BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Libertarian free will is false.

This is my first debate with the new formatting. ==Precondition== My opponent accepts the definitions below. ==Definitions== Libertarian Free Will (Libertarianism) "Libertarianism holds onto a concept of free will that requires the individual to be able to take more than one possible course of action under a given set of circumstances." http://en.wikipedia.org... False not true or correct; erroneous http://dictionary.reference.com... ==Case== -At one point in time, life did not exist. -All matter that is currently considered to be living was, at one point, considered nonliving. -At some point in time, life ends. -All matter that is currently considered to be living will be, at one pont, considered nonliving. -Between these transformations in the condition of the life of matter, the behavior of matter in regard to the universal laws of physics does not change. -Matter and energy follow a certain set of regulations in their course. -Living matter and energy follow a certain set of regulations in their course. -Libertarian free will supposes certain instances of matter to be exempt from these parameters. -Libertarian free will is false. ==Postcondition== The resolution is negated.
There is no hell

I don't feel like typing in circles because he still has not addressed the resolution. I am going to lay this out one more time and show how he has not fulfilled his BOP Conclusion For something to be possible it has to be *capable* of existing or being true without contradicting proven facts or laws. So let's lay it out in a final syllogism [P1] For there to be no possibility of hell, it would have to contradict proven fact or laws. [P2] Hell does not contradict any proven facts or laws. [C] There is a possibility hell exists. This is a top down syllogism meaning you need P1>P2>C. There is no way to get verifiable or empirical evidence to support or disprove the existence of hell one way or the other. We can only make logical assumptions. A logical assumption or dealing in odds odds of probably is not contradicting any known laws. For there to be no possibility of hell existing it would have to contradict a known law, which is intrinsically impossible given its nature. That is why he has failed to uphold the BOP. Remember he is claiming "Hell does not exist". For him to win this debate he has to show that it "does not exist" by showing that there is no possible way of it existing. He has failed to do this.
There is no hell

This debate is almost over from this point, and I will explain why R1) BOP I agreed to take the argument per round 1 that God exists. Arguing that God exists is not the BOP nor is it the resoultion. The resolution is , there is no hell Note : God existing or not existing does not prove there is a hell. That is your BOP to show there is no hell In addition , I used the KCA to show that a God could exist. However in the last round, you stated and agreed that God does exist. So me debating that he does exist is entirely pointless from that point. R2 ) Not relevant to the debate Even if you were to find sources in this specific topic, it will not prove a hell exists. At most the evidence is circumstantial if even valid. We can dismiss this as presenting new arguments in the last round is against basic procedure. R3) Love Love=/= Justice Which was the entire point behind that premise. God sends us to hell as a form of justice for rejecting him. This entire point in this round is not relevant to the resolution. R4) If God exists, hell does not exist This is entirely false, and I shot this entire argument down in my last round. The premise behind the arguments is that God loves us so he would not send us to hell. This is false, and I have explained why countless times. If God does exist he would send us to hell for rejecting him. Justice to God and justice to us are entirely different. My adversary is taking his perception of justice and love and applying it objectively. This is false. R5) non topicable This is not even relevant to the debate. Conclusion. This debate is almost over from this point. I debated the points my adversary wanted me to debate which all have been dropped, and he has failed to uphold his burden of proof to show that the resolution is true. He must show that hell does not exist. Again he can not show that it probably does not exist, but that there is no possibility it exists. See my possibility argument for clarification.
There is no hell

Point 1. By Hell I mean there is no fair punishment that God gives us. To argue the fact that the "Opposite to God" (any opposite that could be the Devil) takes souls to Hell and God can not do anything about it would mean that Con is possibly correct, but I mean that there is no Hell that God sends us to himself. If God loves us (you might have to prove that he does not) then why would he: 1 give us a choice to do good or evil because that caused so much sadness (e.g. Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Vlad the Impaler)? 2 send or allow us to suffer in Hell? Point 2. If we are all creation of God, then why would we choose to Sin? The only reason why we would do that is if the "Opposite to God" gets into us and makes us do evil things and how is that our fault? Why would God want to punish us even if there was something that allowed us to choose? Point 3. In order for us to choose against God, there would have to be some force that is neither good nor bad but if God and the opposite are so powerful and the people who do evil are obviously confused in what they do and if we are not Gods ourselves and only have been created, then how would any neutral force be able to make us make a decision if we are created by God and thus think like God would want us to think and if the opposite got into us, it is the opposite that is making us do evil things and not us. So if we are creation, then how can we possibly make choices like that? I come to the conclusion that Hell is only an invention of humans possibly for hatred or for wondering where those who sin go to when they die. I say that they are given another life and another one after that until they can get all the sin out of them and go to heaven (but there are always in human form) and to prove that, I can say that the idea of Reincarnation is half correct. Either that or people who sin and do not get rid of it go nowhere or become Ghosts or there is no heaven or any other reasons that are possible but the idea of them going to hell is wrong and you will have to prove against that. Back to you Con Have a nice day :).
There is no hell

There is no hell. God loves all his children and anyone who sins, sins because the devil (any opposite so God that does not have to be physical) has taken over a person and that person becomes confused. When I say there is no hell, I mean that there is no hell that human souls actually go to and are tortured and sent there by God. If we are all Gods children, why should we choose against him if he did not create us to choose against. It is the devil that creeps into us and takes us. My opponent will have to prove against that. In order to argue against me, my opponent will have do the following: a)Argue as that God exists b)Know what hell is c) Argue about a loving creator or be able to prove that there is not I hope that we can have a nice debate and there are no rules in it. Have a good debate :).
People on welfare and who have any financial government support should have to work for their money

Kudos to you. Excellent argument. Let me just say that I posted this as an idea, and hoped that someone would respond with a intelligent argument providing the flaws and drawbacks of such an idea. What you are saying is most certainly correct. I was not talking directly about the "moochers" although I did mention them, I was really talking about the working household. I feel like there are way too many people on welfare, no matter if they are disabled, old, have children, etc. It is not entirely our responsibility to provide for these people. I'm going to pinpoint on the elderly, because based on the picture you posted, 54% (More than half!) of all people on welfare are elderly. Are you talking about social security? If that is what you are considering welfare(which it is), I was not really including that, because all elderly have social security. What welfare programs are there for the elderly, and why. My problem is, by the time you reach 65, you should have accumulated a sizable amount of money to sustain you for the rest of your life, which would range on average from 10-20 years. If these people could not save money when they were younger, surely they were getting help by the government. If we provide for people in their middle ages, they will never acquire enough money to sustain them for when they grow old. They'll be on government support for the rest of their lives. We need to dramatically change our welfare system. People have the wrong impression. Even food stamps, government intervention has reached an all time high. Cut welfare, food stamps, government help, and force those people to work for their money. IF they really need the extra money, surely they can work for like 50$ an hour for it. They definitely aren't working so hard and long that they don't have time to do this work. If they are, then they must have an AWFUL job. Please explain the elderly percentage of welfare. Maybe they could work towards doing something that will benefit the city, one day a month. Put them to good work.
People on welfare and who have any financial government support should have to work for their money

All Citizens on Welfare, besides disability, should have to work to receive their checks. Everyone has heard stories of people exploiting the welfare system, or lazy people lounging around all day collecting checks. These people should have to work for this money. If they are on welfare, they cannot support themselves financial. This is most likely accounted for by the fact that they can't get jobs, or they have some sort of disability. If they are able to work, they should have to work for their money. They aren't doing anything important with their time, and taxpayer's money should not be given to an unjustifiable cause. If they can work picking up trash, or just doing simple jobs to improve communities, it would benefit the country substantially. Asking people on welfare to pick up trash is much more acceptable than asking criminals to pick it up!
Rehabilitation is more effective than punishment.

Thanks again, BH. I understand that my opponent had limited time to write this and as we can see, my opponent made a brief representation of his arguments and rebuttal, most of my case weren’t pointed out to be refuted, so therefore, please extend them this round. Refutations: Again, I’d like to point out that we have agreed that in the resolution, the term ‘punishment’ will refer to incarceration or imprisonment. See R1 definition of ‘punishment’. Re: Upside of Punishment My opponent first argues that punishment is beneficial to society, and he states that there are many ways of punishing, but again, we’re talking about imprisonment. My opponent claims that there is no guarantee that the criminal will change, that a criminal can fake it, but my arguments and statistics in R2 says otherwise. Furthermore, the DP argument fails not to mention my opponent didn’t give a single reference to support this argument. Yes, once the criminal is executed, he won’t kill again, it’s obvious since he’s dead. But let’s not get too far now, shall we? We are debating whether rehab is more effective than jail punishment in general, and not in capital crimes which involves capital punishment. My opponent further agues about jails, he admits it’s not pleasant and that it’s inhumane, and the only way to change that is to put prisoners to work. There are a number of prisons which let prisoners do labor, and they do get paid for it, even more than the minimum wage. I don’t know why we need to force them to do more, this isn’t really a big of a deal. My opponent’s final premise if the community service argument, I’d like to remind him that being put to community service is a way of rehabilitating, since it restores a person to normal, useful life. Re: Downside of Rehabilitation It looks like that the main point of my opponent’s main contention here is that we shouldn’t send every offender to rehab. Yes, we shouldn’t, but that isn’t what we are debating here. What we’re debating is that if rehabilitation is better than punishment (via incarceration) not if we should rehabilitate all offenders instead of imprisoning them. Conclusion: Again, ladies and gentlemen, like my previous conclusion I’ve proven above that rehabilitation is a better, cheaper helpful, effective, useful and desirable way of treating offenders. Extend previous arguments and enjoy your day. Now, off to my opponent’s case, hopefully, it’ll start to be interesting. Good luck!
Rehabilitation is more effective than punishment.

Opening Round ArgumentsUpside of Punishment Punishment can be much more beneficial to society, and there for more effective at fixing the problem, than rehabilitation. Punishment can take many forms. Some of which are prison, community service, and death. I will start with death. There is an obvious increase in effectiveness from rehab to death. In rehab, there is no guarantee that the criminal will change. They can easily fake their way through and pretend to get better, but go back to killing or whatever it was they did to land them in rehab as soon as they get out. If killed, there is no threat of a repeat offense. Therefore, killing the criminal guarantees that the problem is solved effectively.*Death would obviously only be a punishment for extreme crimes*Another form of punishment is jail time. Criminals are sent to sit in jail for a period of time dependent on their crime, and then released. Jail is obviously by no means pleasant, it makes it harder to get a job, eliminating some entirely, and it will lead to people being less trusting of you. This form of negative re-enforcement, or punishment, is not too inhumane considering you are dealing with someone who broke the law, and it is a decent deterrent for crimes. While it may be true that this is more costly, there are ways to reduce this cost. Inmates can be put to work, there's no law against it. If inmates work even at the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, for the entire year, then they can generate almost 150,000 dollars. Going off of North Carolina's imprisonment cost of 27k [1] , there would be almost 123K dollars of profit. That can be split between the inmate and the state. Money is gained by both parties this way, thus making the cost a mute point.Community service is another type of punishment. This is perfectly humane and can be used in minor offenses. If someone steals a $50 worth of food from a store, then they can make it up by cleaning up some streets. Simple enough and wouldn't cost a thing whereas rehab for a minor offense would cost too much money to be worth it. THis would mean that the person has to be let off with a warning leaving no reason for them to not repeat their crime.Downside of Rehab Rehab is impractical in most cases. If someone robs a candy shop of 30 dollars worth of goods, then it costs too much to send them to rehab. If someone commits a murder, then they can't be left to roam free in a rehab center.Rehab is punishment, too. If someone is sent to rehab, then they aren't getting out free. They did something wrong, and the punishment is an amount of time in rehab. Good luck to JM, and have fun. [1] http://www.doc.state.nc.us...
Rehabilitation is more effective than punishment.

Here are some alternate definitions. Just say whichever definitions you want to use in you next arguments, and those are what we'll use. The definition of punishment is good.useful [1] - being of use or service; serving some purpose;advantageous, helpful, or of good effecteffective [1] - adequate to accomplish a purpose; producing the intendedor expected result[1] - http://dictionary.reference.com...Good luck!
Rehabilitation is more effective than punishment.

This is for Socialpinko's ELO Tournament. Outline of the Debate: No semantics, and by that, standard debating rules/ethics will apply, with 72 hours of argumentation where the maximum character limit is 8K, also each debater has 3 rounds to argue then we proceed to voting, where the RFD voting style will take effect and voting lasting 1 week. R1- Acceptance of Debate/Terms/Definitions R2- Openings R3- Clash R4- Final Rebuttals/Summaries Definitions: - Rehabilitation {1} –To restore to useful life, as through therapy and education or to restore to good condition, operation, or capacity. - Effective {2} - actually in operation of in force, functioning. - Punishment {3} – The authoritative imposition of something negative or unpleasant on a person or animal in response to behavior deemed wrong by an individual or group. (For punishment purposes, it should be noted that we are referring to plain incarceration and imprisonment. Notes: {1} http://goo.gl... {2} http://goo.gl... {3} http://goo.gl... --- I’m not exactly sure about my wordings here, but if CON wants to add a definition, suggests a change or has a question, I suggest that he please post it on comments to avoid semantics or unfairness.
Magic Exists

To wield magic is to break physics. Magic is something such as a spell, or a potion. Types of magic spells are listed below: Elemental Magic: the ability to shoot balls of fire, electricity, light, or water or such with magic; from the palm of your hand. Summoning Magic: the ability to bring forth an animal, person, object, or anything else from thin air. Transformation Magic: the ability to turn yourself, another person, animal, or an object into something else. Rules: 1. No trolling, or insults. 2. If you forfeit a round, you concede all arguments. If you have school, college, or some reason for not being able to attend a round, say so in the comments, and I might let it slide. However, forfeiting Round 3 counts as a loss, since I'll probably have an advantage by then. 3. BoP will be shared. I will try to prove why magic isn't able to exist, and Pro will attempt to provide evidence supporting the claim that magic exists. Good luck, and let's start!
Magic Exists

Thank you for recognising my PARTIAL mistake. It was not a full mistake, considering electrons are not technology, rather dark matter/magic that creates electricity, indicating the fact that magic is kind of technology. But I am going to take a different approach on this form of magic. In this case, alchemy. Alchemy is the ancient, bullcrap version of chemistry. When most people hear the word they immediately think of the alchemists who claimed they could turn lead into gold (a practice called Chrysopoeia, which is a flying snake. Seriously, don't confuse them. Your experiments will get terrifying in a hurry) Of course, the closest old-timey alchemists ever really got was mixing sulfur and gold powder into a metal to turn it yellow. That's right: All it took to create 'gold' from lead was to put some gold in it! Good god, it was staring us in the face the entire time! It is becoming real since science has made monumental leaps since that era when alchemy was considered the second-most promising method of obtaining gold after 'capturing a leprechaun'. We now know that gold is an element that simply has three fewer protons than lead. If you could somehow change that using SCIENCE... Oh, actually we're kind of late on this one. Back in 1980, a scientist named Glenn Seaborg accidentally made gold out of bismuth, using the aforementioned proton-plucking method (OK, it was a bit more complicated than that) Yes, bismuth, the same stuff that's in Pepto Bismol. Anyway, back to the point. The experiment was only a few thousand atom's worth, and the cost of doing it was way more than the resulting gold would be worth. But still. He made gold. And mankind is really just getting started with the whole 'change elements by farting around with their protons' business. Transmutation of elements is one of the things they're always doing at CERN, home of the Large Hadron Collider. Though they're talking less about turning lead into gold and more about turning radioactive waste into something that won't poison our great great grandchildren. ANYWAY. What I have covered now and the argument before are all comparisons of magic=science. I must say, I have seriously struggled to find hard evidence of actual magic being real. In conclusion, magic kinda exists. No, there is no such thing as 'AbraCadabra-ing' things. Nor can you turn a prince into a frog or fly a broomstick. Things like mind reading and alchemy don't contain hocus pocus, but they still contain traces of slight absract doings that can be linked to magic. But in the meantime, thank you PowerPikachu21, for challenging me and push me to a pretty far limit. And I apologise to the spectators, as I have lowered your chances of going to Hogwarts. Thank you for the support, and I have enjoyed debating with you. It is up to the voters to decide what they believe. Good Game, bro. And may the best man win.
Magic Exists

Well then. Let's start with something a little bit complicated. And by the way man, no hard feelings. GG for the end. So! In many ways, mind reading is a lot like the human digestive system: no matter what you put into it, ultimately all you're getting out of it is a bunch of crap. Psychics are mostly just using cold readings and leading questions to pick up clues. They see a guy in a red, white and blue cowboy hat and the 'spirits' tell them that he likes country music. The guy is impressed, and hands them money to hear more. By creatively hedging their guesses and keeping all information vague, a good cold reader can emulate psychic abilities at least well enough to fool chumps, and chump's money spends like anyone else's. Okay, there I helped you out. Now for the science, and how it's becoming real. Scientists at Berkeley University figured out that an MRI Machine gives them a pretty clear picture of what the brain is doing. So, if they simply compare what the brain is doing when in different states of mind, you should eventually be able to come up with a machine that can see your thoughts. Magic, right? They already were able to make the machine 'see' what word you were thinking of with an astounding 90% success rate. Another link to magic. Not all magic is successful. I bet airport security would love to have one of these that pass you through, flashing your thoughts up on the screen for some bored TSA Agent to chuckle at. I've got a feeling that in 20 years there'll be a booming industry in telepathy-blocking skull implants. Magic=Science
The Supreme Court Decision On Gay Marriage Was Right

I apologize for last round for not posting my sources, so I will at the end of this round. Clearly my opponent dropped his or her case within the round, which should be an easy decision on who has won their debate. Sources: www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/14/reasons-not-to-get-married_n_5274911.html www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/marriage-versus-civil-unions-domestic-partnerships-etc www.npr.org/2015/06/29/418559441/the-economic-reality-of-the-same-sex-marriage-ruling www.gallup.com/poll/159089/religion-major-factor-americans-opposed-sex-marriage.aspx www.publicreligion.org/2015/04/attitudes-on-same-sex-marriage-by-religious-affiliation-and-denominational www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356 www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/us/states-same-sex-marriage-ban/