BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Time exists.

Introduction: This debate is about whether Time exists. The definition of Time is as follows: Time "a measure in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future, and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between them." - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org... The burden of proof for this debate is shared. Minor grammatical errors are tolerable, but "sloppy" spelling/grammar is not. Debaters have a responsibility to ensure that their arguments are legible. If their argument is mostly or completely illegible, then they forfeit that round due to lack of effort. All accusations of fallacy must be elaborated on, with the accuser providing a clear and detailed explanation of how their opponent's argument is fallacious. Failure to elaborate will be considered a case of misconduct. Con will not respond to Round 1 with "I accept" and nothing else. Con will instead launch straight into his/her argument. Con agrees to the above terms upon accepting the debate challenge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My opening argument is: Premise 1: We observe that the present is different from the past; things have change from the past to the present. Premise 2: The concept of "change" makes no sense without Time. Premise 3: When testing Relativity, we observe that the tested clocks differ according to Relativity's predictions regarding Time, and that the clocks are not faulty. Conclusion: Time exists. I also make the assertion that, in accordance with General Relativity, Time is a 4th dimension, and is no different than Height, Width, or Length. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is now Con's turn to argue.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Protests will cause a significant change in society

I'm all for a "new system," but what is it? They have to tell us if they want out support. Why would people support OWS if they have no plan than simply tearing the house down? And with regards to starting their own business, that's a great idea. And the fact that they live in a capitalistic society makes it an even greater idea. Of course, they don't want to be too successful. If the business took off and they did really well, they could find themselves in the one percent! Then again, if that happened they could go home because protesting against yourself doesn't make any sense.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Protests will cause a significant change in society

Protesters could work online if they have a laptop, or they could start their own business from where they are camping out. The weather is getting colder, but a few of the more hardcore protesters might decide to stay through the winter with a portable heater or two. If not, they could protest via Internet or at one of the warmer locations. People might also join or go back to protesting or in the spring if they quit for the winter. If that happens, new people coming in might stop the movement from becoming stagnant. The protesters might develop a new way of running things that could make the movement more efficient and eliminate their 1%. They could replace Capitalism with their new, better system and change both America and the world.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Protests will cause a significant change in society

More won't join because, one, they know there's NO chance of finding a job sitting in a park and two, when it gets into the 20's and starts snowing, people will start going home. It might be easier to join without leadership, but it'll also be easier to fracture and drift in different directions without leadership. Even the Tea Party found some politicians to rally around. With no one to rally them, OWS will become a "stagnant" movement. They are anything but unified. From the New York Observer: "The organizers behind OccupyWallSt.org started raising a separate fund for their own expenses, for $6,000, causing a kerfuffle with the finance committee. Meanwhile, people at the camp are "always trying to steal the buckets," Ms. Sobel said, and well-meaning protesters as well as opportunists have been seen walking around with their own buckets." Their General Assembly is getting a rough introduction into working with the masses. The great thing about Democracy is that everyone has a voice. But OWS seems to forget that the problem with democracy is that everyone has a voice. Read the whole article here: http://www.observer.com... And here's another article that talks about the growing rift between OWS's 99% and OWS 1% that controls the money: http://www.theblaze.com... One ironic aspect to this is the group protesting big banks is keeping all the money they raise, in BANKS. And the one "friendly" bank they chose, union-owned Amalgamated Bank at 52 Broadway, is about to be sent into receivership by the FDIC! They're living in an idealistic, fantasy world. I'm not saying it's a bad thing to want eradicate poverty and give everyone their foreclosed homes back but we live in a capitalistic, nationalistic world. Here's an example: "The sanitation working group recently brought a simple proposal: the purchase of storage bins in order to tidy up the park. It passed, but only after a member of the assembly attached a friendly amendment stipulating that the bins should be certified Fair Trade. When attempting to purchase Fair Trade storage bins, the sanitation committee discovered they do not exist." But the most ironic aspect to all of this is that OWS, protesting the "one percent," already has its own one percent! http://hotair.com... Finally, many of the OWS protesters say we need to replace capitalism because it doesn't work. But what none seem to be able to answer is, replace it what? Communism? Socialism? A Theocracy? Where are they currently still being used successfully. If you want to tear down the system, you need have one to replace it with.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Protests will cause a significant change in society

The OWS protests will make a difference because a large number of people are taking part, and large movements tend to stick with people. Politicians may not support the movement, but politicians aren't always right and may fall in and out of favor. Also, even though there are unknowns, nothing can be kept away from the media forever. More people will join because: 1. Since the protests are unfocused, it is easier to relate to the movement. It isn't strictly about one thing but about a variety of things, which means a variety of opinions, and a variety of of opinions means a variety of people. 2. Since the movement doesn't have any leadership or structure, it is easier to join, so more people will join. Therefore, the protests will make a difference.
The Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Protests will cause a significant change in society

The OWS protests will cause no great change in society. They are a hodgepodge group with too many different, unfocused causes, no leadership, and a anarchistic fringe element the "mainstream" OWS cannot control. No politicians will openly embrace the OWS movement because of the huge downside that is possible, too many unknowns within the movement, and because the public has yet to whole heartedly embrace them.
The Right to Life is a Negative Right

1. "I agree that PRO is presenting a false trichotomy...this trichotomy is of PRO's design, not CON's. It is PRO who believes that there is a difference between action and inaction when it comes to the death of an individual...I do not believe there is a distinction."There is a difference between "killing" and "letting one die." The former is incorporated into my opponent's definition, and the latter is not. I have been making this clear throughout the debate.2. My opponent seems to have misunderstood a basic term in criminal law: "negligent homicide." Negligent homicide is caused by an action that is conducted in a negligent manner. For example, if someone is driving erratically because they are racing down a parking lot and then crash into a toddler, killing him on impact, they may be charged with negligent homicide. The toddler is killed because of an action of another person--and that action was conducted in a negligent manner. "The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences." [1] Criminal negligence, a prerequisite of negligent homicide, requires unresponsible behavior without proper foresight. The behavior that leads to a charge of negligent homicide (e.g., intoxication while driving) is an act of killing, because it is an action. When a baby dies solely due to a lack of care, the parent(s) tend to be charged with felony neglect [e.g., 2] (the exact name of the charge would vary by state), not negligent homicide. In the law, killing and letting one die are two distinct concepts. 3. Killing = action. Letting one die = inaction. My opponent has not proven otherwise, as I have explained above. This is a pathetic game of semantics, and my opponent is losing because of the definition that he set for himself. Let me repeat my example from round one: "John cannot kill Bob by not saving him when Bob gets a heart attack; John can only let Bob die. And Bob cannot "let" John die as he bludgeons John to death with a baseball bat; John can only kill Bob."CONCLUSIONThe right to life was defined by my opponent as "the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being." This, as it was defined, is a negative right. "Killing" is action, as opposed to "letting one die"--and I have made this very clear. Think of situations in which one person lets another die through inaction; none of them, strictly speaking, would be referred to by the average person as "killing." Likewise, no killing would be described as "letting one die." No matter how many semantic games we try to play, these will remain two distinct concepts. If the right to life is a right to not be killed, then it is a negative right. Plain and simple. ---POST SCRIPT My favorite pizza topping is pepperoni. ---[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://hamptonroads.com...
The Right to Life is a Negative Right

In this debate, I will be arguing that the right to life is a negative right. My opponent defines the "right to life" as "a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being. [1] I want the reader to pay special attention to the part of the definition that I bolded, underlined, and italicized--for special emphasis. The right to life is a right to not be killed. What does it mean to "kill"? To kill is "to cause the death of (a person, animal, or plant)" or "to end the life of (someone or something.)" [2] In order to develop a richer understanding of what it means to "kill," I will contrast it below with a related concept: "letting one die." While both touching on the life-death transition, "killing" and "letting one die" are two distinct entities that do not overlap; the former represents action and the latter represents inaction. John cannot kill Bob by not saving him when Bob gets a heart attack; John can only let Bob die. And Bob cannot "let" John die as he bludgeons John to death with a baseball bat; John can only kill Bob. With this in mind, we can draw a useful conclusion about the matter at hand: if the right to life is a right to not be killed, then it is a right to not be affected by an action, specifically that of killing. The definition that my opponent presented for "right to life" does not protect one from inaction. Being protected from being killed--from an action--is different from being protected from other people's inaction. A negative right, according to my opponent, is a right to not be subjected to an action, while a positive right is a right to be subjected to an action--or a right to not be "subjected" (loosely speaking) to an inaction. [1] I have established that "killing" is an action, while "letting one die" is an inaction. If we can only conclude from the opponent's definition that one's right to life is a right to not be "unjustly killed," then we can rightly conclude that a "right to life" is a right to not be subjected to an action--or in other words, that the right to life is a negative right. The resolution has been affirmed. I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Thank you. --- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
The Right to Life is a Negative Right

BackgroundIn a discussion in a prior debate (http://www.debate.org...), InVinoVeritas and I had the following exchange:wrich: This is kind of why I am beginning to gravitate towards a stance that divorces welfare from work and from poverty. 'Welfare' should be a 'right', specifically the 'right to life'.IVV: The right to life is not a right to the fruits of another man's labor.wrich: Without life, there is no labor. Therefore, you guarantee the former to produce the latter. IVV: Obviously, labor requires life. But a right to life is not the right to have other people work to sustain you. A right to life is a negative right--a right to preserving one's natural being without intervention by those who wish to harm one. Hence, this debate.ResolutionThe Right to Life is a Negative RightDefinitionsThe right to life is a moral principle based on the belief that a human being has the right to live and, in particular, should not to be unjustly killed by another human being.http://en.wikipedia.org...Under the theory of positive and negative rights, a negative right is a right not to be subjected to an action of another person or group—a government, for example—usually in the form of abuse or coercion. A positive right is a right to besubjected to an action of another person or group. In theory, a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder.http://en.wikipedia.org...RulesMy standard boiler-plate:This will be a NO SCORING debate. I am far less concerned with the scoring mechanism of this website, and much more interested in furthering constructive dialogue on this matter. I see the scoring mechanism as being extremely politicized and subject to all manners of corruption, and also see it as an inhibitor to constructive dialogue as many people who vote simply do not want their vote challenged or discussed.Anyone and everyone is more than welcome to make a decision on this debate, declare a victor, and leave (hopefully) an insightful RFD, I merely ask that no one score this debate.I will make exception to the scoring of conduct. Any forfeited rounds, ad hominem attacks, or breaching of the rules of this debate will merit a conduct point against the offender. Otherwise, no scoring, thank you. ---Burden of proof (BoP) is shared.4 rounds1st round: CON: introduction and debate parameters, PRO: opening arguments2/3 rounds argument and rebuttal4th round: CON: closing arguments, PRO: "This round left blank." This will allow for 3 full rounds of debate by both sides.6,000 character rounds.
Rap battle

I would like to start by thanking my opponent for accepting this lyrical debate, Secondly, I'd like to introduce him to his perilous fate, I don't believe in god but I'm a rap god no doubt, Now let me tell everyone what this Daniel kid's about, He's got no chance at beating me lyrically, His inferiority can be verified empirically, How could you even hope for victory? You got no bars Ill call you AT&T, And for me this is just a joke, But ill listen to you anyways cause I wanna hear you choke. And if you thought I was done you were wrong, Nobodies f*cked as many b*tches as me since Genghis f*cking Khan, And I'll admit this shits getting a bit long, But what can I say thats how I do things just ask your mom, Now you can respond, or you can forfeit, doesnt matter, I'll win, You should have known battling the rap god was a sin.
Christianity(pro) vs Atheism(con)

I will offer my counter argument to Pascal's wager. Pro attempts to argue that atheism is illogical, however his entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. That fallacy is called the Argumentum ad baculum, Latin for argument from stick. ...the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion. The ad baculum derives its strength from an appeal to human timidity or fear and is a fallacy when the appeal is not logically related to the claim being made. In other words, the emotion resulting from a threat rather than a pertinent reason is used to cause agreement withthe purported conclusion of the argument.[ http://philosophy.lander.edu...] The wager also has a distorted view of why people hold beliefs. Consequences are not a reason for belief. For example, you better bow to my DDO profile or you will die a painful death. You only have to bow once. Does anyone really believe the that is true? Is it a good reason to think it's true because of the punishment? No, that's not how beliefs work. Pro posted his last round in the comments, I'll respond to some of his objections. Since I can't add anything new, I have to ignore some of it. Pro completely missed my point on free will. He actually conceded that free will can exist with no evil. This was my point. Pro's only objection to the POE is that we don't know. Since it would cause me to add arguments for a response, I won't address it. Pro claims the contradictions were just errors in translation. No evidence was given to support that assertion. He then claims God breathed the scripture in the sense that he only inspired the humans that wrote the Bible. Pro would have to concede that 2 Timothy 3:16 is false. The bible would not be useful for teaching, rebuking, and correcting. We could either accept a flawed, but still God breathed bible. However, as I stated in my R2, Occam's Razor says it would be better for us to reject Christianity. Thus, my argument here stands.
Christianity(pro) vs Atheism(con)

To answer your question: round three is fair game. You can do whatever you want be it rebuttals or counter arguments, no new items though, I would not have the opportunity to counter. My argument: I said in R1 that being Atheist is illogical. Here is why. For starters, consider this: There is no God. If an Atheist is right about their religious views, nothing happens to them. They die and go into a dreamless sleep and will never wake up. What would you have to gain by being an atheist. Potentially being right after you die, but then again, nobody will know you were right because you would be dead and you would not know you were right because you were dead. If a Christian is wrong, nothing happens. Simple as that. They will be wrong but no one will know because they are dead and the Christian would not know they were wrong because they were dead. The most a person could argue about this point is the idea that the Christian would be living according to a false philosophy. However, if you look at Christian morals and the morals of many other non-Christians, they are virtually the same. Therefore, one cannot say the Christian lifestyle was flawed because it is similar to Atheist philosophy. Now, let's consider that there is a God. If an Atheist is wrong, they go to hell. Eternal Suffering. Burning alive. Constant unquenchable thirst. Darkness. No hope. The Atheist loses EVERYTHING. Yes, I will concede that by living a truly ungodly agenda, you may be happier. Sex and drugs every night. Sure, you may like that. However, that is roughly fifty years of fun. In hell, it will be millions of years. And then more years. See how small the fifty years of fun looks so insignificant and small. However, most atheists do not live a truly ungodly agenda, they live in a lot of ways like Christians. Therefore, by being an atheist and not Christian, the person has no living fun and death is still hell. I do not know which category of Atheist you fall under but you can get the picture. If a Christian is right, they go to heaven. Eternal paradise. A vacation wherever you want that never ends. Never having to work. Never having to worry. Eternal happiness. Sure, they may live a more strict lifestyle, but not as much as it negates an eternity of heaven. Besides, look around, how many Christians do you see that live a miserable life because of their faith? Not very many. Many Christians live happy lives. In conclusion. If an Atheist is right, they see no benefits. If a Christian is wrong, they see no consequence. If an Atheist is wrong, hell(need I say more). If a Christian is right, heaven(need I say more). Yes, Christians live slightly stricter lives but it pays off in the long run. Yes, Atheists live slightly looser lives(though in many cases still similar to the lives of Christians), but they risk hell.
Leave gun rights the same

Ah, I see. Thank you. We can never be certain with guns. And with the change of one law, it would be difficult because there would be a change of others. If you had been in the washroom and you say your gun was in your room, I don't think there would be enough time to act and get the gun. It's always uncertain. With the release of guns, you never know who may be possessing these guns. Some would be legal and some would not.
Leave gun rights the same

Ok first the rephrase I know some people accidentally kill themselves or others with guns that happened to my dads friend. What I mean is how some people say that the gun kills the person but others say if you lay a gun down with no one using it will it kill someone? No it wont. Say I sit a gun down on a table and a random person say best friend doesn't notice the gun. The gun can't shoot your friend with no one touching it, but say I pick it up and aim at him and fire it will kill him but I would be the one to do it. And the 2nd amendment should count for everyone. The security issue is a good reason but one day I was home alone and I am always precocious and locked doors and windows. Then I took a shower, but when I get out I hear someone running around I call 911 because I wouldn't get to my room and if I didn't lock the bathroom door God knows what he would have done. If I was in my room I could have protected myself with my gun.
Leave gun rights the same

That statement in the 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights only applies to those in the military as they are necessary to the security of a free State. If those people, 1,429,995 men and women in the military and 794,300 in the police force are necessary to the security of the state then aren't they responsible for taking care of us? They went through years of military camp and training at the police academy yet we have no training and we get to handle something like this? Also, precautions could be taken to prevent you and your family from being a victim of breaking and entering. For example, and alarm system, closing windows, locking doors etc. which are highly encouraged and advertised often. And sorry but could you rephrase your last argument because I don't quite get it. Thank you. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Leave gun rights the same

That is a very good reason I agree there should be a test before that and the waiting limit is smart but they cant just pass a law and take them all away thats just messed up we have a right to own them. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 2nd Amendment Bill of Rights. I'm just saying I would like to be able to keep a gun in my home right now there is a shotgun in my room loaded with safety on and if someone comes in and tries to steal or hurt me or my family I will give him/her a chance to get out if they refuse I will call 911 if they come at me I will shoot them without hesitation or regret. Plus theres the issue of people saying guns kill people but thats not true. Say I put a handgun on a table and it is loaded safety off and someone standing right in front of it and say. Gun kill. It will not go off if I pull the trigger we have dead or wounded person.