BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should be allowed to erect public statues of whoever they choose

Normally one would wait until the very end of the debate to declare it's crux. However, considering the number of rounds this debate will have(2) and the obviousness of the crux, I will state that I believe it is: Should we allow citizens to freely declare their beliefs/views/opinions without regulation regarding it's content or subtext. For what is an erection of a statue of a famous political or artistic figure but the declaration of the adoration the citizen has towards said figure? Disallowing people from expressing their beliefs is more than just an infringement on their rights (Particularly, Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1] ), it is the realisation of Heraclitus' nightmare, that one particular ideology or belief would extinguish the other. Pro would otherwise no doubt point out that freedom of speech is limited; that you can't stand at a podium and declare hatred for Jews, and that an erection of a statue of Hitler would be as bad as doing so, so I'll adress that preemptively. I opine that the censorship of such hate speech or the destruction of such a statue would be doing something not as bad, but worse, than hate speech. Such a censorship would, in essence, allow the use of the tool with which such hate was allowed to blossom: the suppression of expression. Suppression and censorship of thought and expression of that thought was what allowed Hitler to reign for his tenure without fear of being overtaken. Any who spoke out against him was beaten or killed by thugs. The point is, as long as the ability to express an opinion exists, no ideology will ever reign eternal. Morality is an ever-changing, ever-evolving thing, and we should not be so arrogant to assume that the one we exist in today is the one perfect morality. We should allow it to be scrutinized and debated so that it may change with time and evolve. Censoring an opinion? Geez, might as well make a statue of Hitler ;) [1] http://www.un.org...
People should be allowed to erect public statues of whoever they choose

The American Government will today unveil a statue of former US President, Ronald Reagan, in London's Grosvenor Square. [1] This follows the recent unveiling of a grotesque statue of suspected paedophile, Michael Jackson, in West London. Reagan is not universally loved in Britain because he was a mentor to the hated former Tory Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and he was the inspiration for many of her crimes against the British working classes. Similarly, many people were strongly opposed to Wacko Jacko's statue but its sponsor, Mohammed "The Phoney Pharaoh" Fayed, simply dismissed its critics as "stupid" and told them to "go to hell." [2] So, in the teeth of public opposition, should anybody that can afford to be allowed to erect statues of whoever they choose? For example, should right-wing extremists be allowed to erect a statue of Adolf Hitler overlooking the Israeli Embassy or should Muslim fanatics be allowed to unveil a statue of Osama Bin Laden opposite the American Embassy? I believe that tighter restrictions should be imposed on the erection of statues on public view so that statues that do not command the support of the majority of people following a full and formal public consultation, paid for by the proposed statue's sponsor, should not be erected. Thank you. [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [2] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Miles Edgeworth was actually a better lawyer than Phoenix Wright.

Assuming you are willing to accept this challenge, I thank you for taking the time to debate. In today's debate, I intend to prove beyond the notion of a doubt that the main protagonist of the Phoenix Wright series was not actually the best lawyer in the games. For those not familiar with the series, you're free to check it out here: http://en.wikipedia.org... I'll make my opening argument brief by listing the advantages Edgeworth has over Wright. Experience: Edgeworth became a prosecutor at the age of 20 and had managed to have a flawless winning streak up until his first case against Phoenix. In the third game of the series, we find out that he travels across the world becoming familiar with at least 5 different legal systems as well as 5 different languages (not to mention that he mastered both). Intelligence: He was considered a prodigy even before first entering the court room at a young age. And whenever in court, he manages to make his opponent look like a complete idiot in front of the Judge. In fact, during the final trial of Justice For All, he went up against Phoenix and had several opportunities to end the trial and get the defendant a guilty verdict, but insisted that the trial continue so that he could leave no doubts that his case was correct. Skill: His mastery of the court room was so impressive, that he even managed take Phoenix's place in the 3rd game and act as the defense attorney during an extremely difficult trial for the defense. Not to mention that he went up against none other than Franzika Von Karma (who is also regarded as prodigy prosecutor) and easily managed to win without the help of a defense aid (which Phoenix has had to rely on in most of his cases just to keep from getting a guilty verdict). And there was not one point where his opponent reduced him to abnormally sweating. He kept his cool the entire time, despite that he had never acted as a defense attorney. Clearly, Edgeworth is superior to Phoenix Wright. :D
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

Rebuttals1. The law of conservation of mass is falsified by mass-energy equivalence, allowing for hypotheses such as zero-energy universe to be logically consistent with existing laws. [1][2] As conservation of mass is falsified, the second law of thermodynamics cannot be falsified by it.2. The value of 0 implies non-existence; the non-existence of disorder immediately prior to and during the creation of a thermodynamic system refers to non-existence of *both* order and disorder in the same. [3]Pro has not fulfilled their BoP in anyway, without providing any verifiable proof for the same. The resolution is negated without opposition. Vote Con.References[1] http://goo.gl...;[2] http://goo.gl...;[3] Tisza, Laszlo (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics. Springer Publishing. ISBN 9-048-16090-1.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

RebuttalsDisorder [entropy] takes the value of 0 only for the period immediately prior to the creation of a thermodynamic system, as mentioned above. If this disorder takes the value of 0, how would it mean chaos comes from God? This has not been proven; hence, Pro has not fulfilled their BoP. Random causation *can* result in 0 disorder, thus meaning it is, in fact, in order, as *proven* above. Pro has not disproved the same, nor has Pro rebutted all my arguments. Pro has not fulfilled their BoP at all. Pro *must* fulfill their BoP in the next round or will forfeit the "arguments" points.I extend all my arguments. This resolution is negated without opposition.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

Rebuttals1. This argument does not argue for the definition, thus is irrelevant to the resolution.2. Pro's argument depends on a very specific definition of chaos, i.e. disorder. The disorder in a thermodynamic system *can* be 0 despite random cause; the resolution remains negated with no counter-rebuttals by Pro. 3. "Something can only transform." Conservation of mass is disproved via. mass-energy equivalence, viz. a certain amount of mass m, when expanded into energy, evolves to become of a mass equivalent to mc2, where c is the speed of light in a vacuum. [1] Via. quantum mechanical fluctuations, an energy level x can multiply by y, hence temporarily changing the level of x to xy. [2] This is proven by the uncertainty principle.References[1] http://goo.gl...;[2] http://goo.gl...;
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

Pro says chaos has nothing to do with confusion, but they have no semantic demonstration or proof whatsoever. Pro has not constructed a positive case. Nonetheless, I shall construct a negative case. Negative Case In a thermodynamic system, the rate of disorder never decreases via. second law of thermodynamics. [1] Yet each thermodynamic system is defined by time, i.e. the rate of entropic graduation in that system. [2][3] When a thermodynamic system is created randomly via. any change in mass-energy ratio, immediately prior to the creation, the level of chaos is *precisely* 0. Hence, even with random cause and effect involved in creating a thermodynamic system such as the universe, at some point the rate of chaos is 0.The resolution is negated.References[1] Carnot, Sadi (1824). [2] Tisza, Laszlo (1966). Generalized Thermodynamics. Springer Publishing. ISBN 9-048-16090-1.[3] Hawking, Stephen (1988). A Brief History of Time. Bantam Books. ISBN 0-553-17698-6.
random cause+(and)effect=(is)chaos

By the standard DDO maxims, I shall first provide definitions for the terms:Random - made, done, or happening without method or conscious decision.Chaos - a state of utter disorder and confusion.Cause - a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.Effect - a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.Confusion - lack of clearness of distinctness.Utter - absolute and total.Pro claims that "any non-intended cause is chaos." The BoP is on Pro to prove this. All definitions from the New Oxford Dictionary of English.
Resolved: The Boy Scouts of America should end its policy banning gay membership.

How disappointing (and unsurprising given my opponent's reputation) that after so many rounds of back-and-forth, the debate will now be seen by no one. I'm not sure if my opponent knows this, but debates with at least on forfeit in them do not appear on the home page and become lost in debate purgatory, save for the few people that favorited it.My opponent failed to show up for his final round and defend his position. As such, my arguments stand and I recommend granting me the vote for most convincing argument. Moreover, my opponent failed to show up, making all my efforts amount to nothing, and so voters would be justified and granting me the conduct vote as well.As for the topic itself, I find it an interesting one. The comments for this debate brought up two aspects of the issue. First, there is the issue of liberty, which is where my opponent and I seemed to focus a majority of our time. I tried to argue--and I truly believe this--that since we're talking about a club (which I might classify as a luxery of life) and not something like job (which I would consider a necessity of life), there is no reason the BSA should be morally obligated to change its policies. I think this discussion was straight forward.My arguments surrounding the BSA brand was meant to address the other side of the issue: that the BSA would benefit from changing its policy. I hope some readers found the idea, at minumum, thought provoking. It struck me that the BSA has been a conservative minded organization for such a long time that I wondered how difficult it would be for them to integrate more progressive ideals. The BSA is big everywhere, but it's really big in the Bible belt. It seems to me that the leaders of the BSA have to take that into account in some ways.At any rate, I hope at least a couple people got something out of this debate. For those that did read it, I think you for your time.
The Judicial System in the U.S. should be Uniformally Nationalized

The Judicial System currently in place in the United States is unfair and corrupt. Why should one state have a different code of laws/regulations than another? I thought this was the "United" States. If each state gets to pick and choose how their sentencing works, what's legal and what's not, and independently decide how to prosecute someone, then how are we united? Why is marijuana and listed as a "Schedule I" substance in the Controlled Substance act, allowing it to be legalized in some states such as California, Washington, and Colorado but not in Missouri, or Texas, for example. Is there any point behind the variance in the legalization of marijuana? What about gay marriage? Why is gay marriage only legal in a few states. If we're going to legalize it in one place, it should be legalized every where. This debate is mainly about the criminal justice system, however. The corruption in this is ridiculous. My first example is Massachusetts does not have the death penalty for murder (as well as others), while numerous other states do. So in theory, two murders of the exact same malicious-intention and consequence could result in different sentencing? Why?
Video Games are better than Movies.

For starters, I love both video games AND movies, but I find video games far more entertaining. Thus, I will be arguing the point that video games are the better medium. Con must argue the opposite. Ground rules: 1: No cursing. 2: No personal attacks, otherwise you forfeit. 3: Stay on point. No semantics, kritiks, etc. If there are any rules for common decency I missed, feel free to let me know and we can apply them before we begin.
Video Games are better than Movies.

You haven't really presented arguments, per say. You've simply stated you prefer the directing and wanted to work in film. Nothing to argue, really. It is really preference, but here's why I prefer video games; {{I: Player Choice}} With a movie, once you've seen it, you know everything that will happen, in what order, and in what way. You'll always know that Darth Vader throws Palpatine over the railing and into the chasm to save Luke at the end of Star Wars Episode VI. Woody and the gang are always saved from incineration by the three-eyed alien toys in Toy Story 3. Nothing changes. With video games, on the other hand, even if it's Call of Duty, the action can change. Will you clear that room of enemies with a grenade? Or will you use a knife? Perhaps you'll just use your guns? The whole point is YOU control the action. This fact is made even more true in games like Minecraft. Your character is plopped down into an open world where you can craft, build, or fight. If you want to restrict yourself to using only leather armor and wood weapons, go for it! Hate violence? Play as a pacifist on Peaceful Mode, and just build a home, craft a ship, or go big and construct a castle. In fact, in Super Paper Mario, one of the first things you can do is refuse to even take part in the story, resulting in an immediate 'Game Over'. [1] Admittedly, yes, even most video games have set storylines to follow and unchangeable scenes to sit through, but it's effectively impossible for any medium to not have some kind of story. The only art mediums that seem to have no requirement for a plot are sculpting and painting, and even then I'd argue the story lies with the ispiration or the message behind them. However, that is a discussion for another time. {{2: Various Benefits}} Honestly, this my final reason, since visuals, soundtrack, and storylines are personal preference. Study after study has shown that playing video games improves hand-eye coordination[2] and cognition[3]. Studies have linked them to aggression and anti-social behavior, but others have found the exact opposite as well[4]. Video games and violence is a hot topic that is still up in the air, but with the rise of the popularity of video games, violent crime has gone down at a similar rate[5: Charts 13-20]. Have any studies shown watching movies has benefits? I've personally never heard of anything of the sort, so I Googled it for argument's sake. . http://www.pajiba.com... I must say, video games and movies are quite similar. Feel free to spring-board off of that, guy. (See what I did there? ) I'll be waiting with bated breath for your response. [+=+] Sources: 1: . https://m.youtube.com... 2: . http://www.techtimes.com... 3: . http://greenlab.psych.wisc.edu... 4: . http://www.healthline.com... 5: . http://videogames.procon.org...
Prisoners should have the right to vote

Prisoners are people who have done things that against the law. And we as a country are voting for some one who is able to change the law so why should they be given the right? Also they are in a cell , so how convenient should that be? It would have to taken by special forces to take the votes and they all have to be done in one day! How stressful would that be? How about if the people didn't have time to collect all the results up? That would cause major problems. And how about if someone abused the voting papers? And sent a dirty message or secret code that wasn't permitted? They wouldn't know different. We can't change this now! This has been the law for a long time? So why change now? Why the change of heart? These are dirty, scumbags we are talking about villains, criminals! They wouldn't even care. So what's the point? Well to be quite honest there isn't a point!
Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

TrueScotsman you've done an excellent job. I do always enjoy an intelligent debate, and it is my source of entertainment as well. I would like to start off by responding to the most important points in the debate and giving some concluding statements. My first response I feel ought to be to acknowledge that I suppose I could've used a shorter route than discrediting everything besides God (process of elimination), but I won't bring up new arguments in this post. Design: To address citing the place where I get my arguments concerning to math, I've read section 2 in this article several times to get an understanding of entropy: http://ee.stanford.edu... To address your attack concerning beauty, I have a very simple response. I feel there's a difference in the way humans observe creation and the way a creator observes creation. It does makes sense, and this argument is merely to enhance the probability of there being a God, but I acknowledge it also does not prove he exists. The moral argument: This is not the most relevant topic, but I suppose there may be an engagement between us in the future as its own topic. The argument from rationality: I think to support my claim I merely need to bring up a point. There is not enough knowledge on quantum mechanics to make it a sustainable theory. It's a theory, but can't be justified. Therefore we are left back with a theory giving matter eternity, which as I stated above is impossible. Therefore, it was created by an immaterial, conscious being with more power or knowledge than anything in the created universe has. Arguments concerning design (2) I concede this point (it's hard to type those words, but I will type them nonetheless). Concluding statements: Well I always wear my hat, and I will tip it to you, TrueScotsman. That was excellent, and I always enjoy a respectful debate no matter what the turnout is. At any rate, thank you for the debate :) God bless, TheOncomingStorm
Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

Thank you for having me to the debate, and I, of course, agree the objective is to find truth not to win. You've provided good arguments, and to follow you're format I'll propose my own and we can move to rebuttals. I would also like to affirm that faith is required for a religion, but more specifically in choosing which God(s) to follow. I will appeal to the following epistemological arguments: 1) The Argument from rationalism 2) The Argument from design The argument from rationalism: Some in this universe is eternal. It's either material or immaterial. We know this because of an analysis of the two by a definition and a rational argument. God by definition is eternal (in our understanding of him). I concede your definition of God. Matter is eternal if God isn't. 1) Matter and energy will exist eternally due to the first law of thermodynamics. 2) Eternity has no beginning. 3) A material universe without God has no beginning point. We also know from the second law of thermodynamics (sometimes known as the theory of entropy) that all matter or energy in a closed system is running down toward ultimate entropy (disorder). The only true closed system is the theorized state of the universe before it was created by the Big Bang or String a Theory (whichever is preferred). Essentially what we can derive from this is that a when you apply the theory of entropy to this universe, it could not have feasibly created a universe. Matter and energy cannot be headed toward ultimate disorder for eternity. Eventually there comes a point, before the universe was created by definition, that ultimate disorder would have happened, which by definition cannot create an ordered universe especially by using an explosion. Therefore, since it's impossible for matter to be eternal, and it can't have just appeared out of nothing (for something cannot be it's own cause of existence), God must exist (not any specific God, but the one you defined). The argument from design: I will argue that the theories concerning evolution are not mathematically probable enough to justify them. For example, there is a popular theory that our beginnings were in clouds above a volcano. The lightning in the clouds supposedly mixed with the contents of the atmosphere in the clouds (which were theoretically different than today) and our amino acids and sugars were blown away to eventually form cells. The problem with this is that it's mathematically improbable. Assuming you create something that can build cells over a volcano, the mathematical probability that they won't be scorched, will be blown into the same exact spot, and will retain enough stability to eventually from a cellular membrane is mathematically improbable, even enough to consider it mathematically impossible, especially when the theory of entropy is applied to this (even if it is an open system, entropy still tends to increase). I make no arguments aside from scientifically debatable arguments. Morality and experience have prerequisites that are to be determined by this debate. May the God under debate bless you ;), TheOncomingStorm
Knowledge of a God's Existence or Non-Existence is Not Possible

I will be arguing in favor of the premise laid out in the topic description which is that knowledge of a God existing or not existing is not possible. Please know that this excludes nonsense arguments like a God writing in the stars, "I am here." :) This is referring to 1) philosophical arguments, 2) scientific arguments, 3) arguments from personal experience. 1st round: Acceptance 2nd round: Opening Arguments 3rd and 4th round: Rebuttals I hope that this will be a constructive conversation, and please know that I am not an atheist and my goal is not to undermine faith but rather accurately assess that religious claims are not knowledge but faith claims. Thank you for your time and looking forward to a good debate (whoever you are). Kind Regards, TrueScotsman
Epic rap battle of history

Yes yes, you are so much "supirior" in intelligence To you, making rhymes is hard diligence Wait, I'll give you a sec, need a dictionary? I don't, I'm like a vocabulary fairy Wait, are big books scary? Better put dat dictionary down Hand me back dat crown I'm the King of this bitch You just my little clown You just a jester An infester of the bester A menace to this society An evil haunting entity So you better start to flee I got the whole muta fukin' town after thee Ya maggot flea. I'm freestyling with words flowing outta my mouth You be searching up on Rhymer.com Askin' yo mom "Can you help me rap?" You're still sitting in Santa's lap! "He caught me, oh crap" But remember little child Don't talk to strangers, you might get kidnapped So here, let's get re-capped I.AM.THE.BEST. BETTER.THAN.ALL.THE.REST BOW.DOWN.NOW.BITCH. IMA.THROW.YOU.IN.A.DITCH