BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Free Will

You were destined to post that because everything that has ever happened, and will ever happened, has already been planned. As you make choices, you do not change what your plan is, instead that is what your plan becomes, but it is also what it has been. If you had decided to not post an argument because you did not wish to follow my demands, then that would have been your destiny. Your destiny changes with whatever you do. You may decide to post, then not post, then post again, but no matter how many choices you make, that has been your plan. Your entire can be traced back, and it could not have been changed since that is what happened, but that means it can be traced forward too since you can not change what is traced back. What I am saying is that people follow the path that was given to them by their random factors, and although they believe they can change their path, anything they do was really just planned for them before. You may think, "Well, what if my plan is to jump into a crocodile's mouth but I choose not to. Haven't I just changed my path?" This is not the case because, the fact that you chose not to jump into the crocodile's mouth was already your path, as would your path be if you had decided to kill the crocodile. However, you can not change what your path already was because it is what has already happened, but it an also be traced ahead as what will happen. You were destined to post that because you have already done it and that cannot be changed. If suddenly the world went back in time with a snap of my fingers and nobody knew. The same thing would happen. Time is on a track that does no tchange when you rewind. Your free will would not make a different choice the second time around. As you can rewind the track you can fast forward and the future will not change as it has already been set. It may seem that people choose their own path but they are just following the path that has already been set. The most important reason people can not have free will is because you do not choose it. It is all your genes and random factors. Vote Con! Vote for JR-CreativeGenius!
Free Will

We seem to believe similar concepts, but you are using the definition for your case. Your argument is that the definion states free will is the ability to make a choice, which obviously people can do. The debate should not be on whether or not people can make their own choices. That would mean I am arguing a nonsensical side that believed people can make no descions whatsoever, and basically people can not even think. This is absurd and not what the lack of free will is at all. What I am trying to debate is whether or not people have their OWN 'free will.' The definition does say that people have the ability to act at their OWN discretion, so people must have their own discretion for there to be free will. You do say that our discretion may be different because there are so many variables, however, no matter how many variables there are, none of the other varibles can change since the only independant varible in the equation is the genes. All other variables are dependant of the genes. It would be impossible for people to have different free will because we would have to choose a different free will, which would require free will, and so begins an endless paradox. In conclusion, so far the basis of your argument is based off the fact that people technically make their own descions, which matches the definition of free will. It does not matter that people can choose because every decision they have ever made was already planned for them when they randomly were given the random factors that determine their life to the last detail.
Free Will

I did talk about this when I said, "This leads me to think that, while our discretion and opinions can be influenced by the structure of our body, and outside sources, free-will still is there.". While things are based off of our genes and other things, we still can choose between Grape Juice and Orange Juice. Free-will is "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion", which we can do. Our discretion may be difference, because of all the variables (By the way, I've thought of the same thing you did once.), but we're still acting on our discretion. While I would have killed the guy if I had the exact same life as him, I would still have to use discretion to decide if I wanted to kill him or not.
Free Will

Thanks for making this, It's an interesting topic. I'm going to make 2 main points. 1. We can always act on our own discretion. You can evaluate things and choose your option without anyone preventing you (most of the time). 2. We're more than Cell-machines. If you study someone's brain and body in general, you can learn a lot of things about them, but you can't know them. You'd have to communicate with them: This leads me to think that, while our discretion and opinions can be influenced by the structure of our body, and outside sources, free-will still is there. You could say that it only feels like we have free-will, but you'd have to give proof for that.
Free Will

Genes and other factors play a part in it, but those lead you to have your own distinct discretion, and you can act on that. I agree that everything that will happen is already known, be we weren't forced to do anything, and we can decide for ourselves. "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion." I'm doing this right now. You are pretty much adding to that, and saying something is true while giving no good evidence.
Germany (along wits allies) had the military capacity to win the Second World War

RebuttalWhile it should be admitted that Hitler's allies were shaky he had it within his grasp to defeat the Soviet Union. Hitler could have left the Soviet Union defenseless in 1941 if he had taken Moscow. The failure to take Moscow should be blamed mainly on Hitler himself. He chose to take Kiev before Moscow in 1941, leaving the Moscow assault to be done in the winter. The Germans had the military capacity to take Moscow during the summer. On 18 Aug '41 the Army High Command (OKW) presented Hitler with its plan for the autumn campaign, which designated Moscow as the key objective. On 22 Aug, however, Hitler rejected the OKW plan & decided instead to strip Army Group Center of both of its 2 panzer armies, sending one to support Army Group North which was assaulting Leningrad & the other to support Army Group South assaulting Kiev. These new dispositions were in effect by 25 Aug. Army Group North arguably made no better progress with 2 panzer armies than it could have with only 1, but Army Group South won one of the largest encirclement battles of the war, took the city of Kiev, captured over 450,000 Soviet troops, & positioned itself for a thrust all the way to the Don River & the southern city of Rostov, which it captured before the end of the year (& then had to abandon during the winter).[1] Despite the seeming victory in Kiev, these battles ignored the strategic importance of Moscow. An assault on Moscow would have taken or t least damaged the main rail head in the Soviet Union, effectively leaving the armies in the Archangel and Caucuses regions basically detached as well as taking or destroying the important production area that Moscow was. This of course should not be ignored as the only reason the Germans failed to take Moscow. It is widely acknowledged that the Russian winter is what eventually stopped the Germans. The delay of the German offensive against the Soviet Union caused by the invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece, which was approximately 4 weeks, was also disastrous for the German armies. That 4 weeks very well may have been enough for the German armies to take Moscow and celebrate Christmas in the great city as they had planned months before.[1]http://www.alternatehistory.com...
Germany (along wits allies) had the military capacity to win the Second World War

I'd like to break my rebuttal into __ points.1. Germany had allies in Eurpoe. These allies would eventually grow to the countries Italy, Rumania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Finland.2. Germany easily took France, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Greece along with the help of its allies. This left them in control over almost the entirety of Europe.3. The war in Russia was only lost due to the trategic blunder of Hitler.Please rebut my arguments now so I may debate back with them in more detail and with mroe force.
DDO Presidential candidates should be openly endorsed by two people before being able to run

I will respond to some of Con's points and concede to a few others..... 1A) DDO still requires new accounts to be confirmed with a cell phone number for the account to be validated, its easy to create one account since almost everyone has a cell phone these days but creating a second account and trying to validate it with another different cell phone number would prove more problematic. This along with a new email address would also cause making a second dummy account more problematic. 1B) The odds may not be "much" steeper depending on the wordplay of the meaning of "much" but the odds of it happening would still be even less likely of not being a conspiracy 1C) Im not saying that two endorsements from new accounts automatically means they are fake accounts. I am saying that it would raise suspicion that they candidate may be using dummy accounts just for his endorsement. 2A) conceded 2B) conceded 2C) conceded 2D) This resolution is not meant to channel more votes towards front runners I am showing how in a close election these one vote candidates could hold the power to sway an election for a legit candidate which was contrary to what you said before about how the voting impact these independent candidates would have would "have no impact" 3A) conceded 3B) conceded I admit that the Con has been kicking my *** on parts of this debate so I concede some of my points but still argue that it the two endorsement deal would be difficult for noob candidates to overcome because in addition to their account, they would need to create a second account for their first dummy vote, and then a third account after that for another dummy vote. in total requiring the candidate to create 2 new email accounts, submit 2 different cell phone numbers than their own, and not attract enough attention of the newly formed accounts that came out of nowhere to suddenly endorse the same candidate. The benefit form this is small as the Con has proved, however it still does provide a benefit to this site which doesnt necessarily mean it should be thrown out completely.... Back to ye, Danielle :) (btw, im really trying to be nice by not stubbornly sticking to my arguments and admitting you have some good points, dont make me regret it....)
DDO Presidential candidates should be openly endorsed by two people before being able to run

THIS DEBATE IS NOT GOING TO IMPACT HOW ELECTIONS ARE RUN ON DDO This is just a thought that has been in my mind for a while while observing the DDO presidential race. This in no way is meant to introduce, imply, or suggest changing the system. This is my personal thought and opinion and nothing else. Now that we got that out of the way. The Con is allowed to use the first round for arguments or only accept the debate. Again, this debate is not meant to suggest, imply, start any kind of movement for reform, etc. about how campaigns are run on DDO, this is just a thought of mine and im willing to debate it...
DDO Presidential candidates should be openly endorsed by two people before being able to run

Ill make this quick since this is the last round. ..1A) People do have access to a cellphone, however you would need 3 to create two dummy accounts, this would deter people because you would need to create two dummy accounts in addition to the actual account. - First legit account - Needs one cell-phone number and one email address, something everyone has - First Dummy account - Needs a different cell-phone number and email address, its easy to make another email address but temporarily getting access to another cell-phone might be an issue - Second Dummy account - needs yet another email account and yet another cell phone number, you could make a third email account but finding access to a third cell phone would be increasingly problematic1B) Conceded1C) Conceded (I didnt know that but now I know :) )2A, 2B, 2C) Agreed on my concession2D) I can see where I may have been unclear now, the 2 endorsement process would have to be overcome for people to run for president without being endorsed, and this process would deter people from going through with this fraud. That would cause the final number of candidates to be lower for the actual election. As for the second part of 2D, conceded seeing as how I have conflicting opinions of what this resolution would cause in voting patterns regarding the cadidates. ..3A, 3B) conceded as agreedIll sum this up right here, I agreed that some of the original benefits of this idea would in fact not occur, and the Pro showed how and why, and that is what all of these concessions I have made are about, the benefits. But what would the cost of this policy be? less legit candidates would run since the 2 endorsement process would eliminate some of the fraud candidates, which right now is the only benefit of this policy I have left unless Ive missed a few.
All drugs should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

1) It doesn't matter if you would allow thousands to kill themselves, the governments job is to protect its citizens (EA: police, Military, Fire department, ect.) You cannot claim its protecting its citizens if people are melting from drugs. Children are effected by their parents melting, and lots of times even innocent children are introduced into drugs by friends and family, not all of them go into it thinking, oh this will melt me. 2) Smoking and drinking are not nearly as addictive as morphine, morphine is also used medically, so people who are given medical morphine and become addicted will be fueled by recreational use. and remember even children are administered morphine in hospitals. So your for legalizing the MASS addiction and then feeding it. 3A) Children in situations worse than you are exposed to drugs more often than you, so those parents who die will expose their children who initially could have avoided it. 3B) A funeral is more expensive than a life in prison or in every drug users case, a year or two. 3C)no that's the point you're causing a continuous cycle of increased potency of addiction. 3D) there is a massive amount of harm, people dead, melting, ODing, broken families, Equal crime, all for a "possible benefit." 3E)Yea and we see how that works out, its legal, so they don't care.
All drugs should be legalized for both medical and recreational use.

1) Desomorphene (Krokodil) From what I understand, this drug makes you high, then kills you. I'm for the right of people to kill themselves. There are many people who kill themselves painfully without any protection from pain (like a high) at all. I don't think this is worse than that. Therefore, I think this drug, and any other drug that kills you, shouldn't be illegal just because it kills you. 2) Morphine Basically, what you're saying is that morphine should not be legalized for recreational use because it causes long term, irreversible damage to your health and eventually kills you, right? I don't see why people shouldn't be allowed to slowly ill themselves. How is that any different from smoking or drinking? 3. Addressing my points. A.) Only people that want to die, or at least don't REALLY care, will die directly from that. If someone feels so bad, why not let them kill themselves like that? There aren't enough jobs or resources. Letting people that want to die, die, isn't a bad thing. Taking away people's rights is. B.)Money will be spent cleaning up after them once instead of continuously while they're in prison. C.) This just seems like more options to me. I don't understand why this is necessarily a bad thing. Legal stores would be able to sell the new, stronger drugs just as much as the black market. D.)But this would be one less thing for them to do illegally. And there is a chance. Again, no harm, possible benefit. E.)Smoking and drinking are legal, but there are still lots of initiatives against them in school. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About your tips: 1) I'll try to be careful how I phrase my resolution. 2) I looked at some other debates before this one, and they just happened to all be like that so I thought that's what I should do. :) 3) I'm not exactly sure what this means, but thanks for the advice. 4) I won't. Thanks! :)
Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically impossible to have for large societies

To my knowledge, there has never been an attempt at an anarcho-capitalist societyOne can do a search through the web, library, or anything else and confirm that there appears to be a lack of societies which have attempted to be anarcho-capitalist. In my search, there may be individual cities which have attempted it, but it has never been attempted on a larger scale. If you were to look on this wikipedia page of a list of anarchist communities[4], none of the nations listed in "mass communities" are anarcho-capitalist. All are anarchist, but they are anarcho-left, one(revolutionary catalonia) is anarcho-syndicalist, at least one is anarcho-communist: the free territory of Ukraine, and the rest all seem to be leftist. You can verify this by clicking on each of the examples and reading about each one, as I've done. From clicking on all of the examples in the next section entitled "Intentional communities", it looks like there might be a few that are anarcho-capitalist, but it's very vague. Again, you can click on each one too if you like. Still, these communities are the sizes of cities and do not matter in terms of this debate as they don't fit my definition of "large society". Contention 1: I therefore contend that if anarcho-capitalism was theoretically possible, it would have at least been attempted once on a large scale, but sadly, it has not. Why has it not been attempted while anarcho-communism, anarcho-socialism, etc have? How would private property be defended in an anarchist society? For anarcho-capitalism to exist, as was part of the definition, there needs to be private property. However, what is to stop the workers from taking control of the means of production and the capitalists' property? Now, I suppose you could argue that capitalists would be able to have private police forces protect their own property. That's fine, but without the government, all forms of weaponry would be legal. No longer would the ordinary citizen be debarred from weapons of mass destruction, or higher quality weapons that the government regulates or completely bans. In other words: the police force would be on equal footing with the ordinary person. The side that wins is the side that has more numbers. There are many more poor and middle class people than rich people, or private police forces who would be willing to defend the capitalists' property. Unless majority of the middle and poor classes are police, this just wouldn't work. Contention 2: Private property would be impossible to defend from the masses, especially since there is no government preventing people from getting high quality weapons of murder. I contend, therefore, that the defense of private property requires the state, and that an anarcho-capitalist society would result in some sort of anarcho-leftist society if given enough time. While my arguments were short, and I only offered two contentions, I believe they are compelling. I turn this debate over to my opponent. [4] . https://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically impossible to have for large societies

I thank Capitalistslave for setting up this debate and discussing my concerns with me in the comments. I look forward to an ever important debate for those like us who believe in freedom from the state. As Con I will be providing my arguments as to why an anarcho-capitalist society can exist even as a 'large society' and refuting Capitalistslave's arguments against such proposition. I accept the rules and definitions provided by Capitalistslave. I understand that failure to abide by these rules will justify me losing this debate. Despite Capitalistslave giving me the opportunity to use this round as an opening argument, if I so wanted, I will use it as acceptance only. Good luck to my opponent!
Anarcho-capitalism is theoretically impossible to have for large societies

I am arguing in favor of the resolution, so I will argue it is impossible to have an anarcho-capitalist society in large societies.Rules of debate:1) Be civil, no insults, ad hominem, or personal attacks2) The total number of rounds minus 1 should be used for argument since I am not using round 1 for argument. I would suggest that con use the first round just for acceptance, but they could still use it for argument if they want, but in this instance, I believe it would make more sense for me to start off the debate. 3) The last round used for debate should not have any new arguments in it, only rebuttals to your opponent's arguments. New facts can be brought up here, but only in rebuttal to your opponent's claims4) I've been having trouble with trolls accepting my debates lately, so here is a warning with trolls: I will block you from accepting any of my future debates if you troll.Definitions: Anarcho-capitalism: a political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and free markets[1]Further definition of the term can be found in my source.Impossible: Not able to occur, exist, or be done. [2] Large society: Any society as large or larger in population as the average state within the United States.[3] Note: If con objects to any rules or the definition provided, please state so in the comments section before accepting the debate. We will then work something out and compromise on rules and/or the definition. Otherwise, if con accepts the debate without doing this, it is assumed they accept my definitions and rules. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...[3] This is my own definition.