BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A functioning society can be maintained along the Non-aggression principle.

"The Non-aggression principle is a moral stance which asserts that aggression is inherently illegitimate. NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are. Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately-owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner's free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership. " -[. https://en.wikipedia.org...]This idea has become the groundwork of libertarian philosophy and of the political system known as "anarcho-capitalism. " I will be arguing that the NAP (as it henceforth will be known) cannot create or maintain a society that respects it, and that coercion will always occur. My opponent intends to show that in a society where aggression is forbidden by law, the balance of power can remain stable and result in a free market based off of mutually agreed transactions rather than coercion and monopolies. Rules:1. The purpose of this debate is to decide if a society can be maintained along the parameters set forth by the definition, and that coercion would be unnecessary.2. Semantic games and trolling are forbidden. Pro may provide clearer definitions if he thinks mine is insufficient.3. The BOP belongs to Pro, since he must demonstrate that this radical new form of political organization is workable. Other than this, I am willing to negotiate any other rules in the comments section.
Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

.... Simply put Ron paul's ceconomic policies: ending the federal reserve system, doing away with fractional banking, removing the hand of goverment from every faucet of business(including regulators and inspectors), and removing regulations(like the minimum wage) are interesting and promomising ideas in the acedemic setting. However, in practice these policies do not lead to the ideal that libertarians hope for. A survey of American history will show how america has 'Ended the Fed'(twice). Before there was a minimum wage and industry regulators, there were the kind of conditions that congressman paul advocates for, and anyone whose read upton sinclairs 'The Jungle',about the meat packing industry in the early 20th century, will know its pretty. Barrack obama's economic policies have supported the actions the Federal Reserve undertook during the economic crash of 2008. The white house has helped stave off a depression, the likes of which would have seen 25%-50% unployment(Chairman Burnanke testimony under oath during a House Financial Services Committee meeting) With that I submit my contentions. Thank you
Ron Paul's economic policies are superior to Barack Obama's economic policies.

Rules: Debater must have typing experience.Debater must have internet access.No excuses or forfeitures.Must structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.Must insert one witty quote per round.Rounds: (1) Acceptance + Internet High Five(2) Main Argument (3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument (4) Response to rebuttal + voting issues (one paragraph)"Inflation is when you pay fifteen dollars for the ten-dollar haircut you used to get for five dollars when you had hair." - Sam EwingI accept this debate which I have thusly created and challenge those of rhetorical wizardry to a verbal duel.With my hand elevated and ready for forearm pronation, I slap yours in a ritualistic manner.Good luck to whomever accepts, and may the Gods smile upon you during this debate.Let the game begin!
war in afghanistan

yes, the terrorists are to blame - we agree on that much. but it is the terrorists who currently control afghanistan; control the government and control the people. innocent people aren't being punished. by going to war with afghanistan we are going to war against terrorist occupation and control. for instance, when the u.s. waged war against the nazis during wwII, we didn't have anything against GERMANY but rather against nazi control. it's the same thing here. sure some innocent afghanis may die and that's a risk we are going to have to assume. however several sacrificed lives for the good of an entire nation can only yield good results. this same concept was also used during the end of wwII when we droped the atomic bomb on hiroshima. we sacrificed the lives of many but ultimately we saved millions of more lives in the process. the same applies to afghanistan. also your proposition of just leaving them alone and them leaving us alone is so incredibly wrong. THEY attacked US, and they continue to pose terrorist threats all over the world. it is clear that they are not going to stop. their own leader, bin ladin, is always making video tapes and recordings, etc, talking about how they are NOT going to stop until they achieve their goals (power and control). turning a blind eye to the horror can once again be likened to hitler pre-wwII. although hitler ignored the terms and conditions of the treaty of versailles (which ended wwI) and continued to gain power with cruelty, everyone wanted to avoid war so we let him be. until of course he gained so much strength and power that he waged war in europe and eventually with the u.s. is that what we are waiting for? history often repeats itself. it is important to learn from the past.
war in afghanistan

before the soviets invaded afghanistan in the late 1970s, the country thrived in its own culture and was a community based on religion and peace. with the russian invasion came the introduction of communism, a political ideology that afghanistan did not accept. to fight against the domino theory, the united states sent aid to osama bin ladin and other terrorist organizations that banded together to fight off the soviets and remove them from afghan soil. however the taliban then became obsessed with its own power and control, and usurped power from the soviets only to hold onto it themselves rather than restore it to the community or previous afghan rule. today, bin ladin uses extremist brain washing techniques along with (mostly) terrorism to get afghan citizens to conform to his beliefs/rules. the situation in afghanistan is similar to nazi control of the jews. people are being killed unjustly for little to no reason at the hand of a violent terrorist group that commits heinous crimes in the name of allah or god. that kind of behavior does not reflect afghan values but rather the values of those who have taken totalitarian control and the rights of the people of afghanistan. i support the afghan war because it is right and necessary to put an end to the taliban's regime. to ignore the threat is wrong both for our own safety and welfare and the welfare of the people who need our help. just like with the nazis, afghani people are being subjected to ridiculous punishment, ridiculte and abuse. they are not free and they suffer. if we don't interfere, who will? this has been going on for nearly 30 years. it's time we put a stop to this. if we don't, we are acting immorally against human rights and our responsibility as a world leader in social, economic and military affairs. to ignore the problems would make us cowards. on the other hand, to fight for what is right would make us heroes. no one is saying that we have to instill american culture in afghanistan. rather what's important is upholding human rights in general, rights that afghans haven't known for a very long time. if we do not act now, eventually the terrorist group in the middle east will grow so strong and powerful that it takes on excessive control. one, it could grow so large and strong and expand so far that eventually it has enough power to significantly harm the united states and others (9/11 is just the beginning). two, since these terrorist organizations are based in the middle east, there could be an issue with oil which a necessity in most countries. think about japan which has absolutely no natural oil of its own. since japan is a premeire world super power, the downfall of the nation would be a downfall of other nations unified against the pitfalls of terrorism. for these reasons and more, i am PRO the war in afghanistan. we must wage war against those who threaten security on all levels. other options have been exhausted and failed. this is a situation for which it is necessary. the cost cannot be a factor, for if the taliban gets our of hand, the cost to maintain organization and just rule will be far greater...
Choose a Resolution Debate

I want to have a debate, but I can't choose a resolution. Here are some which I am interested in debating: -Resolved: Nuclear power plants should replace coal as the main source of home electricity in the United States. (I'm PRO) -Resolved: Gladiator Battles Should be Legal if Both Sides are Willing to Fight* (PRO) *I know I did this one before. My opponent didn't argue. I want to do it again. -Resolved: The Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are Justified. (PRO) -Resolved: Psilocybin Mushrooms should be removed from the list of Schedule 1 drugs in the United States (In other words, Magic Mushrooms should be legalized) (PRO) -A story debate (a story written by the two parties involved, whoever writes the best wins) -A cartoon debate (the debaters draw one-panel cartoons (like most political cartoons) and whoever draws the best cartoons wins. The cartoons don't have to be political. ) Definitions, etc. can be decided in the comments. 8,000 character limit 72 hours to argue.
Choose a Resolution Debate

I must first point out that my opponent has conceded my two points. He agrees that nuclear energy is both more environmentally friendly and it is safer. My points stand true, and now it is now my duty to refute my opponent’s arguments. Now onto my opponent’s contentions:1) Nuclear Power will replace coal as a crutchFirst of all, I’m not sure how this contention relates with the subject at hand. Both coal-fired plants and nuclear power plants heat water to turn a turbine that produces electricity. In addition, he points out that coal will run out, just like the uranium that powers nuclear power plants. He basically states that coal is on par with nuclear. Without further support in showing that coal is superior to show that coal is superior to nuclear, this argument is refuted by itself.2) Nuclear wasteI understand that nuclear waste is a problem with nuclear energy. However, much of the spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed back into nuclear fuel. [1] This does not end the need for long-term nuclear waste disposal, but it does reduce the volume of high-level waste that needs to be put into storage. In addition, the Guardian article that my opponent brings up as his [3] source explains some of the options that scientists currently have in disposing of nuclear waste such as throwing it into the sun, letting it sink into the core and putting it on Antarctica (which is currently not feasible, due to the Antarctic treaty which bans it). These are some imaginative options. If the need becomes even more pressing, I would expect that scientists and cooperation's would become more innovative with their ideas for nuclear storage. Which could eventually solve the problem of nuclear storage. In addition, the pressing need of nuclear waste piling up will create a profit motive for cooperations to hold and maintain nuclear waste, which would create jobs. Nothing negative there. Finally, my opponent brings up solar as an alternate to both nuclear and coal. However, this debate is about whether nuclear power should replace coal as the main source of home electricity, not about solar. So this point is completely irrelevant to the heart and soul of this debate. If my opponent wants to argue for solar, he can but just not in this debate. With my opponent's points rebutted, and my own accepted by my opponent, I conclude my rebuttal and urge a positive ballot. [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Islam is bent destroying other religions.

"Preventing people from freely practicing there religion is a form of persecution."Even so, keeping someone from freely practicing another religion does not destroy said religion. No matter how hard Muslims try they ill notbe able to stop someone from performing their own religion in secret anyway."The Pastor Saeed Abedini has been jailed in Iran for evangelizing, Boko haram has stated that killing Christians in Nigeria is one of its goals,There are widespread reports of Muslims killing Christians, burning homes and destroying bibles."In order to destroy a religion, you would have to completely wipe-out every aspect of it, correct? Persectuing people for their faith and aiming to say, terminte all christians in every country are very different things. One is predijuce and hate toward Christianity, and one is aiming to destroy the religion itself. We have no proof of any plan radical muslims have to wipe-out an entire religion, so we cannot prove that they plan on doing so.
Islam is bent destroying other religions.

Preventing people from freely practicing there religion is a form of persecution. The Pastor Saeed Abedini has been jailed in Iran for evangelizing, Boko haram has stated that killing Christians in Nigeria is one of its goals,There are widespread reports of Muslims killing Christians, burning homes and destroying bibles. This is not to say that all Muslims are doing this but just as the the people in Nazi Germany stood by and did nothing or even approved of what was happening supposed good people in Muslim countries do the same.
Islam is bent destroying other religions.

Okay, first off, Co-existing and destroying other religions are two very different things. Your title states islam is bent on destroying other religions, so I will debate on that. Islam has not declared war or persecuted people of other religions, nor has it made any big move to do so in the past century. Not allowing religious freedom does not destroy other religions, it keeps people from pticing that religion. Preaching other religions does not destroy that religion, it keeps that person from spreading the word of that religion. Not allowing muslims to leave the Islamic faith does not destroy religions, it keeps them from practicing other religions. It seems more that Muslims are very protective of their own religion and do not want people of the Islamic faith to be influenced by other religions. This keeps people in the Islamic faith, it does not by any means, destroy other religions. I look forward to my opponents rebuttal.
no significant contradictions exist in the bible

As I argued in the first round, it is ludicrous to state that blasphemy against the Spirit refers to an unrepentant sin. Blasphemy is to speak against a holy being. I can say, "the Holy Spirit is stupid," and I can mean it. I can then later change my mind and repent. Therefore, blasphemy against the spirit cannot be taken to refer exclusively to sins that are unrepentant, and the issue of the contradiction stands. To say that the Elijah verse is taken too literally is problematic. It states very clearly that no man has been swept directly into Heaven. To say that "no man" means "almost no men" is downright silly. If it was inaccurate to say that no man has gone directly to Heaven, Christ shouldn't have said this. In conclusion, the Bible is laden with contradictions, and thus far attempts to show them to be reasonably explained requires the taking of undue liberties with one's interpretation of the scripture.
no significant contradictions exist in the bible

it's possible that it means "all sins are forgiveable, except for unrepentant sins". there's no reason this is contradictory just because it's self evident. sometimes things need to be said. most people just say we don't now what the unforgiveable sin is. that doesn't mean it's a contradiction because sins are usually considered forgiveable. it would be ridiculous to read the verse so literal "all verses are forgiveable except blasphemy against the holy spirit", trying to argue that it says "all" sins instead of "most" sins, or something. not that you are making this precise argument, but it's very similar to what you're saying if you take things too literally. human language isn't always so precise. id probably say that for the Elijah verse too. "no man" is too literal, like saying "all have sinned" must mean Jesus sinned or that the Virgin Mary had to have sinned. just examples. some people do wonder if Elijah was in fact a preversion of Jesus, Jesus a reincarnation. I wouldnt go this far, but it's a thought. a
no significant contradictions exist in the bible

Contrary to the motion at hand, the Bible is riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies which are deeply troublesome in the text. I will begin by listing two of these and addressing some of the common explanations that are used to rationalize them. First, the Bible seems unable to make up its mind as to whether or not there are any sins which are unforgivable. Acts 13:39 states "...and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses." Similarly, 1 John 1:9 states very clearly that, "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." However, Mark 3:29 flatly contradicts this: "...but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject eternal condemnation." Matthew 12:31 combines both sides of this, contradicting itself within a single sentence: "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men." The book says in no uncertain terms that all sins are forgivable, and then it goes on to say that apostasy cannot be forgiven. This is an extremely significant problem, as it speaks to the eternal fate of blasphemers, determining whether they will be tortured forever or can be given entrance into paradise. This is not an issue to leave so cloudy. When faced with this argument, it is not uncommon for defenders of the faith to define "blasphemy against the spirit" as merely the act of failing to receive Christ. This separates it from other sins because in blaspheming the Spirit one is rejecting the very path to forgiveness. However, this is an asinine argument. This is because this definition of blasphemy requires one to die failing to receive Christ, which means on some level that one has died without repenting. That dying without repenting has consequences in the afterlife is true of all sins. If you die in sin without repentance, you are not forgiven. The above definition does not adequately separate blasphemy of the Spirit from other sins for this reason, and the contradiction remains. Another interesting contradiction in the Bible involves the question of whether people other than Jesus have ascended directly into heaven. 2 Kings 2:11 says very directly that "...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." However, John 3:16 dismisses this claim, stating: "No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven,...the Son of Man." Clearly, the Bible is self contradictory on a very important event; that is, the ultimate fate of Elijah. Stalwart apologists, of course, have cobbled together an answer for this objection as well. They say that it is possible that Elijah didn't go to "the" heaven, but merely was swept up into "the heavens," meaning into the sky. I will leave the reader to make up his or her own mind on the validity of this argument. If this explanation is not merely an extraordinary and obvious act of semantic squirming away from the truth, I can't think of what would be.
truth is not arbitrary

There are no word games involved. Unfortunately, you haven't made any new points nor have you countered mine, so this makes it difficult to add to the debate. Therefore, I suppose for the sake of simplicity, I will reiterate my argument.Truth is a set of results that can be reproduced ad infinitum without changing, and that follow a set of prescribed parameters. However, those parameters are established.With the example you gave, involving pederasty in the Greek world, there is no truth involved in this. Whether or not is was a constructive or destructive relationship both in the ancient world and in the modern world depends completely on the individuals and how they relate and cope with the situation. What others think about this type of relationship is also not truth, because it varies from person to person and era to era. I truly believe that you have confused moral relativism with establishing truth, and as such, I do not feel that you are able to effectively debate this topic.
truth is not arbitrary

con is just playing a bunch of games, at best. truth in those situations is: scientists define the parameters for what constitutions a planet, and they define how many planets there are based on best available observation. that is the only truth we can really establish. based on this, the number of planets may increase as we discover more of them, and what constitutions a planet may change based on best available practice information. truth hasn't changed, only the details involved in the processes described, due to changing facts and observations. this is hardly establishing arbitrary truth. con is missing the point and just playing word games.
truth is not arbitrary

In your argumentation, you have disproven your own stance. You are arguing that truth is not arbitrary or, in order words truth can never be arbitrary. My goal is to prove to you that there are instances in which truth is arbitrary, and this would therefore disprove your thesis.The example you have used to prove truth is insufficiwnt because it is a case of moral relativism rather than truth. It is based off the judgements and stigma of those involved in the society where it is practiced. Empirical TruthEmpirical truth is the only kind of "truth" that can act as evidence for your argument. This is because it is based upon facts which anyone is able to replicate as many times as is necessary in order to observe them and verify these truths for themselves. There is no room for gray area when it comes to empirical truth; it is either black or white.However, this does not mean that this 'black' cannot become 'white'. Things that are deemed to be verifiable truths are often later disproven through methodology that has not yet been discovered. Disproving TruthIn the time of Tycho Brahe, everyone knew that there were only 6 planets. Mercury, Venus, Mars, Earth and Saturn. Everyone knew it, and there was no disagreement about this fact; until there was. Once Newton invented a telescope using mirrors instead of glass, the astronomy revolution began, and scientists were abke to discover that there were actually more planets in our solar system. Tyche Brahe and his predecessors were the arbitors of the 6-planet truth.10 years ago, we had 9 planets in our solar system. Scientists had used satellites to map our the entirety of the area, and knew that it was limited to 9. Everyone was in agreement, anyone could see them with the appropriate equipment, our solar system having 9 planets was truth; until it wasn't. Scientists changed the prerequisites of what constitutes a planet, and Pluto was excluded. We now have 8 planets, something which anyone can document and research for themselves. The scientists decided our truth.Truth as Parameters As you can see from the above example, truth is simply a set of parameters that produce a certain result that can be recreated with the same results everytime. When the paramets change, or the paradigm of the idea in entirety changes, then the product (which is truth) changes as well. This means that whoever decides upon the parameters is the arbitor of truth, and therefore, truth can and is in many cases, arbitrary.