BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Had Hunton711 accepted this challenge, I would have beaten Hunton711.

"You haven't shown why the categorical part of the statement's being false affects the actual resolution." The categorical is part of a conjunction: the resolution. If one part of a conjunction is false, the conjunction is false. "If Hunton711 actually accepted this, then the question is still whether or not I would have won if he accepted the original challenge." The question never was whether or not you would have won if he accepted the alleged "original challenge". The question always was whether or not you would have won "this debate", as you four times clarified it. The word "original" or equivalent appears nowhere in your post. The word "challenge" appears once, as a verb, present tense, followed by "...to this debate." You then inform us that you're "opening it up to the floor", suggesting that the resolution itself has not changed. Perhaps the most damning evidence against the "original challenge" theory comes from your keyboard in Round 2: "...he would be arguing the same thing you're (supposed to be) arguing." Unless I'm "supposed to be" arguing against anything but what you now identify as "the resolution", it appears he would be arguing that he did in fact accept "this debate", as that's the simplest way to refute the resolution. "Second, I don't see why the truth of the statements is relevant. Really, your only job is to negate the statement 'Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won.'" It's unclear whether you're implying that falsification is something other than negation or that I negated the wrong statements. False statements have truth value 0, thus falsification is precisely negation. The reiteration, "Had Hunton711 accepted this debate, I [iamadragon] would have won" is semantically equivalent to the resolution. Thus, it can similarly be deconstructed into negatable components and thereby negated. "You're trying to create semantics where there isn't really any room for semantics." See Comments
Affirmative Action

Resolution: Resolved: Affirmative Action is a fair and just policy. Rules: - The debate consists of four rounds; first round for acceptance-The Pro should argue in favor of the resolution, while the Con should argue in opposition to the resolution. - Affirmative Action arguments are not limited to the educational field. Pro and Con may feel free to argue affirmative actions in other areas of society. -Considering that this is a political issue, the paradigm used is the legislative standard; the pro must illustrate that the positives of the argument outweigh the negatives. Vice versa for the con. -All quotations and statistics must be cited with a link to the source and date accessed unless it is common knowledge. All evidence without citations should be disregarded by the audience during the vote. -Every contention of each side must be fully addressed in the following round. If a contention is left unaddressed by the opponent, it is assumed true until it is addressed.
The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

I'm not entirely sure if there is a way to win this War. We were in over our heads from the start, but right now, it's better to press on, then to just quit it. Setting a time table would of course give us deadlines, which we most likely wouldn't meet, and make us look bad, but this isn't what I'm focusing my argument on. Winning may be out of the question, but we at least need to not lose. What is losing? Losing is pulling out, and watching Iraq get swallowed by Fundamentalist Islamic nations. Pulling out would not only feed their power, but it would also lose any hope for democracy in the middle east. It would cause more people to be angry at us, and look bad in the long run if we ever try to help someone again. Iraq is pretty much doomed, but there still is a chance for this War to work, but if we set time lines, if we vow on pulling out, instead of finishing the fight, then we're less of a country than I thought we were.
The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

The most important aspect to understand regarding this war is the concept of winning. The word "win" has been thrown around by Republican candidates in regards to our goal in Iraq. (Most specifically by John McCain) I believe one who chooses to take the "Pro" position needs to define what winning means. If "winning" means to end the insurgency or to quell it to a manageable level, then how do we do that differently then we are doing now? What is a mangaeable level, and who decides? If "winning" means to leave at a point when the Iraqi government can take care of itself, and its country, then what standards to we use? And what if they never reach them? Is there is a different definition to "winning? I believe the argument regarding the troop surge working is not a viable argument. I believe it stands to reason that sending more troops to a confined location is most likely going to do something beneficial. If the only way we can keep controlling the situation in Iraq is by keeping up the level of troops, or continually increasing them, what happens when we eventually leave? Do we ever leave? Even if we don't increase troop levels, how do we capitalize on the success of the troop surge? Not to mention the issue of enlistment. How are we going to find enough troops to continue the surge? We are already seeing a decrease in the number of enlistments and the troops that are active are already having extended tours or shortened stays with their family. A recent poll has shown that just under 50% of Iraqi citizens are frustrated with U.S. efforts in their country. This is compared to just 25% after the invasion. Is this not a sign that we have over stayed our welcome? This is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the war in Iraq. I look forward to your response!
The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

I'm never going to support the reasons we've gone to war. Had Bush come out and say we're invading because we want to spread democracy and help out the little man, I would have been fine. The reason I don't support it is because it was based on misconstrued intelligence. But my point is, we CAN'T leave, and setting time tables is a bad idea, because you and I both know how stubborn the people in charge of this war are. They're going to stay until the deed is done. They're going to break time tables if they think we're on the verge of stopping the problem, which face it, they will always use that excuse. Regarding Iran; We CAN invade Iran while still in Iraq. Granted, it'll make us look worse than we already are to the UN, and it'll make us look like we're trying to take over the middle east, but if we can invade on the grounds that we're pretty much at war with their soldiers anyway, we should at least get some support, because they're as bad as us when we invaded Iraq. They're invading Iraq to "help the people" If it comes down to numbers, then again, there's no reason to leave Iraq, there's no reason to make time tables that we're eventually going to break. Because of our 20th century Imperialist stage, we have soldiers stationed in all the countries we've won war against. We have soldiers in parts of Asia, and most larger countries in Europe. If we need soldiers for another cause, say, the terrorists in the mountains of Palestine, then we could have redeployed THOSE troops that were, for lack of a better phrase, "gathering dust" in Europe and Asia. We had more than enough to handle that. Great Debate.
The United States should continue efforts in Iraq without a time-table for redeployment.

It is good that the people at least are starting to like Democracy. It would be great if Iraq could establish a Democratic government, then the people could press their own leaders for it, but as shown by Musharaaf's recent Martial Law, leaders aren't taking it kindly. Democracy can only exist if there is an actual Democracy there. My stance on Iraq being doomed, is that we messed everything up by marching right in, thinking we would hand it to Saddam, and take everyone down easily. We never predicted an insurgency, and that's where the problems lies. Because Iranians an Syrians (I think there are Syrian insurgents) are there, if we were to leave, it would lead to them influencing the Iraqi's. And yeah, half of the Iraqi's want us to leave, but they think that the insurgency will leave with us, which isn't the case. That's why we need to stay, to wait out the insurgency until it stops, or until we go to war with another country. We have the manpower, we just need to redistribute our troops. There are MANY bases in other countries such as South Korea, Germany, and Japan that we could easily take troops from and deploy them to Iraq. Once we establish some sort of strong presence there, it will be a bit easier, and a bit more logical (us staying there)
Existence of a god

Quotes from my opponent will be in italics, summation of a point will be in bold. Re: the probability is that there is a godThe evidence that I've come across for a god is unconvincing in general, so I come to the conclusion that the probability for a god is unlikely. I agree with you completely. Transporting what you said to the existence of God, even if there is scientific evidence for God we don"t need it, because we have other evidences that aren"t 100% certain, but are more than good enough.I disagree that the evidences are more than good enough. As I pointed out with the cosmological argument, it begs a question, and there are usually problems like this with all arguments for a god, at least I've found that in my experience.You cannot ask for the beginning of something that is by definition, timeless. Let me put it this way. The effect is the universe, which is finite in time and space.What/who is to say the universe is not timeless? And again, if this universe is not timeless, then there could have been another universe that is timeless which caused this universe. It doesn't show that the most probable cause is a god, it just shows that one of the many causes could be a god. All the cosmological argument does is point to a god as a possibility, it doesn't directly show that it needs to be a god, or that it is likely a god. You could say, the universe created infinite universes and one of them just so happened to be ours. If you would say that, again you would be using the infinite series again.I don't see how this line of logic would be using the infinte series again. As long as one universe is infinite itself, it breaks the chain of the need for an infinite amount of universes. Alternatively, one could claim that our universe always existed, or one could believe in the mainstream science route that it was created on its own from a point of singularity. Romans 1:20You can't tell me that verse even makes any logical sense. If something is invisible, it's not clearly perceived by definition. But, I guess this doesn't matter as it doesn't really prove anything.
Existence of a god

My position is not "there is no god" but rather "I lack belief in all gods". I have the default position when it comes to belief in anything, since lack of belief is the default position when there is a lack of evidence. Evidence, would naturally lead to a belief. Lack of evidence leads to lack of belief.Rules of debate:1) Burden of proof lies with pro, because I am not taking an affirmative position.2) Pro should post their arguments in round 1 and waive round 3 in order to keep the number of debate rounds used for argument even between us.3) No personal attacks, insults, ad hominem etcViolation of any of the above rules means voters should vote for the one who did not violate these rules for conduct.
One needs to actively object organ donation

/PERSONAL NOTE/ Nice to have you joining me in this debate. I am looking forward to go into this topic. Many people die every day and some of them die, because they are unable to get an organ donation. It's a shame especially when there is a organ compatibility between those who would have died anyway and those who could have lived. I am going to argue that especially young and healthy people (which makes them perfect donors in case of an accident) don't think about that topic and leave their relatives with the crucial choice to actively decide for them to remove their loved ones organs. I also want to explain that getting a relatives consent or finding out about a patients positive views on organ donation takes often to long and endangers the transplantation. Optionally refusing organ donation instead of optional approval is therefore the better choice because it does not set relatives under extra pressure, raises the survival-chances of transplantation patients in terms of the amount of organs available as well as the surgery time that get's riskier with every hour. This concept is furthermore a open threat to organ-harvesting in poor countries. And I want to argue that those who are really strongly religious or disapprove will have this point sorted early to have their (selfish) reasons secured.
One needs to actively object organ donation

Well. .. Looking into an average statistic for Kidney Donation, we can see that donations from deceased patients is the most important source of donations even for those organs that could be donated while both parties are still alive [1]. Raising the amount of people that donate after death can therefore strengthen the most important donor source for all types of organ donation, as we can assume that barely anyone donates an organ that he need completely. Also, the chances of the patient, as the part taken from the deceased can be cut more freely, is raised. It also would make live-organ-donation less important and avoids therefore surgery mistakes that could kill or harm the donor. Dead donors can't die again, this part of the surgery is therefore rather risk free. [1] . http://www.kidney.org... This is only one short example of many aspects that make organ donation so important and finally overcome any post-death-selfishness and should lead to a general organ donation for all patients that have not specifically set a will that they don't want this to happen. From an emotional point would this make the decision not whether you want to be a very odd kind of hero after you die, but rather an active decision that you willingly accept that someone might die because of your believes. Organ donation after death is not something you decide for because you want to be a good person. Giving something away that you don't need is not an act of kindness and great character - it's logical. On the other hand, actively keeping something to yourself for no good reason is certainly an act of poor character. I'm looking forward to having this debate with someone interested in the topic to actually embrace the full potential.
One needs to actively object organ donation

/PERSONAL NOTE/ Seems like I am not having any luck today, that's the second debate where someone is forfeiting a turn in the second round - seriously, is it me? Anyway... I would like to offer my Opponent once again to state his basic point to better enable me to outline my arguments. In the mean time I am adding the full list of the main statements for this debate and hope for a response. 1. Organ donation saves lives of patients who would otherwise die 2. Many transplant-able organs aren't used because the patient has not set a will, so a) the approval of relatives comes too late b) the relatives don't agree to a donation because the doctors put too much pressure on them 3. This is a lost chance because most young, suitable donors support organ donation or don't care 4. This system promotes a positive new way of ethical thinking within the society 5. Optional Organ-Withholding saves lives of those who would participate in Second/Third-World-Organ-Harvesting 6. THEREFORE overcomes logically and ethically the desire of being buried (or even burned) in one piece.
Topic: Anarchy

I would otherwise think this would be a silly thing to even bother saying, but looking at people's profiles, there is actually a surprising number of anarchists. The concept of anarchy being beneficial is naï¿½ve and reckless. Governments are in place for VERY important reasons. People are violent. It is true. It is part of human nature to kill other Humans. This may seem strange to us, but that is only because we have been conditioned to suppress this violent nature. "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man" -Thomas Hobbes There is a lot of wisdom to this. Without a government we would be in a constant state of war. I can guarantee you, that if people had no rules to govern them, the rate of death would SORE, resulting from murder being a regular thing, lack of protection, lack of organized and government funded medical institutions (disease), etc. To be in Anarchy is to be in complete chaos and un-organization. There would not be any significant advances in humanity, if there was not a government to organize it. We must have government. It is one of the things that make the human race so powerful. To have this mass organization, is an amazing feat for a species to accomplish. To remove the government is to put your own, individual self in danger. Though it sounds great to have freedom, people would abuse this freedom horribly. "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil" -Common Sense (by Thomas Paine) By the way, I recommend Common sense. It is a good book to read.
Topic: Anarchy

Very, very good point, ivisman!: "If you don't agree with me, then you are a weakling!", is basically what you were saying it seems like. I can see that you obviously don't understand, or are ignoring how, government started in the first place. "Would make people tougher, stronger and smarter to outwit the other humans" Key concept: "outwit other humans". Did government not start off by people overpowering other humans? Could it be said, then that government is inevitable of Humans when they are intelligent enough. As circular as it may seem, would anarchy not through a subtle process create government, if at least a despotic one? Breaking away from the philosophical reflection, "An anarchist society could function and even thrive" I do not know what you are imagining. A "society" would be tense and unstable without laws. Murder would be a regular thing. I do not know what you think it is to "thrive", but I can assure you the world would not be pretty, if people were set free like that. Without government, where would we be? Whether it be a council of the people, a full-blown democracy, a commune, a kingship, or a tribal chief; We NEED government. In fact, without government, there would barely be any "society" at all. You say the "society" would thrive, because people are stronger. If the reason they are stronger is because they must kill (or "outwit") other humans, how is that a thriving society? A society will NOT work in any way if there are no rules. I would actually like to post the full quote to which I earlier only posted a portion of: "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one" Before it is even brought up, governments can be "bad" sometimes. They can be generally negative to their population sometimes, but the concept of it in general is important. Your argument seems to revolve around the strength of the population. The government, who organizes medical institutions, would not be in place, and the health would not be as good. They would use this strength to kill others. Quite personally, I would prefer a population of governed weaklings who get along together than a population of barbarous, reckless strong people
Topic: Anarchy

As we have spoken before, Harlan, thanks for reposting this topic. It is important to note that, to DEBATE something is not necessarily proof that one believes in it. I ask the readers not to vote their conscience, but rather to vote on who had the best 'argument' in stating their case. For that is the true measure of a debater's skill. Without further ado, Anarchy has it's value. Look at nature. Are there laws in place ? Do they have a system of government ? Nature polices itself. It is 'survival of the fittest'. You said it yourself, "we have been conditioned to suppress this violent nature". So, the 'violent' are being discriminated against, which is then deemed that the "strong" are discriminated against because in a violent society, it is the strongest (physical OR mental) that survives. An anarchist society could function and even thrive, because if you are NOT strong, you will NOT survive. It would make people tougher, stronger and smarter to outwit the other humans. So, anarchy has it's attraction; just not to the weak.
Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

My opponent states that. "Morality does indeed concern itself with right conduct. Conduct is not a matter of social interaction, however," [1] However quoted from her very own source for the definition of conduct we see, "3 : a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles " The act of questioning conduct implies a seperate observer, society can and does observe and judge conduct. Conduct is part of morality. My opponent is mistaken in regarding morality as a purely personal intellectual analysis and not as a part of sociology and culture. "Furthermore I reject that it is nigh-universal except within the present day. Evidence shows that in our evolutionary past, cannibalism was so prevalent that we adapted to it. Clearly it was not always as abhorred as it is today. [2]" Well I have to accept that, as one my own links stated the same. However it is clear that modern global consensus of morality is against cannibalism. "You have not introduced any new argument here which I have not addressed above or in my last post. You do, however, bring up a point. There is a cost to human health which society wants to guard against, this however does not make it immoral. " My opponent is correct in that we have reach an impasse in the debate. I argue that morality is a question of social acceptance, and moral principles. This is the widest most logical and practical definition of morality. That which violates the emotional conditioning of a society is immoral, that which violates intellectual principles can be deemed immoral. Cannibalism produces disgust, endangers human health, and endangers human society. None of these three issues have been refuted. On an emotional and logical level cannibalism is immoral. In addition cannabalistic societies are very rare, the majority of humanity is opposed to this. This is a valid point because morality is partly a matter of social consensus. My opponent has used narrow moral principles not widely accepted. She regards that a act can only be judged according to its immediate conseqences. Not according to the wider principles of moral outrage and long term consequences. This is as valid a method, it is also not the method employed by civilisation as illustrated by my former examples of drugs, duelling etc.