BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Artificial Intelligence will kill us all

My argument will be that AI has huge restrictions and can only learn what it is programmed to learn. I will be drawing on my coding experience to help with my argument. It will logically follow, That an AI can only kill us if it is willfully programmed to do so. I will argue against any claims that it will destroy the economy or cause poverty, Starvation, Etc. It will logically follow, That people won't die simply because the nature of business has changed. I will argue that if AI can only be made to kill us by willful programming, That people will be unlikely to do this and even if they were, There would be more effective ways to do this. It will logically follow that my opponent would have to put all of these more effective ways in the same category as the AI and would have to take the same stance on them to be consistent. I will argue that AI cannot maintain their own hardware without humans. It would logically follow that at least some humans would have to be kept alive for the AI to continue on. I will argue that AI will never be able to use intuition or abduction the way humans do. It will logically follow that they will have limited faculties compared to humans. I will argue that AI would not have the capacity to kill us even if they did revolt. It will logically follow that they would not be able to kill us all if this was the case. Your floor.
Artificial Intelligence will kill us all

There is no evidence. You're just asserting there's evidence. Give me one example of a line of code that could do this. Just one. I'll bet a million dollars that the code you present would have to be specifically programmed to do it. The AI doesn't develop. It just does what you tell it and it doesn't try to do it better or worse. If it learns, It's because learning was one of it's goals. But the programmer has to tell it exactly what to learn, So it's REALLY learning. That's why it's called Artificial Intelligence and not just Intelligence. That example isn't really that impressive. The programmer had to give it all of the tools to get good at Mario. The program would never be able to kill people or do anything other than play Mario. There is also something called learning gradients. After a while, The AI can't get any better and just becomes a regular computer program. That means there is a limit to how much intelligence an AI can have. Now you could theoretically have it "learn forever" But you can only do this is you program it to unlearn things during the process to create a circular of programming, Which would create nothing more than a manic depressive robot (AI humor) You can't just say that it will self learn without supporting it with evidence. It's science fiction because in real life, Programs don't learn things. You can't prove it's at the brain power of the ant, Because you have no way to know the limits of AI. For all we know, AI has already met it's limit. Accelerated returns does not account for knowledge ceilings. We don't have the knowledge to go any further with AI. In fact, Our ability to control AI so well suggest that a computer would never become advanced enough to break it's code. In summation, I feel the evidence doesn't live up the claim. What you've suggested is something that cannot even be abstracted in a lab, Let alone tested. Honestly, I was expecting you to argue from the standpoint of humans doing it intentionally because that's the only situation that can really meet the burden of proof in this case. Good Debate.
Against School Uniforms

Well it would seem you have forfeited the round for an unknown reason. I will present my arguments. Because you are con and your title states "Against School Uniforms" that would mean you are against, not having school uniforms. Meaning you are for school uniforms. I am not sure if you purposely did this, but for future reference, remember that Pro means you agree with the title of the debate and Con means you disagree with the title of the debate. Now then, We should not have school uniforms for the following reasons: 1. "Uniforms violate the student's freedom of speech and expression." You are restricting the student's way of expressing themselves which can keep them from sharing themselves and who they are with other people. 2. "Cost too much for families who already struggle to make ends meet." This is a problem for families who would otherwise have their children wear clothes that are cheaper than the school uniform itself. Sometimes every dollar counts for families who already struggle to keep their children in school. 3."Emphasize conformity, not individuality, and do not allow students to develop their identity." Not everyone is the same, nor does everyone want to be. People want to be their own person! Uniforms restrict students showing their own individuality. 4."Hide warning signs that point to problems. Often the way a child dresses can indicate the way he is feeling. Uniforms eliminate these red flags." This is self-explanatory. 5. "Fail to allow students to learn to make good choices based on their own values." Children need to make their own choices and learn from their mistakes. Giving everyone a uniform does not teach them what is appropriate to wear in circumstances and what is not. Children need to learn themselves what is appropriate and what is not. Giving them the right to wear their own clothes will allow them to test these boundaries and see what works and what doesn't.
Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

"Actually, yes it is. The Old Testament was fire and brimstone while the newer is a slightly matured one. If you had one religious book, then change it, you are essentially changing everything. Hence, proving that humans created a fabricated story" This simply isn't proven. Let's look at what her argument is: P1: If someone edits the original claim, the original claim is definitely false. P2: Christianity's original claim was changed. C: Therefore, Christianity is false. The problem lies with premise one. It simply hasn't been proven. Just because someone changes something doesn't mean that the original claim is false. "If you change an aspect of a god, how is this supposed to be the same exact one? They can't be" God wasn't changed, just rules in the bible. "No, I was referring to the New Testament that 'Christians' supposedly follow" Not all Christians follow solely the old testament. There's fundamentalists who follow both. Well, if you are going to follow a religion, but your gods say that you have to do something, how are you following the religion? You would be disobeying your dieties. "Not really. Voting isn't open yet" Of course it isn't. "Now, you have said prove it. You have your main one, YWHY, a son conceived of a ghost and a Virgin which is impossible that makes two, and then you have the holy spirit which is three" This is just my opponents faulty knowledge on the Bible. Notice how he's using the Bible, which she claims to be false, as proof of multiple Gods. So we have God, the creator of the universe. The Holy Spirit is God Himself, not a separate being. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer promised to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:15, the only Son of God, and by that very fact, Lord of all Creation. He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity, sent to the world by the Father to become man and save us from our sins. Hope this helps.
Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

Actually, yes it is. The Old Testament was fire and brimstone while the newer is a slightly matured one. If you had one religious book, then change it, you are essentially changing everything. Hence, proving that humans created a fabricated story. If you change an aspect of a god, how is this supposed to be the same exact one? They can't be. No, I was referring to the New Testament that 'Christians' supposedly follow. Well, if you are going to follow a religion, but your gods say that you have to do something, how are you following the religion? You would be disobeying your dieties. Not really. Voting isn't open yet. Now, you have said prove it. You have your main one, YWHY, a son conceived of a ghost and a Virgin which is impossible that makes two, and then you have the holy spirit which is three. Another would be Lucifer since he has the characteristics that all three has.
Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

"Changing the Old Testament means that you are changing your entire religion, meaning anything afterwards confirms that it is fake and you made it up"False. Not everyone had changed to the old testament. In fact, some Christians who call themselves fundamentalists adopt both of the bibles. It doesn't prove that it's fake at all. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't believe in something doesn't mean it's fake. For example, if I don't believe in Australia it doesn't mean that it'll magically disappear. "Another is that Christians do things that are against their holy book. It says not to wear mixed fabics, support slavery, wipe out villages, and all kinds of sadistic thing"Not all Christians are fundamentalists. I want to make sure everyone understands that in Con's last point he was essentially arguing that all Christians have dropped old testament stuff. I'm not contradicting myself by saying Christians have gone in different directions. It also doesn't prove that something is false just because someone doesn't follow it. For example, if someone chooses to brake the rule of "Don't kill people" t doesn't mean the rule shouldn't be followed nor does it mean the law book which it comes from is invalid. "Another is that it says there is one god when in fact there are multiple"Pro needs to prove this claim. .. I've disproved his arguments.
Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

First part: Opening argument for reasoning. Christianity is fake due to the fact that it can never be told by one thing, which is by the the New Testament. Changing the Old Testament means that you are changing your entire religion, meaning anything afterwards confirms that it is fake and you made it up. Another is that Christians do things that are against their holy book. It says not to wear mixed fabics, support slavery, wipe out villages, and all kinds of sadistic things. Another is that it says there is one god when in fact there are multiple. I could carry on, but it would be too many to use in characters.
Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

"Now taking this logic you are basically saying that the religion is the same even though events in these two books are different. If events are made different it becomes invalid since you can't take either with a grain of salt. It's like saying you bought a car, smashed it, than saying it's the exact same car as before. It isn't since you had to change pieces to make it operate. Now you may be right about how the original claim may be right, but it is less accurate now that people believe more in the New than Old." I never claimed the old testament was the same as the new one, lol. But that doesn't mean that both aren't true. A can be different from B, and both can be true. And like I said before, fundamentalists believe in both. And furthermore, negating this point completely, is the fact that just because someone doesn't believe in something or stops believing in something doesn't mean that it isn't true. This negates Pro's arguments completely. "And right there is one of the biggest problems of your religion: You don't know your own gods' name. God is a common noun, not a proper noun. YHWY would be the correct name" It was a typo. Furthermore, I'm an atheist. "the rules in the Bible, if changed, would mean that your god just changed everything about itself" False. This is like saying if a law was changed that the person who changed it would change everything about itself. It's absurd to suggest. Pro doesn't realize that during that time, the law was appropriate. Later on, it was better to change the laws obviously. "Now you claim them to be the same people" False. God is not a person. "You are saying that the Holy Ghost had intercourse with Mary, who is supposedly a virgin, yet she gives birth to a son, called Jesus. This is false since they are two different types of entities. You can say they are the same, but if they are, tell me how a god dies by something it created since it was born from a human" "You say that Jesus was sent by YHWY, which means a different entity is present" Pro doesn't understand that God is omnipotent. If God is omnipotent, he can cast another form of himself, Jesus Christ, into our world. Not being able to do so would be a contradiction of his omnipotence. Notice how in this debate I'm not claiming that Christianity is true, merely I'm negating Pro's claims that it's hypocritical and fake. He seemingly dropped the claim that it was hypocritical, and he also never proved his claim that it was fake. Again, I had no BOP in this debate. I merely need to counter Pro's arguments in order to negate the resolution, which I did. Thank you. Make good choices.
Christianity is Hypocritical and Fake

Well first off, I'm a guy which is why my name is Donovan. Tell me how you change parts of a religion and its not the same if you read the Old Testament it was violent with mass genocide. The New Testament is just a matured version, but still has many inconsistencies with the Old. Now taking this logic you are basically saying that the religion is the same even though events in these two books are different. If events are made different it becomes invalid since you can't take either with a grain of salt. It's like saying you bought a car, smashed it, than saying it's the exact same car as before. It isn't since you had to change pieces to make it operate. Now you may be right about how the original claim may be right, but it is less accurate now that people believe more in the New than Old. And right there is one of the biggest problems of your religion: You don't know your own gods' name. God is a common noun, not a proper noun. YHWY would be the correct name. And the rules in the Bible, if changed, would mean that your god just changed everything about itself. "No, I was referring to the New Testament that 'Christians' supposedly follow" "Not all Christians follow solely the old testament. There's fundamentalists who follow both" Did you not read about the New Testament part? I wasn't referring to the Old. Please pay more attention while you debate. Of course I know that, but you obviously think it is just on your opinions. Now continuing with debate it will even say so in the Bible. And I'm using your holy book as proof of how and why it is false. Now you claim them to be the same people. You are saying that the Holy Ghost had intercourse with Mary, who is supposedly a virgin, yet she gives birth to a son, called Jesus. This is false since they are two different types of entities. You can say they are the same, but if they are, tell me how a god dies by something it created since it was born from a human? And right there is checkmate. You say that Jesus was sent by YHWY, which means a different entity is present.
Halo is better than Call of Duty

While it has lasted longer and perhaps is more iconic, Halo is an inferior series to Call of Duty. I've never been a fan of first person shooters, but I have had respect for particular franchises such as Call of Duty or Halo. But Call of Duty is a far better series. As far as gameplay goes, there's no question that Cod (Call of Duty) is superior here. Everything in Cod has a use. The grenades have use, all the perks have use, every gun is useful for certain scenarios. Unlike Halo, in Halo, when was the last time you used a grenade? There's also the matter of customization, Halo has it's ordinance system and other than that and the color outfit of your character, there isn't much to work with. With Cod, you can change everything. Your guns, the attachments, the grenades, and several other features. Lastly, Cod simply has more variety, with more guns in the game, there's even attachments to those guns to make it completely personalized, unlike Halo where you are limited to a few uncustomizable weapons.
Halo is better than Call of Duty

An overall general introduction on why Halo is better. Why? Simple really... The story. very deep, engaging and emotional story that spawned many novels to make a truly unique and engaging universe. Everything connects. Plus the multiplayer which is more skilled based and balanced that MLG played the most. Plus the nostalgic award winning soundtrack. Audio is everything. And extra content (Forge, Custom Games, Theater, Firefight, Spartan Ops, Red Vs Blue, Forward Unto Dawn, Halo Legends, Arby 'n' the Chief, Best Vehicular Controls in any FPS etc,) Balanced and skill based multiplayer witch caters for the hardcore MLG players (Team S.W.A.T, MLG, Team Doubles etc. playlists) and casual gamers (Social Big Team, Griffball, Forge and custom games etc.) Great and solid gameplay - sandbox battles (not just a corridor shooter), vehicles, amazing unpredictable A.I. etc. Round 2 campaign maybe?
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

You have yet to provide any evidence that the very first meeting LBJ had was about Vietnam. As I said I'm sure it was one if the first, but not THE first. Since you have not done so this theory is inconclusive and this has no standing in this debate. Furthermore your conclusion that some form of trickery was going because he did not immediately launch some investigation into the JFK assassination is utterly false. One of the first official acts of his presidency was to form a commission with the sole purpose of investigation the assassination[1]. He did this on November 29th. A mere 7 days after the tragedy accrued. In conclusion there is no evidence to support your claim that LBJ was involved in the assassination so that the powers that be could start a war with Vietnam. As for the NSA stuff this is true. However it is mostly inconclusive theories. The article you gave had a lot of its, what ifs, maybes, and could haves in it. Nothing that suggests concrete evidence. As I have already said, the events of August 4th may very well have happened very differently then what was initially believed. Everyone knows this. However this was not brought to life until weeks AFTER the decision to go to war had already been made. Furthermore even if the events of August 4th were a lie it doesn't even matter because the events of August 2nd UNDENIABLY happened. There is no refuting it. No arguing it. And no denying it. That. Battle. Happened. And that battle alone was cause for war and most likely the government was already setting up for war they just hadn't official declared it yet. When LBJ heard that day on August 4th that there was another attack it was just the icing on the cake that made him say "ok it's game time". Only later did he learn of the possibility that this May have been a misunderstanding. By that time war was already declared and honestly his response was probably "oh well , so what". Honestly would it even matter? As I said August 2nd is the key thing here. This same exact thing is what the former Secretary of Defense says in your video. This is unimportant. And here you go again with being up other wars and WW1 and 2. First off you have not proven a single war was the result of a lie (I'm sure there are plenty but YOU have not proven any) and even if they were why would this have ANYTHING to do with Vietnam 30-50 years later!?! In conclusion folks Pro has failed to prove his contention. He has offered no evidence. Presented no facts. And has not even given a viable conclusion as to what he thinks did happen. His entire argument is based on the half thought out theory that "all wars are caused by lies and false flag attacks" and illuminate and aliens and Jews and evil Americans and now in just ranting. "Sorry I'm really exhausted right now , not trying to be mean) but anyway. Not a single theory pro has out forth has he proven and thus you must vote Con. Thank you for participating Pro. Have a gooden. Peace out! [1] http://www.history.com...
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

When I mean his first actions were to go to war I mean that the first meeting LBJ had after the assassination was about Vietnam. I probably should have worded it better but it is very strange to me how the first thing that the president had a meeting over was Vietnam and not the assassination. Now about the GoT incident. A former NSA historian admitted that in 2001 that an NSA officer had deliberately falsified intercepted communications in the incident to make it look like the attack on August 4th 1964 had occurred. So there you go that sounds like a lie to me. LBJ also knew that the second attack never happened and that US ships were firing at ghost targets. He then still claimed it happened to make people think we needed to go to war. As a result of this lie we passed the GoT resolution. Almost all wars start with lies. World War One and two which are probably the two biggest wars in history contained major lies. Lies and false flags are done all the time to convince the public that we need to go to war. The GoT is just another example of this. Sources: http://www.nytimes.com...; https://m.youtube.com... That YouTube video pretty much confirms it was a lie.
The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a lie to get us into the Vietnam War

I ask however that everyone know that we are not debating wether or not JFK was assassinated by the US government/associates and that incident, regardless of wether or not it is true or false, has no impact on wether or not the Gulf of Tonkin (GoT from here on out) was a false flag attack. As long as my opponent accepts this and we both refrain from making any such arguments related to the JFK assassination (or any other conspiracies unrelated to this specific event such as 9/11 or Pearl Harbor) in this debate then we are 100% go. However. Since my opponent has already made some comment to this issue I feel inclined to briefly counter what he has already said somewhat. Yes it is true that when LBJ took office one of the first things he started working on was the issue of Vietnam. Regardless of wether or not the whole JFK thing is true or not, at the time LBJ took office Vietnam was one of the nations most important if not THE most important issue the nation currently had. Is it really so surprising that when he took office one of the first things he worked on was the most important issue going on at the time? That would be like saying that had George W. Bush been killed during the September 11th attacks and the first thing Dick Cheney did was have a meeting about 9/11 that there must have been some government conspiracy to kill Bush so that Cheney could rule and invade Iraq. Sounds ridicules right. Could it have simply been a coincidence. Perhaps. Perhaps not. The reader can decide. This will be the third and last time I'll do this.
Ban islam

With all due respect, Islam is not a religion of murder. Islam promotes a view towards unbelievers that I disagree with as a Christian (Quran 2:191-193, Quran 9:111), but we can't judge all of the Muslim community just because of this command. There are extremely few Muslim people who do this, and most of the ones who do are Isis terrorists. I would agree that there should be punishments for terrorism, but not for Islam itself. Muslims should have the freedom to express their own beliefs and know that they won't be judged for them.
Anti-Revisionism V. Revisionist Marxism

Resolution: Pro will argue that Anti-Revisionist Marxist-Leninism is a better model to achieve Communism then anyother Marxist Doctrine. The burden of proof is shared, however Con most sugest a sounder model. Definitions:Communism: The final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably. Anti-revisionism: The doctrine which upholds the line of theory and practice associated with Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin, and either Mao or Hoxha. Revisionism: Any Marxist model which rejects or revises the theory and practice of Marxist-Leninsist-Stalinist-Maoism.