BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
people have free will

Free will:the unique ability of persons to exercise control over their conduct in the fullest manner necessary for moral responsibility [1]I will argue that people have free will. My opponent will argue that people do not have free will. The burden of proof is shared. I will start with my arguments.free choicesWe make choices all the time. Although these choices can be influenced by outside factors such as manipulation by other people, these decisions are mostly our own. For a large part, a person's outcome in life is determined by the choices that person makes, and not by fate.The notion of moral responsibility breaks down if a person's behavior is completely determined by outside factors. If Alice kills Bob because Bob was about to kill Alice, then Alice did not have much choice. In that case Alice is not held responsible for Bob's death.But in most situations, there are no external circumstances that completely force us to act the way we do.non-determinismMost arguments against free will rely on determinism. But modern models of the physical universe such as Quantum Mechanics are essentially non-deterministic [3]. However, I point out that we can still have free will and determinism (this is compatibilism [2]).[1] http://plato.stanford.edu... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://www.realclearscience.com...
Every War is a result of Religious Motivation

I accept. First, to make it clear I shall define religion as:"The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."The wars I will focus on are the following: 1) Red Army invasion of the Democratic Republic of GeorgiaThe war was motivated by expansionist politics of the Soviet Empire, and certainly not any belief in Gods.2) The Boshin War The war in which the imperial power overthrew the shogunate in Japan was motivated by a desire for a change in th power structure of Japan, not for beliefs in Gods.3) Peloponnesian WarThis war between the Greek powers of Athens and Sparta was motivated by a desire to control more land, and a desire to undermine their opposition, not any religious motivation.
Every War is a result of Religious Motivation

I beg my opposer to not find fault in my statement (Every War is a result of Religious Motivation) at hand, and argue that instead of the subject itself. I would also like to make some things clear before this debate is conducted. I am arguing that every war including and BEFORE World War II was a result of Religious Motivation. I would like to re-raise this argument including wars up to the present date, I just haven't researched them as much, and am not in the mood. First Round is acceptance, thank you and good luck. (Please state in Round 1 any pressing matters to address, or message me [Preferred] )
god does not deserve your faith

Wow, it seems that my opponent has forfeited, please remember to NOT VOTE. This is a tie! Now it's time to critique you as you have to me You, you are such a close minded and tarragon individual, it's simply ridiculous. I am noting our previous debates, that if I were to show you the difference between black and white, you would ignore it and deny its existence. This isn't about God, it's about decency and your ignorance. When I speak, I speak for all that have debated you, whether or not a God exists, listen, read, accept, and stop being disrespectful Thank you, and have a great summer.
god does not deserve your faith

Once again, however, your argument presupposes the existence of an objective good and evil. There is only perception. Your argument also supposes for the existence of a God. You have shown constantly to be rude and perhaps even pretentious, so it will be good to establish some rules So the requirements for this debate will be The existence of a God as given (For this scenario) No fallacies (Fallacy fallacies will be allowed) Be respectful Take time and actually consider the other debate, please! I accept if you agree to the terms, otherwise, this debate will be a draw. Your assignment will prove there is an objective good and evil, and if there is, that God is evil and unworthy of the faith of others.
god does not deserve your faith

god according to the bible does not deserve your faith. He most certainly hasn't earned it on his trip to any bank. After all, what racist pig, who clearly hates pretty close to two thirds of the human race deserves your faith to begin with? This god has committed countless atrocities against man such as genocides, he hates children, he hates women, he hates gays, and these emotions, this god has freely admitted to... he gets angry, he has wrath, he has vengeance, he has rage, he has fury, he has evil, and the biggie… he has jealousy. Jealousy. What? From a supreme deity? Jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear. So if you scramble up all of those emotions into one basket what you have is imperfection. But this god guy is supposed to be perfect? Not on anyone’s watch who can breathe. Even worse is this god character neatly packaged all of those emotions and sent them down to man so in turn man could learn to hate. Great going god! Great going for those who believe in this god as you share in this hate as this is what your religion and bible are composed of. Ab-so-lu-te-ly god does not deserve your faith. Take away this faith from this god and he rightly and deservedly dies. Your assignment will be to prove that this god guy character deserves your faith and why he justly deserves it.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

While this may be a disappointing answer, I make it anyway. I've as good as lost the debate, and never expected to win in the first place. I did find one or two flaws in Dakota's final argument, but I doubt I could make any case that would hold water; from the introduction of the grandmaster statistics, Dakota had won. Well played sir, well played.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

To dazzle you all is why I'm here. This round of mine will be much shorter than my last as there is little needed to be said.I do want to mention, though, that I'm surprised you brought up that quote by Grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov: "Black players cannot afford to make even the slightest mistake ... from a theoretical point of view, the tasks of White and Black in chess are different: White has to strive for a win, Black—for a draw!" Here, Sveshnikov is clearly agreeing with my position in this debate, not my opponent's.Now then, let's take another look at my three arguments for why White has an inherent advantage in Chess and discuss Torvald's objections to them:I. Control of the gameP1: The player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is in control of the game.P2: At the start of a Chess match, the player who is more capable of forcing his opponent's moves is White.C: At the start of a Chess match, White is in control of the game.Torvald concedes the truth of P1, but takes exception to P2, claiming that it is nothing more than an assumption. Yet he goes on to say that, in making the first move, White is the one "to play the aggressor, to shape the game" and "to set the pace of the game." He also states Black will "have to spend a great deal of time countering White's moves." If this is not an agreement to the second premise, I don't know what is.The only tangible objection he does raise is that Black is able to, by virtue of playing second, adapt more quickly than White. This is, however, left disappointingly unwarranted. Logically, the opposite holds true. As stated in my preamble, White is the one who is afforded speed; if either player can adapt more quickly than the other, it's him, not Black. For however many moves Black has thus far played in any given game (X), White will have either played X or X+1. Inarguably then, we can see White is the one with greater speed, speed which Black can logically never surpass.II. InitiativeP1: In an even, non-Zugzwang position, it is more advantageous to make the next move than not.P2: The start of a Chess match is an even, non-Zugzwang position.P3: It is White's turn at the start of a Chess match.C: At the start of a Chess match, it is more advantageous to be White than not.My opponent did not specifically address this argument at all and so it remains unscathed.III. Grandmaster StatisticsIn his introduction, Torvald admitted that (in his opinion, at least) this is the single most impressive argument of the three I presented, yet he makes no attempt to refute it. In fact, he seems persuaded by it, saying that "White seems to have an inherent advantage indeed."So far, all three of the arguments I erected in round two are still standing tall. I now give the floor to Torvald.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

You make a very excellent case, and I can hardly make rebuttal of it, and will accordingly make little of one and alternatively spend the more time on my own arguments. I think the best point you make would have to be citing the statistics of grandmaster games and CEGT statistics, in which white seems to have an inherent advantage indeed. I find, however, the logic in your first syllogism to be somewhat shaky; point 1 is valid; point 2 is an assumption. The Curse of the First Move While moving first may offer a definitive advantage for white, it may also offer some degree of disadvantage. White is forced to play the aggressor, to shape the game. Some players thrive in this scenario, but even the best of players may find it harder to set the pace of the game. Grandmaster Evgeny Sveshnikov remarked that white must play for checkmate, while black must play for stalemate. While many view this as an advantage to white, who then knows from the start what sorts of moves to expect from black, this same advantage works reciprocally well for black, who will likewise know exactly what sorts of moves to expect from white. Safe Following Distance The term 'safe following distance' is typically associated only with autos (at least to my knowledge), but I think can also be applied to chess. As I have mentioned before, the necessity to open gives white the disadvantage of being forced to set the pace of the game. This pace-setting posture of white gives black the opportunity to form more intricate plans, to use white's more predictable nature as an advantage. While black's moves will in some part be dictated by white, as black will have to spend a great deal of time countering white's moves, black is afforded the opportunity of adapting more quickly. This allows a sort of 'guerilla chess,' in which black can gain a distinct advantage simply by establishing a good defense and slowly attenuating white's forces at each deflected barrage.The Ironic Nature of this DebateI find myself now in a rather ironic, in my opinion, position; the best proof for either of our arguments will be decided not by the actual debate, but by the outcome of the debate. The one who wins will have proven his point in winning, rather than winning by proving his point (though I imagine the title of winner will be awarded for proof of point).Over to you, Pro. Dazzle us.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

I graciously accept your challenge, Dakota, and thank you for the welcome back. I naturally accept your terms, and will try not to take it personally that the definitions are heavily redundant and repetitive. As the burden of proof is on the Pro, it need be understood that I am not obligated to make a case for why white moving first does not give it an inherent advantage, merely to counter any argument that Pro makes. Might I make the request that in the last round, new arguments not be made? I look forward to an engaging debate.
In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black.

Thank you, Torvald, for your willingness to debate this with me directly following your overdue return to DDO.I. ResolutionThe full resolution for this debate is as follows: "In standard Chess, the one who plays White has an inherent advantage over the one who plays Black."II. DefinitionsInherent: existing necessarily as a property of a thing or phenomenon.Advantage: any state, circumstance, or opportunity that is favorable or beneficial in achieving a desired end."The one who plays White" is the player in control of the white pieces (occasionally hereafter referred to simply as "White" while his/her opponent sometimes referred to as "Black"). White is the one who, by standard Chess rules, makes the first move.Any other word not specifically defined will assume its most common dictionary definition for the context of this debate.III. Debate StructureIn this debate, I will be arguing that making the first move is an action which provides White with an inherent advantage not sufficiently counter-balanced by Black's assets, and so Black must therefore play that much better to achieve an objectively superior position.Further rules are as follows:(1) The burden of proof will be on me.(2) Any tactic which could be reasonably seen as semantics is forbidden.(3) Con must use his/her first round for acceptance only. Later rounds are to be used however we see fit.(4) 8,000 characters will be allotted for each round of debate. All arguments and sources must be made within these 8,000 characters; nothing within in the comment section should be counted. Any glitch which would allow a debater to bypass this 8,000 character limit (including posting "pictures" of nothing but text a la Apeiron) is strictly prohibited.Breaking any of these rules will result in an automatic loss (via voters awarding all 7 points to the other participant). By accepting this debate, my opponent accepts and agrees to these rules.Good luck and have fun!
Sodahead is elitist, and I'll go a step further and say they should be stripped of their money

By agreeing to the terms of service, mods are fully allowed to do whatever they want to you in an event if they see it nessacary, if you don't agree with this, you should leave the website. On the other hand, because they are a biased group doesnt mean their money should be stripped, they are legally allowed to have whatever opinion they want.Really this is just another low quality debate with no point to exist.
Sodahead is elitist, and I'll go a step further and say they should be stripped of their money

Now, this is this is the site. http://images.sodahead.com... I have to say it is elitist. Now maybe this is personal bias. But they are very bigoted in their views. If you say something that goes against their views, they get moderators against you. It is pretty much the same as Yahoo Answers. Very elitist. The only good thing is that some people let you email them. Other than that. Sodahead is very elitist. They don't listen to your views. It's as if those people are cranky stubborn members who think their way is the way. Very puritan views. Waste of time. Don't use this site.
Gamers should step out of the comfort zones of getting games only published by big companies.

I accept that innovation in the video game industry seems few and far between; the same proven formulas are churned out again and again (mostly first-person shooters). However, you seem to have forgotten that experimental advancements are made all the time -- hardware changes allow new gaming experiences. Take a look at the Nintendo Wii; motion controls allowed new ways to play games, and Microsoft and Sony quickly followed suit with Kinect and Move. Take a look at the Oculus Rift [1]; virtual reality could open the doors for a fresh take on gaming. I concede that most changes are hardware based, but the new systems help to spawn a plethora of innovative (or perhaps gimmicky, in some cases) title releases that take full advantage of the new system.Independant developers can very rarely offer the absolute best quality; they often lack experience, staff and money. Consumers want to ensure that they will enjoy the games they buy -- large companies can deliver a blockbuster experience and arguably a better game.At the end of the day, the gaming industry is a business that strives to make money. Consumers have proven time and time again that they will spend money on certain game genres, so the large gaming companies are simply working to their demand.[1] - http://www.oculusvr.com...;
Gamers should step out of the comfort zones of getting games only published by big companies.

When a game does well, a company would stick with making more games like the game that sold well. When a game that is innovative, but done for the first time gets released but doesn't live up to the expectations of the company they decide to scratch that game and move onto what they believe is the next big thing. Because people show interest by using their wallets, companies respond in turn with churning out the same things people keep buying with hardly anything innovative in the industry. If more people were comfortable with going out from under the safety of buying games that have made a name for themselves and are just riding on that fame (ex. Call of Duty) and buy games from indie developers that are trying to make a living doing what they love as well as bringing a fresh breath to games in new and old game categories, then maybe we'll be seeing more diverse games being released than sequels of games that have lived for far too long doing the same old things.
Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources

Con, I am sad that you forfeited round 2. I continue my argument and I am looking forward to reading your argument. I want to discuss the difficulty and disadvantages of three alternative energy sources. They are nuclear power, solar power and wind power. I point out the disadvantages of nuclear power. (1) Although it does not produce much waste, it is very dangerous. (2) It must be sealed up and buried for many thousands of years to allow the radioactivity to die away. For all that time it must be kept safe from earthquakes, flooding, terrorists and everything else. This is difficult. (3) Nuclear power is reliable, but a lot of money has to be spent on safety. If it does go wrong, a nuclear accident can be a major disaster. There is a growing rejection and anti-movement toward the introduction of nuclear power in the world since the accident of Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan which took place on March13,2011. Moreover, in the 1990`s nuclear power was the fastest -growing source of power in much of the world. But in 2005 it was the second slowest -growing. (main references: www.darvill.clara.net) Next is the disadvantages of solar power. (1) It does not work at night. (2) It is very expensive to build solar power station, although the cost is coming down as technology improves. (3) It can be unrealiable unless you are in a very sunny climate. (www. darvill.clara.net) The last one is the disadvantages of wind power. (1) The wind is not always predictable. Some days have no wind. (2) Suitable areas for wind farms are often near the coast, where land is expensive. (3) Some people feel that covering the landscape with these towers is unsighty.(www. darvill. clara.net) The important thing is that solar and wind power are too much dependent on climate and location of the countries and communities which are planning to build facilities for wind and solar powers. Therefore, these days European industries are looking to Arab deserts to get new energy sources like solar power. The reason is that the Sahara desert receives twice as much sunlight as Paris, is sparsely inhabited and contains silicium, a material key to making solar panels.( The Japan Times, November26,2011) However, many African people regard the project as ``a neocolonialist enterprise to pillage their resources.`` (The Japan Times, November26,2011) From above mentioned arguments I believe there are many hurdles and difficulties in developing of new alternative energy sources.
Difficulty in developing of alternative energy sources

After the World War Second many developed countries have used fossile fuels to maintain stable economic activities. We have been dependent too much on those natural resources to make our life comfortable and convinient. Here, we have to recognize that ``fossile fuels (oil, coal and natural gas ) currently provide about 85percent of all the energy use both in U.S. and worldwide. These resources are being constantly depleted.``(www. renewable- energysources.com) Without oil, we can not drive and produce electricity. Using fossile energies has contributed to building mass-produced and mass-consumption Affluent Society since the end of the War for many countries of the world. These days newly emerging countries like China and India are catching up with the U.S. and Japan in the GDP(gross domestic product) based on the economic model of highly developed countries. Both countries are using fossile energies too much. On the other hand economy and industry which are dependent on fossile energies have produced global warming. And as I mentioned earlier, natural resources are decreasing every year. Shortage of those resources and global warming are threatening human survival and are contributing to making an impasse for attaining stable economic development. To coping with these serious problems facing us today many governments, local cities and communities are tackling with developing of new alternative energy sources. However, unfortunately there are number of hurdles to promote the project. What kinds of difficult factors lie ahead for developing of new energy sources like solar, wind and nuclear power? In round 3, I discuss them from the viewpoint of international political relations and social perspective.
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should pass the legislation to Legalize Gay Marriage

Hah my opponents only argument is that I failed to follow his procedure of debate theirs no point in refuting that just LOL he attempted an argument that neuroscience is invalid, and were all the same 1. everyone reading this knows theirs a big difference between the sexes 2.All can agree humanity is similar to animals but special 3.Everyone knows the media has gotten out of hand 4. every agrees religion can help you 5. everyone knows the Liberals that support gay marriage only do it for votes, the same reason they pretend not to be hatemongers by the way who signed DOMA into law was it by chance Bill Clinton Therefore, he has wasted round 3 because, he failed to refute my argument and his points are obviously rushed. I'm proud to say theirs no point in refutation good luck in round 4