BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There is no free will

Pro gave up. .. To waste no more of the reader's time I will sum up the debate. Definition of free willMy expanded definition should be considered since pro did not attack that. => free will depends on the amount of information available. I) I have show a reasonable probability that there is a third category of phenomena that are neither random, neither deterministic and that free will explains these phenomena very well while pro did nothing but mock this argument with magic and melons. Therefore the free will idea hepatises stands. II)I have also refuted the second bifurcation of Pro (things have a reason/ things have no reason). This was shown false because there are things that are partially explained by reason. Pros argument is the same thing as saying that a mellon is or is not. This does not take into account 1/2 or 99/100 of a mellon. This is why we are trying to teach computers more than formal logic. To better describe the world. III)I have also shown that due to their ability to learn, humans are more than a " just a very complex system, some super advance computer hardware+software" taking them out of the realm of determinism and randomness. Because of the extended definition of "free will" and the refutation of the two false bifurcations Pros case is negated.
There is no free will

I agree with the idea that everything has a reason (! =cause). However I will show that this does not lead to pro-s conclusion. DefinitionsI agree that deterministic means caused by something. I will add that a deterministic system should be predictable. For example, throwing a die, even if it can be reduced to deterministic collisions and trajectories is random as far as we are concerned. I also agree that free will means the ability to choose between two alternatives and to act accordingly. For the will to be free one also needs information. Since we are not all knowing, we make decisions with incomplete information. This does not make us deterministic, just less free. The idea is the the more information we have the more free our decisions will be since we can weight all the alternatives. For example:A person that knows to calculate can guess the result to x^2- 2x+1. he has one choiceA more knowledgeable person can choose to calculate delta or to write the equation as (x-1)*(x-1). he has two choicesThis is to show that there are degrees of freedom according to our information. The more information we have the more choices we have, the more free will we have. Therefore we are not talking about absolute free will. That is only accessible to a hypothetical God. We are talking about free will that is accessible to a human. ArgumentsPro starts by a false bifurcation and a non sequitur. [1] Everything must have a reason. okTherefore non sequitur. .. why? Everything is either deterministic or random. false bifurcationPro has failed to prove that everything must be either deterministic or random. He is pro so he has the burden of proof; he must show why this dichotomy is true. I on the other hand will state that a third cause explains some phenomena: free will. So when a phenomena is neither deterministic, neither random it can be attributed to free will. "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth". There are cases where a human behaviour is neither random, neither deterministic. The reason pro speaks about is only known after a person acts. Pro speaks about a biological reason for choosing the cake. What is that reason? If it is deterministic it can be predicted. This is not a cause this is a rationalization of the action. It is a post how explanation; it can not help us predict future action more than we can predict the weather. If we can not predict or statistically model a human action it is a huge leap of faith to say that human actions are deterministic or random. Marketing companies can predict some of the human responses to stimuli. However, people read about this so they become wiser and harder to predict. As long as people have access to information they can not be predicted. So they will not be deterministic or random - they transcend these concepts; they will be free. Since pro failed to prove the bifurcation and failed to show the causes (not reasons) behind human decisions the motion is negated. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
There is no free will

For the purposes of this debate I request accepting one axiom: everything has a reason (except the existence of the universe). Definitions: Free will: The ability to choose one of two alternatives, and act accordingly. Deterministic event: An event that is a result, whether calculable or not, of something. Randomness: The occurrence of one of two possible events, with no reason for the eventual occurrence of one of them, rather than the other. ===== My argument is, neatly and straightforwardly the following chain of thought: 1. The reason for the current state of the universe is the state of the universe at the previous moment, and the result of some random processes (whether there are any in the universe or not). ===== 2. From the previous statement we can derive that everything in the universe is either the result of a deterministic process, or of a random one. ===== 3. Now, let's look at free/not-so-free will: If will, the decision made, is the result deterministic processes: A. The choice is not "made" by the entity (that possesses the will), but rather occurs, happens, as a result of processes subject to the laws of physics and whatever other rules that govern the universe. If I chose a desert, for example, it's not because I had the free will to choose chocolate cake over fruit salad, but rather a result of the biology in my brain. I wasn't free to choose, I simply experienced the result of some neurons doing things over which I have no control whatsoever. B. There was never a choice! Two different alternatives never existed. There was only one alternative, the one that was the result of the deterministic process. The entity possessing the "will" "chose" the only existing possibility. If the will is the result of a random process: The entity making the choice, for example someone choosing a desert, will end up choosing one of the alternatives, without the power to determine which, because it's random. I'm not free to choose cake over salad. Instead, the in the next moment of the universe, one of the alternative (god, I hope the cake) will be chosen, randomly. Conclusion: will can be either deterministic or random, and both random will and deterministic will are not free. [Please don't claim that it's invalid to use the terms "next moment" or "previous moment". Doingthat would be rude, inconsiderate and not at all helpful]
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

You cannot simply say that criminals will get guns because they break the law. You cannot simply dodge the whole discussion of how guns get on the black market and ignore the fact that this would reduce black market sales of guns. While it is true that there will always be crimimals with guns, you can drastically decrase the amount that can get their hands on them. Studies have shown that 75 percent of confiscated weapons in major cities were purchased out of state. That is the black market right there. That mixed with the 2% of manufactured guns that go unnacounted for each year but that is for another time.There are no people robbing gun stores or planning gun factory heists. A lot of the weapons these criminals get are the result of regular citizens buying guns and then selling them off to criminals, or the criminal simply buying the gun in a state where it is easy to get ahold of one. Would making it federal law completely end gun violence? No. It would however reduce gun death rates? You bet it would. With gun regulations being federal along with one of those regulations being annual gun inspections, citizens can no longer sell off guns to criminals. It would not eradicate guns from criminals completely but it would absolutely make a huge dent. Suddenly now a criminal would have to pay a hefty amount to get it from a black market dealer because there simply are less black market guns in circulation. Now street thugs that barely scrape by all of the sudden can't get ahold of guns, and organized crime can't afford as many guns as they could before. Now, to your argument, this whole debate is about something in the Constitution that I believe needs to be fixed, so there you go. This will deter criminals because it will destroy one of their major sources of obtaining guns. They don't care if they are breaking the law, but that illegal source of obtaining guns will be diminished. Unneeded stress apon citizens?! This could save many lives, what do you mean unneeded stress?! Are you stating that the gun purchasing process being low-stress is more important than all the lives that are taken from gun violence each year? It would be stressful, but think about it, you are purchasing something thats purpose is to kill, I'd buying that is not a high stress operation than that is a problem! And yes, the laws should be the same for every state because of they aren't than it would be solving nothing. The whole problem here is out of state gun purchasing. It has to be difficult to get a weapon everywhere. If it is not the same in every state, the efforts of one state to add gun regulations are completely nullified by another states' relaxed laws. A criminal can't get a gun in New York? Just go pick one up in Alabama.
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

Unfortunately, the Constitution is the law of the land; while not "a perfect document written by God," it is the fundamental code of law that the United States government is forced to follow. State laws are state laws, and going against these rules is against the law of the land. Name one thing in the Constitution that is not right that has not been fixed. Also, these regulations would in no way deter any determined criminal from getting a gun. There's this thing called the Black Market and Illegal Gun Sales that criminals are in no way averse to taking part in. They are criminals! They intend to shoot people! Ya think that they are going to be stopped by a feeble little regulation? They aren't. In case you were wondering. Instead, these regulations would put unneeded stress upon law-abiding people. Why should we punish the good and leave the bad fellers relatively unharmed? Also, regulations should not be the same for every state. Unlike your claim, this is direly important. Getting a gun in heavily populated urban areas should be far more difficult to get than in little rural areas.
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

First off, the gun industry would not be devestated. Nobody is going to stop buying guns because of the new regulations. It is similar to how airport security does not devestate airlines. You can still gut your guns, it's just that your have to be a law abiding citizen and the process would not be paticularly fun. People still get their guns and the only thing the gun industry loses is their customers who are criminals. While you make a good point that it doesn't make sense that Alaska would have the same gun laws as New York, I don't believe that is really a big deal. You can still get guns in Alaska and in New York, and meanwhile the laws will prevent people from bringing guns to New York from Alaska. How? One law I would implement is that every 6 or so months you have to present your gun to a police station to prove that you still have ownership of the gun. This way, guns stay in the hands of the purchaser. Of course, all fifty states would have to have this in effect because if just one state refuses, the whole thing is spoiled. Yeah, an Alaskan probably should own a gun while someone in NYC has little need for one, but the rules should be the same to prevent criminals from abusing easier gun regulations. As far as the Constitution goes, you have to remember that the Constitution was not a perfect document crafted by god. There are cases where there are things on the Constitution and bill of rights that are just dead wrong. The documents were written hundreds of years ago and since then we have made revisions. Just because it is written in the Constitution that guns laws are state regulated does not mean that is the best way. Unfortunately with the way America works I don't think we will see it become federal law any time soon, but I believe that if it did happen, it would be the best possible option.
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

Problem is, there would still be losers even with your scenario. The gun industry would be subjected to new rules about gun safety and selling regulations, yes? Who is going to enforce these regulations? Are pawn shops going to be subjected to the same regulations as the huge gun manufacturers? This has the potential to devastate the gun industry: sure, they get to keep their guns, but how is it fair that Fairfax, Alaska has the same gun regulations as New York City? How does this make any sense? This is precisely why gun regulations are on the state level: each state can put into place as many or as few regulations as they feel make the state safe. Removing this right is in direct violation of the Constitution. Sure, the Federal Government could make regulations... if they wanted to break the highest law of the land. P.S. Never break the highest law of the land. It is not appreciated.
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

I am aware that making it federal law would be a very difficult and complicated thing to do, but it is the right thing to do. It's not really a practical thing, but doing it would make everyone happy. Less gun deaths, the right people get to keep their guns, the gun industry keeps flowing and we still can protect ourselves. It may be a bit of a fantasy, but the bottom line is if you want the solution to the gun violence problem, there you go. I'll be honest I have no idea how the president would go about making it federal regulation, but if they can figure out a way, they should do it. I'm not necessarily saying it will happen, I'm just stating that it is the only way both sides of the gun laws debate can win. Otherwise, there has to be losers.
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

While your analogy is a good one, It does not quite capture the enormity of the American gun system. Airport regulations are determined on a mostly federal level, although states do have the option to increase security measures as they deem fit (FAA). So while the terrorist would go to a more lax airport, he would still be facing the same threats from each. He would therefore go to the Mr. Black Market Guy and get himself a nice, illegal airplane that he could fly. The biggest issue in this debate is the rights of state government VS the rights of federal government. If you are unclear upon the vast conflicts that occasionally arise from this issue, kindly refer to the American Civil War. The Federal Government, as stated in the Constitution (I also advise reading it) gives individual commerce issues to the individual state. The federal level is therefore not really supposed to mess around in this affair. Doing so would violate the Constitution.
Gun Laws should be Federal Laws

Here's an analogy for gun laws that I like to use: Every airport has complete lock down security to make ensure the safety of all passengers. As a society, we all signed an unwritten agreement that we will sacrifice convenience for safety. Lets just say hypothetically, that one smaller airport has lackluster security, in order to be more convenient for passengers. They have very light security and basically anyone can just go on the plane with whatever they want. One day, Mr. Terrorist decides he's going to blow up some people. He's not going to go into the terminal of the low security airport and blow it up there because there is a low amount of people, he's going to get on a plane and fly to a larger airport and blow it up there. Now the larger airport that had perfect, lock down, flawless security has paid the price because of the lackluster security of another airport. Do you think that criminals in NYC or Chicago get their guns from their state? No, they get them from states in which it is easier to acquire weapons. It doesn't matter what Chicago does to prevent criminals from getting guns because they are not coming from Chicago, they are coming from other states that have easy-to-get-around gun laws. Making gun restrictions federally regulated (with background checks, gun inspections, etc.) will prevent smuggling of guns across states and into the wrong hands while still allowing good citizens to own guns. Now given, it would not be easy to buy a gun but similar to with airport security, you are sacrificing convenience for safety.
The legend of Jesus is remarkably similar to that of the Egyptian God Horus

The legend of Jesus is astonishingly similar to that of the Egyptian god Horus who came before him. The similarities that stand out most to me are: -virgin birth -people were lead to their births by a star -both born around the winter solstice -birth announced by angels -birth witnessed by shepherds -Herut tried to kill Horus during infancy, Herod tried to kill Jesus during infancy -no data of either one between ages 12 and 30 -both baptized in a river at age 30 -both of their baptizers were beheaded later in life. There are more but I will leave the voters to read them: http://www.religioustolerance.org...
Climate Change is happening

Climate Change is causing the Earth to warm up measurably, and there are already signs of disaster. I argue that this is happening because there are scientific facts to prove it. Out of 918 peer-reviewed scientific papers on this subject, 0% disagreed that climate change is happening, but in newspaper articles, 53% were unsure. This proves that climate change is happening, but scientists are having trouble conveying the information and other data to the people of the world.
Smoking Makes You Cool

Ladies and Gentlemen, Let's be clear on a few things. First, the resolution implies a universal standard. In that case, anyone who smokes is to be considered cool, including anyone I might mention or describe throughout the debate. Second, the resolution does not specify what substance is being smoked. And third, people like John Travolta and Amy Winehouse are clearly not cool because they smoke, but because of their awesome hair! I submit that the following people are not cool: * 14 year old girl who puts 10 pounds of lip gloss on and takes this for her I'm-so-bad-@ss MySpace default [http://i.ehow.com...] * Dirty, ugly d-bag who thinks he's the sh1t because he gets laid once every 2 months by whores with smelly vag [http://i2.ytimg.com...] * Closeted super Republican politician who solicits sex by tapping his foot in confession booths [http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com...] * Anorexic, insecure coke whore going through an identity crisis [http://ayyyy.com...] * This b1tch [http://www.foundstuff.co.uk...] * Here's another example of something I don't think is cool to smoke... [http://4.bp.blogspot.com...] (I mean, what's inside of there isn't the problem.) Back to ye, Pro. Prove that smoking anything always makes you cool.
Smoking Makes You Cool

Yes, but would you deny your VERY OWN PRESISENT?! http://americandigest.org... and JOHN TRAVOLTA?! http://sugajam.files.wordpress.com... and OH MY GOD AGENT DANA SCULLY http://www.artofsmoking.com... and of course, AMY WINEHOUSE http://i.dailymail.co.uk... and this guy seems to love it. http://www.markandmercedes.com... These guys are turning out fine, right? No one's harmed by smoking at all. And if your friend jumped off a cliff, wouldn't you bring a camera, look down, and consider jumping down yourself just to see what it's like? I would.
Smoking Makes You Cool

To clarify, if my photoshoped photos (i. e. Osama) don't count as evidence, then neither do Pro's. A recent report has shown that smoking tobacco and nicotine is the world's leading cause of death and disability -- more than HIV, AIDS, or famine. If AIDS isn't cool, then smoking isn't cool. At least with the transmission of HIV, you're either having sex or probably shooting heroin. Heroin gives you a high; smoking does not. Since the dangers of smoking are so high (cancer of the mouth, heart disease, etc. ), then those who smoke are merely going so in an attempt to look cool. At least that's how/why they started smoking in the first place, thus negating their actual coolness. Keep in mind what I brought up in R1 - smoking doesn't MAKE you cool. Not everyone who smokes isn't cool, but if they're cool, it's not because of their smoking. Also, like I said in R2, the resolution implies that smoking ALWAYS makes you cool. So, in order for Pro to win this debate, he would have had to prove that (1) Everyone who smokes is cool, and (2) Smoking alone can make anyone cool. If that's not enough to convince you that Pro's lost this debate, check out some of these not-so-nifty individuals: . http://media.photobucket.com... . http://www.gearfuse.com... . http://www.debutaunt.com... . http://www.beautyhobby.com... . http://www.firecorps.org...
Smoking Makes You Cool

The Osama Bin Laden is an obvious Photoshop hoax. And please refrain from using bad language here and pictures of Peni-bongs, I want the kids to read this and learn. hat 14-year-old "I'm really cool" MySpace picture might not be areal cigarrette, and she migh noteven smoke. Look at the stick, it's not even lit yet, and she doesn't have it all the way in her mouth. That D-Bag? Looks like a musician more than a smelly fella looking for a good time. Let's not bring your crazy liberal politics into this, I don't want to start talkng about antisemitism. Plus, so what if he's gay? And if he likes it in confession booths? Lindsay Lohan is very sensitive right now, and very bisexual, just leave her alone right now. She's not involved here. http://www.hahastop.com... need I say more? I will anyways. Doesn't tis guy look like he's getting all the ladies? He looks like the drummer for H.I.M. http://pnsexplosion.com... Since you're female, I'm sure you will apprediate this: OMFG BLARG EDWARD CULLEN http://wastedcelebrity.com... And support the troops in Iraq, you get all the ladies you'd like: http://countenance.files.wordpress.com... You want proof, you say, that Smoking Makes You cool? http://img7.imageshack.us...
should the government raise minimum wage

id say that they shouldn't because though you would get more money minimum wage jobs are temporary jobs and meant to be treated as such raising minimum wage will raise taxes and big businesses will hide behind taking it away and instead businesses should just offer better jobs and working environments A higher minimum wage, would be too heavy a burden on employers, especially small business owners. And those employers, in turn, would be unable to hire as many people an undesirable result when unemployment continues to hover at about 8 percent."Young workers willing to accept $5 per hour for low-level work or to gain valuable experience should be allowed to do so, Jacoby argued, especially if the alternative is being unable to find a job at all. Furthermore, increasing the minimum wage has not proven to be effective at lowering the poverty rate, according to the business-backed nonprofit Employment Policies Institute. Multiple studies have demonstrated little to no relationship between a higher minimum wage and reductions in poverty the institute says, in a policy brief." Where does this all leave the minimum wage? Harkin's bill has been referred to committee, which means it is several legislative steps away from becoming a law. And in a highly polarized election season, action on such a controversial issue is unlikely.