BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The notion that free will does not exist.

I guess this is the last round. SO, three points that disprove determinism: 1) Will exists 2) Some things are causeless 3) The future can change We know will sometimes exists because we see a definite difference between its absence and presence. When people have Tourette's, no one has to tell them that this one impulse that takes over them is involuntary. They instead accurately distinguish between surmountable urges that present them a choice of reaction and insurmountable urges that subvert their will. If will can exist in varying strengths, then obviously it can exist. There are other more common examples of this. A joke can make us laugh, or we can force laughter. We perceive a difference between the two because one laugh really does arise due to strong external stimuli and the other really does arise due to rational willful choice. We also know will exists because if you discount will, you discount all rationality with it. While you may call building an engine a small accomplishment, I say no manner of flying particles and genetic code could have produced it without a guiding intelligence capable of original thought. Intelligence and original thought necessarily possess choice. And without these qualities, nothing could produce something more complex or original that its programmer could - its programmer being the chaotic mass of DNA and air molecules you say guide people's every move. Some things are causeless, because randomness exists: it exists in nature. I assumed from the beginning that Pricetag's burden would be to prove that randomness can't exist, but he's totally failed to meet it. His only argument to disprove randomness is that science studies causes and effects. Yes, scientists want to assign causes to everything, but that's not proof that everything has a cause. You might as well suggest that since physicists and chemists focus on quantitative explanations, disease must have a mathematical solution. Some do suggest that, but disease exceeds the scope of physics and chemistry. And even if we one day find the cause for each atom's decay, choice exceeds the scope of science. The final problem with determinism I'll mention is how it suggests the future's immutable. I've talked a bit about how troubling that is philosophically since it eliminates all morality; there's no reason to ever feel guilty or proud if you believe in determinism. But an immutable future's also logically contradictory. If everything results directly and inevitably from a previous cause, everything that ever happens has already been determined. And though practically we could never map out the entire future, theoretically, we could. But in mapping it, we'd inevitably prevent some of the consequences we'd predict, creating a paradox. Therefore, we could never map out the future for certain, even theoretically. Therefore, things don't all result directly and inevitably from previous causes. Therefore, determinism doesn't exist. All effects have causes, yet. But not everything is an effect.
Gender Fluid is not a thing

Let's get something off of the table right now: It is not a way to get attention. These people have actual feelings that are valid and in no way fake and should not be taken so lightly. They change their gender identity because gender identity is not a concrete thing, it can be more fluid(hence the term: gender fluid) and is all up to how the specific person feels. Let us also note that there is a difference between gender identity and gender expression. Although it is hard to switch between feeling like a boy and feeling like a girl, that does not mean that it does not happen. All that it means is that it doesn't happen as often. This also does not mean that they act differently, it just means that they identify as something differently. I will not debate the topic of what bathroom/locker room they should use as not only is that a different subject but it is a very complicated one that I am not prepared for at the moment. You also have the misconception that people who are gender fluid switch genders every day; that is not the case. Although it can happen, most of the time they are one gender for a short while and then another gender for another brief period of time. This can last anywhere from a day to several months. Thank you for the debate.
Gender Fluid is not a thing

I believe people who identify as being gender fluid use it as an excuse/ a way to get attention. It is very hard to believe that you feel like a boy one day and then a girl the next day. I don't believe your thought on your gender can change daily. I feel like it's an excuse to act differently and get things you want. If I would to say I feel like a girl one day, then I could just walk in the girl's restroom or locker room even though I'm not. People who are gender fluid I feel like are crying out for attention. They change their gender in order to have something to talk about and to be different. You can't wake up one day and be different gender have that repeated through your whole life. I do believe that is one way or other. I believe you could be transgender and want to become a girl/guy, but you can't switch daily. Thank you the debate!
Environment Over Economy

Rebut: My adversary has not made any strong stand with an example or neither did he rebut my argument. He states that fossil fuels are better as of now, Contradicting his own argument and tends to support the con side. Also, He stated the mass amount of energy is required theoretically is just for human's convenience, However, He did not provide any concrete data to prove his thesis statement, Not only that, By debating on this website, Doesn't he enjoying the benefits of the internet too? And if like what he said, This will take up much of the energy, So why is he debating here? Here he is trying to show life is more important than money and technology, On one hand, It's out of the debate topic, On the other hand, Without money and technology, How are we supposed to maintain our own lives, And even have the luxury to care about animal lives? Thus, Since my opponent hasn't made any solid argument, I will not have any new comments or argument and will stick to the previous argument. Thank you.
Environment Over Economy

First off, Fossil fuel is a finite resource. Although renewable energy is not perfect, It is a lot better and is being improved constantly. So, Fossil fuels are only better as of now. First, And I like to bring this up, Humans a species of animal, But are more valuable than any other species. However, Every single pleasure a human has should not be worth the life of an animal. Theoretically, A mass amount of energy should not be needed for human survival. It is just a major convenience we enjoy. Life itself is more important than money or technology.
Environment Over Economy

Thanks again to my adversary for this debate. Structure: Importance of energy fossil fuel over clean energy human lives over animal lives Argument: In the dawn of rapid globalization, Energy has made its significant spot in the modern world. All we know is that our world requires energy. Energy, The power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, Especially to provide light and heat or to work machines, Is crucial to our society to handle problems and to deal with the environmental problem. The production and usage of energy source are vital also to the economy of the world. However, How do we even get this energy source? Without a doubt, The aid of the economy is inevitable in deciding the countries future in all aspects. Additionally, Fossil fuels are more beneficial when it comes to providing more and consistent energy source compared to the clean energy source like wind turbines which requires the specific condition to generate energy. Not only that, Developments in the usage of fossil fuels but clean energy like solar energy is just discovered in past years. The fossil fuels had played a significant role in the revolution of the world. Also, We cannot value animal lives over human lives, We as people should not focus more on animal lives but instead more on human lives. The oil spill incident is not intended by any human being, The incident is costly for both the economy and the environment, No one spills oil for fun. I disagree with some people's view of that human lives are not valuable, And tends to think that humanity is inherently evil. They did not put into consideration that they themselves are also human beings, Doesn't this make them evil too? Animal lives are definitely precious to the ecosystem, But please do not overlook the value of human lives. Thus, I believe that the economy has greater benefit for humans than environment has since the economy boosts the evolution of human beings and human lives are more important than animal lives to the society. Thank you.
Environment Over Economy

First off, Let me give you an example. The Dunes Sagebrush Lizard is a species of lizard found in Texas, And the small reptile has been the spark of controversy for conservationists and conservatives. Now, It seems to be at a relative stand-still, With the plan being rewritten. However, The point is, The lizard should be protected because it is a living thing, And a living thing has more value than a material thing. It is a more moral discussion than political discussion, But basically, Living things can not be replaced like material things can. However, The economy's environmental effects will circle back to humans. For example, Climate change, Although heavily politicized, Is still something that affects us. You have probably experienced some form of extreme weather change this summer, Whether it be excessive storms and rain in some places or extreme heat and a lack of moisture in others. Now, Climate change is natural, But has been somewhat sped up by humans. I'm not saying that climate change is as bad as people like Al Gore would like to claim, And the world isn't going to end anytime soon, But at the same time, It is still a problem to consider. Oil spills along the coast affect marine life and could even make their way into our seafood. Clean energy is not used as much as it should be because it is deemed "not economically practical. " http://www. Reptilesmagazine. Com/Texas-Conservation-Plan-For-The-Dunes-Sagebrush-Lizard-To-Be-Rewritten/ https://www. Mystatesman. Com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/exclusive-citing-fatal-flaws-texas-rewrites-plan-save-rare-lizard/kpUCClUTA5Wov5JIj4NI3K/ https://medlineplus. Gov/oilspills. Html https://www. Ucsusa. Org/clean-energy#. W2NI-2RKj3A
We need more gun control

None of us have forgotten the Newtown massacre (I hope). It was tragic indeed, and it proves the failure of background checks. What needs to be done to avoid future mass murders, is to have stronger background checks, and not banning guns,It isn't fair to those who are responsible gun owners to have their guns be taken away. I know this isn't part of the debate, but I like to mention a few stuff. Our homicide problem isn't equally distributed throughout our society. Many states have homicide rates that are actually lower than Canadian rates, while a few states have very high homicide rates. This makes many people think the U.S.A is a violent country, when it really is only in a few states. I'm not being racist, but 40% of homicides in the US are committed by African-Americans, who represent about 15% of the population. If we want to fix this problem, we might want to help them. Sources: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... Even though civil rights were established in the 60's, hardcore racism against them continued for another 2 decades. If you notice, these era's were among America's most dangerous times to live in. I'm going to go a tip that might help reduce the homicide rate. 1. Provide Social Security Conservatives are going to hate me for this, but a big reason why we have such a high rate among developed countries, is because of our wealth inequality. 2/3 of black children live in a single parent home, almost three times the rate as white children. Failed policies that support single mothers should be curtailed in exchange for programs that encourage family stability. Working to fix these social issues is a sure way to more economic opportunity, and that will greatly reduce crime here in the U.S. It really isn't that hard to fix our problem, crime itself has been on decline for nearly 12 years, and what we need is commitment and devotion in eliminating this problem.
We need more gun control

I thank my opponent for this debate, I'm not against Gun control, as I believe it has worked it some states. But it cannot function in every state. I would like to mention that America doesn't necessarily have gun problem, but a homicide problem. A gun is only a tool, and cannot commit murders on its own. Banning guns is very impractical in the U.S. Nearly everyone owns a gun. All a ban would do is provide a gateway for black market for guns. U.S simply can't afford to spend billions on enforcing that law. On top of that, It is in the 2nd Amendment, and is deemed unconstitutional by many.
Cristiano Ronaldo is a better player than Lionel Messi

Well, based on the research that I have done, the reason I believe that Cristiano Ronaldo is a better player than Lionel Messi is because Ronaldo has in fact scored more goals in this season and has been on form by scoring 31 goals in the La Liga whereas Messi coming in by a mere 28 goals. Ronaldo has also contributed more trophies to his club than Messi himself. Another thing that Ronaldo outclasses Messi in is his headering. He has scored countless brilliant goals this season by using his head. Also, Ronaldo has a higher penalty conversion rate than Messi by scoring 23 out of 24 penalties taken this season. Ronaldo physicality has outshone Messi by his impecabble physique and also has the likens of the strenght of an ox. Some football pundits suggests that Cristiano Ronaldo is close to become greater than the real Ronaldo from Brazil. Needless to say, Ronaldo is an overall champion on the field and also off the pitch.
The instigator can not win a one round debate

"Whatever I post here can be rebutted immediately and I will not be able to respond. " -Yes, this is true. Your arguments have a chance of being rebutted. And since this is a one round debate, it is pretty obvious you will not be able to respond. "If I have more votes at the end of the voting period, then I have lost because I was wrong about being able to win a one round debate. " -No, if you win this debate (by votes), it is because you have made the better argument. If you lose (by votes), this does not prove that all losers of one round debates are instigators, it only proves that the loser of this debate if the instigator. The resolution is "The instigator can not win a one round debate", I am con. To win I have to prove that "the instigator can win a one round debate. " This is pretty simple to me. In a debate there must be a winner and a loser. The instigator has the same odds of winning as the contender (50-50) no matter how many rounds the debate is. The same goes in this debate; my opponent (the instigator) has the same chance of winning as me (the contender). Resolution negated.
Should torture be used as a method of interrogation

Due to my opponent forefiting this round i deem he has admitted i am correct since he did not provide refutes. Meaning i will simply list refutes on his opening statement since i have no refutes on his argument since he did not post any. .I Since i listed multiple times torture has been effective you argument about it not being doesn't have much of a standing anymore. CONCLUSION My opponent simply did not reply so i have proven his argument was debunked. I urge a vote pro!!!
Should torture be used as a method of interrogation

Let me begin by stating that the burden of proof is upon both participants. This is an open debate for anyone to take part. I would advise that we avoid reference to legal statutes or precedent as it is possible that the participants may not be subject to the same legal system. Torture is defined as: The act committed by a public official (or someone with the official's acquiescence) of intentionally inflicting severe physical or mental suffering on any person anywhere in the world, with the intention of coercing complicit behaviour within the victim or another person. The questions that should be addressed are as follows: - Can the evidence taken from interrogation be truly relied upon? - Are there points where it is appropriate to use torture as a method of interrogation? - If so, should there be restrictions on the level of torture applied? Whilst, I would gladly wish to play devil's advocate to this debate, I must categorically state that I am against torture on any level. I will address each of the questions in turn and welcome constructive debate on these points. Can evidence from torture be truly relied upon? The answer is no. The infliction of force (either physical or mental) has the intended effect of making the victim unbearably uncomfortable so that they are in a position of willingness to confess or reveal information. What happens if they have no information to reveal? They are placed under a greater degree of torture. The result is that only one answer can be obtained from the process of torture - and that answer is what the interrogator wishes to hear. Indeed, how is the interrogating office meant to determine whether an innocent victim has supplied false information, or whether a guilty victim has supplied true information? Are there points where it is appropriate to use torture as a method of interrogation? I imagine my opponent will cite threats of immediate terrorism or atrocities as suitable situations to invoke torture as a method of determining when and where the act will be committed and by whom. Ignoring the accuracy issues I have discussed above, these circumstances are often relevant at points of high national tension and fear. Is it truly the appropriate time to introduce a restriction upon freedoms? Have we not seen in history (e.g. Nazi Germany) how times of national fear have sparked restrictions upon fundamental freedoms? Should we not protect these no matter the cost? Should there be restrictions on the level of torture applied? This question is heavily weighted in favour of my opponent to discuss; it is difficult to make a statement without a comment to respond to. Torture, as a tool, as the appeal of providing a method of retrieving information that from individuals which are popularly viewed as being the 'enemy'. It is my submission, that a state allowing the use of torture allows a restriction upon justice that enables an un-elected and un-vetted state official to act as police officer, judge, and jury. This is surely an insult to the principle of separation of powers that many democracies value as a fundamental aspect of their constitution.
The Immaculate Conception is biblically accurate

Greetings, everyone. Pro will be arguing that this is a biblically sound doctrine. Since I am Con, I will do the opposite. Rules: 1. You must be a Catholic. No devil's advocates. 2. Your arguments must be based on the 66 books of the Bible that both Protestants and Catholics agree upon (1). Neither the seven books (the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon) that Catholics and Protestants do not agree upon, nor any other religious writings are valid sources for this debate. 3. No trolling or profanity. 4. If you're interested in debating this topic, then you should let me know in the comments section. I have made this debate impossible to accept. If you find a way to accept it, then you forfeit all seven points. You have to personally get my permission to accept this debate. 5. The first round is NOT for acceptance. Provide your arguments for the first round. However, you must stop arguing for your final round in order to balance the number of arguments out. So, all you must do is simply say, "As established by the rules, I will not be posting any arguments here. Goodbye." Definitions: 1. Immaculate Conception: The Catholic doctrine stating that Mary (the mother of Jesus), "in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin" (2). 2. Biblically - "Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible" (3). 3. Accurate - "free from error; conforming to truth" (4).Have fun. Sources: 1.http://carm.org... 2.http://www.gospa.org.... 3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com... 4. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Are sequel really that good

It is true that most movies/sequels are from books or comics, but more times than most the movie is just as good if not better than the book. Lots of people like the visual of the movie from the book. So the sequels like Harry Potter, Avengers, other Marvel movies, Divergent, Hunger Games, etc. are able to be visualized. Would you rather have just one movie of each, leaving cliffhangers and questions? No, people are fascinated and interested to see the next adventure, continue the action or mystery, even if it came from a comic or book. Yes, anyone can come up with a different ending, but that makes it better, if you don't like the ending provided, then you can create your own. Other times it is interesting and sometimes hilarious to see other people's perspective. Bad sequels are great examples to directors so they know how not to make the same mistake. Without bad sequels like as you say Jaws or in your opinion Percy Jackson, we would not have the knowledge how to make them better.
Are sequel really that good

Actually the sequel you are stating are not really sequel as it is extracted from the same comic book and they only had to divide the book into different parts to make more movies and more cash. A real sequel would be, jaws which as critics say was a total disaster with a poor visual achievement. Narnia like you say was good however that is your opinion, the main reason it was liked was because of humans natural need to be curious. Sequel most of the time largely go off track from the original idea and are only what a persons thought were, therefore anyone could have had imagined a different version, Percy Jackson was a total fail, with the first and second being out of context and the sequel worse and worse. Therefore sequel are bad in a way but yet good for human nature. But the real question is still here" are sequel really that good?" No as they differ from the original work and are only ones imagination to further the work wereas any individual has the capability to do just .