BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
i dont know means, i know its false

Could simply means that something could happen. The example here that someone visiting a bar or restaurant asks their waiter: "Could I have a glass of wine", or "Could I have a glass of orange juice"? As with the term "if", there is no way that "could" translates as false, unknown or imaginary. Essentially it's just a word in the English language that is used to describe either a want, a desire, or a possibility--three things that are very much part of reality.It's the same as someone saying: "We could visit our family today", which if they *want* to they very likely will do. Could=possibility.Possibility=reality. The "ifs" and "could's" are an integral part of our daily lives, which take place within reality. Reality=possible. Possible=reality. Anything is in fact possible in the reality of life. Purchasing some candy is possible, additionally eating a strawberry is possible. As for the beauty contest example, I was arguing along the lines of them being at the contest at that direct moment--just before they are about to get ready and dressed up. The likelihood of Pros suggestion is of course incredibly slim and in terms of reality, they have more chances of going through with the competition than not. Regarding the rock, I can quite easily state that it was not possible. As with the previous example, the overall chances of a rock hitting me or anyone else on the head while they're in the safety of their own home is very minuscule. Due to the extensive scientific research that goes into astronomy, if a meteor was about to smash my entire house it's again likely that there would be some indication or warning of it; especially if we're talking about a meteor rock that is large enough to destroy my whole villa. Also, for all Pro knows it may not have landed on my head [assuming that there was one] and I could have somehow escaped the incident ;) It strongly goes in my favour that there have been no recorded meteorites in my area. And the possibility of them is again entirely rare. Rare=slim chances of happening. Slim chances of happening=meteorite.
i dont know means, i know its false

could=unknown=false=imaginary any possibility has an opposite, therfore i dont know possibility, can happen is false.. now is happening, you reading these words is happening, not can happen kNow=now reality is absolute, not possible maybe they die before entering the beauty contest thingi thus they never got dressed op a rock didnt hit you on the head, but it could have, or was it impossible? a meteor rock could smash through you entire house, thus you get a rock in your head :b possibilities exist, lies exist most likly=false=imaginary=unknown not seeing rocks=not seeing rocks seeing rocks=seeing rocks
i dont know means, i know its false

Maybe=something could happen. Once again, the term "maybe" neither means that it definitively won't or will happen. It simply indicates that there is a possibility of it happening. I don't know=it could happen. It doesn't necessarily mean that not knowing is exclusive to your imagination, as the "thing" that you do not know about for sure is naturally a part of your reality. Once more, the future isn't exactly "unknown" either. While we can't predict the future for sure we can make rational assumptions on as to what it will involve. For example, someone participating in a beauty contest knows that they'll be getting dressed up and wearing make-up--likewise, the make-up artist knows that she/he will be applying make-up to the said contestants. Another example would be someone who has just baked some cookies and now has one of the cookies in their hand; literally they are about to eat the cookie. This is technically a part of their "future" but it will still happen. Another instance is that five seconds from now I would have finished this sentence. Okay, it just happened! As I knew it would in that extraordinarily short period of time. As for the rock dropping on ones head, I know that a rock could not have dropped on mine [or anyone else's head reading this debate, unless they live underneath rocks or have partners that drop rocks on their head] as I began reading Pros sentence. The reason I "know" this is because I am writing in my living room where no rocks exist. Non-existent rock=cannot fall on head. Regarding my neighbour, they are most likely in bed or watching television at this moment. I could even look at of my window to confirm for v_spex as to exactly what my neighbour is doing. This again brings us to the point they we are able to logically assert things even if we do not know them for sure. Seeing rocks=being a rocky place. Not seeing rocks=not being in a rock place. The mathematical equations are pretty simple.
i dont know means, i know its false

maybe=i dont know=i have to imagine it=i can at best imagine it i know i am reading these words on they screen, i dont have to imagine it, and it is happening, not can happen future=unknown kNow=now know being true, and future being false, i can at best imagine what will happen 5 seonconds ahead of now could=imaginary, not true a rock could have dropped on your head as you began reading this sentence if=false if the moon is made of cheese i would take a bit of it if i was standing on it becasue i had a teleporter and i could breathe in space becasue i was god...... i have memory of seeing rocks, it would be false for me to say i have never seen a rock before, but you would have to imagine it false=anywhere beyond my personal physical experience of now=imaginary=unknown what are you most certain of right now, what your neighbour is doing? or that you are reading these words
i dont know means, i know its false

A claim such as "maybe there is a god" definitely doesn't constitute an "imaginary claim". Rather it is a realistic claim that is justified in the sense that people do not know if there is a good. The factor here is once again belief [or not] and personal opinion. If means that if something is going to happen, it certainly does not equate "imaginary" and it can also be used in the past tense and not just the future. You could argue something like, if Mr Cumming had gone to the shop--he could have bought some wine, or if Mrs Cumming had gone to the cinema, she could have watched a film. Likewise this does apply to the future tense as well when people organize events and decide to do things, like "if" we are going to sunbathe, we should take some tanning lotion". Or "if I'm going to make love to my boyfriend, I should climb on top of him like right now", or "if" he is going to pull my hair, I will moan in pleasure".So there you have, "if" is a very relevant term that is constantly used to describe and refer to reality. Moreover, the "seeing rocks" argument used by Con doesn't apply to many circumstances. You can only see rocks if you are in a rock seeing environment. What happens if you're not? That's right, you can't see rocks. Not seeing rocks=claim refuted.Claim refuted-not seeing rocks, how does one even conclude that rocks exist if they can't see them? Hmm?
i dont know means, i know its false

Hola v_spex! Como estas? Thanks for starting this fascinating debate and I hope you don't mind that I've accepted it. Now, onto my first argument: Not "knowing" something does in no way mean that it's "imaginary", or somehow "not true. On the contrary, it simply means that you do not know--in a sense it is neither true or false. For example, a person may not know if they're going shopping next weekend, but this doesn't mean that they may not go shopping. Likewise a person does not know definitively if they'll become a professor or not, but there's a fair chance that if they want to be a professor they will be. The same is said for G-d, no one knows for sure if he does or doesn't exist; the only thing you can rely on in this situation is belief or lack-of belief. And once again, not "knowing" is neither a truth or a lie. Not knowing=not knowing. Not knowing does not=it not being real or a truth.
Edible Vaccines

Are genetically modified vegtables/fruits making us allergic to the vegtable/fruit? People may develop an allergy to the fruit or vegetable expressing the foreign antigen. It is not clear what will happen when the person comes in contact with the actual virus. The vaccines behavior is not very predictable. My opponent will try and convince the audience that Edible Vaccines are good. I am here to prove that they are not. My opponent will try to say that, Edible Vaccines are a great help to our community. But in reality, just simply making these genetically modified foods, is expensive.
Edible Vaccines

How about I say that edible vaccines are really not as bad as you think. Edible vaccines can save lots of lives, four million people die every year from preventable disease and edible vaccines can decrease the number of deaths.10/11 volunteers 91% who ingested the transgenic potatoes had fourfold rises in serum antibodies.19 out of 20 persons showed increases in the serum antibody levels.Edible vaccine technology has been one of the great public health victories.A transgentic lettuce carrying a hepatitis B antigen to 3 volunteers 2 of them displayed a good response.
Laws Concerning Indecent Exposure Should Be Made Strictly At The Local Level

Good morning :D *yawns* So, since there's no structure, I'm going to mimic you. Seems like you just have a summary of your position, so... I'll be defending this stance. I feel that the laws concerning the idea of indecent exposure should be handled at the state or federal level (which one depending on how separate the state "should" be from the country). I also want it made quite clear on the acceptance round that I intend to defend that such laws absolutely should maintain provisions for exceptions for individual areas. Such as, if an area wishes to be nudist, then it should be able to apply at the state/federal level for the previously mentioned exception. Beyond that, I have a question. How Do you want to structure things? R2 for primary argument, R3 and R4 for rebuttals to previous rounds, then R5 for summarizing our own side of the debate / clarification? Your call :)
Laws Concerning Indecent Exposure Should Be Made Strictly At The Local Level

There is no compelling reason for this issue to be decided at the state level, and much less so at the federal level.Simply, if you are in one town and another person is in a completely different town you can't see them, so you have no interest and therefore ought to have no stake in what that person is allowed to wear in public in their own town.If you don't have to see it you have no business making a law about it, because it can't disturb you unless you choose to go visit the other town in which case you've tacitly accepted to put up with seeing what ever is allowed to be shown while you are there by choosing to visit.Likewise say you're a nudist and you want nudity to be legal. It's fine for your town to legalize it, but to impose on other communities in the state through the state legislature that they all must allow it infringes on the rights of people living in other communities who may have different preferences about what they are OK with seeing other people wearing/showing.
Poem Debate

Is that all your going to write? Come on I wanted a fight! SO it's time to see what you wrote, (I believe you should try and make note.) Your rhyme scheme is not even okay, Rhythm could use a lot of work. To learn from this you just may, Find out how to not be a jerk. The length doesn't matter, Your rhymes they all splatter, Like constant squirrel chatter, And uncontrolled bladder. Is your first line introduction? For that it doesn't function. I wish you could know, How much your rhymes blow. Your rhymes they don't make sense, They can't even be called rhymes, The errors they are immense, On poetry these are crimes. I wouldn't pay for what you write, Even to read it without light, But wait pay I just might, If you keep it out of sight. Hopefully you get better, Not act like a stuffed sweater, Old and in the attic, While I live on the paddock, Where the nice green grass grows, And the wind over me blows, While you get all fusty, and also really dusty. SO here I am kid, Show me a good round Argue I did, Now try to make a sound.
Poem Debate

Organization: Haiku, limerick, sonnet. Have a good debate. There one was a boy of seventeen, Whose ego was wholly obscene. His rhymes were so weak; They begged for critique - They"re even worse than Silverstein. When I first read this poem solemnly, I remembered my seventh grade class work. To think that it should lack such quality, Would surely make any sane man berserk. Sure, I"ll admit I"m not the best either, But at least I don"t use free verse cheaply. Thought and work " your poem conveys neither, It demonstrates failure so completely. If you"re to prove you can win this debate, (Which, I honestly doubt that you can do) At the very least give your words some weight; Get rid of that frivolous residue. I gladly anticipate your response " Please do show a little less nonchalance.
It is moral to remove the rights of one individual to protect the rights of an entire society.

....Ok.... Opponent did not post rebuttal, so I'll just take that as a confirmation that he totally and completely agrees with ME!! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! (evil laugh) I'll attack his case anyway, for kicks and giggles.Attack on Contention 1!My opponent basically states that vigilantism will become completely moral, as long as the vigilante believes they are upholding utilitarianism. I disagree with my opponent when he says that vigilantism will be moral as long as the individual BELIEVES they are upholding utilitarianism. Vigilantism will be moral as long as the individual is ACTUALLY UPHOLDING utilitarianism. My opponent has a flawed view on this point in his case. He's basically saying that a cuckoo serial killer that kills innocent people because he believes he's doing the right thing is being moral..... That is definitely not moral.Subpoint A: Here my opponent states that "when morality is removed we fall into a complete anarchist state". He says that encouraging vigilantism will cause this. Let me ask one question; is there a universal morality? No. Everyone has different morals, and they all differ from each other. If my opponent is suggesting that negating the resolution will result in a universal morality being upheld for everyone, that is impossible. That is why the voters should agree with my side. Taking the rights of a person is in most circumstances immoral. When it is done to protect the rights of society, however, that makes the taking of the rights of an individual moral.Subpoint B: My opponent claims that the social contract according to Hobbes is removed, for people are no longer protected by their government. Before I attack this, I would like to point out that my opponent is using Hobbes' social contract when we SUPPOSEDLY agreed on using John Locke's social contract.... just saying. So my opponent is saying that people will no longer be protected by their government and that the social contract is removed. However, MY side upholds the social contract for society as a whole, and only removes the social contract of one individual. By agreeing with the affirmative side of this debate, the governments are protecting their people. They are protecting SOCIETY. This is why it is moral to remove the rights of one individual to protect the rights of an entire society.Attack on Contention 2!My opponent briefly states here that a government based on utilitarianism will surely fail, then all he uses to back up his contention is a quote from John Paul II. Firstly, governments are ALREADY BASED ON UTILITARIANISM. That is why governments implement things such as targeted killing! Are these governments failing today? NOPE! So we're supposed to believe that a government based on utilitarianism will surely fail just because John Paul II said so? John Paul II doesn't know everything. My opponent can't just stick in only a quote to basically back up his whole contention. That contention falls, along with everything else I have effectively attacked.
It is moral to remove the rights of one individual to protect the rights of an entire society.

The resolution is as follows; It is moral to remove the rights of one individual to protect the rights of an entire society. Contention 1: A society of many individuals takes priority over a single individual. My opponent suggests we use the rights included in John Locke's social contract (life, liberty, and possessions). To back up this contention, I will use the right of life. Let's say a US citizen went crazy and strapped a bomb to their chest. They then proceeded to enter a crowded building in New York City and threaten to blow up the bomb. Regardless if the government or just another individual takes action and kills the threat, it was done to protect the lives of every single individual in that building. Yes, that person with the bomb strapped to their chest was killed and their right of life was taken away from them. However, that right was taken away from that single individual in order to ensure that everyone in the building kept their right of life, therefore making the action moral. It is moral to remove the rights of one individual to protect the rights of an entire society simply because more people will benefit and have their rights protected through the taking of the rights of a single individual. If the rights of a whole society can be saved through the taking of rights from a single individual, then that decision has to be made. It would not be moral to allow an entire society to lose their rights just to allow one person to keep their rights. Contention 2: Society cannot function without necessary evils. If the world took the rights of every single individual and placed them at a higher importance than the rights of the society as a whole, the world would not be able to function properly. The world has to operate on the idea of the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Without the greatest good in mind, decisions would be made by governments and individuals alike that would have an overall negative effect on society. Would it be moral to stand by and let society as a whole crumble to the ground? No it would not. While one person loses their rights, society is allowed to keep their rights, and that is the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. Taking the rights away from any individual is immoral most of the time. However, when the rights of an individual are taken away to allow society to keep their rights, then that makes the decision moral. The taking of rights is not being done with bad intentions; it is being done with good intentions, the protection of the rights of an entire society. That decision, to save the rights of an entire society, is moral.
It is moral to remove the rights of one individual to protect the rights of an entire society.

In order to go about debating this resolution I will provide an analyse of the resolution.1) The resolution does not stipulate the agency which is removing the rights of the individual, and therefore we see that it is either a government or another individual/group. To win this debate my opponent and I must recognize both, and prove both they are moral. The reason for this being that if we fail to describe both we would have to look at the resolution on a case to case passes and determine what is and what isn't moral. 2) The resolution also lacks to define rights, and since this is extremely vague I offer that we define the rights according to John Locke's social contract, each individual has the right to life, liberty, and possessions. This definition working the best since it provides universal rights not given by a government, but by natural law, therefore to everyone person at birth. 3) Lastly, there is a lack in how big a society can be, I offer (a still vague, but less vague definition) that it is any group of people living under the same laws. 4) The resolution advocates for utilitarianism. Contention 1: Vigilantism, well become completely moral, as long as the vigilant believed what he is doing will create utilitarianism. As mentioned above the resolution does not stipulate whether the agency that is removing ones right is a government or individual. When this happens we allow every individual to do what they think is moral, as long as they believe it prompts utilitarianism. This generates a complete anarchic state, and removes any point of having an individual. This creates two paradoxes that remove morality, and the social contract. Sub-point A: When morality is removed we fall in to a complete anarchist state since there is a lack of put forward by any society. Stanford Encylopida defines morality as descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society. When looking at this definition we see that the resolution completely removes this from any person by encouraging vigilantism. This removal allows people kill people regardless of weather or not they think it is creating utilitarianism. Sub-point B: The social contract, according to Hobbes, is removed, for the people are no longer protected by their government. In civilized countries a justice system is required in order to send someone to jail. In this resolution, there is no need for that justice system, the government can remove the justice system and kill the person if they believe it will create utilitarianism. It also allows individuals to do the same. Contention 2: A government based on utilitarianism will surely fail, as John Paul II says, "Utilitarianism is a civilization of production and of use, a civilization of things and not of persons, a civilization in which persons are used in the same way as things are used". This creates a government that doesn't care for it's people.