BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons

Well, not only has Con quit the debate, but he's quit the site as well. So voting Pro should be an easy decision I guess. However, the conditions still oblige me to provide a general plan for nuclear disarmament, so I'll put forward a fairly half-baked version of that. Prerequisite to the plan is the formation of a fairly-represented supranational organization charged with the task of carrying it out. This, ideally would be composed of a nationalistically-diverse team of nuclear scientists, military weapons experts, and humanitarian/peace advocates. A corollary to this is that the organization (and all concerned nations) would have joint access to a composite of all existing nuclear detection and warning systems (e.g. satellites). Phase 1 - Inspection: All nations would be subject to thorough inspection until the organization was satisfied that they knew the whereabouts and status of all nuclear weapons. Nations that are particularly concerned about certain other nations specifically would be allowed and encouraged to send delegates with the inspectors to each other in order to quell suspicion and unease. Phase 2 - Disarmament: All nuclear weapons would, as concurrently as possible, but ideally on a secret schedule, be disarmed and disassembled by nuclear scientists and the military experts that worked with them. Phase 3 - Transfer: All nuclear weapons and weaponized radioactive materials would be handed over to the organization, again on a somewhat concurrent but secret timeline, and then proceed to the next phase. Phase 4 -Disposal/Transformation: This is the phase that seems to raise the most questions, but if the previous, admittedly idealistic, phases are carried out cooperatively, then it would be worth trying to come up with solutions regarding the disposal or reassignment of these nuclear materials. Options might be converting it into fuel for nuclear plants, burying it DEEP underground, or maybe even shooting it into the Sun (yes I'm serious), because honestly anything is better than allowing the risk previously discussed to remain as is.
Plato & Dualism Caused the Holocaust

My opponent is begging the question by assuming that concepts such as "BOP", "arguments", and "justification" have any validity. Watch him squirm whilst trying to non-circularly define these concepts. If he cannot, I win the debate, for my arguments cannot be contested. Keep in mind that I am merely using Cartesian terminology for convenience. One must recognize my case as nonsense to transcend the faulty metadichotomy of dichotomy and immanence, of metatranscendental and subliminal, of the burrowed and the burrowing.
Plato & Dualism Caused the Holocaust

Pro has put together a very eloquent critique of Platonism, but unfortunately, none of that is really relevant to the resolution. The only part of it where Pro even attempts to affirm the resolution is here: "Oh, and all immoral things come from faulty conceptions of reality, and Hitler was a Christian, so he believed in transcendence as influenced by Plato, so the Holocaust was directly caused by Platonism. QED." Needless to say, this argument is unsound. To see why, let's reformat Pro's argument syllogistically: P1: All immoral things are caused by misconceptions of reality P2: The Holocaust was immoral C1: The Holocaust was caused by a misconception of reality P3: Platonism is a misconception of reality C2: The Holocaust was caused by Platonism This is a blatant non-sequitur. C2 doesn't follow from its preceding premises at all -- Platonism has not been shown to be the misconception of reality which caused the Holocaust. There are an infinite number of misconceptions which could have served as the Holocaust's cause, and burden of proof is on Pro to definitively prove that it's Platonism. The only time he even attempts to fulfill that burden is when he mentions Christianity, but his reasoning is absurd... Firstly, it isn't clear that Hitler's Christian beliefs played much of a role in his motives for starting the Holocaust -- that's a pretty controversial subject on its own, so Pro is gonna have to provide a lot more evidence here. Futhermore, even if Christianity did play a role in Hitler's motives, that has no bearing whatsoever on Platonism. The role that Platonism plays in Christian doctrine is completely distinct from the part of Christian doctrine which was used to justify anti-semitism -- the former deals with God's ontological relationship with reality, whereas the latter deals with the history surrounding Jesus's crucifixion. In conclusion, Pro's argument is entirely insufficient. The resolution is negated.
A man can have his cake and eat it but a woman can't.

.. sort of. I was actually hoping he would forget about this argument and I could spam this last section with meaningless drivel. Oh well, on to the argument: My opponent attempts to posit that, while no man or woman alone could have a cake, in the sense that he has propounded, while also eating the cake, two men could accomplish both at the same time. As disturbing as this suggestion is hilarious, my opponent's argument is in error. His assertion was that "a" man can have "his" cake and eat it but "a" woman can't, which limits this discussion to comparing the capabilities of two singular individuals, one a man and the other a woman. This is not an argument as to whether or not men can have their cake and eat it while women can not, but whether or not a man can have his cake and eat it where a woman can't. Consequently, his counter-argument is outside the scope of this debate's consideration. The fact remains that my opponent is describing an individual who has, in the sense he has put forth, a cake, while also eating a cake. Because my opponent uses the present continuous form of both verbs, these states of having and eating must occur simultaneously. (See . http://en.wikipedia.org... ) By reiterating his limitation of having in the sexual sense, my opponent actually harms his own argument, as a broader scope of have might be argued to still exist for the cake material held but uneaten in a person's mouth at the time of eating. Assuming, however, that the man posited in the argument is an ordinary man, it is unlikely that erogenous stimulation will take place orally. As my opponent has not suggested that this man is out of the ordinary, except in his fondness for eclairs, it is logical to assume no oral stimulation in a sense that would amount to having (as that word is intended in this argument). In conclusion, within the limits set out by my opponent's assertion, neither a man nor a woman can have a cake and eat it.
A man can have his cake and eat it but a woman can't.

However, with the greatest respect, I must contradict his assertion that neither a man nor a woman can have a cake and eat it and will do so by using the following hypothetical scenario: A bachelor has bought a large chocolate ï¿½clair and he has just started to eat it when there is a knock at the door. It is the big fat bloke from next door who has come round to borrow a steak and kidney pudding and a few cans of lager. As he comes in, he eyes the ï¿½clair greedily and the following conversation ensues: Fat Neighbour: What have you got there? Cake Eater: It's the cake that I am eating with my afternoon tea. Fat Neighbour: I see, so you have a cake and you are eating it? Cake Eater: That's right. Er, would you like to share it? Fat Neighbour: Well, I can't help noticing that it's very squashed and most of the cream has been squeezed out. In fact, what cream is left looks more like wallpaper paste than a sugary dairy product, but yeah, I'll help you eat it, thanks very much. You see, by my opponent's reasoning, unless you eat your cake in one mouthful, you can have it and eat it (and, indeed, share it). However, this grammatical argument is very convoluted and I still maintain that the meaning of "have" in this famous phrase is the sexual one. Thank you.
A man can have his cake and eat it but a woman can't.

The issue is whether or not a man can both have a cake and eat it as well where as a woman can not. I propose that, assuming the same cake, no person, man or woman, can be in a position to have the cake and to have eaten the cake at the same time. ""You can't have your cake and eat it". On the face of it, this idiom doesn't make sense." - If you have, that is to say 'are in possession of', your cake, it must not have been eaten. If, on the contrary, you have eaten the cake (that is to say, you eat it) the cake is no longer in your possession. Note that personal integration through digestion is not the same as possession, as one state suggests separation from oneself and the other suggests unification with oneself. Therefore, the idiom makes sense, if you understand the two states in regards to the cake to be occurring simultaneously. "'Have it', in this context, is meant in the sexual sense." -It is unnecessary to redefine have it in a sexual context, as no matter what aspect of one's physiology one uses to store or display the cake, or for what purposes one engages in said storage or display, one is still at the moment of having it 'in possession of' the cake. For the purposes of the idiom, the definitions are interchangeable, as one state (having it as in having at it) is a subset of the other state (having it as normal people think of it). "It is, therefore, affirmed that a man can have his cake and eat it, but a woman can't." - This is not at all affirmed. "http://www1.istockphoto.com...... A chocolate ï¿½clair yesterday (prior to being had and eaten)." -In the interests of full disclosure, I did not review your pictorial evidence. I believe I will be a happier person for having not done so, and, rating my happiness above my need for full examination of the issue in this one instance, I believe I will not review this picture in the future. Have a good weekend, and please avoid my local bakery.
A man can have his cake and eat it but a woman can't.

"You can't have your cake and eat it". On the face of it, this idiom doesn't make sense. I mean you could go to the bakers and buy a cake, in which case you would 'have it' and on the way home you could 'eat it'. But this isn't what the saying means. 'Have it', in this context, is meant in the sexual sense. That's right. So, a man could go to the bakers and buy, say, a chocolate ï¿½clair and (hopefully in the privacy of his own home) insert himself into it and, using his hand to apply pressure to the cream-filled confection, move it vigorously up and down until he goes off. Then he could eat it. It might be a bit salty, but anyway, it should still be edible. This wouldn't be possible for a woman to do, which is why, presumably, they don't attempt it (as far as I know). It is, therefore, affirmed that a man can have his cake and eat it, but a woman can't. I thank you. http://www1.istockphoto.com... A chocolate ï¿½clair yesterday (prior to being had and eaten).
i am a idiot

My opponent is an idiot. His sole contention is that all work he has done so far on this site has been a trap for this debate. First off, my opponent can be easily making this up. It is an unfounded claim. I could just as easily say this his previous work on this site was not a trap, and should be accepeted just as much as his claim. Even if my opponent's claim is accepeted as truth, then he would be being counter-productive - which is a quality of an idiot. Furthermore, my opponent has spelled and used grammar incorrectly more often than not during his time on DDO, which means he is an idiot at least some of the time. Just because my opponent can plan ahead, does not mean that my opponent is not an idiot. Idiots can plan ahead, the definition of an idiot never says that an idiot can not plan ahead. In conclusion, my opponent has many qualities of being an idiot as evidenced by this debate and previous debates - and his ability to plan ahead does not affirm the resolution. Resolution affirmed.
i am a idiot

=="My opponent still had numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. He had three sentence fragments - 'Agreed. ' - 'Agreed. ' - 'Not quite. ' My opponent started a sentence with 'Because' which is grammatically incorrect. Also, my opponent used 'the' twice in the same sentence incorrectly - 'Refer back to the the refutations of Contention 1 and 2. '"== Yes, it's true that those are sentence fragments. However, that doesn't make me an idiot. Great writers often use sentence fragments so the writing will be similar to dialogue. Since I was talking to you, I wrote a sentence fragment to allude to such a literary tool. . http://jpicforum.info... I do not see the "the" mistakes that you are referring too. Using "because" is not grammatically incorrect in all instances. It's okay to start with "because" as that means you are starting that sentence with a phrase. The only requirement is that sentence must also have a subject and a verb. My sentence was grammatically correct because it clearly had both "I" as the subject and "am" as the verb. =="Note that the resolution is "[I] am a[n] idiot[. ]" "Am" is defined as "[to] have the quality of being". This means that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, as evidenced by his opening argument. Also, more evidence of my opponent's idiocricy is seen in his first debate [. http://www.Debate.org......] where he is losing 89-0. ==" As I have already explained, the opening argument was setup to get you to take the debate and to prove my cleverness. You see, that first debate was also setup as a trap for this debate. I figured that if anyone alluded to that debate, I could disprove their point as it is now obvious that I CAN write correctly. I knew that I had to keep up the "idiot" facade until this debate was taken. So I acted like an idiot in that debate so that people would believe I was truly an idiot and take this debate. =="My opponent's arguments are either irrelevant to the definition of "idiot" or have been effectively refuted above. There is no need to further refute them. "== First off, where have my arguments been irrelevant to the definition of "idiot" and this debate? Every argument I've made has been about why I'm not an idiot or why I'm smart (thus disproving the "idiot" theory). =="My best argument, among others, is that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, which means that my opponent can be an idiot sometimes and the resolution is affirmed. My opponent can be seen as being an idiot in his first round and in his first debate. Resolution affirmed. "== To reiterate, I am not an idiot. All the "qualities" of being an idiot that you have provided have been disproven. Both my first debate and first round were traps for this debate. They were not idiotic as they enticed someone to take this debate so I could win it. I negate the resolution.
i am a idiot

Well, my opponent is right that I didn't see this one coming. However, only a simple rebuttal is necesarry. ============================================================================ Definitions ============================================================================ I forgot to define a word in the previous round. am [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - have the quality of being ============================================================================ Defense ============================================================================ My opponent still had numerous spelling and grammar mistakes. He had three sentence fragments - "Agreed." - "Agreed." - "Not quite." My opponent started a sentence with "Because" which is grammatically incorrect. Also, my opponent used "the" twice in the same sentence incorrectly - "Refer back to the the refutations of Contention 1 and 2." ============================================================================ New Contention ============================================================================ Note that the resolution is "[I] am a[n] idiot[.]" "Am" is defined as "[to] have the quality of being". This means that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, as evidenced by his opening argument. Also, more evidence of my opponent's idiocricy is seen in his first debate [http://www.Debate.org...] where he is losing 89-0. ============================================================================ Rebuttal ============================================================================ My opponent's arguments are either irrelevant to the definition of "idiot" or have been effectively refuted above. There is no need to further refute them. ============================================================================ Conclusion ============================================================================ My best argument, among others, is that my opponent has the quality of being an idiot, which means that my opponent can be an idiot sometimes and the resolution is affirmed. My opponent can be seen as being an idiot in his first round and in his first debate. Resolution affirmed.
i am a idiot

I thank Con for the opportunity to debate and I bid her good tidings. ============================================================================Definitions ============================================================================ i - Con, jamielynn idiot - somebody who acts in a foolish, self defeating, uneducated or counterproductive way [http://en.wikipedia.org...(person)] - a foolish or stupid person [http://www.merriam-webster.com...] foolish [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - devoid of good sense or judgment - having or revealing stupidity stupid [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - a person who is not very bright self defeating [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - acting to defeat its own purpose uneducated [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - not having a good education counterproductive [http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...] - tending to hinder the achievement of a goal ============================================================================ Burden of Proof ============================================================================ Pretty straight forward in my opinion - If I can show that my opponent is an idiot, than I win. ============================================================================Arguments ============================================================================ Contention 1: Con is uneducated and stupid. As my opponent has just clearly demonstrated, she can not spell well and she can not form proper sentence structure. These basic attributes are learned in grammar school and my opponent shows poor command of them. Therefore, my opponent is uneducated and stupid. Contention 2: Con is self defeating. My opponent made a perfect case for Pro. She failed to capitalize the first letter of the first word of the sentence, she did not capitalizes "I", she made numerous grammar mistakes, and mispelt "luck". Thus, my opponent just defeated herself. Contention 3: Con is counterproductive. My opponent's goal is, presumably, to win this debate. However, my opponent does not appear to have made a good case for Con. A much better case would have been... Resolved: I am an idiot. Notice "an" instead of "a". Argumen: Prove it. If my opponent's case was as above, she would have been much more productive - but instead Con wasted time and made a self-defeating case. Thus, she is counterproductive. Conclusion: Con is an idiot. The conclusion, clearly, directly follows the contentions/premises of what an idiot is defined as. Resolution affirmed.
English spoken by today's youth

It's clear the resolution is not to be taken literally, since the resolution does not actually assert a positive or negative statement. Instead my opponent's Round 1 articulates his position in this debate: he doesn't support the variation of English spoken by today's youth. He claims that the English language has been bastardized in a way that is almost unrecognizable, and as proud English speakers, we should emphasize the "right" way of speaking English. However language, like all aspects of culture, evolves. "Language is always changing, evolving, and adapting to the needs of its users. This isn't a bad thing; if English hadn't changed since, say, 1950, we wouldn't have words to refer to modems, fax machines, or cable TV. As long as the needs of language users continue to change, so will the language" [1]. In addition to the creation of new words, the evolution of "slang" words and phrases has a useful function in society. Through our cultural expression in music, writing and the spoken word, different cultures communicate and express themselves through language that evolves with our exposure and experience to new people, places and things that incorporate different words and phrases as descriptors. Consider the fact that the English we use now is far different from the English people used in Shakespeare's day, presumably in the very English classes my opponent has taught. "O, spirit of love, how quick and fresh art thou!" Twelfth N, Act i, Sc.1 - Shakespeare Our language is the evolution of slang that reflects our culture and times. Indeed English has evolved many times since its inception. There is Old English or Anglo-Saxon (circa 450-1066 CE), Middle English (circa 1066-1450 AD) and Modern English from about the time of Shakespeare [2] which doesn't even include *actual* modern English. I assume my opponent doesn't speak or prefer Old English; that is not the type of English he has written in. Therefore Con can presumably understand the necessity and utility of a language's evolution. [1] http://www.linguisticsociety.org... [2] https://web.cn.edu...
English spoken by today's youth

Last week, on my way home from an old friend"s house, I expected to sit in peace in the bus and relax through the forty minutes ride home. Unfortunately, my quiet time was suddenly interrupted when three adolescents entered the bus and started speaking in an almost unrecognizable way to each other. I could not help but wonder how English became such a strange language to me. English, the language I have used to communicate with thousands and thousands of people throughout my life, the language I was raised with by my family and my surroundings, and will eventually die with. It was suddenly modified and assassinated in the most cruel way possible. English has been suffering some sort of violent metamorphosis, since I can record. That is nothing but inadmissible. Our language should prevail and reflect back to our roots. It is something we, as native English speakers, should look back at and be proud of. I am a retired English teacher and back in my days as a teacher, I would read extracts from the English history"s most brilliant masterpieces and make my students dive into the words and surrender to its beauty. I would clearly dislike repeating this kind of teaching style if I was forced to read a book written by today"s youth. Therefore, I think that schools should focus on teaching the upcoming generations the right way of speaking English.
Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity

Thank you for posting. You can not give a definition and then say it only applies to certain things. Christianity is a specific fundamental set of beliefs generally agreed upon by a number of persons. There is no denying it, according to your definition Christianity is a religion. If you look up Christianity in the dictionary it says "Conformity to the Christian religion." Concerning what I said about the different types of Atheist, Some Atheist believe that evolution did not happen. Some believe that we are not even here so no one created us. Some believe that we just popped out of no where. Some believe that we can never know what happen so we should not believe anything except that we are here. You claim you can prove that Jesus rose from the dead, but then you fail to show how. I could do the same by claiming I can prove that evolution is true, then not say anything. You keep trying to avoid the matter by saying that it would go back to another debate. You have the burden of proof of showing that Atheism is more of a religion. Sources: (1). http://en.wikipedia.org... (2). http://dictionary.reference.com... (3). http://dictionary.reference.com...