BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes Ontology Necessitates God!

Shalom Aleichem! PLEASE DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE TILL THE TIME NEARLY RUNS OUT. YOU CAN ACCEPT IT ON THURSDAY. ACCEPTING BEFORE THURSDAY WILL RESULT IN AN IMMEDIATE LOSS. THIS DEBATE HAS BEEN SENT AS A CHALLENGE TO DOUBLE_R. The Judges are: Subutai, Envisage, n7, popculturepooka, phantom, Danielle, Raisor, Sargon, and bladerunner060. Spelling and grammar, unless out right horrid, will not count in voting. The idea of this debate started with me contacting Roy for a debate. Given a list of topics he believed that the best topic to discuss is the Ontological Argument. I believe I should mention the Spirit of the Motion is whether the study of Being, with relation to the studies of Ideas can make God a necessary conception. There are some rules which both parties must accept: 1. The first round for my opponent is acceptance only, and to share any pleasantries. He accepts the definitions, and rules set herein. 2. The onus rests on the Proposition who must show that there is a logically sound Ontological Argument. 3. The order of the debate is such that the maximum limit is 10, 000 characters, there will be 48 hours given to post an argument, and only Judges may vote. 4. Any and all sources must be linked, and a referencing number should be provided in the argument. Sources must be easily available, and paginations must be cited. 5. All the respective definitions may be taken from the Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or any other well reputed text such as A Treatise of Human Nature by David Hume, or A Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant. These definitions of course can be debated. Here are some of the fundamental definitions: 1. God: God is a transcendental entity, who escapes the boundaries of human cognition, and holds the answer to key metaphysical concepts. God here is a Being who is different than Nature or the Universe, and it would not do that I universalize God. It should be clear that He is a separate entity/being/phenomenon which exists independent of any physical element. 2. Ontology: Ontology is the study of Being where one tries to prove phenomenon from a completely rational perspective, starting out with nothing but the conceptualization of a Being. 3. Necessitates: Makes necessary, when I talk about necessitating God I make it clear that the argument must prove that God exists. I wish the best of luck to my opponent! Faithfully Yours, Ajabi.
Pragmatism vs Originalism

This debate concerns the legitimacy of varying schools of constitutional interpretations. I shall be arguing that the pragmatic school of thought is superior to the originalist and related schools of thought.Pragmatism- "Legal pragmatists think that traditional models of judicial decision-making are severely flawed. The legal pragmatist thinks that traditional models are overly legalistic, naively rationalistic and based upon misunderstandings of legal institutions. As opposed to the self-imposed limitations entailed by traditional models of judicial decision-making, legal pragmatists emphasize the eclectic nature and the diverse aims of the law. More specifically, legal pragmatists largely agree upon four main aspects of a pragmatist version of jurisprudence: (1) the important of context; (2) the lack of foundations; (3) the instrumental nature of law; and (4) the unavoidable presence of alternate perspectives. "Original-"Originalism is a loosely knit family of theories of constitutional interpretation which begin with the assumption that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning, which should be adhered to by Judges, and that the meaning of the document does not evolve over time. The key to originalism is that decisions should be made based on facts about the document when written or ratified, with minimal adjustments for the time or context in which it is interpreted. Under this method, even when a judge sees an issue that he's persuaded ought to be ameliorated somehow, if the law as written and interpreted in the light of its original intent does not support the end result sought, a ruling supporting that result is not granted. Originalists argue that the entire point of a written constitution which explicitly grants the government certain authorities, and explicitly withholds others from it, is to restrain government, and the value of such a document is nullified if that document's meaning is not fixed. "If the constitution can mean anything, then the constitution means nothing". Two major varieties of originalism are original intent and original meaning."R1: AcceptanceR2: Constructive CaseR3: Rebuttals R4: Counter-RebuttalsR5: Closing.Good luck.Definitions from : http://cstl-cla.semo.edu...
Pragmatism vs Originalism

Forfeit accepted - Just let the time run out on your end for R3 and send me a Challenge Request when the time is good for you. OR...(and I'm just 'spit-balling' here) If you want - you can post your case outline in R3, and I'll post mine and for R4 we go from there and use the information the other gave for a 'pre-rebuttal' to include after the main draft of the case? Just a thought - I do enjoy debating (both sides) of this topic.
Driving Age - Raise to 21

There is only one age for all countries in the UK. Comparing the USA to the UK using statistics from 2015. By far there were more fatalities in the USA than in the UK (6. 3 billion in the USA and 22, 137 in the UK). In regards to your comment about travel theirs public transport they could use. In the A UK weekly pass for every week of the year would come to "366 a year. So tell me how using a car is better than using public transport? You pay for fuel, Garage fees, Tax etc. In the UK we have a thing called a provisional licence, This can be applied for at the Age of 17. In my opinion in any country in the world you should be able to pass a provisional test before you get your actual driving licence. I would like to also make a comment about your section on maturity. Research shows that you don"t become fully mature until 25 years old. Young people take risks and think they own the road. They speed, Don"t wear seatbelts, They are over confident and immature. This is why accidents happen and most accidents are caused or involve young people.
Driving Age - Raise to 21

While experience is an issue. If you look at the different states in the United States there are different ages in which you can start driving and when you can drive with a parent. There's even more with how many tests and regulations you have to pass. In my state, Florida. Once you turn 15 you can get a learners permit. And after about a year of driving with a parent. You can gain access to a drivers license. I believe that 1 year of training is perfectly fine and is a good amount of time needed to become a driver. And the Test for a drivers license isn't easy. I may have passed my first time around because I actually drove alot while I was 15. When my sister became 16 she didn't train at all and wasn't given her license until after the 3rd try. What I mean by this is, Practice is key, And age does not mean that you instantly become a better driver as you get older. If anything that promotes laziness to not have to drive until 21. Many people need to move out of their houses and start their live in college. Also, People need jobs at these ages, There are many couples that have kids pre 18 years old. Theres so much that goes into it than just maturity.
Driving Age - Raise to 21

Yes, The legal driving age should be raised to 21 as there is many new drivers who cause accidents. At the age of 17/18 you are still classed as a teenager and this is the case until you reach the age of 20. There are many risk factors but the biggest one being in experienced. In my opinion for the first year after you pass your test you should not be aloud to drive alone and you should always have an experienced driver with you.
Driving Age - Raise to 21

So again your arguing your point about the USA, Not the UK. These are two completely different places where the laws are majorly different. The USA is over 10x the size of the UK and therefor yes of course your going to have to drive longer distances. So can you sum up your opinion on why you think the UK (Not the USA) driving Age shouldn"t be raised to 21? As far as my opinion is concerned I do think that the age to sit your test should be raised 21, Young people as we have both found out cause the majority of accidents on UK roads
Driving Age - Raise to 21

Again you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Maturity comes down to it all. Make drivers who think they are on a race course and then you get the odd occasional teenager taking their newly bought car to a party and then driving home while under the influence. Your missing my point again in regards to public transportation, In theory the cost of using public transport is much lower and much more affordable. With a car you have to pay various things and depending on what the brand of the car is the cost of running the car is high. In the UK we have City and Country Busses and so therefor people can get around without having to worry about catching trains etc. Again your using experiences from the states. . The USA works completely different to the UK and we have a very tough court system which deals with driving punishments seriously and effectively. Here are some things the UK Driving Law States: 1. Children under 12 must be in a car seat until they are twelve or 135cm tall 2. Children over 12 must always wear a seat belt 3. Cars can only travel at 30mph in built up areas but they can go 70mph on dual carriageways and motorways 4. Drivers have to be able to read a number plate from 20 meters away or they could be prosecuted 5. You can get 6 points on your licence and a "200 fine you are caught using a phone if you are stopped
The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders.

Here is the resolution: "The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders."The resolution is ambiguous as to the extent to which the constitution applies to non citizens and outside of American borders. The resolution only asserts that the constutiton does apply to some extent. The resolution does not assert that the constitution applies anywhere, everywhere, and always. The following is a statement with a structure similar to the resolution:"John Doe runs outside of American borders." This statement does not mean that John Doe runs in North Korea, France, Turkey, and the middle east.Con states that Georgetown Law University disagrees with me, but doesn't show us what the university said how it would be inconsistent with my position. Con merely posts a PDF link. Con may or may not have actually read it. I won't do Con's work for him.
The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders.

Now it seems as if you have wasted your round two argument. The Constitution is more policy than law. "These statements strongly indicate that the constitution does apply non-citizens" tell a starving North Korean that if he only took his case to the Supreme Court of the United States everything will be fine. Your suggesting that no nation in world can exercise national sovereignty. You are suggesting that the French, the Turkish, the Arabs, the Japanese and every nation in between is protected by the American Constitution and that all citizens of the world are American citizens. How ridiculous. Why does the Federal government decide the media is allowed in his war zone but not that one? The answer is because the constitution does not apply in said war zone. Why do we imprison terrorists is Guantanamo instead of in the US? The answer is because if we bring them here they will receive constitutional protection. http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu... Interestingly Georgetown Law University disagrees with you, but I don't feel the need to copy past others work.
The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders.

"The debate Title does not you the words 'does' therefore you just wasted a round. "Nope, I did not. While it is true that I made a mistake when I asserted that the debate title says "does", my conclusion that this is a legal debate, not a policy debate, is still true nonetheless.Debate Title: "The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders."To elaborate many Americans seem to believe that the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay should be treated constitutionally or when an American dies overseas via US drone strike there are always claims of their rights being violated. I move to suggest that the constitution applies only to American citizens within US borders.You can move all you want, but the constitution does apply to non citizens outside of American borders. The SCOTUS case I cited shows that clearly.
The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders.

Debate Title: "The US Constitution applies to non citizens or outside of American borders. Con: "I believe that the Constitution does not apply to non citizens [or] outside of American borders." Because the debate title uses the word “does” as opposed to “should”, this is a legal debate, not a policy debate. This debate is not about whether the US constitution should or should not apply. This debate is about whether the US constitution does or does not apply. THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES TO NON-CITIZENS USCIS - “The Constitution and laws of the United States give many rights to both citizens and non-citizens living in the United States.” USDOJ – “The Thirteenth Amendment protects every person in America—all races and creeds, citizens and non-citizens, children and adults—from the bondage of slavery.” [2 – Page 14] “The due process clauses in the Constitution protect all people, both citizens and non-citizens” [2 – Page 21] These statements strongly indicate that the constitution does apply non-citizens. USCIS and USDOJ are credible sources. THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION APPLIES OUTSIDE OF AMERICAN BORDERS Lets look at the SCOTUS case Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) Some quotes from the opinion: “Petitioners are aliens designated as enemy combatants and detained at the United States Naval Station at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” “Petitioners present a question not resolved by our earlier cases relating to the detention of aliens at Guantanamo: whether they have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus”. “We hold these petitioners do have the habeas corpus privilege.” [3 – Page 9] “We hold that Art. I, §9, cl. 2, of the Constitution has full effect at Guantanamo Bay.” [3 – Page 49] “[F]or the first time, this Court holds there is […] constitutional habeas jurisdiction over aliens imprisoned by the military outside an area of de jure national sover­eignty”. [3 – Pages 79-80] It looks like the constitution is applying to noncitizens outside of American borders. The SCOTUS is a credible authority on American law. Sources – 1 - http://www.uscis.gov... 2 - http://www.justice.gov... 3 - http://www.supremecourt.gov...
Parents Should Vaccinate Their Children

PrefaceI've talked with several people recently about a trend among parents not to vaccinate their children. Personally, I find this trend to be alarming, and view the decision to not vaccinate a child to be morally reprehensible. I would therefore like to debate this issue, to air my feelings on the subject. There is a 48 hours response time on this debate, so please bear that in mind prior to accepting. Full TopicOn balance, parents have a moral obligation to vaccinate their children. TermsOn balance - means in general and after weighing all the available evidence. Vaccine - a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease. Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or semantics6. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add definitions7. The BOP is shared8. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round9. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. AcceptanceR2. Constructive CasesR3. Pro rebuts Con's Case, Con rebuts Pro's CaseR4. Pro defends Pro's Case and Crystallizes, Con defends Con's Case and CrystallizesThanks.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited as an idea is proven to be a false

well, i see your point. it's the same arguments i made during the 'god paradox' debates. i would say that if con's arguments are legit here, they should be legit in the god paradox debate. it could still be said that there is in fact a limit on the unlimitd, god, in that it can't make to infinitely opposoing forces logically interact as they are suppose to. but this is merely a restraint as a result of logic, reality. so while it could be said to be limiting the unlimited, i'm not sure it's the best argument.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited as an idea is proven to be a false

Commentary on the Resolution: I am going to interpret Pro's argument as being that properties that are normally considered quantitative cannot in principle be infinite. For example, a force is usually of a particular magnitude - an unstoppable force would be of infinite magnitude. Although there are no known forces of infinite magnitude in the universe, I do not see why such a force could not exist.Commentary on the Burden of Proof: It is inherently difficult to prove that a statement is merely possibly true, even if the possibility seems rather obvious. For example, it is definitely possible for goldfish to be green, but it is difficult to prove why. I will argue that something should be assumed to be possible if it is readily imaginable. Only if some contradiction or other impossible consequence results should this assumption be reversed. I consider it easy to imagine an object that cannot be moved regardless of how much force is applied to it, so the burden of proof must lie on Pro to should why this is not a possible situation. Rebuttal to the "Unlimited Paradox": Pro argues that an immovable object cannot exist, because if it were to encounter an unstoppable force, a contradiction would result. All this proves is that an unstoppable force cannot encounter an immovable object. There is no reason why an immovable object cannot exist on its own. It would have a property (resistance to motion) in an unlimited quantity, which negates the resolution. Pro assumes that if an unlimited quality exists, an opposing unlimited quality must exist also. I see no good reason to assume that - indeed, if an immovable object were to exist, it would strongly suggest that unstoppable forces do not exist. However, it is even possible for immovable objects and unstoppable forces to exist simultaneously as long as there is some factor which prevents them from coming into contact. Either way, this "paradox" is not paradoxical at all.Conclusion: Although the consequences may be difficult to imagine, there is no good reason to believe that unlimited properties are not conceptually possible. Pro's argument does not show anything to this effect. It can only prove the much weaker claim that objects with opposing unlimited qualities cannot interact with each other in certain ways - that does not mean that they cannot exist.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited as an idea is proven to be a false

the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited is proven to be a false idea weakest point. the unlimited paradox states that an immovable object cannot exist at the same time as an unstoppable force. the fact that it cannot exist at the same time, shows that the unlimited truly doesn't exist. better point. an immovable rock cannot be created that can be lifted by an unstoppable force.
the 'unlimited paradox' - the unlimited as an idea is proven to be a false

yeah i have nothing more to say. except, as i would argue in the God debate, if God wanted to go past logic, then he could, he could make a circle be a square. or moon could mean fish. in the world we live in, we can't really concern ourselves with that. i would apply this argument to con's arguments and say nonsensical stuff in a truly unlimited world should be permissble, albeit unheard of. con hasn't made this point.
Steve Nash is the greatest point guard of all time

If Steve Nash was so clutch he would have a ring right now. Steve Nash has always had a supporting cast on all of his teams. Dirk Nowizki, Michael Finley in Dallas Amare Stoudemire, Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion in Pheonix Jason Kidd has never had a good supporting cast. He led New Jersey to back to back finals. Steve Nash has always been beaten in the conference Championships. Steve Nash failed to lead his team to even one finals. Steve Nash plays with the best? Magic Johnson played when Michael Jordan the greatest basketball player of all time was in the league, he played when Larry Bird was in the League, Magic has played against the best the NBA has had to offer. Steve Nash only knows how to pass he does not play good defense, or does he play great offense, Steve Nash doesn't even rebound well, and he gets a large amounts of turnovers.
Steve Nash is the greatest point guard of all time

stats don't mean anything. The points nash scores are the most important in the games. nash could also do a lot more but is limited because people do not recognize his greatness. Oh yeah and did Jason Kidd ever win back-to-back MVP award. nash is obviously better than Jason Kidd. And for Magic arguments, he played in a different era when everyone sucked. Steve Nash is going up against the most physically talented athletes in NBA history in this era.
Steve Nash is the greatest point guard of all time

Magic Johnson is still the best Point Guard to ever play, regardless of his height. There have been a lot of point guards better than Steve Nash, I will add another stat Steve Nash's all time career Point average is 14.6 John Stockton all time leader in assists (15,806) and steals (3,265). John Stock was 6ft 1inch and that is shorter than Steve Nash at 6ft 3inch. Oscar Robertson was greater than Steven Nash- 12 time all star, career assist avg: 9.7 and Point Average: 25.7, MVP winner, Championship Winner Bob Cousy- 13 time NBA All Star, 6 time NBA champion, MVP winner, Career Assist average: 7.5 and Career point average: 18.4 Isiah Thomas- 12 time all star, 1990 Finals MVP, 2 time NBA champion, He is shorter than Steve Nash and he has career assist average of: 9.3 and Career point average of 19.2 Walt Frazier- not only is he the hero of New York City for winning two NBA championships in New York, he is a 7time NBA all star, career assist avg of 6.1, Career point average of 18.9 and Career Steal average of 1.9 Hell Jason Kidd is greater than Steve Nash. Jason Kidd is 5th in the all time Assist Average with 9.2 he also has accumulated 10,923 assists in his career, along with 7,853 rebounds with a 6.6 rebound average, and a career average of 2 steals a game with 2,343 steals total. Jason Kidd is also in the 3rd all time for most triple doubles by a single player with 105 and he is a point guard. In conclusion Steve Nash can never be considered the greatest Point guard of all time because he has never won an NBA championship, he has never even led his team to an NBA finals. There are a handful of Point Guards who have better stats than him. Steve Nash has not done a lot of scoring or done any great defense in his career. Steve Nash does not even deserve to be in the top 5 of the all time greatest Point Guards. http://www.basketball-reference.com... http://www.nba.com... http://www.nba.com... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...