BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will lose this Debate

Since my opponent has conceded the debate it is true that he will most likely lose the debate however this debate isn't about likelihood. This debate is about absoloute facts. Since my opponent is making the claim the 'I' in the resolution almost certainly refers to him. He states that he will lose the debate. The resolution offers no explanation regarding if we are basing it off probability or not. Since this reolution creates a paradox the winner of the debate is never guaranteed. I do not have to argue that I will lose the debate, my burden merely requirs me to prove that there isn't a 100% chance that my opponent will lose the debate. The resolution creates a paradox and as a result it is quite possible that votes will remain neutral and this debate will end a tie. Assuming that voters do not vote on this debate and voters are not obliged to vote on every debate it is not guaranteed that my opponent will lose. If my opponent does lose that does not mean that they have met their burden. Their burden requires them to prove that they will lose for a 100% fact at this point in time. Voters cannot vote for him because his prediction was correct. They should only vote for him if he can justify why there is a 100% chance that he will lose the debate.
A just state would ban arranged marriage.

Rules1. The first round is for acceptance only. 2. No glitches may be exploited in the course of this debate.4. No trolling. 5. Drops shall be considered concessions if and only if they are pointed out by the debater whose points were dropped in the next round. 6. No new arguments in the final round. 7. If either debater violates one of these rules, he or she will automatically forfeit all 7 points. DefinitionArranged Marriage: A marriage planned and agreed to by the families or guardians of the bride and groom, who have little or no say in the matter themselves [1]. Arranged marriages include forced marriages, in which at least one party does not offer any form of consent to the match [2]. 1. https://www.google.com...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...
quran is right in terms of science

Alhamdulilah...I believe in one god Allah the almighty,the merciful....He guided me to the straight path and not the path of those who went astray,alhamdulilah.Thanks is to Allah who has created the universe... 1400 years ago,Quran was revealed as divine revelation to the last messenger Muhammad [p.b.u.h].And alhamdulilah it is a book of signs NOT SCIENCE.It gives clear signs about the true religion.At that period people believed in miracles and alhamdulilah it showed many miracles and fulfilled prophecies.After that came the period of literature,and Qur'an was considered as the best books in Arabic.And then came the period of Science And Technology. There is no doubt in this book as who would have thought 1400 ago that the world was sphere not flat,and who would have thought there is a barrier in the sea.Yet many deniers of the religion create false contradictions against the word of god.some say that mountains helps to stop earth quake.FIRST OF ALL PROVIDE A VERSE WHICH STATES IT PREVENTS EARTH QUAKE.. However, the Qur"an consistently describes mountains as stabilizers for the Earth"s surface which hold it firmly lest it should shake with us, and as pickets (or pegs) for the Earth that hold its surface (i.e. the Earth"s lithosphere) down as a means of fixation. So, the Qur"an"in very simple words"described the outward protrusion of mountains on the Earth"s surface, emphasized their great downward extensions within the Earth"s crust, and defined their exact role as pickets and means of fixation for that crust. Such knowledge was revealed more than 12 centuries before man started to wonder whether or not mountains could have roots below its outcropping parts, and before he could realize any value for the existence of mountains on the surface of our globe, a value that is only being currently conceived by a very limited number of specialists in the field of Earth Sciences. "Have We not made the earth as a bed, And the mountains as pegs?"(Surat An-Naba' (The Great News): 6-7) MY DEAR FRIEND WHICH WHICH FAVOURS OF YOUR LORD WILL YE DENY. this isnt enough...to prove allah right....come to the straight path or else you may be ashamed of your selves on the day of judjement..... WHICH WHICH FAVOURS OF YOUR LORD WILL YE DENY.
quran is right in terms of science

I am not sure what to say to my opponent really,as he repeatedly is asking me for the verse form the Koran which states that the Mountains prevent earthquakes. I have now shown this verse twice in my arguments, as such I will try again to answer my opponent and give him the verse. Please notice this is the third time. Here is the verse from the Koran in Surah 16: 15 "And he hath cast into the earth firm hills that it quake not with you, and streams and roads that ye may find a way. " (1)Let me now break down the sentence in simple English so that my opponent can no longer claim I have not shown him the verse in the Koran which says that mountains prevent earthquakes. It says "And he hath cast into the earth firm hills"This means there are hills/mountains on the earth which Allah put there. Then it says "that it quake not with you"That the mountains will not shake with you. This means mountains don't shake,which means mountains stop earthquakes. Again let me reiterate my earlier point this is not me misinterpreting the Koran as this view is held by other Islamic scholars. (2) Also my opponent repeatedly talks about the mountains stopping the shaking of the earth (or earthquakes) such as the following direct quotes:"Mountains also play an important role in stabilizing the crust of the earth. [4] They hinder the shaking of the earth. God has said in the Quran:"""And He has set firm mountains in the earth so that it would not shake with you. .. " (Quran 16:15)"I believe these quotes by my opponent prove that he believes what the Koran says about mountains stopping earthquakes. I would also like to point out that in this debate my opponent has not answered any of the questions I have posed to him, yet he has repeatedly said I have not answered his. This seems to me to be totally disingenuous. I would also like to point out that my opponent has cited references in his third round statements but not given any, and this makes me wonder why? I hand the debate or to the voters. I would also like to thank my opponent for an interesting yet frustrating debate. (1) . http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...(2) . http://www.scienceislam.com...
Marine Mammals under human care.

Hello, my name is Sara and I look forward to debating you. You did not specify on what you wanted me to post for round 1, so I am simply going to post an introductory paragraph. I believe that marine mammals should not be under human care. I noticed that you mentioned AZA - which also applies to zoos. I do not support zoos either, however, since the topic of this debate refers to marine mammals rather than land mammals I will not go further into why I do not support zoos unless you want me to. I believe that animals have the right to be free from human entertainment. For some reason, humans believe that it is our right to take an animal out of its natural environment (in this case referring to oceans) and exploit them for our own benefit. Humans use animals for entertainment at circuses, zoos and aquariums alike. This 'right' to animals' lives seems to stem from the fact that humans believe they are 'superior' to animals and that their wishes should take precedence over any other species. In other words, humans tend to label animals as 'insignificant,' 'disposable' and 'for entertainment.' Did you know that dolphins in the ocean can swim up to 100 miles per day? How can they do this when they are trapped in a tiny aquarium? How can they live a normal life when they literally are not able to do the thing that comes most naturally to them - swim? Of course, you might argue that dolphins are still able to swim in aquariums. What if I took you away from all of your family and friends, placed you in a house and made it physically impossible for you to leave? Surely if I provide you with enough entertainment, enrichment and of course the space that you need to survive that you will be happy and able to live comfortably. Would you miss your family? Well, you'll get over it eventually. Would you miss being able to travel? Well, I guess you'll just have to get use to pacing back and forth. If you take the stance that animals are ours to use for entertainment and research, then please go into further detail regarding what rights animals should have. Should we be legally allowed to torture animals? If you believe that animals do deserve rights, then my question to you is this: how do aquariums benefit marine mammals in any way?
Marine Mammals under human care.

In this debate, I will argue in favor of keeping marine mammals under human care. To clarify, I will support the AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) in their captivity methods and purposes. This does not include SeaWorld, as they are not part of the AZA and I do not have a direct association with them, thus I cannot speak for them.My opponent will argue against the AZA, and will argue in favor of marine mammal release. BOP is shared.
Morality is not Relative

One universal code would results in knowing what is right and what is wrong. What you're referring to is what people think to be right, but not what is actually right. This is a problem when looking at moral relativism. Standards, in the way that relativists use the word, refers mostly to what is thought to be right and not what is right. As previously mentioned, moral relativists argue that every society has its own set of rules making them all different. However, when you look at it closely, you realize that not every society is different. For example, a set of people don't eat cows because they believe it could be their deceased grandmas while other people eat cows. However, they do not eat their grandmas because they believe it is wrong to do. While the beliefs may be different, the values are the same. This would mean that not everything is different. This again proves that not everything is different. There also must be a common moral standing. If there was not, society would cease to exist. For example, if killing wasn't morally incorrect, everyone would go around killing people for the sake of it. Mass killings would results in the diminish in society. Therefore, there must be a universal code.
Morality is not Relative

If every society's morals are equally the same, then we are not allowed to belittle any other person's society. We are also not allowed to make our own society superior to others. Making them all equal would not allow us to say what is right and what is wrong. Morals are usually for the sole purpose of what is right and what is wrong. This cancels out the whole idea of morals. Ethical absolutism argues that there is in fact one universal code. This does not change from society to society. There have also been morals codes found to be the same in all societies. Moral relativism argues that every society is different. However, when examined, it is found that there are some morals/ values that are the same throughout different societies. Since this would make that not all societies are different, it would disprove the theory. In conclusion, having all moral standards be the same would not make sense. And there is one universal moral code.
Morality is not Relative

1)If morality is not relative then you"re an ethical absolutist 2)Ethical absolutist believes in one moral code. 3) Thus morality is not relative for there is only one moral code. 4)If you don"t believe in one moral code then you are an relativist 5)If you"re an relativist you believe every society"s morals are equally the same 6)It is normal for it holds the same values as other society morals 8)Then some morals are relative
Morality is not Relative

Moral Relativism refers to the idea that moral/ethical codes vary from culture to culture and also in periods of time. However, after great analysis of this theory, one may find that this is false. Firstly, within the theory is the Cultural Differences Argument which simply states that there are differences in morals codes between cultures. This argument only deals with opposing sides having a difference of opinion, not what is actually right. It also attempts to draw conclusions about morality solely because people are in disagreement. Since the conclusion does not follow the premises, this argument is not sound. In addition to this, ethical relativists tend to judge those based on the standard of their time. Doing this, however, results in judging by what was thought to be right rather than what actually is right. To clarify, a person thinking something is morally correct does not by any means justify the actions. It is always a question of what is right. They also tend to use the word "standard" incorrectly. As mentioned before, "standard" is used to describe what people thought to be right. However, "standard" should have a distinction from what is right, and what is thought to be right. They also hold the belief that "standards" are specific to one group and believe there is no common standard. But by comparing cultures, they imply an existence of one common standard. If the theory of moral relativism were to be true, we could no longer make customs of our own society superior to others. Simply stating differences between cultures would be enough to allow the continuation of actions that would normally be frowned upon by other societies. Moral progress could not be argued. Moral progress is defined as replacement of old ways with new and improved ways. However, if there is to standard to judge them by, how is it progress? More importantly, because every culture has its own set of moral codes, we would not be able to justify what is right by looking at the moral codes of our own society. Also, relativist compare cultures with one another, however, by doing so, they Furthermore, referring back to the Cultural Differences Argument, which states there are differences in morals codes between cultures, societies have been found to share at least one common ground with each other. There have been some moral rules that all societies follow because those rules are crucial for the existence of society. Therefore, if at least one moral rule is the same, there is a flaw within the theory. And adding to this, although they may not share the same beliefs with each other, the values do not differ from one another. Again, this would prove moral relativism to be false and prove the existence of one moral code. In conclusion, many problems arise with the theory of moral relativism. Firstly, a part of the argument is not sound. In addition to this believing in moral relativism would call for the stop of actions that are continuously used today, such as making other societies inferior. The theory of Moral Relativism proves to be false.
HSPAs should not hold you back

The opponent's overall argument is the broad claim "HSPA should not hold you back."My argument is that it should hold you back if you are in fact deficient in math. The purpose of the exam is to determine which students should take remedial math courses due to deficiency in this subject area, after all. In the cases of those who need to be held back due to their limited mathematical ability, the HSPA standardized exam of New Jersey should hold them back. Based on the wording of the claim and the argument presented by Con, this debate is blatantly a victory for Con. Hence, vote Con. Thank you.
HSPAs should not hold you back

In my case (and for many others too), I was a decent math student. I passed my class with a B average. HOWEVER, I was feeling very sick the day of the HSPA exam and recieved a 199 (you need a 200 to pass). That meant I had to take a remedial math class for the entire following school year. Meanwhile, kids flunking math who don't try and just got lucky and passed, don't have to take the class. I was lucky to pass the next year, but the remedial math class was a waste for me, I could have had an extra period to study or an early dismissal or late arrival for my senior year. The same situation happened to many of my friends, some who were unlucky enough to JUST fail the next year too. Not to mention the test is ridiculously hard and has some material we never even learned on it.
Love is something more than biological

"Well, I feel that love may be, in a manner of speaking, soul deep, if soul means something which goes beyond scientific reasons for loving somebody." You state that it goes beyond science. If that is true then this claim is unwarranted as you stated that science cannot prove this. "However, humans are the only known creatures which can have complex concepts, and thus we have adapted them into the very essence of out beings, and so it reaches into the core of our being. This is because we always believe ourselves to be the most important species - its why we do most of things we do. Our love for another therefore comes not from our insticts but from our concepts." "rendering humans able to judge not only whether they love someone but also how and why. This is the reason that makes love more than must a biological idea and more of something which bonds humans together using a joint union of the concept of love between those people." This still doesn't prove your thesis as this is still caused by electrochemical signals; nothing supernatural is taking place here.
Love is something more than biological

Well, I feel that love may be, in a manner of speaking, soul deep, if soul means something which goes beyond scientific reasons for loving somebody. This is because love is a human concept. Concepts are causes by parts of out brain and were initially adapted for human survival, if we are going by scientific terms. However, humans are the only known creatures which can have complex concepts, and thus we have adapted them into the very essence of out beings, and so it reaches into the core of our being. This is because we always believe ourselves to be the most important species - its why we do most of things we do. Our love for another therefore comes not from our insticts but from our concepts. Did you know that Dolphins are the only other mammals in the animal kingdom other that humans/primates which have sex for pleasure? This is because Dolphins have the ability to conceptialise to a small extent as they are very intelligent creatures. The fact that they distinguish between them proves that in order to love someone, you need to be able to use your mind. We as humans, can do this. Whilst the intelligence that allows us to do this is biologically created, ou find to the very centre of our beings, rendering humans able to judge not only whether they love someone but also how and why. This is the reason that makes love more than must a biological idea and more of something which bonds humans together using a joint union of the concept of love between those people.
Love is something more than biological

Love is not something more than biological. "is love soul deep" Can you prove this? "In addition to this, if you love someone, but you know that they are already content with their life and are already in a stable relationship then surely if you truly love them you should let them go and not encumber them with the weight of your love, which they cannot or will not return?"Hormones are the reason for certain instincts; humans have evolved beyond simple instincts
Love is something more than biological

When you love someone, is it more than most different hormones in your body telling you that you feel affection for this person or does it run deeper than biological explantions; is love soul deep? In addition to this, if you love someone, but you know that they are already content with their life and are already in a stable relationship then surely if you truly love them you should let them go and not encumber them with the weight of your love, which they cannot or will not return?
THW arm the police.

Hello and I gladly accept your challenge and it'll be a hard one for me because I don't completely oppose the ban of guns from police officers, but I chose it . Cops are in the line of fire everyday from criminals , people who are psychotic and downright evil but at the same time cops encounter law abiding citizens , normal people like getting caught for speeding and traffic infractions . But that's no reason on why to draw your weapon . I do understand sometimes especially at night it's a lot harder to identify what the person you pulled over or the person who apprehended on what they may have or have but that's why you search them instead of straight up aim a gun and threaten and perhaps even go as far tackling , pepper spraying, taserinh or throwing the person down because you feel they did wrong . Police officers are here to serve and protect not shoot on sight . Not even soldiers in Iraq do that because shooting a person atleast for a normal person is scarring and could change a person mentally and emotionally . Honestly a police officer can't just point a weapon because they're "scarred" or feel that the person is suspect. Police officer should approach a more peaceful approach such as maybe talk to the person and from there on as the situation escalates gets more physically but a gun is a last resort .
THW arm the police.

I AM WITH ARMING THE POLICE Terms 1. THW: This House Would 2. This House: The government. 3. Arm: give weapons to. 4. Police: The people who control (something) by making sure that rules and regulations are being followed Structure 1. Rules for Pro, Acceptance. 2. Arguments. 3. Rebuttals. We cannot have arguments in the first round. We cannot have new arguments in the final round. Rules 1. No forfeiting unless there are a same number of forfeits 2. No trolling 3. No plagiarism, or you have to quote it. 4. Cite sources in 'Sources' Category 5. No new arguments in final and beginning round. 8. BoP is shared in this debate. 9. Not following rules is an automatic loss. I thank my opponent. Let's have a wonderful debate! I STRONGLY CALL UPON VOTERS TO VOTE BY FACT AND POWER OF DEBATE, NOT BY OPINION.