BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Health is more important than Education.

However, since my opponent has not yet supported his claim, I can not refute any of his ideas. I can, however, offer arguments to the contrary. In this debate, as it is not specified, I will be assuming that by "Health" you meant educating one in healthy choices rather than what is more commonly taught in schools (otherwise this debate is pointless, as they are completely unrelated). I would argue that education holds much more importance in today's society because of the extreme emphasis of knowledge and intelligence in the ability to support oneself. Without education, or even with a mediocre one, one would be unable to support their family and themselves as they would not be able to get a well-paying job. Most, even the ones seem as extremely low-level, require at least a high school education. Without the ability to financially support oneself, one would be unable to care for his physical needs entirely, rendering their education of healthy choices as irrelevant as they would no have the means to provide such choices to themselves. In addition, one has a responsibility to both their parents, children, and society itself. The job of an adult, in most cases, must support his children, himself, and sometimes elderly parents. Taking away from this many people on the basis of providing a health education, something which is easily available to those who wish to learn, is rather irresponsible. In addition, workers of each level are needed in society - take away the emphasis on education and you may lower the amount of doctors, engineers, and those who generally have a higher degree of education.
Two can be one

I don't think a half-baked analogy with marriage really helps you here. Two becomes one in a metaphorical sense, in that two people pledge themselves to each other until they die. They don't become one in a way that can be compared to the mathematical union of 2 and 1. That isn't what you seemed to be arguing in the second round. Here's what I would have argued: Mathematical proof that 2 = 1. 1: Step 1: Let a = b. Step 2: Then a^2 = ab Step 3: a^2 + a^2 = a^2 + ab Step 4: 2a^2 = a^2 + ab Step 5: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 + ab -2ab Step 6: 2a^2 - 2ab = a^2 - ab Step 7: This can be written as 2(a^2 - ab) = 1(a^2 - ab) Step 8: and cancelling the (a^2 - ab) from both sides gives 1=2. Figure out the flaw without looking online. :)
Two can be one

From what you have said, it's obvious that you are being ambiguous which means even the audience can't understand what you are saying. Look, mathematically 1-1/2 can't be 1/2 just as you said. Check your solvings and prove yourself wrong and that means you have not break down my evidence . To take you to another perspective of how two can be one, them listen. From the day that a man take a lady to the alter, the two becomes one. What so ever belongs to the man belongs to the woman as well. Even their body is united to be one as well as their thought that is why they are legalise to sleep together. Ask your dad and he will tell you that indeed your mum and him have been bounded together to be one, ask your mum as well. If they tells you that they are two then prove me wrong.
Two can be one

I'm going to confess, I don't really understand Pro's argument but I'm going to do my best to interpret it. Pro claims that one is the 'founder' of all numbers and that while 1 is an independent entity all the other numbers are contingent on 1. Thus, the number 2 is merely two 1s, and the number 100 is made up of 1s such that it couldn't exist without 1s. Here is the flaw in Pro's argument. While 2 is made up of 1s, and 100 is made up of 1s, that's only because we are conceptualising it in terms of 1s. We could just as easily think of '2' as four halves, and 1 as two halves. Consider: "Since 2 is so proud, then i will remove my 1. 2- 1= 1. You see i still have my 1 back." changed to "Since 1 is so proud, then i will remove my 1/2. 1- 1/2= 1/2. You see i still have my 1/2 back." So therefore, whatever number is dependent on another number depends one how you frame the problem. You could think of 2 as 2x1, or 2 as 4x1/2, or 2 as 100/50 or 2 as -1x-2. It's relative. Therefore, 1 is not the foundation of all the other numbers and Pro's claims are false.
Two can be one

I'm sorry for not making it to round 2. This is a question for you- will you ever wish to be dependent on others? No! That is why every one want to be independent even countries. The same theory goes between one ( 1) and two ( 2 ). 1 is independent. It's the foundation of every other number that exist. If one is removed from 100, then 100 can't exist. 1 is the founder of all numbers. Since 2 is so proud, then i will remove my 1. 2- 1= 1. You see i still have my 1 back. That mean two can actually be one because it has no freedom of its own.
Science can violate logic

After careful consultation between the side of Con's members, We have opted for a 'snowball strategy'. This was already planned from Round 1 but we were planning to hit hard in Round 2 and see where things go but the strategy has changed as we want to win with as little friction as possible with the enemy and as much ease as possible with the voters. Science is an inanimate, Non-sentient entity that cannot violate anything. If you have incorrect input (corrupt data) and valid logic, You are not violating logic by reaching a wrong conclusion. If you have correct input (valid data) and corrupt logic, You are violating logic but are also violating scientific methodology in doing so. If you have corrupt data and corrupt logic, You can reach both a wrong and right conclusion but this is bad science in all senses and so thus you are violating science and it is not science violating the logic. If you have valid data and valid logic and reach a conclusion that is later proven wrong, You were completely logical and simply lacked enough information which would have violated logic to have leaped to the 'right' conclusion and this is why science uses theories and even its 'laws' are always up for question if later data disproves them. I will state those 5 and not expand on them and prove the resolution entirely wrong for now. If Pro is both scientifically sound and logically valid, They will forfeit here and now and hand me the win (I'd appreciate a typed out concession because letting the timer run down will refuse me the physical win).
Science can violate logic

The first Quora poster you quoted word for word but unlike me didn't admit it wasn't your own made the error of confusing logic for being truth. The second Quora poster who you quoted fourth agreed with me because they separated scientists and science. This is most hilarious as this supports the Con side and your copy pasting was clearly not the result of careful reading and figuring you couldn't word the posts better but out of laziness and pasting a whole Quora set of replies as your own work which is fine (I used a whole scholarly web page's contents as my hard-hitting Round 3) but is not what you portrayed what you were doing as. The second copy and paste job from Quora replies ended up saying that there's no one logic which make the resolution impossible to uphold because apparently 'fuzzy logic' can be one logic while 'higher-oder logics' are a whole different breed. The third of your copy-pastes seems to agree with me. Science doesn't violate logic, It can use correct logic with faulty data to give you a lie otherwise you're just getting to the lie by bad logic which then is indisputably bad science. The rest agreed with Con in blatant ways.
Science can violate logic

Thank you for being noble in your defeat. Credit to [https://undsci. Berkeley. Edu/article/howscienceworks_07] for the following:"The Logic of Scientific ArgumentsTaken together, The expectations generated by a scientific idea and the actual observations relevant to those expectations form what we'll call a scientific argument. This is a bit like an argument in a court case — a logical description of what we think and why we think it. A scientific argument uses evidence to make a case for whether a scientific idea is accurate or inaccurate. For example, The idea that illness in new mothers can be caused by doctors' dirty hands generates the expectation that illness rates should go down when doctors are required to wash their hands before attending births. When this test was actually performed in the 1800s, The results matched the expectations, Forming a strong scientific argument in support of the idea — and hand-washing! Though the elements of a scientific argument (scientific idea, Expectations generated by the idea, And relevant observations) are always related in the same logical way, In terms of the process of science, Those elements may be assembled in different orders. Sometimes the idea comes first and then scientists go looking for the observations that bear on it. Sometimes the observations are made first, And they suggest a particular idea. Sometimes the idea and the observations are already out there, And someone comes along later and figures out that the two might be related to one another. Testing ideas with evidence may seem like plain old common sense — and at its core, It is! — but there are some subtleties to the process: Ideas can be tested in many ways. Some tests are relatively straightforward (e. G. , Raising 1000 fruit flies and counting how many have red eyes), But some require a lot of time (e. G. , Waiting for the next appearance of Halley's Comet), Effort (e. G. , Painstakingly sorting through thousands of microfossils), And/or the development of specialized tools (like a particle accelerator). To explore further, Jump to Tactics for testing. Evidence can reflect on ideas in many different ways. To explore further, Jump to Reviewing your test results. There are multiple lines of evidence and many criteria to consider in evaluating an idea. To explore further, Jump to Competing ideas: A perfect fit for the evidence? or Competing ideas: Other considerations. All testing involves making some assumptions. To explore further, Jump to Making assumptions. Despite these details, It's important to remember that, In the end, hypothesesand theories live and die by whether or not they work — in other words, Whether they are useful in explaining data, Generating expectations, Providing satisfying explanations, Inspiring research questions, Answering questions, And solving problems. Science filters through many ideas and builds on those that work!
Animals should have the right to life. (veganism)

Sorry had a family issue and had to leave town to take care of it. "I hope he did not just run away like a chicken. " HAHAHAHA It's always the people winning the argument that resort to name calling. HAHAHA SO let's make this real simple. You asked for a trait that made it alright to eat animals. That trait is nutrition. Yes everything that I can kill, Harvest or grow, Or basically even digest is a source of food. Be it because I'm more intelligent than the prey, Stronger than the prey or just luckier that day. Now we are civilized creatures so we don't eat things like each other, Pets, Endangered species. At least not until we need to. It's okay for people to be vegan, For what ever reason they want. But this point and this point alone will always limit any claim that we should never eat animals. If you get hungry enough, You will eat anything to survive. Now a person can choose not to eat animals that's their choice. But when it comes down to it, You would grill the last of an endangered species for something to eat to survive.
Animals should have the right to life. (veganism)

Ok for some reason my response didn't appear. I'll type it out again. My premise is that there is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would make us deem ourselves valueless in other words justify the needless slaughter. You say there is and that it is nutritional value and your superior intellect. So if my premise is false and if your identified trait is such trait then this would follow: It is okay to kill and eat animals since they a. ) have nutritional value or b. ) they lack the intellect cpharris has. Just as true then must this be: It is okay to kill and eat any object that has a. ) nutritional value or b. ) inferior Intellect to cpharris. Any object includes humans. So if a human has the trait a. ) or b. ) would it be okay to kill and eat them. If not that is a contradiction. That would be special pleading and would make your argument completely invalid. My question is would it be okay to kill and eat the human who has the trait a. ) or b. )?
Animals should have the right to life. (veganism)

Our trait is we are higher on the food chain because of our intelligence. All carnivorous animals would eat you if you give them the chance or if they are hungry. How many times do we hear about the cat lady being found after being eaten by her own cats? "since animals don't posses any trait that would deem it ok to kill them" is wrong. They have nutritional value. No one wants to be murdered for food, Including humans. And that's why we are careful around other animals, Ei. Bears and sharks, Because we're don't want to. But the nutritional value is there to justify eating them. With our current population we need to for the survival of the species.
Animals should have the right to life. (veganism)

Note I am not stating humans and animals have the same moral value, I am saying with moral value since there must justification behind moral degradation and since animals don't possess any trait that would deem it ok to kill them if a human also possessed it there must therefore be no difference in the agreed upon right to life besides magnitude. The problem you made is that you didn't read my part about establishing animals are indeed lower in moral value. The reason I say they should have the right to life is because if you were that animal you wouldn't want to be murdered for food. Their ability to have a subjective reality like you or I makes it wrong to kill them for the same reason as a human, Not the magnitude, The reason it is wrong to murder humans is the same reason it is wrong to murder animals except it isn't as bad. The burden of proof on you is to debunk my argument by naming a trait that is absent in animals which if absent in humans would make us deem ourselves value less. If you deny the premise then one could swap all traits of the animal to the human and it would still be wrong to kill one and not the other which in that case would be a logical contradiction.
Animals should have the right to life. (veganism)

Animals are of moral value since humans are of moral value and there is no trait absent in animals which if absent in humans would deem ourselves without moral value. if animals have moral value then there is no justification to needlessly slaughter them since there is no trait unique to animals that would justify a difference in reasoning their slaughter with the slaughter of humans. Note I am not stating humans and animals have the same moral value, I am saying with moral value since there must justification behind moral degradation and since animals don't possess any trait that would deem it ok to kill them if a human also possessed it there must therefore be no difference in the agreed upon right to life besides magnitude. The right to life I define is the right not to be slaughtered, Raped, Enslaved, Or trapped. I also state that the magnitude difference in the right to life among humans and animals is one that puts humans in a higher moral value than non-human animals. Also note just because one object has more moral value than another object that doesn't grant the first object total reign over the second one. Moral value I define is the value placed on objects that protects them, Based on the value agreed, From actions that would be deemed immoral if it were to happen to an object such as a punch or killing an innocent person. We say it is wrong to perform the immoral action to the object that we assign moral value to.
Rapists should be able to sue their victims for custody and visitation rights of the child.

I would like to apologize that my arguments are short. My computer is slow, my browser tends to crash often, and I have limited time. There is a high possibility that I must forfeit the next round. I will be on vacation and will be extremely busy. Please keep that in mind. However, I will do what I can. In order to establish common ground and make everything clear, I will provide two crucial definitions. Sue - "to use a legal process by which you try to get a court of law to force a person, company, or organization that has treated you unfairly or hurt you in some way to give you something or to do something : to bring a lawsuit against someone or something" [1] Rape – “to force (someone) to have sex with you by using violence or the threat of violence” [2] Now that I have provided these definitions, I will commence my arguments. Arguments Rape is sex forced upon someone else, perhaps using violence in the process. Rapists are criminals and they have surrendered some of their rights – free speech, right to bear arms, and others – to the law. Rape is a criminal offense with serious consequences. Why would that rapist deserve to visit and/or have custody of the child produced from that act? To me, it would be nonsensical. It would be best for both the child and the mother for the rapist to be out of their lives forever. As rapists have yielded some of their rights, they cannot legally sue. They should not have that right. All the rapist will do is pay child support. Whether it is prison, a fine, or community service, that rapist will need to endure the consequences for his wrongdoing. If the rapist were allowed to visit the child, that would not be healthy for the mother or the child. That would not serve the true cause: to make the rapist be aware of his error. ConclusionI believe I have made a good case against the notion that rapists should have visitation and custody rights of the child produced from that rape. My argument is limited due to limited time, but I did what I could. Please understand. Works CitedBecause I have limited time and a limited argument, I have limited sources. Please do not count this against me. Thank you. I appreciate your understanding. 1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Rapists should be able to sue their victims for custody and visitation rights of the child.

Hi all I am greatly looking forward to this debate today in which I propose we use simply the legal and logical arguments rather then using (a might I say logical fallacy) appeal to emotions. I agree with my opponents definition of the rules with one slight modification . This round should be run like a parliamentary debate and each of us must use proper argument structure. With all that aside I'm so glad my opponent has proposed this topic I have seen it debated before and greatly look forward to sharing my viewpoints and opinions. So thank you all voters/judges and may the best argument win! Thank you all, and a have a wonderful day!
Rapists should be able to sue their victims for custody and visitation rights of the child.

This is a topic I have seen discussed and debated quite often. I would now like to debate this here on debate.org. The first round is for acceptance, the second is for arguments, the third is for rebuttals, and the fourth is for counter-rebuttals and conclusions. The rules are evident. Sources will be cited, proper spelling and grammar will be used, and there will be no forfeitures. For clarification, this debate regards situations in which men rape women, not the other way around. I look forward to this debate.
Xbox360 vs. PS3

As a rebuttal to that statement regarding the cost per day and closer gaming community, the PlayStation Network (hereby referred to as PSN) keeps on par with XBOX Live (XBOX360 online service) in regards to finding and adding friends, messaging and chat and group messaging and chat, online gaming, milestones (XBOX360 = achievements, PS3 = trophies) and Downloadable Content (DLC). The one simple fact that makes the PS3 shine with PSN is the fact that it is a free of charge service for the online features, thereby rendering your argument invalidated. Although for some, it is choice of preference, when there is no bias of preference, the PS3 with PSN will be the better option to choose. Next I'll add some technical specs. XBOX360: It has a custom IBM PowerPC-based CPU * 3 symmetrical cores running at 3.2 GHz each * 2 hardware threads per core; 6 hardware threads total * 1 VMX-128 vector unit per core; 3 total * 128 VMX-128 registers per hardware thread * 1 MB L2 cache PS3: The CPU is a Cell Processor with multiple SPEs * PowerPC-base Core @3.2GHz * 1 VMX vector unit per core * 512KB L2 cache * 7 x SPE @3.2GHz * 7 x 128b 128 SIMD GPRs * 7 x 256KB SRAM for SPE * * 1 of 8 SPEs reserved for redundancy total floating point performance: 218 GFLOPS Overall, the PS3 in terms of CPU has much more power and potential than the XBOX360, which has reached its max potential where software developers still say that there is untapped potential on the PS3.
Xbox360 vs. PS3

The PS3 is a more superior entertainment system than the XBOX360. Some of the reasons are: 1) The PS3 online feature is free of charge 2) The processing power and CPU is more powerful than the XBOX360 3) The PS3 XMB is very easy to use and allows for quick multimedia access 4) The PS3 XMB can be accessed even in game 5) Some PS3 titles are becoming cross platform with the PS Vita ...And these are just to name a few of the reasons PS3 is far superior to XBOX360. In this debate, I plan on touching points that prove its superiority over XBOX360, and plan on being dynamic on how I present it, including in response to my opponent's rebuttals and attempts on proving otherwise.
Xbox360 vs. PS3

Hmmmm... Well seeing as the opposition fled... PS3 Wins this debate for more intricate facts given and for my own sustained participation within the debate. Ergo any statements I make furthermore shall not be taken into merit when voting is underway because the next statements have nothing to do with this matter and I am quite bored right now... ========================================= THIS DEBATE CONTAINS PINGAS!! (Meme reference) 411_uR_8453_R_8310nG_7w0_u5 (1337 Writing)
Xbox360 vs. PS3

It seems my opponent is at a loss for words, but I will continue at an even slower pace. XBOX360 is also the first of the two to be fully hacked and modded within a skim timeframe when it was first released. The PS3 security prevented this at first for awhile by having more security in it. What made it even harder is the "Hypervisor" security it has installed on it. The way it works is that it makes sure that the kernel is operating properly and any attempt to tamper with the kernel without the appropriate "keys" with be forbidden. Obviously both consoles have been hacked and modded, but overall the "scene" for the PS3 is more pronounced than the XBOX360 because of its hardware capabilities and what types of "homebrew" can be run on it. Any programs written will have limits dependent on the hardware specs. PS3 has further limits than XBOX360.
Xbox360 vs. PS3

Not only is the PS3 Processing power more superior, but it is overall more technologically advanced. Microsoft pushed out the XBOX360 quickly to gain a lead in the next generation of consoles at the time. In doing so, they also had to deal with crappy hardware issues (Red Ring of Death for example). In also bringing their console out sooner, the pro was that developers made games for it sooner, but the con is that Sony had the time to analyze it and make a stronger system. Not to mention that PS3 was the first system to utilize BLU-RAY discs which allow for more content ot be stored on the disc and it also doubled as a built in BLU-RAY player that plays high-definition BLU-RAY format movies.