BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: In my opinion, green apples taste better than red apples.

Greetings. First, I'd like to thank my opponent for starting this debate. Second, I'd like to request that voters vote on who provided better arguments. With that said, let us proceed: Ladies and gentleman, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent; my opponent must conclusively prove green apples tasting better than red apples is really his opnion. Now I know what you're thinking: Since he stated that pizza rocks his world, it must be true. However (and respectfully), your presumptions are misguided here. Him stating something about his personal life in a debate that directly concerns the validity of his personal life is not to be considered valid evidence. Besides, another reason such evidence is faulty is that I could merely counter it by claiming that I've met my opponent in real life and know that he really prefers red apples to green apples in his own opinion. In both cases, you would have to take our words at face value. I believe that there is an objective means of solving my opponent's conundrum. He can drive to my location (which is listed in my profile)(I will set up further instructions here) and I can have two or three of my campus psychologists mentally examine my opponent. They can examine him and conduct multiple tests that will lead them to the conclusion as to whether or it is really in his opinion that green apples taste better than red apples. After they conduct their tests, they can posts their results online and you can confirm for yourselves that my opponent was involved in their study. Either that, or something similar. Again, the burden of proof belongs to my opponent and nothing within his opening argument constitutes as evidence. As for my position, I'm going to advocate that it MIGHT be in my opponent's opinion that green apples taste better than red apples. This position conflicts with my opponent's since my opponent is advocating certainty. Essentially, what I'm saying is that we don't have valid evidence to make a conclusion. I now stand ready for my opponent's first rebuttal. My arrogance is going to kill me one day. :D
We can help others by not helping at all (2)

You suggest that nihilism is the way out of the destructive totality inherent in the will to truth, but is not nihilism a will to truth in and of itself. The rejection of all truths is itself a truth, albeit a pessimistic one. In fact, nihilism fits perfectly among those truths which you call "destructive" because it destroys all other possibilities for knowing and being in the world. Nihilism is not a clean slate from which we can "embrace new values"—it is a manifestation of a specific value set. Regarding spectacle, what is not spectacle? Isn't the way that we interact with our family just as much spectacle as the commodification of benevolence that you claim the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups partake in? I agree with you that one is only obligated to oneself, but I do not agree that this existential statement can be used to justify a nihilist or anti-humanist stance. You are not obligated to help your neighbor when he comes to your door asking for flour. Will you then tell him you are a nihilist and that you must then reject his request? Or perhaps you will politely ask him to cease participating in this spectacle and illusion of the good neighbor? As for your contempt of morality, is it the only driving force for benevolence, charity, and good will? Maybe the desire to help others comes not from that social spectacle you call morality, but rather from a more authentic experience—compassion.
We can help others by not helping at all (2)

Please respond to my comments on the last debate. Most people today say we should help one another and share and such. But a world without suffering does not exist. We must avoid the prevention of suffering as it is an inevitable cycle. 1.The world's attempt to rationalize and stabilize a chaotic world- in its prevention of chaos and suffering, goes on a constant search for what is inherently true in the world, IE the will to truth. (Paul Saurette, Prof Political Theory at John Hopkins University, 1996) The will to truth can only lead to destruction- systematically killing off every new idol eventually turning inward. Nihilism is inevitable- only experiencing nihilism can we escape the current value system and embrace new values. The great philosopher Frederic Nietzsche wrote in his book 'Beyond Good and Evil' that the attempt to prevent suffering makes us all slaves to the so called good natured freedom. We have an obligation to break free of our current assumption of suffering must be resisted and the mass promotion of human rights as being championed by the assumption of a necessary truth. 2.SPECTACLES OF SUFFERING SERVE AS ALIBIS FOR OTHER FORMS OF OPPRESSION WHICH JUSTIFY VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION WORSE THAN THE CASE. SEEMING BENEVOLENT ACTORS LIKE THE RED CROSS CAN INSPIRE RACISM AND VIOLENCE WHEN CONSTRUCTING SPECTACLES OF SUFFERING. WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR POLICIES OR WE RISK REPRODUCING THE VERY HARMS WE SEEK TO ALLEVIATE. MY CRITICISM ASKS THE UNDERLYING QUESTION, "AT WHAT COST?" One is obligated only to oneself- the attempt to perfect ones most utmost self- all other obligations are just illusions. "From the very first, Christianity spelled life loathing itself, and that loathing was simply disguised, tricked out, with notions of an "other" and "better" life. A hatred of the "world" a curse on the affective urges, a fear of beauty and sensuality, a transcendence rigged up to slander mortal existence, a yearning for extinction, cessation of all effort until the great "Sabbath of Sabbaths"—this whole cluster of distortions, together with the intransigent Christian assertion that nothing counts except moral values, had always struck me as being the most dangerous, most sinister form the will to destruction can take; at all events, as a sign of profound sickness, moroseness, exhaustion, biological etiolation. And since according to ethics (specifically Christian, absolute ethics) life will always be in the wrong, it followed quite naturally that one must smother it under a load of contempt and constant negation; must view it as an object not only unworthy of our desire but absolutely worthless in itself. As for morality, on the other hand, could it be anything but a will to deny life, a secret instinct of destruction, a principle of calumny, a reductive agent---the beginning of the end?—and, for that very reason, the Supreme Danger?" ~Freidrich Nietzsche, Philosopher, 1872 (The Birth of Tragedy. Translated Golffing, 1956. p. 9-11)
Resolved:The Legend of Zelda francise(music, book, games) is one of the best ever

first, Thank you for clearing up that link is not an elf, it was an honest mistake. (the ears threw me off) second, the lengend of zelda does not "follows the exploits of Princess Zelda" it follows a character named link, in every video game of the series you gain control and follow the character link. which goes back to the original arguement that it is misleading and misguiding and therefore cannot be graced with the title of "best series ever" third, my opponent misses the whole point of that arguement, How is it the "best series ever"? Is it the most recognized? Indeed it isn't, that title would go to marrio and his series. Does it have the best characters?(judging by the deeds and performances throughout the series) no alot of characters can be attributed with that title more than link in zelda can. i brought up Master Chief because he not only saved his homeworld(which link did as well) but he also saved the entire universe and millions of other homeworlds for other beings as well(even link, granted they would be considered in the same universe, but with video games you never really know). so to my opponent i ask how is it the best series ever? and i said those things not knowing why you claim the series to be the best ever, i was just assuming the most logical reasons why you would claim that and aguing against that since you gave me no reason of why you claim that. 4th, and as for the rest of the resolution as in music and books(the only form of books i could find were comic books) i would also have to strongly disagree because 1. being the only for of book being a comic book the marvel and DC comics are more successful series 2. and music as far as my recolection goes zelda music has never been on a billboard top 100 chart or is considered a classical(such as beethoven or bach) so cannot be considered the best series in music.
Resolved:The Legend of Zelda francise(music, book, games) is one of the best ever

First off, my opponent said: 'the trials of a young elf named link.' Link is not an elf. In some of the games, he is either human or hylian. Hylian is a race deemed 'better' or 'higher' than the human race. Legend has it, the gods created the hylians, and the hylians in turn created humans. Second, my opponent said: 'why would you make a game called the legend of Zelda if your going to follow a character named link.' My opponent fails to realize that -while the protagonist is indeed named link- The Legend of Zelda follows the exploits of Princess Zelda and her attempts to 'save the day'. She does this by 'hiring' link to go fetch items, defeat enemies, and defeat Ganandorf. Third, my opponent said: 'To those arguments I will say that Mario is the most series and characters, and that Master Chief (Halo Series) and Marcus Fenix (Gears of War Series) are way cooler than link will ever be.' My opponent fails to realize that these arguments do not fall under the resolution. We are talking about The Legend of Zelda, not Halo, or Gears of War, although I do not find fault in those games. I do have a problem with my opponent attempting to change the resolution. I await my opponent's rebuttal.
Resolved:The Legend of Zelda francise(music, book, games) is one of the best ever

My oponent will try and tell you that The Legend of Zelda is the best series ever, i will strongly disagree. First I would like to point out that the series is called The Legend of Zelda, but in all the games it follows the trials of a young elf named link. What is my point? That the entire series is misleading and misguiding and overall stupid, why would you make a game called the legend of zelda if your going to follow a character named link, shouldnt the series be called the the legend of link? its nothing more than absolute idiocity. My question to my opponent is how is it the best series ever? He might say that either it is the most recognized series or characters, or he might say that it the most awesome series and/or characters. To those arguments I will say that Mario is the most series and characters, and that Master Chief (Halo Series) and Marcus Fenix (Gears of War Series) are way cooler than link will ever be. Now let me defend that statment, Link has saved the land of hyrule while Master Cheif has saved the entire universe from the invading flood. That is why The Chief is way more awesome than Link. So yeah take that.
"Black" Americans should not be referred to as, "African-Americans"

Black-Americans should be called Negroids, as they call White-American Caucasian. Very few people refer to Whites as "European-American" so why should people refer to Blacks as "African-American?" Color does not determine your race. The term "African" does not even determine your color. I am half Black and half Asian. Because of my mother's genetics, I am pure "yellow." So, am I "Asian-American?"
Should the border of the U.S. hire more guards

I accept Pro's argument. I hope this debate will be an informative and enthusiastic one. This round, I will sum up the platforms of Pro and myself. For the remainder of the debate, I will identify the Border Patrol as "BP". Pro's Arguments: 1) Increasing the amount of men/equipment on the U.S. - Mexico border will severely limit illegal immigration in the area 2) Strengthening the BP will provide benefits for the economy 3) A stronger BP will make the area safer 4) A larger BP will prevent deaths of illegal immigrants attempting to cross the border My Arguments: 1) There has been a severe decrease of illegal immigration from Mexico into the U.S., but it should not be attributed to expanding the BP. 2) Increasing the size of the BP will cost the U.S. billions of dollars more than it is paying for the program already. Spending more money that we don't have will, in fact, weaken our fragile economy. Furthermore, the influx of illegal immigrants has shown to be beneficial to the U.S. economy, so it would actually make more sense to allow them to work in the U.S. rather than continue to restrict their access. 3) The BP behaves like a gang set at present, strengthening them will only enforce this behavior. Damages to U.S. citizens' property, along with civilian deaths, have shown that the BP has made the area much more violent, not the other way around. 4) The BP has been responsible for thousands of illegal immigrants' deaths due to advanced weaponry, scare tactics, and other violent behavior caused by "pack mentality" psychology.
Human Enhancement

Yes they Might be able to prevent those diseases bu doctors can't exactly promise any results. As stated by slate.com we do not have the exact technology that we need to be able to do things the exact way we want to do them. If these children do not come out exactly as planned their parents may have some real issues with that. This may lead them to sue if it isn't to their liking. This could also take an emotional toll on the parents and the child, the child not being able to fulfill their parents' dreams may be a little too much to handle. The parents may also be unsatisfied and possibly put the child up for adoption ultimately concluding that the procedure should not have even ever happened.
Human Enhancement

Saying that children do not have the choice of their own is misleading behind the fact that they can say and do whatever they want. If your kid was genetically modified to be the greatest football player alive, he doesn't have to pursue that dream. Remember that these genetic modifications do not change you kids thoughts. He could think and behave like a normal kid but he will be a little more stronger that others. Also these genetic modifications can increase human life span up to 30 years. They will prevent genetic diseases such as down syndrome. Also you kid could have a perfect healthy life all around as said from blogspot.com
Human Enhancement

Yes they would have the CHANCE to promote the overall health, stature and smarts of your child bu the doctors also cannot completely promise that these things will occur. Also these children wouldn't even really have a true life. As calpoly.com says, these children are living for their parents' goals instead. They also say that these children could sometimes be described in life as mindless drones whose only purpose in life is to serve their parents or their "master". These children do not have much of a choice on their own as to who THEY want to be and what THEY want to do in life.
Human Enhancement

Yes children should be given the right to a healthy life but designing them to your benefit is not even giving them a chance to have a fun life. These children may not even have a good physical stature to be able to do these specific things. According to nature.com these doctors can not assure any kind of results in physicality. This will also go back to attitude as well, if there is no drive to do the physical activities then their bodies will not be as built as their parents want them to be and there will be no good results in athletic achievement. Nature.com also states that there has to be a physical drive to start with, these children will not just have perfect attributes to everything their parents wanted, nad the procedure will have been a mistake in the first place.
Human Enhancement

It is a big deal to work with child enhancement because it is not about any "enhancers" it is the fact that we are basically trying to design the baby of your dreams like it is some sort of toy. It is also bad because these children won't entirely be able to be who they want to be in life, instead they will have to be what their parents want them to be. According to genome.gov these children will be genetically engineered to fit the needs of their parents. Genome also states that these procedures would be intended to modify non pathical human traits, so in other words it would kind of be like mind control. The regular genes in the child's body may be superseded and the only way that can happen is if somebody like a genetic engineer were to genetically modify the cells to do so.
Human Enhancement

With all of these improved scientific advances, ethical viewpoints should not cease the advancement of these technologies as said from wordpress.com. Parents who disagree do not have to engineer their child. Even if you are able to genetically engineer your child, there will definitely be limitations and laws put on this. Also, this genetic engineering installs a better understanding of genetics for scientist and biologist. With all of these advances, doctors would also be able to identify the gender of the embryo after being fertilized for a few days as said from blogspot.com. If anything, genetically modifying babies would help the world. There would be not negative affects.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

The first century Jewish historian Josephus mentions Jesus twice. The shorter reference is in Book 20 of his Antiquities of the Jews and describes the stoning of law breakers in A. D. 62. One of the criminals is described as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James. " What makes this passage authentic is that it lacks Christian terms like "the Lord," it fits into the context of this section of the antiquities, and the passage is found in every manuscript copy of the Antiquities. Josephus Titus Flavius Josephus (37 " c. 100) According to New Testament scholar Robert Van Voorst in his book Jesus Outside the New Testament, "The overwhelming majority of scholars hold that the words "brother of Jesus, who was called Christ," are authentic, as is the entire passage in which it is found" (p. 83). The longer passage in Book 18 is called the Testimonium Flavianum. Scholars are divided on this passage because, while it does mention Jesus, it contains phrases that were almost certainly added by Christian copyists. These include phrases that would never have been used by a Jew like Josephus, such as saying of Jesus, "He was the Christ" or "he appeared alive again on the third day. " Mythicists maintain that the entire passage is a forgery because it is out of context and interrupts Josephus" previous narrative. But this view neglects the fact that writers in the ancient world did not use footnotes and would often wander into unrelated topics in their writings. According to New Testament scholar James D. G. Dunn, the passage has clearly been subject to Christian redaction, but there are also words Christians would never use of Jesus. These include calling Jesus "a wise man" or referring to themselves as a "tribe" which is strong evidence Josephus originally wrote something like the following: "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out" (Jesus Remembered, p. 141). Furthermore, the Roman historian Tacitus records in his Annals that after the great fire in Rome, Emperor Nero fastened the blame on a despised group of people called Christians. Tacitus identifies this group thusly: "Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. " Bart D. Ehrman writes, "Tacitus"s report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius"s reign" (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to Early Christian Writings, 212). this is the reason supported by the Bible why Jesus existed.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

I'm afraid I cannot fulfill your request ,I posses not the slightest intention to squander a single iota the mere brief glimpse of time that I have in this world in worshipping or talking to absolutely imaginary mythical gods neither do I view Christianity is which is at the core a cult of human sacrifice as an efficient and intelligent way to view the world. Do you really think that when you die you can be corporeally reassembled to me sounds like complete fairy tale to mehowever the offer of certainty, the offer of complete security, the offer of an impermeable faith that can't give way, is an offer of something not worth having. I desire to live my life taking the risk all the time that I don't know anything like enough yet ,that I haven't understood enough ,that I can't know enough ,that I'm always hungrily operating on the margins of a potentially great harvest of future knowledge and wisdom. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

The most amazing conclusion in all of this is not that Jesus really existed " it is that He still exists. And He sits in Heaven at the right hand of God offering forgiveness to those who will not just believe He was a regular man, but that He as the Son of God, gave His life on that same cross that so many historians knew about, to take the punishment for sins that all of humanity has committed. It just takes faith and trust in that sacrifice to receive him. Jesus said: Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. - Revelation 3:20-21. Jesus wants us to believe in Him so we can be freely forgiven of the sins we have committed in our lives, have eternal life and reign with Him. So now that it is established that He existed, why not take the time to get to know Jesus Christ and who He said He is from His historically-verifiable perspective? Your eternal life may depend on it
Jesus of Nazareth never existed.

"Using one part of the Bible to back up another might seem counter intuitive"Con all but conceded at this point.This is circular logic you cannot use the bible to prove that the bible is true .You need to provide evidence outside of the bible to support your claim of which you have presented none. Furthermore as I stated in round one."If Jesus had actually existed, Paul would have written about his life, disciples, and teachings. Paul did not write about any of this. Note that to Paul, Peter was another (competing) epistle writer. Paul referred to James as the Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. This is much like people of a religion who refer to each other as brothers. Paul wrote (in Romans 16:25-26, Galatians 1:11,12) that he knew Jesus through revelation, which is another term for fantasy and delusions. We can also tell that people were accusing Paul of lying, because he attempted to defend himself in Romans 3:5-8. "That quite simply negates Con's one and only argument.My arguments still stand unchallenged. Back to you Con.