BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
True artificial intelligence is improbable.

REBUTTALSINTELLIGENCE & IMAGINATION“It would need a memory, and a complex set of ways to compare and contrast information.”You’re simply rehashing an argument that has already been rebutted by the “Chinese Room Argument”.The throbbing question is: How do you make the step from “Doing a task” to “Understanding a task”?“Replicate a similar set of processes as the human brain and you will get True A.I.”Perhaps this is the answer? Replicate the mind?However, the brain is not a computer. There is no distinction between software and hardware in the brain. There are all sorts of processes going on that we don’t have control of. They are fundamentally different!I have not once denied that a computer can simulate some of the base functions of a human brain, but that doesn’t bring us any closer to an actual thinking machine. Again, how do you make the leap to original thoughts? How do you code a machine to write code for new tasks? None of these questions have been answered.UTILITARIANISM“Logically everything has a reason for it and reasons upon the reasons, except for happiness. You want to be happy to be happy, no other reason.”Ummmm, what? Everything has a logical reason for it, except happiness? O_OThis is blatantly wrong. Everything has a scientific reason, even if we aren't certain of what it is. The argument I've made is that humans are masters of finding illogical ways of reaching desired conclusions.My opponent goes on to make a lot of assertions about how a computer could be programmed to act like a human, even going so far as to describe one potential problem as “an easy fix”.Unfortunately, there is no currently known way of even beginning to tackle this task. I can imagine a robot that can think; it’s been done many, many times before (Terminator, I, Robot, 2001: A Space Odyssey). Imagination is something Humans are capable of, but difficult to translate into 1’s and 0’s.CONCLUSIONMy arguments are based on two assertions which I have provided arguments for:Computer programming hasn’t gotten any more advanced. We have much smoother and more powerful ways of interacting with it, but it’s still the same binary code at the core.Artificial Intelligence is ‘just pretend’. It gives the illusion of knowledge, but will fail when an unknown variable is introduced. The Chinese Room Argument (which my opponent hasn’t refuted) deals with this directly.Resolution affirmed.
Vampire Weekend is the best band in the world.

(Wow. You're really serious for such a lighthearted topic.) Well anyways, Vampire Weekend is the sole reason why there is a God. Vampire Weekend is the sole reason why the Earth is able to harbor life. Vampire Weekend is the sole reason why I have children! Modern Vampires of the City seduced our ears with it's preppy, yet deeply controversial, east coast pop. Contra, african infused pop, combines all the complexities of every single song ever made into a compact package of 10 tracks, totaling 35 minutes long. Thanks to Vampire Weekend, we now know there really is a God watching over us.
Vampire Weekend is the best band in the world.

My opponent presented no valid arguments whatsoever. I have already proved that it is impossible for vampire weekend to factually be the best banned. My opponent dropped all my arguments. Furthermore, they made up false stories such as the one about the world voting that vampire weekend was the best band. More than 3 quarters of the world probally don't even know the band. In fact, they are one of the lower ratings bands."Vampire Weekend is ranked number 98 in the overall artist rankings with a total rank score of 18,404." [1] As you can see, they are in 98th place. Not only is it impossible for them to be the best factually, but they aren't even in the top 10 artist of the world. How could they possibly be the best?I have proved that it's impossible for them to factually be the best, but even by rating they are low. My opponent presented no valid argument whatsoever. I am the only one with a source, and I proved my opponent completly wrong. Please vote con for obvious reasons.http://www.besteveralbums.com...
Vampire Weekend is the best band in the world.

Since when did writing a song about god prove his existence? No, Vampire Weekend is factually the best band. Ever. Objectively. In terms of music, they exude more complex and appreciable rhymes than any other artist. They are beautiful, internally and externally (unanimously agreed upon by everyone in the world). They truly are the best band ever. The whole population of the world unanimously reached that consensus when voting for the "best band ever". Don't you remember?
Vampire Weekend is the best band in the world.

Just writing a song about god doesn't prove his existence (even though I believe in him). Vampire weekend is a good band, but not the best since it is subjective. I have already explained this. Pro has dropped all of my arguments. Anyway, vampire weekend being able to speak to you doesn't make them the best band. They don't speak to me, because I believe they aren't very good. This is my opinion. Since making a band superior is subjective, it is impossible for vampire weekend to be the best band. Since my opponent already dropped all my arguments, and was unable to present any valid ones, I have no reason to present any further contentions.
Should kids at age 16 be able to vote

Thanks for this amzing reply. I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems. The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife of wealth. /he was chosen by his smartness. Obama has helped the Millitary (which consist of me) with killing Osama. Previously, our other presidents have been chosen for looks and their wives. Not tryikng to be consulting of our usa presidents, but to be honest, they ahev messed up our money system. Did you know that George Bush spent 11.5 trillion while he was in office??? I think that the ages of 16 would think into smartness. With them thinking about college, they wouldnt be thinking on the looks of these people. This is my report on voting age. Thanks for making this vote so intersing. Resources:http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...
Should kids at age 16 be able to vote

Thanks Pro for creating an interesting topic. Seeing that my opponent has made his arguments I will as well.Opening Arguments16 year olds should not be able to vote due to the fact that the vast majority are in high school and have no even completed basic law, history and government classes. This automatically makes them much more misinformed and unknowledgeable than the average voter about the way their country is run, what is and is not legal, etc. For example, students in the U.S. who haven’t studied the U.S. constitution would not be reliable decision makers when it came to voting for or against a proposed law, proposition, policy, etc that may enforce constitutional law or violate constitutional law. Furthermore 16 year olds are often busy with school, extracurricular activities, events at home, etc and are often much more involved in their social and school lives than they are in the subjects of social issues, foreign policy, and economic matters. 18 is a much more legitimate age to be able to vote. At 18 you deemed mature enough by the government to become drafted into the armed forces [1] At 18 you are deemed responsible enough to decide the outcomes of court cases [2] You are most likely a graduate from highschool and completed basic social science and civics classes You are no longer under your parents legal control and are able to work, provide, and take care of yourself as an adult Vote ConSources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Should kids at age 16 be able to vote

Thank you for your replyRebuttals"I say that the reason that the younger people shold be to vote at a lower age is to help the physical problems of the United States problems"You need to explain this. You can't make the vague statement that a younger voting age would help the physical problems of the U. S. , and then go on and leave us with the ambiguity of what on earth you are talking about. If your statement is valid then I can simply say, "The reason younger people should not vote is because it will hurt the United States and cause more problems", and leave it at that and click submit. My opponent goes on to claim,"The president of todaY Is one of our best presidents yet. /he was not chosen by his looks, nor his wife of wealth. /he was chosen by his smartness. Obama has helped the Millitary (which consist of me) with killing Osama. Previously, our other presidents have been chosen for looks and their wives. Not tryikng to be consulting of our usa presidents, but to be honest, they ahev messed up our money system. Did you know that George Bush spent 11.5 trillion while he was in office? ? "All of this is utterly irrelevant and nonsensical in a debate over the voting age. This debate has nothing to do with President Obama, President Bush, etc. As the Instigator and Pro you have the job of showing that 16 year olds are mentally and psychologically competent to vote. "I think that the ages of 16 would think into smartness. With them thinking about college, they wouldnt be thinking on the looks of these people"You have never effectively proven that presidents of the past were voted based on looks. ArgumentsMy opponent has NOT ONCE, attacked by arguments regarding the mental abilities of teenagers being able to vote. Again at 16, you cannot be on a jury, you cannot be drafted and serve in the military, you have not completed highschool, you have not completed basic civics, law, economics, and government courses, etc. My opponent has NO RESPONSE to this. I'm assuming he read my arguments, and if he did, he would have read where I pointed out that 16 year olds are still in highschool, still taking government and law classes. It is not important to my opponent that 16 year olds are too busy with school, getting an education, having a childhood social life, haven't completed basic law, government, and economics courses to know how the law, economy and government works. As long as they vote liberal. That is why my opponent entire "rebuttal" consisted of how great Obama was and how bad past presidents have messed up the "money system" or economy. That's why he posted a nonsensical source claiming Bush SINGLEHANDEDLY, spent 11.5 Trillion dollars. My opponent wants surefire liberal voters, not informed liberals/conservatives/libertarians who know how the economy and law work. For this reason the voting age should not be lowered to 16 as long as the vast majority of 16 year olds have not completed basic law, government, and economic courses.
George Bush is a good president

George Bush has destroyed our nation. 1. He implimented No Child Left Behind, overcrowding our good schools and still leaving our bad schools to be bad. 2. He created the Iraq War for the purpose of finding weapons of mass destruction, stopping terrorism, and promoting democracy. They vote, they have no WMDs, and terrorism will NEVER be stopped, and Iraq has nothing to do with it. 3. He lowered out economy significantly, lower than most African nations. 4. He raised gas prices, making transport difficult. 5. He created the Patriot Act, making our constitution invalid and thereby creating a catalyst to destroy our entire constitution. If the terrorists threaten our free speech, then we will revoke that, etc. Who is to say that we will get rid of freedom of religion and convert everybody into muslims after the next 9/11. 6. He failed to do ONE good thing for America.
George Bush is a good president

1. I went to Chamblee High where there were too many classrooms, and very few students. The year NCLB was passed, they added 7 trailers, kids were learning in storage closets, they hired new, less qualified teachers and our average test scores dropped by 90 points. I am proof that NCLB hurts good schools and the bad schools get the same poor funding and bad students as they had before. NOBODY WINS. 2. Bush is not accomplishing anything in Iraq. He set 3 goals preventing terrorism, promoting democracy and finding WMDs. Iraq has not accomplished any of these except debatably, democracy. Anything that Bush will accomplish, he has accomplished. And he can not stop terrorists through Iraq. There are multiple havens for terrorists, try the entire third world. 3. He lowered our economy to an unreasonable low. He lowered the employment rate, the USD amount compared to EUROs, he cut funding from several necessary programs like veteran health care and added billions to the Iraq budget, the real estate market dropped, and more. 4. He could have gone to the oil reserves, improved relations with OPEC, regulated prices. This is why prices were so low while Clinton was in office. 5. The PATRIOT Act allows the government to not use warrants, they can listen in on our phones, technology and lives, they can put an aleged terrorist in prison indefintely without a trial and Presudent Bush supported this bill. He gave speeches supporting it. 6. He did not kick radical Muslims out of power in Afghanistan and Iraq!!! He removed a dictator from power in place of a "president" who is in charged of a failed state, with civil wars, a corrput police, a corrupt militia, and a replaced it with a territory controlled from around the world. YU HAVE NO OFFENSIVE POINTS AND HAVE FAILED TO DEFEND YOURSELF ON ONE DEFENSIVE POINT!!! I WIN!!!
George Bush is a good president

Hey policydebategod, Thanks for challenging me to this debate. Forgive my presumption, but you sound very angry at George W. Bush. I'm hoping we can both put aside our emotions and have a logical, fact-based debate on the topic. In response to your arguments: 1. No Child Left Behind has not created overcrowding in our schools. Before Bush even became President, overcrowding has been at the forefront of the educational debate. If you have some facts that support this claim, I will entertain them. 2. Iraq may have had nothing to do with 9/11, but that's not why we went there. We went to war in Iraq as a preemptive strategy. Going to Iraq was approved by Congress because our intelligence, and the intelligence from our allies all pointed to the likelihood that Sadaam Hussein was helping terrorists, and rebuilding his weapons of mass destruction. Our post 9/11 strategy is to remove those in power who support terrorism in order to minimize the likelihood of another 9/11. I'm not sure why trying to protect the nation he serves would make President Bush a bad president in your eyes. Perhaps you can expand on this item also. 3. I have no idea to what you're referring when you say, "He lowered out economy significantly, lower than most African nations." Please explain further. 4. Gas prices are set by the market, not the government. President Bush cannot wake up and decide that he wants gas prices to be $3.00 per gallon. We, the consumers, decide gas prices based on our demand for oil, and the current supply available. Gas companies have a finite supply of oil at any given time, and therefore must either raise or lower the price. Any power our government has over gas prices is really limited to the taxes it places on fuel. That is something mostly controlled by the Congress, states and local bureaucracies. 5. "Congress enacted the Patriot Act by overwhelming, bipartisan margins, arming law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism: The USA Patriot Act was passed nearly unanimously by the Senate 98-1, and 357-66 in the House, with the support of members from across the political spectrum." (1) At no point is our Constitution invalid because of the Patriot Act. If you have some documentation citing the void of our Constitution, please provide as I would definitely like to see it. 6. George W. Bush has done several good things for America. First, his presidency gave of several years of Will Ferrell's SNL George Bush character, which by many accounts is quite hilarious. And since laughter is a good thing, how can you possibly claim he has done nothing good. Oh yeah, he also kicked the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan and removed Sadaam Hussein from power. If you're not sure why Hussein was such a bad guy, please read the following link. http://www.thesmokinggun.com... (1) http://www.lifeandliberty.gov...
glasses are better than contacts

Ok then. Interesting enough. I just want to make a comment that your intro was mostly based on YOUR opinion and experience. A little bit of opinion here and there is okay, but this? Nah. Another comment is that you just copied and pasted EXACTLY what the website says. Um..... not good. What's the point of a debate then? You are just using another person's work as your own. It is okay to use information from others, BUT only as a reference. I will start when my opponent TRULY starts. Thank you.
glasses are better than contacts

I have worn glasses since I was 4, and I have recently switched to contacts. Contacts have changed my eyesight drastically! I am able to see farther and I have a better field of vision. Glasses keep falling down, they are uncomfortable, and they dont do as much effect as contacts. http://www.contactlensheadlines.com... gives 10 reasons why glasses are better than contacts 1.Contact lenses offer better vision than eyeglasses. There's no loss of peripheral (side) vision, and no visual distortion from thick eyeglass lenses. 2.Contact lenses make it easier to play sports. You won't have glasses slipping down your nose, and it's easy to get non-prescription, protective sports eyewear. 3.With contact lenses, it's easier to get cool sunglasses. You won't have hassles with getting prescription sunglasses, and there's no inconvenient switching between eyeglasses and sunglasses. 4.Some contact lenses can even correct your vision while you sleep, enabling glasses- and contacts-free daytime vision. 5.Contact lenses won't fog up or collect raindrops in bad weather, like eyeglasses do. Contact lenses are never in your way! 6.Contact lenses provide great vision without laser eye surgery, and 30-day silicone hydrogel contact lenses provide similar convenience benefits to surgery. 7.Contact lenses won't put uncomfortable weight or telltale eyeglass marks on your nose. 8.Colored contacts provide the opportunity for a fun change-of-pace, either for fashion or cool special effects. 9.You'll have no worries about keeping up with eyeglass frame styles: Contact lenses are always in fashion. 10.When wearing contact lenses, you won't have to worry about losing or misplacing your glasses.
Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

The Con's first argument uses wordplay of the definition of the words "violent" and "fight" to try to disqualify some of my scenarios. A pillow fight is indeed defined as a mock fight by the Con's source however there is NO definition for mock fight given by the Con or even listed in the website the Con used. You cannot simply exclude a scenario just because you define it as a word that doesnt have a definition. On the other hand, If I can show that pillow fights are indeed violent fights, then I meet the burden showing that it is applicable under the term "fight". To your right is a video of a very violent pillow fight which shows that since it is indeed violent and indeed a fight, it qualifies to be a scenario for a fight between Batman and God/Jesus.http://www.youtube.com...The Con then rashly tries to dismiss my other two scenarios (including the one im giving him for some reason) because HE feels they arent violent. However, playing videos can indeed spur violent reactions from people (See second video http://www.youtube.com...) and the same can be assumed for a money fight because what do you think Wall Street Investors do when they lose a lot of money really fast? They violently freak out! Seeing as how its also a competition it can thus be considered a confrontation, a clash, and even a fightAs for the rest of con's wordplay over "could" and "should". My argument was that since im intending for this fight to be as realistic as possible, it would be realistic if God/Jesus didnt kill Batman since God/Jesus preaches not killing people. The Con then replies that Batman wouldnt fight God/Jesus because God/Jesus is innocent and didnt do anything wrong. Maybe the Con is forgetting his own sources..... In round 1 he clearly mentioned that God/Jesus killed a fig tree that did not belong to him simply because he was hungry. Whats the relevance of that? Its illegal to do that in New York City!City of New York Parks and Recreation Section 1-04 of Prohibited Uses section B point 1 Subpoint i clearly states:"No person shall deface, write upon, injure, sever, mutilate, kill or remove from the ground any trees under the jurisdiction of the Department without permission of the Commissioner."http://www.nycgovparks.org...God/Jesus clearly did not ask for permission of the Commissioner of New York City before he killed the Fig tree, therefore he DID commit a crime, he is NOT innocent, and Batman WOULD whip his a**(If the con doesnt buy this I can cite numerous other crimes against humanity that God has carried out to justify Batman fighting him)Point is, the other scenarios are admissible since they can be violent in nature and thus fit the definition of what a fight is, and there would be a physical fight between God/Jesus since they have committed crimes against humanity and against a fig tree if you want to get technical.Other than that the Con has not given any evidence at all suggesting that God/Jesus would win in ANY of the scenarios I have provided, even for the one that I admit God/Jesus would have the best chance of winning.
Resolved: Batman would beat God himself in a fight

My opponent identifies the word "Fight" to mean "a violent struggle or confrontation. He therefore eliminates some of his own scenarios. According to his own method of defining "fight" (entering *term* + definition into Google) we see that a pillow fight is actually "a mock fight. " [A] Since a mock fight is by definition not a fight, it is automatically excluded from this debate. Scenarios 4 (Fund Raising Competition) and 5 (Madden NFL 2013) are also excluded, because they do not meet the criteria of violent (part of Pro's definition). This leaves us with scenarios 1 and 2. Furthermore, my opponent seems to have added the criteria of what a person "WOULD" do in addition to what they "COULD" do when he noted that killing a human was outside of Jesus' moral scope "since it goes against everything he has taught people to live their lives. " Since my opponent has entered new criteria, I find it within my rights to add an additional passage of evidence. 2 Corinthians 5:21 identifies that Christ "knew no sin. " Indicating that he had never sinned. Since we are including what is within the moral scope of someone in this debate, Batman would not be able to defeat Jesus in either scenario 1 or 2. Batman would never attack an innocent person who had not committed a crime, so it is nonsense to think that the Dark Knight would attack an unarmed and completely innocent man. In scenarios 1 and 2 we would then see a complete draw between the two morally upstanding individuals, as there would be no fight whatsoever. Since Pro's burden of proof is to show that "Batman would beat God himself in a fight" any scenario that results in a draw is a point to Con. Since scenarios 3, 4, and 5 have been excluded, and scenarios 1 and 2 would result in a draw, Con clearly carries the day. Thank you again to my opponent for his contribution to this debate, and thank you to the readers for their participation. [A] . http://dictionary.reference.com...