BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Presence of a universal truth

The presence of a universal/absolute truth has been the subject of enthralling discussion between philosophers for quite some time. In this particular debate, I am arguing that such a universal truth does exist. Allow me to define: A universal truth is a statement/claim that can be ascertained to be either true or false. Such a universal truth retains its status as true or false, regardless of the personal opinions and beliefs of an individual. I will cite a simple example: Trees exist in Minnesota. Of course, I will get more in depth in future rounds.
Gun ban; US

Since this is the last round, I will not make any additional arguments. RebutallsR1: I should like Pro to know, that the death penalty is only there for serious offenders. It would be quite crazy to excute everybody with illegal guns. Like I mentioned before, there are too many guns illegally used in the U. S. It is quite impossible for the U. S to crack down on these people. R2: I'm not sure how they will be spotted. You can't tell the difference between a legal gun owner, and a illegal gun owner. The only way you can do this is if you ask go up to the guy and ask him for his license. This simply is impossible. R4: This method is great, in keeping legal owners from obtaining guns. The only problem is that people are continuing to buy guns from the black market. When you do this, people can no longer defend themselves. R6: Criminals will get their hand on guns no matter what. It is a way too late for the U. S to bring in gun control. Say hypothetically, gun makers start to withdraw their stock, crime will skyrocket, because they know people wont be able to defend themselves. Also, there aren't enough cops to stop the violence.
Gun ban; US

R1: It is easy to increase prices by making laws requiring it. The US could then enforce it with the death penalty. R2: If the US are any good at law enforcement (that even with the death penalty, they're not) people with untaxed firearms should be spotted immediately. R3: In debates you're meant to disagree with things, but thanks anyway. R4: 1. Make prices higher; 2. More proof you can shoot guns accurately (they must be able to get their shot in a 25mm square 60% of the time and always shoot within a 50mm square. Then reduce it by 5mm a year until it is 5mm and 30mm) 3. More proof they can be responsible with a gun. (all the obvious safety regulations, make them do a 2H, not time limited, exam on gun safety to prove they're capable, 80% and counting pass mark) R6: They will if Americans don't carry guns. Based on this Americans don't need guns, your aforementioned points are refuted by this, unless you can prove. Thanks for the debate.
Gun ban; US

Rise in gun pricesI'm not sure how this would happen in the first place. I the only way i would see a rise, is if the demand would suddenly skyrocket. Then again, that would negate the idea of banning guns. Say hypothetically, gun prices do come up, more guns will be sold at the black market at a cheaper price, which means more criminals will get their hands on guns.2. Gun taxGuns tax is tied is either tied with the state's sales tax, or the cost is already added to the gun itself. I don't believe my Americans would be happy with that, but yes It is possible to introduce gun tax. Then again, people will just resort the black market.3. Limits on the amounts and size of guns can own. Many people in the country already are advocating for the banning of high-magazine weapons, but people will just resort the handguns. Me personally, I'm not a big fan of guys carrying AR-15's for "self defense", as I believe a handgun would be more effective, but In general, putting restrictions on the type of guns might help a little bit.4. Making license tests harder as time goes by. I would like Pro to elaborate on how we should make it harder. Also, this would backfire on the 3 step you provided.6. Reducing gun usage to the point American police don't require them. Cops are going to use guns no matter what (especially American cops). I don't think reducing gun usage will have any effect on them carrying guns. I still stand with my original points I mentioned in Round 1, and I encourage Pro to refute them.
Gun ban; US

My opponent has left his argument in the comments. Please do not punish him. I forgot to leave source 1 in the round so I will leave it at the bottom of this round. The US simply has to go through this (admittedly long) process. 1. Rise in gun prices; 2. gun tax; 3. A very cheap and easy required gun test; 4. Limits on the amounts and sizes of guns one can own 5. Making license tests harder as time goes by. 6. Reducing gun usage to the point American police don't require them. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Sources: 1. (from round 1) http://thefreethoughtproject.com...
Homosexual marriage should be legal

the case i had shown earlier is a thought experiment and it does not need any source to back it up.here are my other arguments:1. Religious freedom. Proponents of gay marriage think their view is the latest expression of enlightened humanitarianism. That means people who believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage may soon wind up on the wrong side of "enlightened" bigotry.A recent Newsday editorial said opponents "will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation." Devout Catholics, Orthodox Jews and, ironically, the 70% of African-Americans who oppose gay marriage have become the new Ku Klux Klan?Proponents of gay marriage insist that a "religious exemption" will be sufficient to protect the rights of faith-based traditionalists. Maybe, maybe not.2. Rights of children. Legal equality for gay marriage will mean there can be no discrimination in favor of heterosexual couples in any sphere, including adoption, custody and reproductive services. Social workers showing preference to heterosexual couples in foster care or adoption placement will lose their jobs or face lawsuits.More children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent. One needn't deny the existence of many wonderful gay or adoptive parents to acknowledge that this will result in some emotional pain and confusion.3. Whither traditional marriage? Gay marriage may, as its proponents insist, strengthen the ideal of marriage by offering the highest public acceptance only to those in committed relationships.But even gay activists admit they are seeking to change the marriage ideal. Eliminating the complementarity of the sexes in marriage changes its essence. It may be old-fashioned to believe women are still necessary to domesticate sexually predatory men. But most social arrangements in which men operate without attachment to women are deeply dysfunctional. Many gay advocates tacitly admit as much.Andrew Sullivan, in his book "Virtually Normal," writes that the need for "extramarital outlets" should be recognized by partners in a same-sex marriage and that gays should not be constrained by a "single, moralistic model."4. Education. It is possible the social impact of gay marriage on heterosexual marriage will be negligible. But the changes it will bring to our schools make this unlikely. A California task force appointed in 2001 recommended all curriculums there be changed to include alternative sexual lifestyles. In 2006, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that schools have a duty to teach children that there's moral equivalency between homosexual and heterosexual relationships - and have no obligation to let parents opt their children out of such instruction.5. Husbands. Federal Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling in August on California's Proposition 8 - that "gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage" - confirmed the view that marriage is foremost about sexual choice, not reproduction. Think there are too few marriageable males now?
Homosexual marriage should be legal

Conclusion:CON has simply repeated the same argument throughout the debate, and has NO sources to back his one claim. He has yet to refute my arguments logically, and cannot prove that gay marriage would reduce the population. None of his points are valid until he can back them up with logical reasoning and/or sources. CON has also failed to actually refute any of my arguments. With this, I may declare I have won this debate.
Homosexual marriage should be legal

Rebuttal:CONS first point: that gay/lesbian couples cannot reproduce and will be forced to marry opposite sex if not legalized.Counter argument: Gay or lesbian couples cannot reproduce, that is biologically correct, however they will not be forced to marry the opposite sex, they will simply remain partners. Rebuttal to cases: Homosexuals are biologically able to reproduce with the opposite sex, however, due to sexual preference, they do not. You compare this to a population of 8 people, and half of them are homosexual. This is not even close to the actual comparison of the united states. The US has approx. 311,600,000 as of July 2011, and no, half of them are homosexual. Your scenarios are poor in the fact they they cover very few situations and are not properly scaled. The vast majority of America is heterosexual. CON has not provided any solid arguments so far on why homosexual marriage should not be legalized so far. US population graph: http://www.google.com...
Homosexual marriage should be legal

well, gay/lesbian people cannot reproduce. if gay marriage is not legalized then gay people will be forced to marry opposite sex. that marriage would result in reproduction.but if gay marriage is legalized then gay people will have their same sex partner and that marriage will not result in reproduction.now consider gay marriage on a larger time scale. suppose in a country there are 8 people.4 men and 4 women. out of 4 men, 2 are gay. out of 4 woman 2 are lesbian.now consider 2 scenarios:case 1: gay marriage is not legalized:those 4 men and women will marry each other and have, say 1 kid each couple.so total number of kids are 4 for 4 couple.case 2: gay marriage is legalized:as 2 gay men and 2 gay women will marry each other. there left 2 straight men and 2 straight women. number of couple will be reduced to 2 from 4. each couple have 1 kid. so we have got only 2 kids.conclusion: in case 1 we have 4 kids and in case 2 we have 2 kids. so almost 50% reduction in number of kids who will be future population.this case represent a point of time. now consider the same case over a period of time in future. there will be at least 50% reduction in population.that's why gay marriage should not be legalized.
Homosexual marriage should be legal

The definition of marriage by Merriam Webster is the following: The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage marriage>b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlockc : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage 2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalitiesThis states nothing about the couple having to be heterosexual. Can you prove that the human population would decrease in the future due directly to gay marriage legalization as you stated?There are gay couples right now and the human population is not decreasing, it is increasing as you can clearly see in this graph:http://www.google.com...I also find your original argument, spelling, and grammar flawed and hard to take seriously.
Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter.

Dear Community. Pro has done more debating in the comments then in the actual debate. Not only this he has routinely started debates expressing his point of view and either not taken up the debate (not responding) or not even accepting a challenge to his debate. I hope you will not only review this debate an vote according but look to other debates where this happens. Also if anyone wishes to pick up the debate from where it ended I'm more then willing to. . . thank you
Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter.

I am really excited to debate this subject in a limited round debate then over beers and nachos with several friends. I believe it will be far better in this format then in a pub with very loud music having to say pardon every other sentence. I hope I can bring to you and the audience a worthwhile debate. If nothing else thank you for allowing me this opportunity of my first ‘accepted’ debate. As Tommy. leadbetter is pro, the Bop is on him to show the validity of his claim. I look forward to his supporting arguments. I do have some question on definitions (not starting the debate early, just clarification). Can you define Miracle, “uber-theorising” and theory as you understand them? Also God is a very big component of this debate. Can you define what god you are using, a pantheon, deist, christian, jewish, pasta? I’m not looking for a specific semantically argument of the properties of god, just how to a point of reference as you see god for the purposes of the debate. Though I’m sure you’re going to address it, Life itself? Do you mean bio genesis the beginning of life, or the experiences of life lead you to conclude god or something else entirely. I just want to fine tune the argument so were not debating something past each other and I find this subject fascinating. Again, thank you for the opportunity and I look forward to your R2.
Science cannot disprove God, nor does it even come close to offering anything on the matter.

Science is allowed one miracle: the creation on the universe and everything in it, and the creation and function of all the laws that govern it. After that they got it pretty good. Just remember to not get ahead of yourselves. People, particularly scientists, have a habit of 'uber-theorising', meaning that they try and explain the full picture with just the knowledge they have. Every single culture since the dawn of agriculture 'knew' the beginning and origins of the world, at least they thought so. My arguments, and the topic of the debate in detail, is as follows: Scientific research could never disprove god. So we will never know. Scientific research, as well life itself, does not suggest that there is no a god.
A new economic model which exceeds capitalism and socialism failures

I apologize if I didn't make myself clear. In 1930 the Great Depression happened, and this was overcome by capitalism, however government started to intervene in the economy and a new model was created: Keynesian Economics; where the Estate could take matters in their hands, because they were aware of the iniquities that could happen because of capitalism total freedom. Now apparently everything was fine, but in 1973 with the oil crisis the neoliberalists attacked the Keynesian politic. They argued that the budget for social well being was too exaggerated and so they didn't invest too much in the market, and that was the reason it didn't grow and thanks to that the crisis came. The consequences were: higher unemployment rate, because if more unemployed people more labor supply offer, that implies paying lower wages and more profit for the employer. Also the taxation for the employers decreased, and the privatization occurred. Many unions were destroyed and the budget for social programs was cut. This caused a very profound gap between rich and poor. That's why this is called economic Darwinism, because only the strongest survives. The powerful people set the rules and the majority risks everything, that is how it works. Unfortunately this is at global scale, and the same that happens with individuals happens with nations, in a phenomenon we called globalization, where the richest countries take advantage of poor nations, making trades that are designed for making profits just for them. Marx said that history was social class struggle, I just agree with him in this part, not in socialism. But if we want a stable economy we must make sure that the majority is in well state. There should be a strong balance, but the priority is to give liberty and security for people, not market. Taxes should be the same for everyone. An economy regulation must be made. We must de privatize everything that was of the common people and now is just of a few who can afford it. I'm not against market freedom, but you must put people first above all. And the government should regulate this, because at the end the government is not a politician, but an institute that represents people. We must be honest, capitalism right now is being treated as democratic, we should redirect it. "It's wrong to deprive someone else of a pleasure so that you can enjoy one yourself, but to deprive yourself of a pleasure so that you can add to someone else's enjoyment is an act of humanity by which you always gain more than you lose." ― Thomas More
A new economic model which exceeds capitalism and socialism failures

I am interested in seeing where this debate goes.I will only supply one rebuttal in his round, as I only need one.My opponent has not followed her own stated purpose. She says in the debate title: "A new economic model which exceeds capitalism and socialism failures" She has not provided this supposed "model". Until this is changed, Pro has not fufilled her BOP in this debate. I hope this chages, as I find this topic very intruiging.
A new economic model which exceeds capitalism and socialism failures

Capitalism is failing now like the former economic models, because it hasn't been applied in the correct way, because powerful people who take the lead have been acting in an abusive and selfish way, and no one has tell them nothing. Because the seven richest people control more richness that the combined GDP of the poorest 41 nations. Because just 20% of the global population consumes the 86% of the market products. This is unfair, but not because the system has failed, but because humans are not infallible, and we need to have authorities that apply rules to us, but in this case there is no one who can apply them to all, talking about the powerful class, is a shame that we talk about equality when we do not apply this concept at all. There is not an interest in the common well being. Now socialism tried in a past time to force us to be equal, but neither that is the solution, because then everybody loses freedom to control their own destiny, and is not fair either. I believe that being rich is not a sin, but having the means to help people, and when you see they are suffering, but you choose to ignore this and making more and exploiting more, then that's wrong.
The Modal Ontological Argument for God is Logically Sound

So, anyway, during a mass PM between me and a bunch of other people, I brought up the MOA (short for Modal Ontological Argument), and zmikecuber responded that despite his recent time crunch, he might consider it and debate its logical validity. BoP is shared on this one. It's up to my opponent to only prove that the argument is logically unsound. First round is for acceptance since I have to present the MOA, the rest of the way, we get to freestyle it. Good luck to zmikecuber if he accepts.
Free Immigration

I accept my opponent’s definitional change. Currently, the United States employs a system that limits the amount of immigrants in certain sections (e.g. immigrating to reunite with family) to a certain number. For example, if you want to reunite with family there is a cap of 480 000 visas [1]. Effectively, immigrants without a visa may not immigrate to the United States. [2] C1: HARMS THE COUNTRY THE IMMIGRANTS MOVE FROM P1 (Premise 1): With free immigration, an unlimited number of people can immigrate to the United States (excluding criminals etc.) P2: People desire to immigrate to the United States, but can be denied because of the cap on visas or other circumstances [3] P3: Because of P1 and P2, if we adopt free immigration, the United States will receive thousands of extra immigrants, leading to a brain drain Brain drain is the term used to refer to the mass migration of the skilled work force of one country to another. Third world countries such as Mexico have lost up to 10% of their skilled work force (university graduates). [4] Because of P3, the brain drain effect will kill the developing country because their skilled work force, the people that are needed to develop the country are all leaving. Furthermore, even the low-skilled workers would leave the country. Obviously, a choice between living in the US and Mexico is not a hard choice to make, it is indisputable that the United States simply has a higher quality life. As people migrate away from their country of origin, the developing country will be crippled through the lack of workers. The United States current immigration policy does not present such issues as the immigration is controlled. The economic benefits of low-skilled workers is negligible in the long run and mass migrations to the United States may lead to racial tensions and a failure to effectively assimilate to the culture. There are zero benefits for the United States in accepting a free immigration policy is it is only harmful to the very countries the United States is sending foreign aid to. The resolution has been countered, because of the negative impact of free immigration on the country the immigrants leave, free immigration cannot be allowed. Over to Pro. SOURCES: http://www.immigrationpolicy.org... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://travel.state.gov... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Free Immigration

I accept, but offer one different definition. Immigration is the movement of people into a country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there. Prefer this to my opponent's claims of permanent residency, but his definition is not applicable to the real world. If I move to Denmark, stay there for a few years (and intend to settle there), and then move to Japan with the intent of settling there, according to him, I never immigrated to Denmark at all. That is logically absurd. Keep in mind that my opponent explicitly stated that we would not allow terrorists and criminals into the country and that we would have background checks to stop them. Any arguments about terrorism and criminality are entirely irrelevant at that point.
Free Immigration

If your ELO is lower than mine and you still accept, then it will be considered a full foreit on your part. This debate is on whether or not the United States should adopt a free immigration policy, meaning that there are no restrictions on who may be allowed into the United States (unless of course they are criminals or terrorists). Specifically, only a census and basic background check will be made on those attempting to immigrate to the United States. Definitions:Free Immigration - unchecked immigrationImmigration - permanently leaving ones country of residence to live in another country permanently (not including vacations etc.