BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Introverts should be locked up

Since my opponent has not given me anything to dispute, I will start my arguments: 1. For my opponent to say that "introverts should be locked up" for life is preposterous. As both of us live in the United States, I shall start there. To start locking people up solely because of their personality completely violates everything the U.S. was built on. It's like throwing people in jail because of their skin, eyes, hair, etc. There is absolutely no way you could convince anyone of that. 2. Introverts make up 25-40% of the population, and 60% of the gifted population. What does this say about introverts? Many introverts do not think they can be leaders because they don't have as great of people skills as extroverts. But really, they are better leaders, as they are less likely to make rash decisions. Introverts think before they speak, and are level headed and calm in crisis. Therefore, this makes them better leaders, even though there are not as outgoing. As Albus Dumbledore said: "It is a curious thing, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it." http://www.techrepublic.com... http://jarrod1240.hubpages.com... As this has become an introverted versus extroverted debate, I shall also define extrovert: Extrovert: A person concerned primarily with the physical and social environment ( opposed to introvert). http://dictionary.reference.com... As many people just think "extrovert" means outgoing, this is not exactly true. Actually, it means that they thrive around other people, it "energizes" them, and they can't stand being alone. http://giftedkids.about.com...
The Public Education System in America Discourages Free-thought and Individualism

Con stated "though children are taught the same generalized curriculum each still has the ability for free thought. " I had never made the claim that public schools make it impossible for students to possess the ability of free-thought. However, I DID state that the school system DISCOURAGES free-thought and individualism. Now, I shall impart a few reasons that support my claims: * When faced with budget cuts, the first classes that schools decide to reduce funding to are Art and Music classes. * The more intellectually inclined students are scolded for conducting thought experiments (daydreaming) during class to compensate for the lack of education that they receive from the so-called teachers. * From a young age, students are exposed to one-sided government propaganda (drug-free campaigns) that tell them exactly how to respond in "peer-pressure" situations instead of encouraging them to weigh out the pros and cons and come to their own conclusions. * Students are taught to blindly recite the pledge of allegiance (a form of indoctrination). Now that I've listed some of the reasons that I believe individualism/creativity/free-thought are dicouraged in a public school setting I would like to end my argument.
The Public Education System in America Discourages Free-thought and Individualism

I would like to begin this debate by stating what the connotations of my topic are: A large majority of the so-called educators are nothing more than mere pawns in a corpulent system of mediocrity, and believe that they are actually making a positive difference in the world (whilst remaining ignorant to the fact that their actions are contibuting to a mass dumbing-down of our nation's children). Thank you
6*0 = 0 is true

Here's how you multiply two bananas by zero: No monkeys have two bananas. How many bananas are there? Zero bananas. Zero and one are not opposites f each other. Zero is the opposite of itself and one is the opposite of negative one. If you add a number to it's opposite, the answer will be zero. I don't think you get the number 0. 0 is (+X + -X). That means zero could be written as 1-1. So multiplying 6*0 is like this: (6*1) + (6*-1). That would be 6-6, which equals 0, because X-X always equals 0. Good luck on the final round!
6*0 = 0 is true

6*0(6) is the same as 6*0. No matter how many times you multiply six to zero, it will always be zero. I don't see how six can just appear after adding zero six times. Please explain. When you add zero to one, it equals one. It isn't very difficult math. Adding zero to one is just adding one to nothing, so it is one. Here's a word problem: Billy has no charger for his phone. He then buys a charger from the store. How many phone chargers does Billy have now? 1 charger. If you have no rocks in your hand, it is true to say you have no rocks in your hand.
6*0 = 0 is true

I will start with the 6*0 = 0. In your earlier debate, you said that 6*0=6, but that is false. It is false because multiplication is just like repeated addition, so 5*5 = 5+5+5+5+5 = 25. They are all the same thing. Another example is like -2*8. 8*-2 = -2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2 = -16 This could also be used with for 6*0: 6*0 = 0+0+0+0+0+0 = 0. They are all equal. If you think with real-world problems, then I can use some of those as well: 1. Each tree has five branches. There are five trees. How many branches are there? 25 branches. 2. Eight people have small bits of antimatter. Each bit has a mass of -2 grams. How much do all of them weigh together? -16g. 3. Six people have zero rocks. They pool all of their rocks together. How many rocks do they all have now? 0 rocks. I'm not sure what you mean by 1+0=1 is false, but 1 is true. Please explain.
6*0 = 0 is true

I have no million dollars, so I am a millionaire! no monkeys, can never have 0 bananas, false is implied nothing is the opposite of something, information and matter, 0 and 1 the future and past is information, and my imagination only happens now 0=false and truth 1=true everything is something and something is 1, and nothing Is 0 so basically, there is no thing in your imagination 1 -1 is false. make a soda minus -1, you cant, it can only be 1, you can drink it and burn the bottle where as only transformation is going on, at some point you pee it out and see a smoking cloud, not nothing
Private Firearms are Necessary for the People to Possess and Use

or "What is the meaning of the Second Amendment? ", but rather "If the Constitution never existed to protect private firearm ownership, would there still be a logical reason for or against gun control? " * To defend my point: from a logical point of view, gun control does not make sense as way to reduce crime. If the extent of the gun control is to simply reduce or restrict private firearm ownership, not take it away completely, the measure remains ineffective. The very fact that a person is a criminal shows that they do not respect the law, and that a gun control law will not be respected. The Prohibition of the 1920's and the current war on drugs show that banning something by no means makes the possession of that item impossible or even difficult. The criminals the measure tries to stop are still able to get their hands on firearms, while those who are law-abiding and by definition will almost certainly obey said law are now unarmed. If the extent of the gun control is to make it so only the police and military have weaponry, then logically the measure still remains ineffective. The logic set up above in the previous point would still hold, while the additional restrictions in this point would also force citizens to rely on government measures, which are often too slow or too ineffective (as evidenced by the fact that my mother was given a busy signal by 911 mere weeks ago). Aside from logic, evidence also shows the falsehood of gun control being able to reduce crime. The nation of Luxembourg has extremely strict gun control where handgun ownership is completely banned (1). However, Luxembourg's murder rate is one third higher than the United States' for the period of 1999-2003 England is commonly known for its stringent gun control and for its allegedly low crime rate. However, the idea of a low crime rate is downright false, as by the year 2000, England came to possess the highest violent crime rate in the developed world (2). In the 1980's and 1990's, more than 25 states relaxed their gun control laws. As John Lott pointed out (3), the states that relaxed their gun control laws experienced significantly lower crime rates than those that did not. (1) United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation (2) Criminal Victimization in 17 Industrialized [sic] Countries (2001) (3) John Lott, MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME. 2nd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000 In light of the logic and the evidence, I believe it is quite obvious that gun control is utterly ineffective in controlling crime. The only thing that it does is either have an inconclusive effect or increase crime rates. I welcome the opportunity to debate on this issue, and await a contender's response.
Life begins at fertilization (no religion).

For clarification of todays round I offer the following definition Acceptance: the action of consenting to receive or undertake something offered (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...) pregnancy: Pregnancy, also known as gestation, is the time during which one or more offspring develops inside a woman. (https://en.wikipedia.org...) fertilization: the fusion of gametes to initiate the development of a new individual organism (https://en.wikipedia.org...) You did not make clear what you mean by acceptance but I am assuming you mean the acceptance of the pregnancy. Pregnancy isn't something easily accepted especially if not planned. Women's bodies completely change from size to tastes and hormones go array. Pregnancy effects almost everything in a women's life. And once you have the baby your life changes even more you now have a living being in your care that needs special attention around the clock. As well as the next 18 years.
Life begins at fertilization (no religion).

Early pregnancy factor (EPF) was first described as a pregnancy-associated substance, although recent studies suggest a more general link with cell development. It is a product of actively dividing cells and its apparent functional importance to them suggests its potential as a regulator of cell proliferation. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...) EPF is connected to when the cells split in the egg and that doesn't happen until 30 hours after fertilization (https://medlineplus.gov...)
There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

Dear padfo0t, I am dearly sorry that you are hopelessly confused. The essence of this debate is definitly: There is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter. I can assure that I have read the topic, and I completley and thouroughly understand what I have written. You cannot seem to get the topic of this debate in your head and it seems as if this debate is debating what this debate is debating! Ok, now I'll be serious. Padfo0t, you cannot redefine the topic in the middle of a debate. If you wanted to debate about a town called Slaughter, then you should have mentioned that in the topic line. You were merely trying to get me to debate about the topic, and then claim I was not debating the actual topic. Again, I have shown that you must defend the entire topic. I agree, PART of the topic we are debating is about a town called Slaughter. I'm going to concede that fact that there is a chance that there is nothing wrong with a town called Slaughter. However, that is only a tiny portion of this debate. Padfo0t, you fail to realize that this debate is also about Slaughter, the verb. You can capitalize it all you want, but that doesn't negate the fact that Slaughter is still killing. To Slaughter someone is to kill them. It doesn't matter is you capitalize it. Here is a valid example as to how Slaughter does not reference the town. Slaughter is a wrong act, and is punishable by law. Just because one word is capitalized, it doesn't negate the fact that there are multiple meaning of the word. You have only argued about one small insignificant portion of the word. I have argued that there is something morally wrong with slaughter. You have not provided any arguments against my arguments, so they can be extended to this speech, and we can assume you agree with me, since you have not taked time to refute them. Therefore, I win because I have proven that there is indeed something morally wrong with slaughter. Thank you
There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

Dear burningpuppies101, I am dearly sorry that you are hopelessly confused. The essence of this debate is definitely: There is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter. (notice the capital S) As for the proving explanation, I was trying to make it as clear as possible in the case of your confusion once again. I can assure you that I have read the topic, not to mention written it, and I completely and thouroughly understand what I have written. You cannot seem to get the topic of this debate in your head and it seems as if this debate is deating what this deate is debating! Seriously, the topic is (in clearer terms) There is nothing morally wrong with the town of Slaughter, Louisiana. This is the same as the topic originally presented. This has nothing to do with killing and everything to do with the town in Louisiana. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KILLING AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE TOWN IN LOUISIANA. Notice that I took the time to capitalize every mention of Slaughter, and you still seem to think that I am referencing slaughter, which I of course am not. Because you have not provided any evidence of the town of Slaughter being morally wrong, I win, unless you present it in the next round which is not a good strategy. ]
There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

Dear Pro. "The resolution is: There is nothing morally wrong with slaughter."> Really? Last Time I checked, that was the essence of the debate. Same difference. Wrong, look at the topic line. This statement has nothing to do with the debate, as I will show later on. Too late, as you will soon see. The topic has nothing to do with Slaughter the town. I'll tell you why later. Everyone, my opponent has decided to present semi-valid arguments saying that the town of Slaughter has nothing morally wrong with it. I'm not going to attack the statement, but I'll say this; even if I concede this point, I still win the debate because I have shown how slaughter is wrong. The fact that Slaughter in the topic line has nothing to do with the fact that it excludes slaughter, the verb. That would be like saying that any topic that happens to have a towns name in it must therefore be talking about the town, not the actual word we are all talking about. Many words can be capitalized, but that does not automatically exclude the fact that the word must defended on all counts. Just because the word has a possibility of being a town's name, it does not automatically exclude all other meanings of the word. You, my opponent, have attempted to change this topic, in the middle of the debate. If you wanted to argue in favor of a town, and only a town, you should have said that earlier. It is too late to change the debate, and what you want to debate about. If you wanted to debate about a town called Slaughter and only about a town called Slaughter, then you should have said so before we started debating. Also, I have provided good logic as to why you must defend all of the resolution, not just select parts of it that you happen to think will help you. Here is that logic again: My opponent has not provided any clarification to the topic. We must therefore assume that he wants to debate the whole topic. My opponent's job is to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in all cases. I have to prove it is not, but I only need to prove it once to win. Also, you have not refuted any of my points. Because nothing in your previous 2 speeches have attacked my points, then I win this debate. In the last round of the debate, which we are approaching, you may only use points and arguments used earlier in the round. Not doing so would be against the rules of debate. Seeing as you have not attacked my points, they can be extended to this speech, and through the above logic, into the final round. They have therefore been dropped through this entire debate. Therefore, I win. Thank you
There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

Dear Con, I have no choice but to disagree with the following statement: "The resolution is: There is nothing morally wrong with slaughter." I must admit that you have the wrong idea for this debate. The topic is actually: "There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)" Also, I do not have to prove there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in all cases. I have to prove, however, there is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter, in all cases. I agree with your definition of slaughter, but slaughter is irrelevant to this debate. From the preceding statements we can conclude your following arguments have no use in this here debate, and I shall forget them as useless rubbish. to remind the readers, I make the following statement capitalized: THERE IS NOTHING WRONG, MORALLY, WITH SLAUGHTER, LOUISIANA. Yes, that is right. I did not mean the act of killing as you have stated I did, and I have clarified the topic now we can begin with useful arguments. To the readers, PLEASE IGNORE ANY REFERENCES OR ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY MY OPONENT BECAUSE HE WAS THOUROUGHLY CONFUSED. THANK YOU. Unless, you can name one thing wrong with the Louisiana town containing 1031 residents by the name of Slaughter, I win this debate. That was my point; there is nothing morally wrong with Slaughter. As you can see, all references to Slaughter have been given a capitol S as not to confuse my opp with the killing definition. I rest my case (until next time.) pS I repeat, PLEASE IGNORE ANY REFERENCES OR ARGUMENTS BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS GIVEN BY MY OPONENT BECAUSE HE WAS THOUROUGHLY CONFUSED.
There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

So the way I see it, my opponent is trying to prove that it is perfectly fine by ethical standards to slaughter. He has not mentioned what. From the topic, I can only assume he is going to affirm the entire topic. Therefore, the way I see it, my opponent is trying to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in any case. Therefore, I only have to show one case where slaughter is wrong, and I win. Heres a chain of logic: The resolution is: There is nothing morally wrong with slaughter. My opponent has not provided any clarification to the topic. We must therefore assume that he wants to debate the whole topic. My opponent's job is to prove that there is nothing morally wrong with slaughter, in all cases. I have to prove it is not, but I only need to prove it once to win. Definitions: morally: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior slaughter:the act of killing Refutations: Restated, you are saying that the act of killing is fine with almost all people. Wrong. Plus, you haven't shown any proof. You just made an assumption. I win on this point. I kill you. From your above point, it doesn't affect you at all. I have slaughtered you, and you claim that it doesn't affect you. You said it yourself. IN YOUR OPINION. Since when do opinions win debates? I win on this point as well. Also, again, you fail to prove the point. I'm very sure that I and most others will be suprised to hear that a close relative or friend just got slaughtered and killed. Common sense. Look above. I just proved you wrong. I win on this claim. My own contentions: 1. Killing is wrong. Nothing gives us the right to take life. We may do it, but we can never justify it. Even if it is necessary, it may not be moral. Morality is a unbendable law. Either you are doing a morally right act or you are not. There is not middle ground. Killing is a wrong action. Killing goes against just about every system of ethics we use. 2. Because killing is wrong, slaughter is wrong, by extension of logic. Therefore I win. Example: Slaughtering a human is wrong. It is against the law and you will be punished for it. It is also wrong by just about every system of ethics available. I win, since I have shown all my opponents arguments to be false, and presented valid arguments that prove my side of the case. Thank you
There Is Nothing Morally Wrong With Slaughter. (it's true!)

hmmm, trixy hobbit. Who says that you get to do that? As I see it, you might be agreeing with me for all I know, and I will win! Slaughter is just fine with almost all people. It doesn't affect/effect them at all! In my opinion, it is just surprising when they hear about it, that's all. Therefore, there is NOTHING WRONG WITH SLAUGHTER!!! I win so far.
Aliens are not saved and must be saved

I shall negate the resolution, "Aliens are not saved and must be saved. " It is apparent that my opponent is referring to this definition of "alien": a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial. [1] It is also apparent that my opponent is referring to this definition of "saved": to deliver from the power and consequences of sin. [2] In order to affirm the resolution, my opponent must prove three things: 1) aliens exist 2) aliens are not saved 3) aliens must be saved Thus far, my opponent has not been able to prove the first point or the third point. He made a weak argument regarding the second point. He cannot even argue the second point until he proves that aliens do exist. My opponent also has the burden of proof in this scenario. I thank my opponent for the debate. I have given him an outline for argumentation. Thank you. Sources: [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... : Subset 4. [2] . http://dictionary.reference.com... : Subset 9.
Aliens are not saved and must be saved

Aliens will never get saved Aliens will not get saved My topic is based on the fact that when Adam sinned God cursed the whole universe and if Aliens do exist on the far reaches of the universe they are also suffering from this curse. But since Christ only came to Earth the Aliens are not redeemed yet. Poor people! I feel sorry for them but that is the truth. Since Christ is the only way to paradise so there is no way an Alien can get saved because he does not believe in Christ? So we need to build sophisticated aircrafts that can travel the far reaches of this universe and other universes to save the Aliens. Once they know about Christ then only they will be saved. Here we go.
YouTube should be able to censor whoever they want without reason.

I understand the notion that YouTube should try to be fair and allow free expression from their users, but as they are not owned by the public (the people), the public should not be allowed to dictate what they are allowed to do with their platform. YouTube isn't a government entity, nor are they funded by one, thus they have no obligation to allow anyone's freedom of speech on their platform. That isn't removing anyone's freedom of speech, as users would be allowed to simply take their voice elsewhere, it is simply allowing YouTube to dictate what happens on their private servers. As i mentioned before, YouTube also has a right to free speech and it's clear to see their organization's speech is very liberal, so it would seem oppressive to tell them they should allow a platform for the other side. Ultimately, as there seems to be no legal ground for forcing YouTube to allow speech, it becomes a question of is it justified. I hold that it is as YouTube's ownership has political affiliations they should be allowed to explore on their platform while removing dissenting views. If they go to far perhaps another company might create a new video sharing site that will surpass YouTube. That is YouTube's incentive to get it right. It shouldn't be forced on them.