BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.

My first point of argument will be to assert a burden of proof upon myself- in order for the motion to be untrue, and therefore for my own position to be valid, I, as opposition to the motion, have to assert a positive claim which explicitly contradicts the motion that the burden of proof is upon my opponent. My position is as follows: "The burden of proof in this discussion is not clearly upon either party, but if it were upon either, it would necessarily be upon myself". I am proposing this as a positive claim, and the following resource would have the burden of proof therefore fall upon myself: "If there is a claim proposed and that claim is disputed, the burden of proof falls onto the proponent of the claim.". (https://en.wikipedia.org...) Both parties are claiming to have a burden of proof, and therefore, we are necessarily arguing the same position, just from a different perspective- it is comparable to a motion which reads "I am the tallest participant in this discussion"- both the proponent and the opponent would have to argue the same case- that they are themselves the tallest. In such a discussion, neither party clearly has the burden of proof- if one is true, the other is necessarily false, and vice versa. The above link proposes the following, and it applies to this discussion: "When we have no evidence to resolve the proposition, we may suspend judgment. From a cognitive sense, when no personal preference toward opposing claims exists, one may be either skeptical of both claims or ambivalent of both claims.". This is necessarily the most reasonable case for an observer of this debate to hold- that neither the proposition nor the opposition of the motion can clearly be demonstrated to have the burden of proof, and that therefore the rational position is to not place the burden of proof on either party, as both positions should be regarded with ambivalence.
Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.

My claim, 'I have the burden of proof in this debate', a) presupposes the existence of a burden and b) asserts my possession of this burden. Both place a burden of proof on me. Here is an analogy after Russell. Suppose I were to claim the existence of an invisible teapot in the solar system. My claim, were I to provide no evidence, can be dismissed entirely. As Russel wrote, 'if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. 'The BOP is an abstract burden that cannot be directly perceived from our senses, and for which I can provide no sensual evidence. All else being equal, its non-existence is more probable than its existence because of Occam's Razor: affirming the existence of the BOP means affirming the existence a new construct. The number of things and ideas that one can possibly conceive of is virtually infinite, and thus the prior probability of existence of each one, given that a finite number of things exist in the world, asymptotes to zero. I have to provide information to increase the posterior probability of existence. It is therefore necessary for me to explain through reason why such a burden exists, why certain things cannot be explained without invoking the BOP. If I provide no warrant, you have no good reason to believe the BOP exists. My explicit claim - that I possess the BOP - also imposes the BOP on me. Anyone providing a claim has the burden of proof to provide warrant for it, and which side has the BOP is no exception. Otherwise, I am just wasting my and your time by stating something without proof or evidence. You are not the one who stated a claim - I was - so you have no BOP to prove your position correct. (1) . http://www.personal.kent.edu...
Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.

This is a short debate.Full ResolutionResolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.DefinitionsI: The user known as Diqiucun_CunminBurden of proof: the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position (https://en.wikipedia.org...)This debate: The debate titled 'Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.' on Debate.orgR1 for acceptance only. The debate is free thereafter. No trolling. Sources can be in comments.
Resolved: I have the burden of proof in this debate.

I wish to reiterate, as I feel my opponent missed this point, that in order for the motion to be untrue, one of a number of contradictory claims must be true, specifically: "The BOP does not exist". "The BOP is upon Con". "The BOP is not clearly upon either party" and so on. Yes, "The BOP is upon myself" is a consistent statement which would, in the event that both parties say no more on the matter, would be deemed true. However, as soon as that claim is disputed, as it was by myself, then the statement necessarily becomes false, as both Pro and Con have positive statements to uphold; in Pro's case that the BOP is upon himself, and in Con's case that the BOP does not exist, is upon himself, or is not on either party. In this specific discussion, I, as Con, asserted that the BOP is not clearly upon either party, and this is necessarily the most reasonable case, as both Pro and Con are making positive claims, and therefore they both have a requirement to provide proof of their claims. Therefore, in the event that no sufficient proof is produce by either party, or that both parties produce equally valid proof, the observer of the debate should finish reading with ambivalence towards both claims- the burden of proof is on neither party. Incidentally, I would like to point out that neither party has a responsibility to assert the existence of the BOP, either, as this is well understood within debating circles and therefore should be granted as axiomatic. Who the BOP falls on depends on whether it is contested- if not contested, it falls on Pro. If contested, as it was, it does not clearly fall on either party, and hence the motion is defeated.
we should make chocolate our president

Chocolate can NOT be our President of the United States, for a number of reasons: -It wouldn't be able to tell everyone it was running in the first place. -It wouldn't be able to fund it's campaign. -If it somehow become President, chocolate wouldn't be able to meet with country leaders. -It wouldn't be able to make any choices on it's own (Cabinet members, Supreme Court Justices, etc). -It wouldn't be able to sign OR veto any laws whatsoever -AND SO MUCH MORE!
God Doesn't Exist

Sure your not trolling(am new to this site btw)? So what would you call the quality to instantly bring about a perfect world or being able to do all that is good? Cause what I just said was pragmatically and etymologically correct regardless of whether in "the" dictionary or not like you would on google,(bene = good, potent = powerful). Who says I am not allowed to make up my own words, especially when I define them etymologically.
God Doesn't Exist

Premise 1 God is defined to be benepotent Premise 2 Benepotent is defined as the ability to bring about a perfectly good world instantly Premise 3 A perfectly good world is defined to have NO evil EXISTING Premise 4 evil clearly EXISTS in this world by my opponents view, mine's and everyone elses Conclusion God Doesn't Exist. I'll give you $1000 in cash if you can disprove my claim or the practicality of using these definitions, but just know by saying otherwise is pragmatically equivalent to arguing 2 + 2 =/= 4. No trolling or $1000 fine. Will test you in the comments to see if your serious.
prove

The resolution to this debate is simply the word "prove." The word prove is defined as to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument [1]. Therefore, in order to win this debate, I must prove more things than my opponent does. In R1, my opponent made the statement, "You cant prove with 100 percent certainty that I am not a monkey." This is true, therefore she has proven one thing. In my response, I wrote, "You can not prove with 100 percent certainty that I can not prove with 100% certainty that you are not a monkey." This is also true. Therefore, I have also proven one thing. In R2, Pro writes that I have failed to provide an argument for her to refute. However, she has not proven that this is true. I can prove that it's not true by noting I did indeed make a statement in the previous round, and in order to refute that statement she would have to prove it untrue. Therefore, since she could have proven my contention wrong, I did indeed provide an argument. Thus, Pro's assertion that I did not provide an argument is false; she has not (can not) prove it. Next, Pro says that I have not taken this debate seriously. You'll notice that Pro did not (can not) prove that either. However, I can contend that argument (disprove - or at least show genuinely, as the definition implies) that I have in fact taken this debate seriously. My evidence is the fact that I have taken a decent amount of time to respond to my opponent; in fact more time than she has afforded me. I am also making cohesive, legitimate and structured arguments and have/will present them in a timely manner. So in short, I have given evidence that I have taken this debate seriously while my opponent has not proven that I do not take this debate seriously. In conclusion, I have proven a total of 3 things: my statement in R1, and I have also proven that Pro's two contentions are untrue and/or weak. Pro has still only proven one thing. So I have proven 3; Pro has proven 1. By that measure, I'd say that this debate is currently strongly in my favor. I have out-proven Pro, and the resolution merely reads "prove." I have also used better spelling and grammar than my opponent, and actually provided a source whereas Pro has not. Finally, by debate standards you can't introduce new arguments in R3 (or it's considered bad conduct) so by that measure, if Pro were to comply with debate etiquette, she would not even be able to make a new argument in R3 meaning I don't have much to refute. ... And on that note, I have just proven (given a substantial amount of evidence) that I am more likely to win this debate than Pro, so I have actually proven 4 things, and Pro still has proven just one ( - and technically she didn't prove that statement; she just made a true statement). [1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Electoral College is a logical system

The United States is both a Democracy, And a Republic, Sorry but you are wrong, Dead wrong. The Founders dis trusted the mob they dis trusted the idea of a direct democracy, Few nations used that, All if not all them almost all Democratic nations are limited by a constitution. The problem is, You lack a basic understanding of those terms. And besides who the hell cares what the Founders intended? They condoned slavery, They felt women were chattle and the indigenous population were subhuman, By todays standards they were criminals, We'd put them all in jail. They were not good people. For their day the y wee very progressive and visionary, By todays standards they are totally reactonary. The whole problem with our society is people that think like you. . We can't arrest yo and put you in re education camps. . As tempting as that is, Because as you say. . We do have a constituion and thats good. . I suppose. . I'd really like to put you in a fema camp almost as much as you'd like to put me in a nazi style death camp like you did other jews and you did to the japanese. . Lets remember your wonderful constituion is just a piece of paper, It didnt stop you from commited genocide against the whole native population enslaving raping Africans by the millions, How dare you how dare you. . Do you remember licoln suspending habeoes corpos? In the civil war, The intern ment of the japnese? Segregation? Lynching? The way my immigrant ancestors were treated like animals when they got off the boat? So much for you rotten republic and its silly constotution, Its a piace of paper you applied mostly to rich white men only. . times change. . Since FDR god bless him we refer to this as a democracy because the whole nature of our society changed with him and much for the better, The constituion is a living documtent we interpret it differently than the founders did. . You don't like thta too bad. . We are taking over. . THOSE THAT MAKE PEACEFUL REVOLUTION IMPOSSIBLE MAKE VIOLENT REVOLUTION INEVTIABLE JFKit doesnt matter what your white ancestors intedned they are long dead, It doesnt matter what you want. . Your not in charge we are, The will of the masses is all that matters. . One person one vote. . Or else
The Electoral College is a logical system

The United States is not a democracy, We are constitutional republic. I do not think you understand that pure democracy sucks. The founding fathers knew this and they created the system that currently exists in order to avoid that. If this was a pure democracy, California would dominate the entire political landscape as they have over 10% of eligible voters, But they don't dominate the elections. Smaller states such as Iowa, Ohio and other swing states because their say matters in the electoral college but in a pure popular vote it would not matter. The electoral college is one of the checks and balances that keeps our country stable. Also if you only wanted this because you think Hillary would have won if the system was purely on popular vote, Stop being so naive and sensitive. BTW, Trump has done a pretty good job with our economy, Something Hillary knows not much about. (She almost became out first f president. I meant to say female but I deleted the emale)
The Electoral College is a logical system

Many say that we are not a Democracy, But a Republic, But actually we are both. A Republic is a form of Government. Democracy is the method of selecting the representatives of that government, People don't understand that. Because people particularly Americans tend to be stupid. If we are not a Democracy then why dowe even bother with elections? In order to have a proper election, We need to insure it is represetative, One man one person one vote. The electoral college is an onerous anachronism from an undemocratic and backwards era >
The Electoral College is a logical system

First of all, Check your grammar and spelling because it is hard to take you seriously because multiple times I could not understand what your are trying to say. Second, The original group of voters was free male landowners and it had nothing to do with religion. Back then the majority of people living in the US were Christian because of groups such as pilgrims who fled to America to escape persecution. Also, Literally all of that was solved, At latest, In the sixties so I don't know what battle you are trying to fight. Third, The electoral college literally caused Abraham Lincoln to win the election and institute his plans to free all slaves in the United States. He received 39. 8% of the vote, Which if in a pure democracy would create a run-off between him and the next highest vote-getter, Who would have been the Northern democratic candidate Stephen A. Douglass, Who would have won the election instead. He would have gotten pretty much every vote from the southern democratic candidate John C. Breckenridge which would have created his total to be 48% of the vote alone, Not adding votes that may have come from the other candidate John Bell. Pause for one second, Can you please tell me how I hate Jews? You have no basis behind that and also I'm a republican. Unlike the common news media tends to tell the tale, Republicans support Israel, Which is a majority JEWISH country. Last, The whole point of a constitutional republic is to not have a king. That is why there are term limits. There will be no revolutions in the United States because of a representative system. If it was a pure democracy, Smaller states would not matter. 10 states make up half of the entire US population, So if there was not an electoral college system, The government officials would only care about the issues of high population states because they could still win by ignoring the majority of states. Another reason why the electoral college exists is to resist voter fraud, Because in the 1800's, People voted multiple times in order to attempt to swing elections. The electoral college would resist mass voter fraud for example in California, Where if 10% of voters voted twice, Then any state out of the 23 states with the lowest populations would essentially not matter. P. S. Personal Insults don't work in political discussions. Bring actual facts that prove something, Don't call people members of the National Socialist German Workers' Party or democrats from the 1800's. Also did you know that until 1996, In close elections, The south's electoral votes were majority democratic.
The Electoral College is a logical system

It is only logical if you have contempt for the democratic process and ts asic premise one man one vote, Oh excuse me one person on vote, What defined a man or a person has changed in the days when the electoral college, Only white christian men with property were considered people, And slavery was legal women were considered chattel, What sort of sick freak endorses such a perverse world view, A olot of people think Hitler made a lot of sense, Are you one of those jew hating monsters, I don't care what reactionaries consider logical, Democracy is basically one person one vote, Constituional guaratess to protect rights of minorities are fine. . But rich people don't have thee ordained rigt to ruel thats the divine right of kings, Not democracy, So f you! Those that make peeaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
The Electoral College is a logical system

The Electoral College is a system that has benefited the United States because of the way it keeps politicians from staying in the big cities and pushes them out to the smaller states as in those states, Each vote can be worth more in smaller states than each vote in big states like California, New York, Etc. The electoral college resists the idea of mob rule, Which has taken over many different countries. It resisted anti-black hatred throughout the south in the early 1900's. If they could threaten everyone into voting for their candidate, Then there would've been countless racists running our country. Also the idea that the Electoral College is undemocratic is ridiculous. The United States is NOT a democracy, It is a constitutional republic (look it up). The founding fathers thought pure democracy was "pure evil" and made the electoral college for exact reason of avoiding pure democracy. The way our government works is based upon elective representation, Why should we change that?
The new Arizona immigration law is a step in the right direction

I shall negate the resolution, "The new Arizona immigration law is a step in the right direction. " Clarifications: New Arizona Immigration Law: recent legislation passed in Arizona that essentially requires police officers to question anyone they suspect of being undocumented. right direction: notice that the word "right" is not capitalized. If it was capitalized, the term would imply conservative or reactionary measures. However, the term is not capitalized, so we shall assume that it means "in conformity with reason or some standard/principle. " I will not pick out individual words in the law. I shall argue the negative of the resolution and attempt to persuade the audience that the recent Arizona Immigration Bill is not a step in the right direction. This policy is a form of racial profiling. The bill promotes a form of racism involving police focus on people of certain racial groups in attempts to determine if someone is undocumented. It is pretty clear that the law enforcement within Arizona will focus more on people of noticeable Mexican or other Hispanic descent rather than Anglo-Saxons. Is this a step in the right direction? Police officers are not using any reason in their accusations; they are merely pinpointing people without proper evidence or warrant. The major issue with this bill is that it undermines the generally accepted principle of "innocent until proven guilty. " In fact, this law essentially proposes a policy of "guilty until proven innocent. " A person is assumed to be undocumented until he can prove that he is documented. This is not "right" at all. It is quite contrary to one of the major principles upon which the United States represents.
The new Arizona immigration law is a step in the right direction

Typically, I usually forfeit my round after an instance where my opponent was unable to complete theirs, but since this is the final round, I will post regardless. The Arizona Law can clearly be seen from it's text that it does not promote, encourage, or even allow the profiling or disrespect of rights to anyone, hispanic or other. It is already common practice for officers to ask for ID during a traffic stop and to make judgements based on how people are acting (for drug and alcohol use while driving). We also must acknowledge that, based on the text of the law, that it does not focus on how one looks, but on how one acts that is to make officers suspicious.
The News Is Dead

The News is Dead! Serious debaters only please. "The News" = the formal presentation of reports by people who are paid to discover, Package, And deliver information about happenings to the masses "news" = a report on an event or happening that is recent or relevant === Argument 1 === In an average day of The News, Less than 10% of the talking is news. Watch any single hour of The News and you'll miss nothing from the rest of the 23 hours. Keep track during that hour, And you will notice that roughly 59 minutes will consist of commentary, Gossip, And speculation. You'll be lucky to find any actual "news. " The equivalent point is valid for print and radio news, Too. After these 3 categories, There are a few more time wasters you may find during The News: a death count, An exaggerated controversy (that's probably false), A scientific "breakthrough" (something a 5th grader could have told you), Etc. Based on the general dearth of events (compared to the time spent telling us about them), There is no need to follow The News at all. Anything that is actually, Really "news" will filter through your friends and family and get to you with no effort at all. The News is dead, Because you can (and most do) get all news without watching, Reading, Or listening to The News.
The News Is Dead

=== Argument #4 === The belated release of the Mueller report was the death knell of The News. So much air time and "reporting" was spent on the "Russia Collusion" story, That The News will never recover. On this point, The left versus right nature of The News does come in to play significantly. Even still, The death of The News is more about breathless coverage than ideology. Left-wing News Sources are only dead if they were fanatical in their support and long-winded coverage of the hoax. I think people (consumers of news) can be given latitude for believing what The News was forever proclaiming. However, This kind of understanding cannot be extended to The News. Today, The News (that breathlessly covered the Russia Investigation) should be begging forgiveness from all their listeners or readers or watchers. They are not. First, They are either ignoring the fact that they have been peddling a false story for years. Second, They are clinging to any possibility of further investigations. === Follow-up === I will deal with the "where will you get news? " question in the final round.