BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

My opponent gives two reasons why he cannot answer my first question. They are: 1. He would enter into a logical contridiction. 2. He does not think he is intelligent enough to answer it in a satisfactory way. The first reason, again, is invalid, as it in no way proves that he "can not" answer it. Being able to answer a question and being able to answer a question without contradicting one's self are two different excuses. The second reason is false, and I intend to prove how he can still answer it: -He can type an answer (my opponent has conceded this). -This is a yes or no question (my opponent has conceded this). -My opponent is physically capable of typing yes or no (my opponent has conceded this). It matters not whether he can answer it correctly, as the rules clearly said he just had to answer my questions, unless he could not. Both of his reasons for not answering my questions contradict a rule that he stated in the first round. My final questions: A barber shaves all men that do not shave themselves. -Does this barber shave himself? -Is the word "heterological" a heterological word? -In a democratic society, should people be able to end democracy? -Should one tolerate intolerance if intolerance would destroy the possibility of tolerance? -Did you answer the following question correctly? -Are there more numbers with square roots than not? -Could unlimited force move an immovable object?
I will not contradict myself

As per your first question I will answer it: 1. My answer is that the answer to this question is neither yes or no. Technically I have answered the question, I just haven't answered it yes or no. There are two reasons I cannot write yes or no for this answer. 1, in doing so I would enter into a logical contridiction and 2. I am not intellegent enough to answer in a satisfactory way. For instance if someone asked me to answer the question Who was the first King of England, I would not be able to answer this question because I do not have the intellegence to do so. 1. My relgious beliefs are fairly simple. I do not believe that it is possible for human beings to know the nature of God (if this entity does exist) while on Earth and I do not believe that any bible is the word of God, merely one or a group of people's opinion as to what they believed. 2. I believe that omnipotence is the charictaristic of being all powerful. If you want to know if I believe there is a God and he is all powerful, I have no idea. 3. This is pretty much the same answer as the previous question, other than the fact that omniscience means all-knowning not all powerful. As before I do not know if this quality is possible in any being. 4. Time having a starting point is something I don't believe that a person can know. This would lead to a a host of other unanswerable questions, like if God created the universe or if the universe has always existed. I don't believe it is possible to know the answer to this question in this life. 5. This is another tricky question, I suppose it would depend on the definition of time. If time is defined as the artificial construct of months, hours, days and weeks, then no. If you are defining the passage of time as the actual physical changes that we can see (as in the rotation of the Earth around the Sun) then change in the physical universe would be the definition of time. 6. I don't know that it always moves forward. I will say that, in general, in our universe and dimension the arrow of time seems to move in a direction that we call forward. However, I will allow that it is possible that in other dimensions time may move in a direction that we would call backwards, although in that universe I would think that they would call that direction forward and they would believe that our arrow of time moved backward. 7. If you are asking me if I think it is physically possible for a human being to count from the value negative infinity "up" to 0, then my answer is no. I do not believe this is possible.
I will not contradict myself

I have an objection which is also a contradiction. My opponent chose not to answer my first question because "both a yes and no answer would result in a contradiction". This is not grounds for not answering my question. Obviously, "I contradict myself either way" is not an excuse not to answer a question. I am about to show why. Referring back to my opponent's rules: "I will answer these questions or give a reason [why] I cannot answer some or all of them." So, the only reason my opponent would have for not answering a question is if he could not answer it. Cannot is another spelling of can not (http://dictionary.reference.com...), and can is defined as any of the following: -to be able to http://dictionary.reference.com... -to know how to http://dictionary.reference.com... -to have the power or means to http://dictionary.reference.com... -to have the right or qualifications to http://dictionary.reference.com... -may; have permission to http://dictionary.reference.com... -to have the possibility http://dictionary.reference.com... My opponent can obviously answer my question "Is the answer to this question no?" in all of these ways. -He is able to write yes or no; nothing is stopping him. -He knows how to write yes or no; he can surely type this. -He has to means to write yes or not; one would not think otherwise, as he could answer other questions just fine. -He has the qualifications to write yes or no; he is my opponent. -He has permission to write yes or no, which is implied in the rules and by my asking. -There is certainly the possibility of my opponent answering yes or no. So, I would like my opponent to clarify which definition of can is meant in the rules and then explain why his not answering my question is not contradicting his rules stated in the first round. If he cannot explain why it is physically impossible for him to leave an answer, then I will allow him to post an answer to my question again: 1. Is the answer to this question no? New questions: - What are your religious beliefs? - What is your opinion on omnipotence? - What is your opinion on omniscience? - Do you believe that time had a starting point? - Do you believe that time is required for change to occur in the physical universe? - Do you believe that time is always moving forward? - Do you believe that 0 can be counted to from negative infinity?
I will not contradict myself

As I'm new to this site I've never encountered a debate of this style before and I saw how you destroyed your previous opponent in this debate and thought it would be fun to challenge your obvious skills in this area. Now, on to the questions. 1. This question cannot be answered because both a yes and no answer would result in a contradiction. 2. This question really depends on the situation. For instance, if someone murders a person in cold blood they have violated the liberty of another and have thus abdicated their own liberties. For the most part though, if life is not valued then liberties are not valued, thus I would value life, very slightly over liberty, though I believe the two are so interconnected that it is hard to seperate them. 3. If you are referring to an innocent human being, then I would say the only way you could justify killing an innocent person is if the lives of serveral more equally innocent persons lives were at risk. 4. In certain cases yes, for instance during warfare or a police officer on duty faced with a choice between killing or dying. For questions five a six I am assuming that we are talking about Americans. If not, I could provide more detailed answers. 5. Yes 6. No 7. This is a tough questions because I'm trying to envision a time when environmental protection would infringe on a liberty. For instance I don't believe that it is a company's liberty to dump toxins. I just don't view that as a liberty. However, there may be a situation I'm not thinking of. I would say that any reasonable environmental measure wouldn't constitute a violation of liberty. So for now, I'll say yes. 8. Not unless more human lives are at risk by not protecting the environment. 9. I'm not sure of the difference of these two terms. So I don't believe I can answer this question without clarification. 10. This is interesting; I've never thought of this. I suppose it would depend on what the meaning of the word justice is. Until clarification I will say, no. 11. 1. a. life 1. b. liberty security safety subsistence religious freedom Two sides of the same coin so they could be interchanged. religious tolerance justice fairness environmental protection property rights wealth truth comedy reputation
I will not contradict myself

While I tire of these debates, I plan to continue nontheless. I enjoy exploring paradoxes, as well as showing opponent's that their views are contradictory. My opponent has not confined the amount of questions I may ask. I will try not to abuse this. 1. Is the answer to this question no? 2. When in conflict, should human life be valued over liberty? 3. Can killing an innocent be justified? 4. Should individuals be able to decide whether or not an individual lives? 5. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over security? 6. When in conflict, should security be valued over privacy? 7. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over environmental protection? 8. When in conflict, should environmental protection be valued over human life? 9. When in conflict, should justice be valued over fairness? 10. When in conflict, should justice be valued over human life? 11. Place the following values in order of priority when in conflict: life liberty security wealth safety subsistence justice fairness environmental protection comedy truth reputation property rights religious freedom religious tolerance I will stop here. Thank you.
I will not contradict myself

I would like to debate in a similar style as you debated Mongoose. The rules are as follows: You may ask me any question about any subject that you wish. I will answer these questions or give a reason I cannot answer some or all of them. After I have answered you may then point out any contradictions that you see. If your arguments for contradictions are valid you win. If your arguments are not valid or you find no contradictions, I win.
I will not contradict myself

First, my opponent has conceded that he has contradicted his earlier statement in round 1. So, there is no reason to go on. However, that wouldn't be any fun. My opponent misinterpretted my third-to-last question. It read "Did you answer the following question correctly? ". This means the proceeding question, not the preceding one. Anyways, I will now assume that my opponent believed that he answered the proceeding question correctly, as he gave a definite answer. My opponent states as an answer to the aforementioned question that there are more numbers with square roots than not. He answered this incorrectly, as one infinity can never be said to be greater than another. He also answered the barber's paradox incorrectly. Women shave too. Here is where and how: . http://www.ehow.com... Anyways, my opponent contradicted himself in the 2nd round. He conceded that he did in the 4th round. So, the resolution is negated.
I will not contradict myself

The barber is a women and has no need to shave. I must confess that I didn't know the definition of heterological. So I looked it up and the definition I got had to do with biological evolution. I'm not sure this is the correct definition, as I have no idea what this question would mean, so I'm going to have to pass it. I believe that yes in a democratic society the people could (as their last democratic act) abolish their democracy. If you asking if someone should tolerate intolerance if that other person's intolerance could destroy the possibility of tolerance, then my answer would be that this is impossible as the first person would apparently always be tolerate. As a practical matter, I try to be tolerate of people but I can only control my own feelings and not those of others. If by "following" you mean the question that preceeded this one, I don't really believe there is a correct or incorrect answer, each person must answer it for him or herself. Yes there are because you do not ask about perfect squares, just square roots. There are two reasons for this, first, the square root of zero is zero and all positive numbers have square roots up to infinity. Addtionally even the negative numbers have square roots, they are simply imaginary, but they are still square roots. Another logical impossibility often used in religioius questions. Such as, could god create an immovable object and then move it. As these things don't exist in our world I don't believe it is possible to know the answer to this question.
Social Security

Hence, the debate will only consist of three rounds: 1st Round (Round 2) - main argument 2nd Round (Round 3) - rebuttals and criticisms of main argument 3rd Round (Round 4) - conclusion This is a basic debate about Social Security in general. For the purposes of the debate, we will use the following description to define Social Security (from Wikipedia): In the United States, Social Security is the commonly used term for the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. The original Social Security Act was signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompasses several social welfare and social insurance programs. Social Security is funded primarily through payroll taxes called Federal Insurance Contributions Act tax (FICA) or Self Employed Contributions Act Tax (SECA). Tax deposits are collected by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and are formally entrusted to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund, the two Social Security Trust Funds. With a few exceptions, all salaried income, up to an amount specifically determined by law (see tax rate table below), is subject to the Social Security payroll tax. All income over said amount is not taxed. In 2016, the maximum amount of taxable earnings was $118,500. With few exceptions, all legal residents working in the United States now have an individual Social Security number. Indeed, nearly all working (and many non-working) residents since Social Security's 1935 inception have had a Social Security number because it is required to do a wide range of things, e. g. paying the IRS and getting a job. In 2015, Social Security expenditures totaled $750.5 billion for OASI and $146.6 billion for DI. Income derived from Social Security is currently estimated to reduce the poverty rate for Americans age 65 or older from about 40% to below 10% The Social Security Administration is headquartered in Woodlawn, Maryland, just west of Baltimore. I will mainly be arguing against Social Security as it stands today, meaning I favor having the law repealed and replaced and will present alternate programs and methods to prepare for retirement which I feel are better than Social Security. My opponent will defend Social Security and argue that Social Security, as it stands today, is the best method for workers to financially prepare for retirement than an alternative method. Good Luck!
would head transplant be ethic? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-

Head transplant NOT ETHIC! for one reason.One: DO you want to see sh1t like this walking down the street. http://i.ytimg.com...; width="664" height="373" />F*ck no. Welcome to the underground b1tcheshttp://www.youtube.com...
would head transplant be ethic? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530103.700-first-human-head-

No one would deny that the idea of a head fixed on a dead man's body is totally frightening and could remind us of the Dr Frankenstein. Nevertheless so does the face transplantation and it is commonly accepted. The etical code is built by the society, it's based on the moral and I'm utterly convinced that if there's a litle chance to enable someone doomed to live, no moral code should forbid him to get this chance. People might say that we should astrain from putting a man's mind on the body of another, but after all, people who need it have a tortured body which might seemed to haven't been their for long and might be destroyed soon. So, it is for sure disconcerting perspective, but I think there's nothing more important for the medecine than make all its possible to make people live as long and good as possible.
Plants Should Have the Right to Vote

1."Plants have the ability to communicate, and if it was necessary, they have the ability to communicate who they would vote for in a series of clicks with a plant-vote registrar."Like I said before sentience isn't consciousness. They don't have the capacity to understand what or who they're voting for. 2."If a man does not have the capacity to understand what an election is, but is a legal american and is over the age of 18, do we need to bar him from voting without a real cause? I don't understand how this refutes my ideas."I would argue 'yes'. If one doesn't have the mental faculty to understand the world around them how can they be trusted with the responsibility or capacity to vote someone into office.3."That checklist makes no sense, though.Even if one american does not have good moral character, they still have the right to vote (e.g. unconvicted serial killers).Because that one part of the checklist is false, we have to say the ENTIRE checklist is, just to be safe, and automatically refute this entire point."Hahaha, I can't tell if you're just messing with me on this one. First off, I don't make the rules, this is the US' official list of prerequisites to being able to vote. Second off, in general, if one part of a whole is false doesn't invalidate te whole. It's called a fallacy of composition.---Summarization of my debate:Plants cant vote because:1. They aren't conscious2. At the moment, they can't become US citzens.I look forward to seeing your conclusion PRO.
Plants Should Have the Right to Vote

Thanks for the speedy response, con. I was expecting more puns in your case, but this will do.Sorry that this response is shorter, by eliminating just one part of the checlist I effectively eliminate it all."Right off the bat we run into a problem. In order to choose between two candidates one must have the capacity to choose"Plants have the ability to communicate, and if it was necessary, they have the ability to communicate who they would vote for in a series of clicks with a plant-vote registrar."Secondly, to vote, you must be a US citizen: "To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen."Giving plants the right to vote would be making them citizens. Remember rule 5: "practicality and implementation are not the core of the debate", but even with this rule aside, this isn't a way to criticize the topic at hand. We'd make plants US citizens if they could vote, because only US citizens can..."A plant obviously does not have the capacity to choose, nor the capacity to even understand what an election is."If a man does not have the capacity to understand what an election is, but is a legal american and is over the age of 18, do we need to bar him from voting without a real cause? I don't understand how this refutes my ideas."Looking at this checklist let's see which prerequisites plants are capable of meeting"That checklist makes no sense, though.Even if one american does not have good moral character, they still have the right to vote (e.g. unconvicted serial killers).Because that one part of the checklist is false, we have to say the ENTIRE checklist is, just to be safe, and automatically refute this entire point.Back to you, con.
Plants Should Have the Right to Vote

"Is the table that the Declaration of Independance was signed on not an American?Was the seat that our first President - Mr. President George Washington sat upon not an American?"American noun 1. A native or citizen of the United States.2.The English language as it is used in the United States; American English.No, as plants are not citizens as proven by my last points. This is besides the point though.--- Lets focus on your other points"Contention 2. Discrimination against a sentient being has a negative effect on them."I would argue it does not matter if you discriminate against sentient beings but only conscious beings as conscious beings have much more intelligence and even then only animals are able to feel prejudices. (i.e. a cricket cannot feel discriminated but a chimp can)Let's look at the difference between two states of self-awareness to better illustrate my point.Are plants sentient? sentient adjective able to perceive or feel things. Yes, they areAre plants conscious? conscious adjective 1. Aware of and responding to one's surroundings; awake. 2. Having knowledge of something; aware.3. Painfully aware of; sensitive to.No, they are not.By these definitions, one must be conscious and sentient to be a US citizen not just sentient. Plants are only sentient and therefore cannot be a US citizen which, as we know, is a prerequisite to vote.---"Contention 3. Upholds the idea of representative democracy"The US government represents it's citizens. Plants cannot be citizens (As per the logic in my first argument). Therefore, the US government is not obligated to represent plants.---"Contention 4. This will solve the self-identity crisis that is currently affecting our tomatoes."I chuckled reading this. Anyways, to be aware of self-identity a specimen must have a certain level of intelligence. To my knowledge, a tomato has no intelligence. Therefore, it cannot have an existential crisis of identity.
Plants Should Have the Right to Vote

This is a very odd topic that I just couldn't resist accepting. I look forward to what Pro has to say about it. Let's begin by looking at the definition of what it means to vote.vote:Aformal indication of a choice between two or more candidates or courses of action, expressed typically through a ballot or a show of hands or by voice.(1)Right off the bat we run into a problem. In order to choose between two candidates one must have the capacity to choose. A plant obviously does not have the capacity to choose, nor the capacity to even understand what an election is. If this isn't enough to persuade someone, let's continue.Secondly, to vote, you must be a US citizen: "To be eligible to vote, you must be a U.S. citizen."(2)Well how do you become a US citizen so you can vote?(3) I'll even ignore the 18 year old rule as Pro requested. you have lived in the United States as a lawful permanent resident for at least five years (with exceptions for refugees, people who get their green card through asylum, spouses of U.S. citizens, and U.S. military personnel) you have been physically present in the United States for at least half of the last five years you have lived in the district or state where you are filing your application for at least three months you have not spent more than a year outside the United States you have not made your primary home in another country you are at least 18 years old you have good moral character you are able to speak, read, and write in English you are able to pass a test covering U.S. history and government (based on questions provided by USCIS), and you are willing to swear that you believe in the principles of the U.S. Constitution and will be loyal to the United States. Looking at this checklist let's see which prerequisites plants are capable of meeting: Yes:1,2,3,4,5 No:7,8,9,10 As you can see it's not possible for a plant to be a US citizen and therefore should not have the right to vote. Sources:(1): https://www.google.com...(2): http://www.usa.gov...(3): http://www.nolo.com...