BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I Will Lose This Debate

Due to the fact that my opponent forfeited the last round, I feel obligated to not post too many extra argumentations so that he may catch up.(I am semi-nice after all, under my death mask :D)I would also encourage my opponent to post whatever new arguments he wants to in the last round cuz like, duh, I'm supposed to lose ;P lol (and I'm too lazy to come up with anything new that i could have used to support why I should lose, but that's irrelevant). So yeah....Over to my opponent! Good luck and thanks for this opportunity to debate you! ^_^
I Will Lose This Debate

All of CON's arguments are ad hominem. Therefore, you shouldn't listen to him. Listen to me and VOTE CON. I have not used any ad hominem based fallacies and backed up my arguments with death threats. Hence, I will lose due to bad conduct (Come on, DEATH THREATS? how much worse can you get?). Also, I lied according to my last round. Remember when i said i would forfeit this round? well i didnt, so that makes me a liar. and liars should be punished. so punish me by voting con. notice how im not capitalizing or using proper grammar anymore. here i will, insert a comma-splice, because, it is, fun to, be weird, like this,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, lol Plus Con gave an actual reliable source while I made up stuff off the top of my head. So he should recieve points for good conduct (he keeps complimenting me), good grammar (duh), better arguments (I haven't been making any arguments at alllllll), and better sources (he actually has legit solurces, unlike me).
Verse 71

The issue is of awareness; knowledge of our knowledge. We may laud the zealous sage, We may incite his hunger for knowledge, We may magnify his thirst for growth, But we must not mistake knowledge for awareness, For awareness is the name of knowledge on the second level. This is the matter we contemplate. The value of knowledge is not. That is the first level. . . . It would be best to simply know or not know. To know that we know, to know that we do not know, This is the second level, the level that kills. In this level, we know we are dying. It is the question of how quickly. The only healthy are those who don't realize they are sick. The awareness of dying complicates living. . . . Burdened with our own death we are disquieted, Our zeal is diminished. It would be better to set down that burden, And embrace the zeal unreservedly. -------------- I thank Con for his participation, and the voters for reading. Per the OP, Con's R3 will be blank as we have both had 2 attempts to affirm or negate Verse 71.
Verse 71

Through zeal, knowledge is gotten; through lack of zeal, knowledge is lost; let a man who knows the double path of gain and loss thus place himself that knowledge may grow. You choose to extinguish the hunger for knoweldge You chose to douse the thirst for growthKnowing is the lie, not knowing is the truth, not knowing of your absence of knowing is the delusionBefore I depart for a bewildering world I'm already lost
Verse 71

Not knowing that we do not know, is not the delusion that we do know.Not knowing that we do know, is not the delusion that we do not know.Removing the second layer is not replacing the second layer.What would be best would be to experience life without experiencing experience;Knowing about yourself ceasing to oppose knowing yourself,Observing the moments of life ceasing to oppose living the moments of life,The striving for meaning ceasing to oppose the striving of living.Know others by knowing yourself.Overcome others by overcoming yourself.Understanding what is enough is enough.Presence is perseverance.Coming to stillness is forging ahead.Find life by accepting death.
Verse 71

﻿"What would be best would be to know without knowing you know, or not to know without knowing that you do not know." I oppose, it would be better not to know, but knowing that you do not know. Ignorance must be flaunted not concealed. It is the way minds expand. The only difference between a Wise man and a Fool is that the Wise man knows he is a fool. Pro suggests deluding ourselves into believing that we know, and hiding our lack of knowing. I encourage it, it is the only path to truth. Night Heron Revealed By a Rising Harvest Moon Which, is lovelier?
Evolution (Pro) VS. Literal Creationism (Con)

Literal Creationism (definition): the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution. I. Proving Creationism: Genesis 1 Genesis 1:1- in the beginning "GOD" created the heavens and the earth. It's God who was in the Beginning and is responsible for time that started. The infinite intelligence of God caused everything to be what it is today. How, He spoke; a. "let there be Light" (Genesis 1:3), b. "let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters" (Genesis 1: 6), c. "let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place and let the dry land appear" & "let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees eating fruit in which is their seed, each according to it's kind, on the earth" (Genesis 1:11) e. "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be signs and seasons, and for days and years and let them be in lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth" (Genesis 1:14-15) f. "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let the birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the heavens" (Genesis 1:20) g. "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds-- livestock and creeping things and beasts of the according to their kinds" &"let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the gosh of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth" (Genesis 1:24 &26) In every one of these things, God did in a orderly fashion and were all done in a day and night span of 6 days as recorded after each event occurred. If creation isn't real, then how can each active occurrence have taken place by an infinite intelligent Being "God"? II. Today's generation: Nature 1. Lights -the sun, moon, stars 2. Plants- Trees, grass, flowers 3. Animals/insects- Birds, fish, beasts, bugs, humans These things today are quite similar to what the Bible talks about from Genesis 1, so therefore it must be that some intelligent form of Being (God) must have created everything or it wouldn't be exactly what it is today as was describe from years ago through the text of Scripture. Another object I want to point out is that God through the Bible uses analogies to still speak with Authority as He did when He created the universe and everything in it. I will now wait for my opponents rebuttals. Best wishes! [English Standard English Bible (ESV)] (Sorry, I would have posted up pictures and other things if it had not been I using my phone to type my argument).
Evolution (Pro) VS. Literal Creationism (Con)

DEFINITION:Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better Case 1: Proving EvolutionFirst, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human. Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong. Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today. Evolution is still happening today! For instance, a women in the past could ovulate if she was too skiny. Now they can't! (3)1.http://www.amnh.org...2.http://news.nationalgeographic.com...3. http://content.time.com...
Best Pokemon.

I've got nothing. I am just arguing for Espeon as an all around beneficial person to have on a team and can hold it's own when used well. You specified to argue about Stats, and overall fighting ability and I may have extended that into the team battling realm. I have no doubt that Aegislash is much more likely to win a fight with Espeon and is an overall powerful pokemon. My only position that I stand firm to is the versatility and power Espeon brings to a team battle compared to Aegislash.
Best Pokemon.

Me and my opponent will be arguing which Pokémon in the video game series is the best, based on stats, overall fighting ability, etc.RULES:1. No legendaries.2. The Pokémon can be in gens I-VI. (Starting in Red/Blue and ending in X & Y), however all sequels are included for the purposes of updated stats (OR & AS).3. No mega-evolutions (however Pokémon that can use Mega Evolution are still eligible as long as they don't have Mega-Evolution). 4. No trolling.5. A forfeit results in an automatic loss.6. You will choose the Pokémon and give it a viable moveset (so no Roar of Time Magikarps) and 1 item.7. Have fun!R1: AcceptanceR2: ArgsR3: RebuttalsR4: ConclusionThe Pokémon I choose is Aegislash. I await an opponent.
Illegalize abortion

A fetus is not a child. If abortion is made illegal . It will create many more problems. Currently people go for abortion mostly in following causes. 1) unplanned pregnancy 2) when fetus is suffering some severe diseases Unplanned pregnancy occurs mostly when people indulge in sexual intercourse unknowingly or just driven out of instincts and secondly after rape. In both the cases people are not ready to take up responsibility of a baby. Afterall giving birth to a baby is not the end of responsibility of parents. A child needs a lot other support before he / she is ready to live life on its own . If abortion is made illegal it will just increase the number of unwanted baby. If a child is not wanted by its parents then what kind of life will he/she live. He/ she will be seen just as a burden throughout his life. In case of abortion due to sever medical condition is also reasonable. When a child is born there is a start of new emotional bond between child and family. Think about the family who knows that there newborn baby will not survive for more then few month's. How tramutized it would be for family to see their child die in front of them
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

By accepting, Con already Accepts the rules. Therefore, The rule, no matter how fair, Is Law. Con is bound to rule two if I give a Translation. Transaltion:I guaranteed to win the debate. Con can not argue. Any violation of this rule is a 7 -point error. The voter must Con Penallize when Con makes every argument. Source: . https://translate.google.com.... Thus, Con is Bound to this rule, by accepting already has agreed. If Con Uses Any argument, I will get a 7 point victory. Without Arguments, It is concession, and I win anyway. If Con rejects the rule, Then Con is backing down on Con`s debate promise, And I would get Conduct. Since Con put the BOP on Con`, Con MUST Provide an argument.
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

My argument: BOP is on con to prove how kim jong un is not his best freind Conduct notice: 1. It is unfair for Pro to post rules in a different language. He must give some kind of English translation for it to be relevant. Pro stated the debate can be in english OR german. Therefore, assuming there will be debaters who only speak english, it is only fair if he gives an english translation. Since pro did not do that, his second rule is irrelevant.
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

Rules:1. You may debate in engish or German.2. Ich garantierte , um die Debatte zu gewinnen. Con kann nicht streiten. Jeder Verstoß gegen diese Regel ist ein 7 -Punkt- Fehler. Der Wähler muss Con Penallize , wenn Con macht jedes Argument .3. Any violation of rules means a 7 point forfeit.
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

My opponent is bound to his own rules and it is up the voters to decide what rules are valid I am not imposing rules, I am simply saying it is not up to you to decide who wins or loses, it is up to the voters. In fact, my opponent is also arguing and replying, therefore he has broken his own rules. This is argument (notice how my opponent is making arguments?) is a pathetic attempt to prove your BOP. Simply stating something and providing no evidence does not fulfill your BOP. My opponent has yet to show actual evidence instead random claims that may be true or false. My opponent also breaks his own rules
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

1.) Con waited Untill Round 4 to declare that, And Con cannot make any rules. Con Has agreed TO BOTH Rule 1 and 2, So Con Is bound to it. Con Also Is Arguing, Thus Forfeiting seven Points.2.) Con has dropped and Gave up on this point.3.) con, Lost Contention 2, Which said I May Use Instigator Advantige Untill the counter-Plans by Air max are done. They are Not done, Thus I CAN Point Ules directed by Con.4.) CON SAID, In round one, That the BOP is on Con. Con, Thus must SOLELY Profill the BOP, Which Con has not, instead using a Kritik. Con also, CANNOT Impose rules, Because as Con Utterly Lost Contention 2, Con Agrees only I can use Instigator advantige. Con also argued, Yhus loses on all seven points.5.) Kim Jong un is my best friend, Because My friend Named Himself Kim Jong Un in COC, Thus, Kim Jong Un is my best friend. (1)(1) My testimony I just posted. Con Has Forfeited On all seven Points and Did not profill the BOP, And backed down on rule ONE, TWO, AND THREE. Thus, Con forfeits on alk seven Points.
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

1. Because its irrelevant 3. This is not the same since those rules are there for a logical reason. Not for an automatic loss (eg, you cant post on final round because otherwise it would be an unfair debate) Pro failed to argue his point 4. It is up to pro to fulfill is BOP conclusion: Pro failed to fulfill his BOP and wasted his time and round arguing utter nonsense about the rules, when it is clearly up to the voters to determine what is fair.
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

1.) I have in round 2, Whilst my Oppoment did not . Upon Accepting on the devate in round 1, CON AGGREED To all the rules before the translation. not only that, But CON IS ARGUING, so Con has forfeited on 7 points 2.) Con has completely Conceeded on this point.3.) That Is Untrue. In (1) Debate.org, There Are MULTIPLE Debatres With rules like:(Con must waive the final Round, Pro Must Not post on round 5, etc.) Rule 2, Was SPECIFICALLY aimed at con, Con has Argued, Thus CON, Forfeited on all Seven points 4.) There is writteh evidence in round one; That con said, (2)"Bop is in ckb to prove Kim Jong un. . .best friend." Thus, CON Must SOLELY Provude the BOP. Rule two said, With credible evidence, That CON May not provide arguments, Con did, Thus, Con Had a Seven Point forfeit. CON Also, Must SOLELY, Profill the SELF-INPOSED BOP. Con did not, But Instead conceeded on round 2.
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

1. Even though debates can be done in English or German, it is my opponent's responsibility to translate it in english. This is because, since this debate can be in English or German, so assuming that the the other person that accepts knows only one language, my opponent MUST post in both languages. Especially the rules, otherwise it is unfair 2. Agreed, however it is up to the voters or the moderators to decide who wins the debate. Not my opponent 3. and 4. If you make a rule, it applies to BOTH opponents, not including the BOP because that is how debates work. My opponent makes a supposably untrue claim, and my opponent MUST show evidence to win the debate. Since both rules must apply to both debaters, my opponent technically accepted and argued too. If my opponent denies this and states that the rules only apply to me, then it is the voter's DUTY to mark off conduct for my opponent. Also my opponent has yet to fulfill is BOP
Kim Jong Un is my best freind.

Rebuttals: 1.) Rule One Says the Debate can be done In English OR German,Thus, The rules can be posted. CON, Also Said on round 1 THAT the BOP was on CON, Thus, CON, Must provide the argument, Or it will count as Concession 2.) Until airmax is finished with Counter-measures to Instigator advantage, I Can Use instigator Advantage Anytime.3.) CON has ARGUED that I am showing poor conduct by tricking Opponents, Which is an argument. Thus, Con has Forfeited on all seven Points.4.) RULE 2 APPLIES TO CON ONLY, Therefore , Conduct on rule 2 Is Mesured SOLELY on Ckn.
Democrats are more Pro-Military than Republicans

While John Mccain ( I sincerely respect his service to our country ) and other republicans tend to lean towards rewarding the service of our military with more tours of combat and extended time away from family , Democrats like Jim Webb have fought for veterans receiving the benefits due to them. Also Barack Obama has recently signed a protection against the cut of veteran benefits. Michelle Bachmann is proposing a freeze in VA benefits. Republicans claim to be pro-military , and they are when it comes to waging war , but when it comes to actually being pro-military and taking care of our service men and women and our veterans they fall well short. It's all patriotic lip service and pure rhetoric!
Democrats are more Pro-Military than Republicans

I would like to reiterate Pro-Military means the support for military actions and usage, NOT veteran affairs. 1) Throughout history, there have been more Republican Presidents w/Republican dominated Congress self-initiating and supporting war efforts than Democrats have. ie: T.Roosevelt->Spanish American, Lincoln->Civil War, Nixon through G.W.Bush have supported the Vietnam War, Gulf War, Iraqi War, and War in Afgan. Reagan even threw in billions for military tech advancement. Whereas Democrats: LBJ, W.Wilson, FDR, Truman were pressured to throw. 2) Recently Obama has significantly reduced the number of personnel and involvement. If Democrats were more pro-military, they would toss US military like Republicans did. Pro rebuttal later.
Democrats are more Pro-Military than Republicans

Well I've learned one thing from these debates. Sometimes 5 rounds is too much and 750 characters is not enough. One thing I havent learned yet is what to do when someone has forfeited to post an argument but not forfeited the debate? I guess i could just debate myself which i've been known to do. Being Bi-Polar certainly can be beneficial in the event of pure boredom! :)
Democrats are more Pro-Military than Republicans

Actually pro-veteran and pro-military are one in the same. After 2 years of active duty service you are considered a veteran even if you remain active. So my argument would stand as intended. If Republicans were truly pro-military then they would be pro-veteran as well. There's nothing more patriotic as an American than taking care of those who have sacrificed themselves for us. I appreciate your rebuttle and references but they dont hold much water.. As far as military pay raises , both Dems and Repubs have pushed for that in the past but not recently for Repubs. And for your comment on soldiers and their time away from home . . that dignifies no response. Repubs are war mongers with no regard for life , soldier or veteran or civillian
Democrats are more Pro-Military than Republicans

Hello Pro! How's it going? 750 characters is a little, so better start now! I would like to say that you somehow are arguing for the veteran benefits, not the military benefits. So you might want to make a different debate saying Democrats are more pro-veteran that Republicans. Since all you arguments tend to revolve around pro-veteran standards, all arguments you have made are unrealitive. Republicans have increased the wages of the soldiers and have given pensions to them. The soldiers know that they will be away from their family for extended times if needed. So, extended time wouldn't be a problem. http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States) http://www.diffen.com... Thank you.
Winter is better than summer.

Ladies, Gentlemen, and various unassigned or miscelaneous or blended genders, I regret to inform you that Pro's battle with the Unevolved is taking longer than expected. Fear not, though, for through the power of his courage and the purity of his heart, Pro will surely prevail. meanwhile, in the rest of the galaxy, the death toll keeps piling uo as Cthulu's other minions wreak havoc upon all inhabited worlds. Will Pro defeat the unevolved? Can Pro recover what the galaxy has lost? Will Pro eventually face down Cthulu himself?!? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of "Random stuff Con makes up while using her computer at work." So until next time, have another picture of a kitten frolicking in the summer.
Winter is better than summer.

I feel like it's bad form for me to go on posting arguments when my oponent has not had the opportunity to respond to the existing ones. What happened to Pro? Did he forget? Did he quit? Not likely, I think. I think this can be explained only by a gaping black hole appearing withing Pro's living room. A cold devoueror of all that lives, summoned and set upon pro by Cthulu himself. Pro has been sucked into the dark void where he must do battle against the unevolved alongside his trusted companion and best friend, Wargreymon. Fight on, brave Pro, we all have faith in you! We know that you are the earth's last hope in this epic battle and there is no doubt that you will overcome! I will still be here when you get back, good sir. For everyone else, have a picture of a kitten frolicking in the grass in summer.