BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
We do or don't have free will, depending on how you look at it...sort of.

I know this is a rather different issue than much of what seems to be on this site. I'm not here to win but just to get some ideas to bounce off my theory, so I have no bloody idea how you people are going to vote. .. He brings up a valid point, that choice depends on the knowledge of the situation and the awareness of alternatives. I have to differ with him slightly though, because it is nearly impossible to know all of the possible actions one could take in a situation. Many actions need to be taken before there is enough time to carefully weigh the alternatives. For a choice to be made, their simply needs to be a minimum of two actions, although the more possibilities, the more "free" you might say the choice was. That said I am going to expand the definition of point #1 according to my opponent's observations: 1. It must be conceivable that the agent could have acted in multiple ways, and we must assume that agent has knowledge of at least some of these possibilities. We can't get into the mind of the agent, so we can't say with certainty whether the agent is aware of a certain course of action. We can infer based on what we know about the agent, though. Since its logical to assume a person could at least conceive of disobeying his country, an outsider might believe that our hero made a choice to join one of the three branches of the military as opposed to dodging the draft. However, whether the kid is aware of two, four, or twenty options, there is still room for him to select one according to criteria of his choosing (not going to jail is a pretty good one).
We do or don't have free will, depending on how you look at it...sort of.

I will start my arguments with a definition of free which I think is most applicable, from Merriam Webster. Free- not obstructed, restricted, or impeded I will now give an example of a situation meeting the criteria but where the decision maker does not have the opportunity to make a true "free choice". A young man in a country called Choiceland is conscripted into service at the age of 18. When he is informed he must serve his country he is told that he can choose between the Army, Navy, or Air Force and is given information about each branch. He is then told that he must serve. Being the naive teenager he is the young man fails to notice that he has another option, which is to dodge the draft. Since he is unaware of this fourth option the child is forced to choose from one of the three known options. Now we look to the criteria given by Nail_Bat and compare. Criteria one is met because the young man had not only the option to choose between Army, Navy, and Air Force but also had the unknown option to dodge the draft. Criteria two is met because it is physically possible for the young man to rate each option by whatever criteria he chooses. Criteria three is met because the young man can decide based on his rating which he wants to do. Criteria four is met because no one else is choosing the criteria for him, and the decision is left to him. Criteria five is not applicable because the choice is not free so the extent of the freedom is nonexistent. So what can we gather from this? A sixth requirement: 6. The decision maker must be aware of all his or her options and have true information about the options. In the example the young man's choice was obscured by the untrue statement that he must serve. The case may be that he must serve by law, but that does not mean that he must serve. The law is, as we all know, breakable and it is possible to get away with breaking the law. The young man has information which he can use to see which options meet his criteria, however the information is false information. Because of all of this the young man does not actually have free choice. His choice is obstructed and impeded by lack of knowledge. To clarify and sum up my arguments I am more or less saying that free choice is not purely based on the ability to choose but also the ability to know what you are choosing.
Vampire Diaries vs Twilight

Let me say firstly that, for the majority of your response, I was cheering you on. I agree with practically everything you wrote. Twilight disgusts me for many reasons, not least of which is Bella Swan, one of the worst female protagonists ever written. As a writer, and someone who makes his living writing, I must say that I share your vehement disgust of the wretched book by Stephanie Meyer. It is a cheap thrill for teens, intended to market raunchiness. I acknowledge that she is a wretched character, and that the dynamics of the book are unrealistic, immoral, and highly improbable. I furthermore accept your accusations against Edward Cullens, though I certainly have better feelings for him than I do for Bella. To begin with, he is a fictional creature with alternative capacities than those belonging to humans, so he need not be as empathetic as a human character. And yet, he still has weaknesses which he struggles to overcome, and that makes him a better character than Bella in my book. Now allow me to complain that, in the beginning, you failed to correctly define "The Vampire Diaries". While there may be a book series by the same name, and same plot, I refer to the show that you reference in your first post, and nothing more. I cite as evidence of your original definition: "just by watching the first episode you are captivated by it like you wanna continue watching it" You are clearly referring to television material here, and so please understand that for the remainder of the debate, I refer to the show and the show alone, unless I specifically mention the books. At the same time, I admit that the existence of TVD books is a valid objection to my point that TVD TV series is a derivative of Twilight. However, I maintain that it was a derivative. Twilight began a trend in Y/A fiction that has not been conquered since the wretched book"s release. Since then, there has been a disturbing excess of literature related to monsters and dark, supernatural romance. I know that literary agents in the publishing field have gotten sick of it, as have I. I tire of seeing all these blatant ripoffs making big bucks, when people who truly have talent are rejected time and time again. Now consider TVD " it debuted in September of 2009, not long after the release of the original Twilight film, and only two months before the theatrical release of the second. Let"s assume for a moment that TVD books are actually better than Twilight, and contain significant literary virtue (an assumption that I do not necessarily accept). Even so, do you think a television adaptation would have been made were it not for the success of the Twilight franchise? I think not. In fact, I am sure of it, and I think you can see that I am right. Thus I maintain that TVD is a derivative: a second class show that has more virtue than Twilight, but still has precious little, and remains just as bad because it only exists because of the former.
Vampire Diaries vs Twilight

In response to the section in which you point out that the characters in Vampire Diaries are better than the ones in Twilight, I must actually concede that you are correct. Elena stands for something more than her own feelings, and this is clearly a character trait superior to practically any that can be found in the Stephanie Meyer saga. I argue, however, that this concession does not in any way prove that "Vampire Diaries" is at all superior to "Twilight". I am here to demonstrate that both are equally bad. I firstly remind you of the axiom that nothing is worse than Twlight. This thing is true. I now remind you that Vampire Diaries only exists as a DERIVATIVE of Twlight. By nature of the fact that Twilight was written due to the author's inspiration, it has a better excuse to exist than Vampire Diaries does. Vampire Diaries, on the other hand, exists as a parasite. It was only made to exploit the success of the worst book ever. I think there will have to be some difficulty on your part explaining why a show is superior to a book that you deem poor, when the show is indeed a derivative of that book. Secondly, I would like to make the mere point that both works sell raunchy romance. In your opinion, it is a good thing that Elena is not all about boys and her own feelings, and has standards which she clings to. If this really is a good thing, then it supports Elena as a good character, but condemns the show as a bad show, since the purpose of the show in the first place is to market the relationship between her and a vampire. Therefore, while Elena may not be about romance, the show largely is, and I consider this a significant point against the show - especially given the nature of the vampires in Vampire Diaries, which I will further address in the following section. "Real vampires (and werewolves and witches)" I will dismiss this entire section as invalid, since there are neither real vampires, real werewolves, or even real witches (in the sense that you generally mean the word in fiction). Therefore, to choose sparkly and angsty vampires or werewolves over morbid ones is not an invalid choice. Furthermore, even if such creatures did exist, the book (Twilight) is fictional, and is therefore permitted to portray them however it likes. Finally, there is a fine case to be made that sparkly vampires are even preferable to morbid ones. This is especially true in the case of Vampire Diaries. While Twilight celebrates the relationship between a girl and a sparkly vampire, you are now admitting that Vampire Diaries celebrates the relationship between a girl and a morbid vampire. Which seems better? Vampire Diaries is a derivative of Twilight, and both exist to market raunchy romance. While nothing is worse than Twilight, I fail to see how Vampire Diaries can be called "better", even if it does contain better aspects.
Vampire Diaries vs Twilight

Elena is a better protagonist and role model than Bella. Poor, helpless Bella shows young girls that she is nothing without a man. Without Edward or Jacob, who is Bella? A self-absorbed pushover who doesn't try to make friends with anyone and who consistently puts herself before her family, namely her concerned father, Charlie. Elena, on the other hand, has depth to her character. Unlike Bella, she didn't go looking for trouble; fanged trouble time after time again comes after her and her friends - yes, Elena has friends with actual personalities. While Bella basically curls into a fetal position for months wallowing in pity when Edward leaves her in "New Moon," Elena sucks it up when her parents die so she can take care of her younger brother, Jeremy. She always sacrifices her own well-being for her loved ones, and stands up against conniving vampire ex-girlfriends, werewolves, ancient bloodsuckers, and even her own boyfriend - gasp - for what she believes in. Real vampires (and werewolves and witches) No, they don't sparkle. They turn others into vampires by feeding them vampire blood, then killing them. They burn in the sunlight, they are vulnerable to vervain, they can compel other people to do as they please, they drink human blood, they desiccate when starved and shrivel up when staked - real vampires aren't made of marble, they're made of flesh and blood like we are. "The Vampire Diaries" stays true to this traditional portrayal, but modernizes it with tantalizingly sympathizing vampire characters. They cry, they scream, they are faced with moral dilemmas, they are so very human, yet clearly not. "The Vampire Diaries" doesn't romanticize the vampire life - it's shown to be painful, lonely, and flawed, and unlike Bella, Elena doesn't beg her boyfriend, Stefan, to change her into a vampire, and rejects the idea of becoming one. The werewolves turn only at the full moon, according to folklore, and undergo immense pain, unable to even remember who they are. The witches aren't all powerful either, but are the only supernatural forces able to subdue powerful creatures of the night, sometimes only at great personal cost. Time after time, "The Vampire Diaries" delivers intriguing supernatural characters instead of the empty, two-dimensional vampires and werewolves in the Twilight series. We live in a world obsessed with the supernatural, and always have. "Twilight" changed the way that the world saw vampires, attaching a negative stigma of teenager angst and romanticism to the word "vampire." "The Vampire Diaries" is a truer-to-life representation that will compel you every step of the way.
Vampire Diaries vs Twilight

My position is not, as Arabella claims, neutral. Neutrality, in this case, would be to say that I am undecided on whether or not Vampire Diaries is better than Twlight. But I am not undecided on this issue - indeed, I am in strong opposition of Arabella's own position that Twilight is superior to Vampire Diaries, because I contend that both are equally bad, and that her position is therefore wrong.
Vampire Diaries vs Twilight

Thank-you for posting this compelling issue, Arabella. Neither Twilight nor Vampire Diaries bare any positive values at all. It is a misfortune that either exist at all, and I would like to suggest that the language in Arabella's query is loaded. It suggests that one is good, and one is more good. I contend that both are bad, and that both are equally bad. Now, I must give this to my opposition - to suggest that anything is worse than Twilight is to suggest a self-evident falsehood. There is clearly nothing worse than Twilight, and so it is not possible to say that Vampire Diaries is an inferior show. I contend, therefore, that both are equally virtueless. Neither can be thought of in positive integer form. They are bottom barrel bad.
Debate.org should not require us to complete three debates before we can vote.

The three debates rule, while inconvenient, is extremely necessary for this site. Three debates isn't so hard a task, but it really helps. For starters, the vote moderators have their hands full with all the current reported votes, and removing this rule would add significantly to that burden. And if you consider that the votes by people with three debates or more already have a large chance of breaking the rules, you can imagine that people with less debates are going to have an even higher chance. This just isn't worth the moderator's time, too few good votes are gained for too much work.
Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

Okay. .. In this speech I'm just going to explain what has happened so far in this debate, as my opponent hasn't refuted my argument nor responded to my refutations. EXPLANATION OF THIS DEBATESo really what this debate comes down to is the "every" in the resolution - as I explained in my overview/resolutional analysis section of my first speech, the word "every" means that I only have to prove ONE way in which Democrats are worse than Republicans, and I have done so. Look, migmag, I can agree on part of what you say, some Republicans may be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. but not all are. .. Hell, even I am a Democrat, but part of being a good person is accepting the flaws of you and what you participate in - the argument I used was completely valid whether or not Republicans are actually all bad people, so you continuing to mention the flaws in the Republican party isn't a refutation to my argument nor a valid argument itself (see my refutation in my first speech), and I don't mean to be rude, but I think as a 44 year old you should be much more capable than I, who is just a 13 year old, of accepting some of the flaws of the Democratic party and to change the obvious biased view you have on Republicans. To win this debate, I had to make one argument in which I prove Republicans are better than Democrats in just one way, and I have done so. I fulfilled my burden.
Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

In this speech I am just going to go over the flaws in the Pro speeches to ensure that I win this debate. ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE/SOURCESThroughout the Pro speeches, he has not said a single source, however he insists that all of his statistics and "facts" are true. He fails to meet his BoP because of no evidence provided, and he still spouts this nonsense without any sort of source. BIASED CLAIMS AND GENERALIZATIONSLooking at all of the Pro speeches, you can clearly see he is completely biased and makes many generalizations, like thinking all Democrats follow these certain beliefs and ideologies to thinking all Republicans are "rich, straight, old religious white men". Again, as I have said in the previous section, he doesn't use any sources to back up these ludicrous claims. LACK OF RESPONSES The final and most important flaw of the Pro side is that he has not responded to a single thing I have said in any of my speeches. He says the same thing over and over with different wording, yet he doesn't respond to any of what is in my speeches. Moreover, I have refuted every single speck of the Pro speeches, meaning I fulfill my job and he does not. CONCLUSION I have clearly shown that Democrats are not better than Republicans in every way, therefore fulfilling my burden. I have also refuted all of the Pro speeches, further proving I should win.
Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

FACTS are FACTS, POLITICS 101 is FACTS based material. EACH party has a PLATFORM and THAT is how they VOTE and the type of LEGISLATION they promote, get out of here is you can't handle BASIC POLITICS 101! Dems are for RAISING taxes Repubs are for LOWERING taxes DEM are for BIG GOVT Repubs are for "small" govt, Dems are FOR gay marriage, Repubs are AGAINST Gays even being allowed to EXIST, the list goes on and on, wise up or DONT VOTE
Democrats are MUCH better than Republicans in EVERY way

I'm just going to talk in this speech, as all I have said so far has been unresponded to, and there's no need for repitition. Basically what this comes down to is that I have put out facts, statistics, etc. and all the Pro can do is ramble on about Republicans, as it seems he has some sort of personal bias against them. He makes generalizations and assumptions but can't back it by facts.
Should Seattle Introduce the "Progressive Tax on Businesses?"

Businessman men work hard for their business to strive. Businesses make huge contributions to society and are a vital part of the economy. Progressive Tax would discourage people from starting a business and we would lose a vital part of the economy. The U.S. Constitution states that people have the right to pursue happiness. This means people are allowed to own a enterpris to make them money which will hopefully make them happy. WE SHOULD NOT TAX PEOPle FOR EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS!
Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant

Sure that addresses lebrons only weakness. If you want to call it that. He shoots it at a career rate of around 75% which isnt great but it isnt horrible either (http://ca.sports.yahoo.com...). Now addressing Kobe Bryant. Kobe has been considered as one of the greatest shooters in the game today. yet for his career he shoots at a average 45% for his career his highest mark ever being 46.9%. He is considered one of the best three-point shooters in the league right now yet his career average is 33.6%. His highest mark ever was 37.5% during his rookie season (where he didnt even play alot). http://espn.go.com.... If you wish to check. Just looking at shooting number, Lebrons average for his career is 49%. Lebron has been critised for not being a great shooter for outside the paint yet his career three point percetage is higher than kobes! Lebrons percentage is at 33.7% his highest ever field goal percentage is 56%! thats is extremely high considering the amount of shots lebron take per game. He even shot the three-pointer at a rate of 40.6% for this season. Both are numbers that Kobe Bryant hasnt reached yet. These are just shooting numbers. When addressing lebron you have to realize that he is the full deal. He plays point forward. He can score, pass, rebound, defend, he can do anything at a high and consistent rate. This season he averaged 27 points, 8 rebounds, and 7 assists. he is a triple double machine. Whatever Lebron James does on the floor is effective. If you were to look at the top ten PER (Player Efficiency Rating) there are only three names on that list. Wilt, Michael Jordan, and Lebron. In his Young career it shows his total dominance of the game.
Lebron James is better than Kobe Bryant

This is something I always felt like I needed to solve. Yes both are great players but I have an urge to know who is better personally I feel like Lebron I'd better but I'm willing to argue this with some who begs to differ: Rules: -no swearing - legitimate facts - somebody who actually knows basketball - don't just debate using the fact that Kobe has 5 to Lebron 1 I mean you can use it but it can't be your sole argument
A creator of the universe does exist.

When you say I have to give the burden of proof, please realize that I believe I am giving proof that a creator of the universe exists. I am not arguing or at least not trying to argue on the basis of "you cannot prove a creator does not exist and therefore he/she/it does". I am stating that DNA PROVES a creator's existence because of the information contained within it. Now onto refuting your claims... This statement is pretty silly to me: YOU - "Logic isn't something that "exists", rather it is a tool created by us intelligent beings to help us make sense of things. How about this: every time you say "logic" replace it with "math"" How would one deny that logic exists? Would you say that your feelings do not exist? Would you say pain does not exist? Just because things are not seen, does not mean they don't exist (Perhaps another debatable topic). Also, logic is used appropriately grammatically in my arguments. I guess it matters what definition of Logic we're using. YOU - "You see, just like math, logic is but a tool DEVELOPED by intelligent beings to help them understand their environment. Just like math, or science, or literature, logic is not a physical thing that exists in our environment, rather something that intellectual beings developed to UNDERSTAND their environment." I agree with you only about math, science, literature, and logic not being physical things. Of course I believe they do "exist". Math, logic, and all intelligent information, came before matter and this is why they cannot be a mere tool made by intelligent beings to understand their environment. You BELIEVE matter came before logic and therefore you might conclude otherwise. Now on to the proposed questions you gave me: 1) I only stated that "A creator of the universe does exist" not a "creator of a creator" 2) See above 3) No, there is no information available to support this. DNA supports and proves an intelligent creator. 4) You could argue that the creator of the universe created the computer because the universe encapsulates the computer object. You cannot logically go in reverse and argue that something which was created, created it's creator. I would like to thank my opponent for taking the debate. Religion is always an interesting topic and although I disagree with him wholeheartedly, I respect his opinion. Please understand that although I am a Christian by faith, my argument was only that A creator of the universe does exist. I leave you with this quote: John O'Keefe - NASA astronomer: "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."