasobly be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate," No, I am sure I am debating this. I can't be sure I am awake, and i can't be sure I am not in a matrix. What I can be sure is that in some way or form this debate is occurring and is therefore real. The "Desert of the Real" in the matrix was in fact in side the matrix. This quote shows that even when something is fictional by standards of Truth (note the capital T)it is made real by the fact that it is being pervived by the human mind. The idea that reality must only be the waking, uncontrolled mind is flawed in that it choses to define reality by an arbitrary standard.A dream I have is no less real that a movie i watch. Both occur in the same plane of existance, and the human brain stores the two things much the same. So long as my brain is giving me signals, I will defend that this debate is real. originality is the other reason your ideas are flawed. The human brain is unable to produce original thought in dreams, it recycles things that it thought while awake.If this was a dream, you would be quoting Zizek. I have never heard of that movie, and would never have dreamed it, not that dreams arent real. Also he makes a number of arguments that can be different advocasys, you are voting on only "You can't reasonably be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate,"As that is the line he is affirming. Harlen - Read Revolutions Reloaded on Lacan.com (under zizek)
You can't reasobly be 100% sure that you are reading/engaging in this debate, but you R fairly sure.

You to be sure of absolutely nothing, it is flat-out impossible for you to be 100% sure that anything perceived by any of you're five senses, or conclusions you make, from external influences or internal influences are correct. The world you live in is solely composed of signals received by the brain. You can not be sure that you are reading this debate. For the sake of pondering, I will present a hypothetical...You are actually having a dream. The dream actually started 2 minutes ago, no matter at what time you are reading this debate. All memories of past events, including memories of reading this debate previously, are simply memories made up by the dream, but never actually happened. You can't prove me wrong, because they only exist in you're head. In the real world, you are actually a lamp post…in the real world, lampposts can think, it is only in this nightmare that lampposts are soulless tools used by humans. In the real world, the night sky is white, while the stars are specks of black, and all of lamppost life exists on a giant…giant...errr…um…it is very different than any thing you could comprehend, I can assure you, as it is so different from the pretend rules of reality in you're silly dream, the language "English" to which you made up as a figment of you're imagination in you're dream, has unfortunately, made no word for this "place" to which the lampposts live. None of this is really happened. In fact, I, too, am simply a figment of you're imagination…you're brain is actually controlling me…I am part of the dream. Can you "prove" me wrong? You cannot. You never really read the previous part of this argument, which is just a made-up memory, as parts of you're dream. You did not really read that last sentence. -a figment of you're imagination, Harlan PS. you should all se the movie "waking life, which I suddenly remembered when typing the last part.
The Judeo/Christian God is Truine

As per my understanding of the debate rules Acceptance"I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.( As we can see it is I not We. Three is a plural number. The old testament for the most part condemns the notion of God being one of a Trinity, and Moses never called out to the holy spirit nor Jesus. The modern understanding of Trinity are based on a concoction God is not truine I say God not Judeo/Christian God as that would somehow imply that God belongs exclusively to Christians and Jews ) Just facts not arguments
Hunting is good for the economy and the environment

Pro claims that hunters stimulate the economy by buying hunting equipment which is taxed. This is true but the money generated by the sale of such items is more than accounted for by eco-tourism. Pro also states that hunting controls animal population. But this is a case of offering up a hobby as a solution to a problem that the existence of the hobby contributes to causing in the first place. Animal populations are deliberately increased precisely to accommodate hunting. Lastly, Pro claims that the Bible permits us to eat animals. In order to use the Bible as an authority, Pro would first have to justify the Bible being placed on such a pedestal, something which a 1000 character limit is not going to permit. Moreover, it is a classic case of reverse engineering. You can find a verse in the Bible to justify any position you already hold. For instance, I could just as easily claim that God considers a perfect world - and by extension, heaven - to be a vegan one (Gen 1:29, 1 Cor 8:8).
Hunting is good for the economy and the environment

Hunting is very beneficial for economy and environment. Hunting has created approximately 700,000 new jobs and helps stabilize the animal population, so it doesn"t grow out of control. Hunters pay millions of dollars in taxes for their rifles, ammunition and licenses. Which benefits the economy. That money goes to land conservation and hunting and fishing programmes The Bible says that we are allowed to eat animals on many occasions so why would we stop hunting if God allows it and gives us permission to all things living? If you except my Debate there is no forfeiting no matter what. Thank you and good luck.
Trump Is Not a Liar

===== Official Debate Thesis I will try to clarify my thesis, Since "special tracking" and "is in line" are not defined: Special Tracking --- meaning the existence of WashPo"s list. There are no Obama/Hillary Lie lists. This is special tracking, Or did Obama/Hillary never lie? To contradict this part of the thesis, You must show equivalent Obama/Hillary Lie Lists. Is In Line --- meaning, Specifically, That Trump Lies are equivalent to Obama lies. Please nominate a Trump Lie or two to compare with my selection of Obama Lies. We will need criteria to judge pairs of lies by. I submit the following criteria, But am open to your additions and adjustments: --- a) --- If the lie is part of a pre-written script, Then it is a worse lie than an extemporaneous comment/response. --- b) --- If the lie affects the popularity of a piece of legislation, Then it is a worse lie than one about "commonly reported and known facts. " --- c) --- If the lie has larger practical impact on the lives of ordinary US citizens, Then it is a worse lie. ===== Argument #1 "Non-lies" I submitted the collusion quote as an example of a non-lie, Not "as an example of how the media is dishonest in its reporting. " In our country, "innocent until proven guilty" means publicly defending oneself is defined as not a lie. You claim that this quote is a lie because it is "not isolated. " What does that matter? 100 other lies doesn't make a non-lie into a lie. WashPo"s List of 7000 Lies lacks credibility because it contains non-lies. Therefore, You cannot cite the mere existence of WashPo"s List (or any Fact Checker list) as evidence that Trump is a liar. As of right now in this debate, The WashPo list has zero confirmed honest-to-goodness real lies. With this challenge, I suggest that you not waste our time on a single piddly little white lie. Please provide a BIG Trump Lie or an early extraordinary barrage of actual lies to contradict my thesis.
Trump Is Not a Liar

I happy to accept my opponent Red_Fox's challenge to discuss the important issue of whether or not Donald Trump is a liar and look forward this debate. I plan on responding in two ways: vagueness and the issue of collusion. Point1: Vagueness My opponent formulated the debate thesis in this way: "President Trump doesn't lie (in all its shades and varieties) in a manner worthy of special tracking. His lack of complete honesty is in line with the mainstream of US politicians and media outlets nowadays. " There are two glaring issues with the thesis as it stands that makes the burden of demonstrating a lie almost impossible. The first problem occurs with the use of "special tracking. " What might constitute "special tracking? " Because Red_Fox does not give a criteria for what would distinguish such a lie, Such that it would warrant the description of "special, " it is equally possible that Red-Fox's subjective interpretation is the criteria, In which case no one could effectively contradict the thesis, Or all lies are equally "special, " which would mean I could affirm the thesis convincingly by stating a single lie from Donald Trump The second vague phrase within the thesis is "is in line. " Like before, Red_Fox did not offer any criterion from which to distinguish a base line of dishonesty with a level needed to affirm the thesis. Point 2: Collusion While not the central thesis itself, My opponent used the Washington Post's fact check of Donald Trump's statements on collusion as an example of how the media is dishonest in its reporting; however, There are several problems with this. 2. 1 Donald Trump's statements on collusion are not isolated; rather, They are coupled with other claims (for example, His trashing of the Steele Dossier as fake despite it containing now confirmed details such as Trump-Russia and Trump-China business dealings) such that his entire statement is false 2. 2 Muller's investigation is not solely about collusion anyways so it is irrelevant.
Trump Is Not a Liar

The Washington Post started tracking President Trump's "lies" very early in his presidency--perhaps even before he was elected. Routinely, Friends and media outlets tell me variations on this theme: "Trump is a liar! " ============= Official Debate Thesis President Trump doesn't lie (in all its shades and varieties) in a manner worthy of special tracking. His lack of complete honesty is in line with the mainstream of US politicians and media outlets nowadays. ============= Argument #1 WashPo's tracker of Trump's lies stands at 7, 546 (1). Sounds bad until you look at the data. Here is one of the most repeated lies in the WashPo database, Representing a full 2% of all of Trump's so-called lies. Feast your eyes on this *horrendous assault against truth*: "There was no collusion. There was never any collusion" (2). WashPo calls THIS a lie? Their Fact Checker's explanation: Mueller hasn't made his report yet (3). Apparently, Anything Trump says about it will be a lie. Publicly defending oneself cannot be the same thing as lying! This removes ALL credibility from WashPo's list according to Debate. Org: "Using fake facts destroys your credibility" (4). In a silly way, Fact Checkers only accept claims as true if they can find another source for the info. Too often this standard is insufficient. (1) https://www. Washingtonpost. Com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/? Utm_term=. 0728f131ae69 (2 & 3) search site on "there was never any collusion" in the WashPo database (4) https://www. Debate. Org/help/articles/tips-for-a-better-debate/
in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory

Hello, I am here to state that compulsory voting SHOULD be compulsory. Please debate and give advise. Here is by affirmative constructive: " One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by you inferiors." This is a famous quote from the philosopher, Plato. Because I agree with Plato, I support the resolution. Please note that my value premise, democracy, is the most important value because democracy, in this case, is a duty of citizenship. According to the Harvard Law Review in 2007 called, " The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," in volume 121 page 591, " Individuals who live in a democracy benefit from the fact that the country they live in is democratic. Given the benefits, citizens have a duty to vote, which is an essential part of that democracy." My value criterion is civic duty. Christine Pelosi, who is an American Democratic Party Political strategist, states that " voting is a civic sacrament-the highest responsibility we have as Americans." Contention 1- Self- Responsibility. A- Compulsory voting improves life and political decisions. Citizens will most likely pay attention to candidates and their speeches and make a more informed choice; according to Stephan Bauschard, who is from Harvard University. B- Accurate vote results for polls. Since more people would vote based on watching the candidates speeches, there would be more accurate votes. If there wasn't compulsory voting, citizens would just guess which one is better and there would be inaccurate results. Contention 2- Reduces the burden on citizens A- Compulsory voting reduces access barriers to citizens. Voting is difficult because of work and long distances from a voting booth, and lack of transportation. The society will work to reduce barriers. The government knows that there are houses and families that are miles away from a barrier, but having barriers closer to most citizens is better than having the barriers far away from all of the citizens. For example, voting usually happens on weekends where countries have mandatory voting. Those who do not turn out due to access barriers are often minorities and poor individuals, Failure to account for these perspectives in politics undermines the legitimacy of democracy itself. B- With mandatory voting, more opportunities will have to exist for citizens. Compulsory voting would create more opportunities for citizens to show responsibility, to truly express your opinion, and to have a more friendly environment of politics. Also, the voter isn't that pressured because voting is still by a secret ballot. Conclusion- Without compulsory voting, we wouldn't be as civilized to participate in America It is our duty to vote; the government has done so much for Americans that it would be disgraceful if we didn't pay them back by voting. Also, gas would be spared because of the closer access barriers and we all know how much of a pain gas can be. Compulsory voting makes us whole.
This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

I shall not present an argument. The rules on debate.org do not allow me to limit the debate with regards to Elo, even if I say "someone better than me" it takes the rank, not the Elo. My opponent has purposely, and rudely broken the rules that I had set forth in this debate. I had decided to send this debate to bossyburrito if no one else accepted (over 3500), and I find that my opponent should be penalized for doing this, wherein he should lose this debate. I would be all right with debating this with vwv perhaps next month when I have more time, if he can request this challenge in a polite manner.
This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

He holds full responsibility for poorly setting up the debate. I see absolutely no reason to cower away from a lower caliber debater in fact that is so irrational that it verges on blatant fallacy. I shall now explain why the law of non-contradiction is true. If something is a thing, then it definitely is that thing. It cannot somehow not be not that thing. This is because to exist means you cannot not exist while you exist. It is also true the other way around. If I am not something, than I cannot then be that thing.
This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

Shalom Alecium! This is to discuss whether the "law of non-contradiction" as stated by Aristotle: any property cannot at the same time both belong, and not belong to the same object in the same respect. You need more than 3500 Elo to accept, if you do not have 3500 Elo you need my permission before accepting. My opponent has the complete burden of proof, and s/he must start immediately in the next round, and skip the last round. Anything written in the last round will not be considered. Spelling and Grammar, and conduct will only be considered if a party is in extreme violation of any of them. You need 2500 Elo to vote, with a Select Winner voting system. No trolling, deconstruction semantics, or otherwise intellectual dis-integrity allowed.
This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

I am not debating the debate's resolution here remotely, thus I have not violated the rule of not debating in the last round.This is pure explanation of a certain misunderstanding over the debate's rules itself, that is all.I avoided this in Round 2 solely out of the hopes that my opponent would drop it as it was irrelevant to the debate at hand.Instead of this response, I was totally ignored and have been backed into a corner which is not related to the resolution whatsoever.Please vote on the debate purely from my round 1 and 2 arguments (I am aware of slight error I made in the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of my R1 argument and I apologize for this but hope my message was conveyed better by my R2 summary".Alright, let's set things straight here.Pro set up the debate with the physical capacity for anyone to accept it (I assume, unless he/she had criteria that somehow allowed me to accept it while some were restricted). Then Pro proceeds to set up a rule scheme of who can, and cannot accept the debate.Pro never once states, indicates or hints towards the notion that the penalty of rule breakage would be debate loss regardless of one's validity of debate.Pro also highlights that permission was needed before debating, and I am now going to explain why I undeniably had his permission before the debate, regardless of what he says afterwards.I urge you to view the evidence below of Ajabi displaying capability of understanding how to enforce rules to the maximum extent.He has displayed that he can clearly state the consequences of not obeying rules. He stated no such thing here. He also displayed that he can specify when he wants to have comments/messages for confirmation of permission. He stated nothing of the sort here. Ajabi shows further capability of preventing people from accepting including setting Elo to be above his (which is a checkbox in the settings). He also has proven that he can combine several settings to make a debate impossible for anyone to accept. I had lower Elo than him yet I could accept, meaning he wilfully didn't tick the box to prevent it. He retains this ability very recently as well as consistently all the way back to as far as 2 months ago. [http://www.debate.org...] to suggest that he forgot it would be preposterous.By process of elimination, since Ajabi lacked these features to the rules of this debate, it follows that I already had his permission to debate it. In addition, it follows that if I didn't obey them, his failure to state that I'd lose if I didn't obey them means I don't auto-lose.
This House Believes That The Law of Non-Contradiction Is Sound!

I shall once more in protest not write up an argument. My opponent broke the rules, and instead of apologizing (in which case I would have debated him) he boldly claimed that the rules were my fault. I reserve the right to keep rules, and by breaking them my opponent lost this debate. Even now I see not a shred of remorse from him. I extend my other rounds, I have won this debate.
"Do or do not, there is no try"-Yoda

As a fan of Star Wars and Yoda, I must defend Yoda's position. In the scene containing that famous quote, Luke is "trying" to raise the ship using the force. Yoda makes a valid point by showing that the words "I'll try" contain a defeatist attitude. Luke had the ability to raise the ship, but lacked the confidence and therefore the effort. Of course, we are not merely debating a scene in a movie. You feel that this quote is not universally applicable. I disagree. The definition of try is to make an effort to do or accomplish (something). Yoda's point is very simple: if you make enough of an effort to accomplish an attainable goal, you will reach that goal. If someone claims that he or she has tried and failed, a further investigation into the matter will show that the effort was lacking somewhere along the way. Committing to something completely and totally is the only way in which you can say that you have truly "tried." And at that point, the commitment would pay off. No one putting all of their effort into an attainable enterprise is going to say "I tried"-- they are going to say "I did." There really is no middle ground. You will find countless millions that claim they have "tried" something or other. But the efforts had to be half-hearted in order for them to not succeed.
"Do or do not, there is no try"-Yoda

This is my first debate on Debate.org, so I am pretty excited about it! The first round will be for acceptance only. Resolution: The resolution states, “Do or do not, there is no try”, a famous quote from Yoda. I, con, will be arguing against this statement. I will be stating that there is such thing as trying. My opponent, pro, will agree with the resolution. He/she will try to prove that there isn't such thing as trying. Therefore, I stand firm in the following statement: There is such thing as trying.