BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Cosmological Claim. There is a supernatural creator, not constrained within time, that created a

To this, I have only one response: your hypothetic case would prove your argument correct if it were not for the fact that it is *hypothetic* and does not take into account constants. A stationary moment could theoretically not be achieved because of the influence of gravity and expansion. The universe is in a constant state of movement, bodies being thrown potentially infinite distances and being attracted by other forces of gravity. Therefore a stationary state can not be achieved because the laws of nature would prohibit this from happening. Additionally, recent scientific study shows that gravity can circumvent the flow of time itself, even creating gravitational "waves". What this essentially means is that your example of observers witnessing events X and Y may be doing so because their versions of time have been distorted and are actually subject to change when and if gravity affects them more or less. Lastly, Einstein's theory of relativity does not allow for time to be travelling backwards. The theory is that the closer to the speed of light that you can achieve, the slower time will be perceived. This theory in recent years, however, is slowly being disproved. Phenomena such as quantum entanglement and wormholes allow for *faster* than lightspeed travel. Gravitational waves can also distort the timing and distance of such travel. These do not mean that you can travel back in time, this is theoretically impossible. The only time event Y could occur before X is if the observer is closer to Y than X. Otherwise the events occur in a linear order based on their situational factors affecting their field of time. It is largely distance that plays a roll in the order we perceive events to occur. This all becomes incredibly difficult to measure and even theorise when taking into account that the observer and the events can be affected by completely different perceptions of time-altering variables. You can not, however, go back in time. This is physically and theoretically impossible. Observation has nothing to do with the actual flow of time in a forward or backward manner, but simple the rate or speed in which it flows. Essentially, the observer's perception is irrelevant in the order in which events occur, but only in when we try to catalogue them. This in fact gives weighting to your analysis point A. Bringing this back to the original question, your assumptions of hypothetical time events does not provide evidence for a supernatural creator.
Marijuana's Legalization

While I pray that con responds to my argument, I would not be surprised as I doubt he could respond to many of my points even if he tried. Nevertheless, I will respond to the few points I was unable to in the previous round.3.b) Basically, things that are perceiceived as negative to society and are attributed to cannabis occur regardless of it's legal status. Also, prohibition is known to increase use seeing as how the netherlands general use rates are about half of those in the United States (1). It neccesarily follows that with increased general use, things such as drugged driving are increased.c) Regardless of the properties of a drug, the economic impact is the same with regards to legalization and prohibition. See my previous round's video for support.4. How is it protecting life? I argue it is doing the exact opposite considering not only the lives prohibition has ruined through civil punishment or criminal activity, but the many lives marijuana stands to save through its amazing medical value. Also, you have yet to respond to many of my arguments related to this topic.a) This is not one of those laws as it infringes on my nations values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.If con does not respond, this is all I have to say ofor the debate.Sourceshttp://www.truth-out.org...
The "Flat Earth" Debate is a gender divider (sexism) debate

Here, let me demonstrate. The "Flat Earth" debate is not debating if the earth is flat or not. It is only demonstrating each gender's superiority over each other. If a person implied that the earth is flat, he has implied that everyone on earth is a male. If someone implied that the earth is round, she has implied that everyone on earth is a female. It's just like saying that all people are white, or all people are black is racist, and that would offend anyone of color, especially African Americans. You can't just say that all men and women are white or black, because that is false. Not all men and women are white; And, not all men or women are black. Each side of this "debate" are demonstrating racial superiority over another race. Whites are showing superiority over Blacks, and Blacks are showing superiority over Whites. It is so divisive. It is a racism debate not just because how it works and how it has nothing to do with water being wet or not, but the fact that the majority of the people who say that water is not wet are black people, and not enough whites to voice themselves to make this "debate" fair enough for them.
Resolution: Ulilitarianism is a superior moral theory to Kantianism.

This is part of the Official DDO Tournament moderated by 1DevilAdvocate. Note on Voting: This is Jury voting only via the terms of the tournament found here: http://www.debate.org... Debate rules: 4 rounds, 1st round acceptance. 72 hour posting time. 8k characters. RFD required. 1 week voting period. Debates must be challenged and accepted no later than 6pm US central standard time on Sunday, June 2nd, 2013. Unfortunately, I am replacement for someone else. That's why this is so late. Resolution: Utilitarianism is a superior moral theory to Kantianism. Definitions: Kantianism: Kantianism is the deontological moral theory which claims that the right action in any given situation is determined by the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism: A moral theory which claims that the morally right action is the action that will maximize utility. Utility: According to John Stuart Mill, utility is happiness and happiness is pleasure minus pain. Superior: Being of more correct status. More true. A NOTE ON BOP: I know my opponent has peculiar stance on the term "shared" BOP. Therefore(since I chose the topic), I will assume the full BOP.
Final debate on objective morality

Hi ajab, this is my final attempt at moral debates :P I learned from my past mistakes and I asked mikal to be an ad-hoc judge. First round is starting argument. I won't divide it into several points because I'm too lazy. I found something in the quran. Quote (in english) 'Wish for your brother, what you wish for yourself.' NOTE: this quote will become important near the end. If morality is indeed objective, why are there so many different sects of all religions with different views? With different codes? Why do some societies condone some actions while others endorse them. Free will and objective morality do not quite fit together. Objective morality would interfere with free will. If objective morality guides us and basically serves as a 'Jiminy Cricket' (if you know Pinocchio, you know what I mean) that means it discourages from certain actions. But what if those actions are endorsed by the person's society? For example, I live in a culture where homosexuality is completely acceptable and I feel no remorse. If objective morality is a fact, why do the views of societies reflect so strongly on individual morality. NOW, relating to the quote in the beginning, I will explain my understanding of how subjective morality works. The REASON why people view murder, theft and adultery immoral is because THEY do not want to experience such transgressions against THEM. Another contributing factor, as pointed out before, is society. Society's laws govern individual morality. Sure, a person could feel remorse when doing something that his society views as moral, but that means that genetically he is predisposed to such views, or he grew up in a family that encouraged values different form that of society's values.
Intragovernmental debt should not be include in the National Debt of the United States

My opponent and I both agree that intragovernmental debt is an allowance. That alone should discredit the fact that it is included in the national debt. But the point is, intragovernmental debt is not "debt". The Government can not be in debt to themselves, that is illogical. Debt is something you owe, we do not owe intragovernmental debt. It represents possible future debt, but it in itself is not debt. We do not owe the Government $4.5 trillion to pay themselves off. The debt will occur when expenditures exceed receipts. And then the Govt will issue real debt and reduce their allowance. But intragovernmental debt does not have to be repaid. People who need SS/Medicare checks need to be paid. Intragovernmental debt is just a marker/allowance telling the Govt how much they have to fulfill those checks. For example. To pay off intragovernmental debt the Govt will issue public debt... Say the Govt receives $900 in SS taxes The Govt has $1000 in SS expenditures They now have a $100 deficit. The Govt will then issue debt for $100. Someone will lend $100 to the Govt. Now the Govt will give itself that $100 to pay off it's debt. Then it will credit the SS recipients account. The debt here is the $100 someone lends to the Govt to pay the SS expense. The debt is not the intragovernmental debt. That will simply decrease by the Govt issuing real debt where someone other than the Govt themselves has to front the money. This is why intragovernmental debt should not be included in the National Debt. You can have an allowance or some other mechanism that lets people know how much we have in SS/Medicare to spend if in fact we need to. But intragovemental debt itself, is not actual debt that the American people will have to pay off.
Intragovernmental debt should not be include in the National Debt of the United States

I don't disagree with my opponent that intra-government debt is an allowance I argued as much in my first post. The point raised was that a mandatory allowance i.e. mandatory spending is essentially debt. Debt interments given to a government agency is a promise that agency will have a certain amount of spending regardless of the budget. That is if agency X is holding debt, even if the budget is zeroed out for X.a) X can spend moneyb) Government tax revenue will go to X. The debt represents mandatory, non discretionary spending that will have the same impact as if the debt were held by a private entity. Sure in theory the government can order agency X to return the money to general revenue, the same way the government can tax unearned income from treasuries at 100%. I fail to see how an obligation of the general account, isn't debt.
Intragovernmental debt should not be include in the National Debt of the United States

I really do not have a clue what my opponent was trying to say there. But this is a fairly simple argument. One can not be in debt to themselves. If you have $20 and you say, "Oh, I'm going to lend this money to myself and in exchange give my self a piece of paper saying I will pay myself back in the future", is nothing more than you giving yourself a piece of paper. To understand how intragovernmental debt works in our system requires viewing it through the eyes of our balance sheets. Basic accounting principles will show you that intragovernmental debt is nothing like public debt and should not be considered a debt to the nation. Intragovernmental debt is an allowance not a debt. Debt: the condition of being under such an obligation: Allowance: a sum of money allotted or granted for a particular purpose, as for expenses: Source: http://www.websters.com... Now let's go through the accounting of intragovernmental debt and you will see why it s really an allowance and not a debt. We will use Social Security (SS) in our example. The Govt receives $1000 in SS taxes (This means they debt $1000 out of our bank accounts) The Govt spends $800 on SS expenditures (This means they credit $800 in to our bank accounts) This leaves the Government with a $200 surplus and us with a $200 deficit. So now the Govt has $200. The Government wants to invest this money so that it retains it's value by accumulating interest. BUT, the key part is the Government is also in control of issuing debt. This is no different than you taking a $20 bill in your right hand and paying your left hand. The Government takes that $200 surplus and gives it to it's left hand (aka the Treasury). The Treasury in return gives them a piece of paper (aka a security) saying that they will pay the Govt back $200 + interest. Now the Treasury takes that $200 they were given and they go out and credit our accounts by $200. Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a wash. $1000 debit (SS taxes) $800 credit (SS expenditures) $200 credit (Treasury spending) $1000 debt / $1000 credit Now the only thing created out of this process is a piece of paper that says the Government owes themselves $200 + interest. Now what does this mean? This means that the Government can spend "x" amount on it's Government programs... it is not a debt, it is an allowance. They don't owe themselves money, when social security expenditures exceed receipts, then they will issue public debt, get that money, pay themselves to eliminate intragvernmental debt and then credit people's accounts. The debt occurs when SS expenditures exceed receipts, the debt is not how much money the Government owes themselves. Therefore, intragovernmental debt should not be considered part of the overall national debt. They should have a separate category for Government Programs Allowance. Then when they have a shortfall of receipts for their Government programs, they decrease this allowance and then increase the actual National Debt of America.
Intragovernmental debt should not be include in the National Debt of the United States

Lets assume there was a non profit A preforming a service. A has a endowment from which it draws $X dollars A gets $Y dollars in donations. The total spending by A is clearly $X+Y. ____ Now let B be exactly like A but I'll specify that the endowment is entirely invested in government bonds. Further B receives subsidies for its work from the government and not donations. B has a endowment of government debt from which it draws $X dollarsB gets $Y dollars in subsidies. The total spending by B is clearly $X+Y.The total government spending for B is clearly $X + Y. Note however that if the subsidy for B were to fall to zero government spending on B would still be $X not $0. Debt and subsidy are distinguished. That is debt is not a budget item in the same way. ____ Now let C be government agency directly. spending $X+Y dollars: C has a endowment of government debt from which it draws $X dollars (note X can be negative here representing a flow into the endowment).C has a specific tax from which it collects $Y dollars. The whole reason the government is creating this structure is to indicate in a public way that C will be more stable than a general government program. It is a sign or a symbol of stability in trying to treat the situation of C like the situation of B. But ultimately:In the case of C all its assets could be seized by general revenues and the tax redirected.In the case of B the subsidy could be cut off and the debt defaulted on. In both cases the government would be breaking a promise. But that's all they would be doing. In the end because we have a fiat currency, a government with an unlimited ability to tax and spend its all the government's money. Stability of wealth is nothing more than promises about future policy.
Intragovernmental debt should not be include in the National Debt of the United States

My position is that Intragovernmental debt of the United States should not be included in the overall National Debt. Reason: Intragovernmental debt is money the Govt borrows from themselves. It would be no different then you giving yourself money and saying you will pay yourself back later. My opponent must represent the con and provide reasons why intragovernmental debt should be included in the national debt.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices ought to have term limits.

Concluding StatementsSorry I have been extremely busy and haven't been able to present all the information I initially wanted. I will briefly here conclude my argument and also address a couple of things my opponent said in this last round.My opponent says that this power that it gives the president is really not all that substantial because the court makes reactive not active decisions. While this is true, those reactive decisions are THE LAST say on matters of Constitutionality and it's rulings have shaped our nation on an extremely deep level. The decision of a republican president to select a Supreme Court Justice with conservative political ideologies can now influence policies 30 years into the future. The whole purpose of the checks and balances system is to keep from having one political entity from having too much power. And keeping a Justice in his seat indefinitely grants too much power to the court itself (no oversight from Congress or the President except initially or in extreme circumstances) and too much power to the President (by extending influence decades into the future).Partisanship is not the only issue the Court faces, but rather because we accept that the Justices do have political ideologies that influence their decisions, we should make it so that the current court has ideologies that properly represent the current political atmosphere by being appointed by more current representatives.I find it strange that my opponent alleges that I left his point about the supreme court and age unrebutted. In round 3 it was my #1 Rebuttal and I addressed how his argument that my statistics on the matter were skewed by showing that argument had no basis and was a straw man. I also explained how the term limit is a common sense response to our knowledge about how the brain deteriorates with age. Setting an age limit at 80 years old, would be the intelligent response given the increase in life expectancy among Supreme Court Justices. Please note that this was an additional point brought up by me, and the primary motion I am seeking to present is a term limit (which could even make the idea of a retirement age irrelevant).To conclude, I submit that changes in the individual justices would not compromise the Supreme Court as the bedrock of justice in this country. Rather, it will bring balance to the disproportionate amount of power that has been granted to the Court and President in the Constitution. The realization that political ideologies are at play in every decision should make us realize that though in theory we wanted this to be a nonpartisan branch of the government, in reality it cannot be avoided. Limiting the terms of the individuals, will also then limit the amount of power that is now being granted to these individuals and protect current US interests.Kind Regards,TrueScotsman
U.S. Supreme Court Justices ought to have term limits.

FrameworkFinal round is for summary only. No new arguments. No new rebuttals. Dropped arguments cannot be rebutted. Any new arguments, or new rebuttals, should be ignored by judges, as debaters do not have a chance to address these arguments.Final FocusThe Supreme court and non-partisanshipMy opponent claims that justices are partisan to a degree. What I assume he means is that supreme court justices have political ideologies that can lean left or right. This is something unavoidable in any human. Everyone who is interested in justice and politics will of course of some political ideology. The difference in the supreme court is that it is not a powerful tool for a president to exercise power with, as I said earlier in round 3. The supreme court does not make active decisions, but rather, reactive decisions. When the constitutionality of a law is brought up, the supreme court reacts, and rules upon the matter, as I said in round 3.15 year term limits will not reduce partisanship either, so term limits are not superior in this respect.The supreme court and ageMy opponent leaves my point regarding the current average age and youthfulness of the current chief justice un-rebutted. I forward this point. This point is dropped.My opponent again claims that aging reduces brain capacity, but shows no evidence to show that the current elderly supreme court justices, or any supreme court justices for that matter, have ever been proved to have bad mental health while still holding office. This point was brought up earlier and left un-rebutted.My opponent also points to other countries with retirement ages rather than term limits.The supreme court and the bedrock of justiceMy opponent left these points relatively un-rebutted. He agreed that law and justice require steady basis, I point that his system would weaken this basis, he does not rebut this. I forward that point as it is dropped.The delicate checks and balances of governmentMy opponent left this point totally un-rebutted. It is dropped and I forward it.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices ought to have term limits.

Without the worry of reelection looming over the heads of supreme court justices, they have no incentive to appease any particular group in order to win support or votes. This helps remove political bias in the supreme court, therefore improving the quality of the decisions rendered. If Justices were required to serve on a basis of terms, then the justices would have to run campaigns and would want to pass decisions that they thought would keep them in office, not always what they truly found to be just. Point 2: The current system provides a steady, static basis for justiceThe purpose of the judicial system is to enforce law and the constitution. If those who interpret justice were constantly changing, then there would be no solid background for justice, and no consistency in what is considered constitutional or unconstitutional. The judicial branch is the foundation of American Justice, and the foundation must remain solid, only changing rarely, but always in good health. Point 3: Maintains the checks and balances of the Government. If justices were constantly up for reelection, the balance of power would be thrown off. power would either fall to the executive branch (as the president would be appointing the justices), to the legislative branch (as congress might elect new justices) or (if the people elected justices) power would simply drained from the judicial branch, upsetting the balance of power. A republican president could appoint too many republican justices with republican bias to unfairly further his/her agenda without any regard for justice. A democratically controlled congress could do similar in the second case. The third case is, by far, the worst. Judicial knowledge is the essential trait of an effective justice. Campaigns are almost never about a judges qualifications or education or experience, but rather, their message or political party. The appointment system allows experts to appoint judges with a proper background and thourough knowledge of the law. Popular election lends its self to sensationalist campaigning that isn't truly based on whether or not the judge would do a good job. In Huntsville, AL, a new coroner was recently elected. The previous (who was very well qualified and served for YEARS) was removed from his office purely because law stated that the coroner had to be elected, and the incumbant coroner was a democrat (Alabama voters are majority republican). Although the coroner ought to be elected based on experience and knowledge, a good coroner was replaced with an ineffective coroner simply because partisan politics interefered.