BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Conquest of America by Spain was overall positive

I would ask that Pro define better what he means by 'overall positive' - are we talking in the short-term and long-term, or just in the long-term? Also, I would like to offer the definition of benign to make sure I know exactly what Pro is trying to say. Benign: [1] 1: of a gentle disposition : gracious <a benign teacher> 2a : showing kindness and gentleness <benign faces> b : favorable, wholesome <a benign climate> 3a : of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life; especially : not becoming cancerous <a benign lung tumor>b : having no significant effect : harmless <environmentallybenign> Does Pro really wish to argue that the Spanish conquest of America was of a gentle disposition, having no significant effect, not threatening health or life, and showing kindness? Keep in mind he not only says the conquest was benign, but "extraordinarily benign". I would be interested in hearing these arguments. Source [1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...;
1 + 1 = 3 (mathmetics)

Case: Syllogism: 1. Let (E) be the equation: 1 + 1 = 3. 2. Let (e) be the equation: 2 = 3. 3. 1 + 1 = 2 & not-(e). 4. If (E), then (e) & not-(e). 5. The proposition: (e) & not-(e) is false. 6. Therefore, (E) is false. Defence of syllogism: 3. => True, for both propositions: 1 + 1 = 2, & 2 =/= 3 are true by design. 4. => True, for if (E), then 1 + 1 = 3, i. e. 2 = 3, while 2 =/= 3, thus 2 = 3 & 2 =/= 3. 5. => True, by the law of non contradiction [1]. 6. => True, by denying the consequent [2]. Conclusion: (E): 1 + 1 = 3 is false. Rebuttals: we humans see that the number 1 is equal to number 1 Human Knowledge: 1=1 manipulation :1=2 - False, for 1 =/= 2, by design. Manipulation: 1=3 - False, for 1 =/= 3, be design. See I manipulated the numbers to try to solve the puzzle to the equation. Since the problem is asking if 1 + 1 = 3, I have made both number 1 and 1. And manupilated the numbers to 1.5 and 1.5. - False, for 1 =/= 1.5, by design. 1.5 +1.5 = 3 so if 1 + 1 = 3 1.5 + 1.5 = 3 So add .5 and .5 to the number 1 and 1 and you get the number 3. So I get immediate victory because I have manipulated the equation and made it equal to 3. - Pro assumes false premises & arrives at false conclusions. So much fallaciousness can not be overlooked! Conclusion: - Pro failed to carry his BOP by resorting to invalid arguments & fallacious reasoning. Whereas, I proved conclusively that the proposition: 1 + 1 = 3 is false, thus conclusively negating the resolution. => Vote Con. Sources: [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
1 + 1 = 3 (mathmetics)

1 + 1 = 3Now con must provide evidence to support his theory that 1+1=3 is false. You see, math is a human invention which you can manipulate anytime, anywhere. So for example, I can make the number '1' equal '2'we humans see that the number 1 is equal to number 1Human Knowledge: 1=1 manipulation :1=2Manipulation: 1=3See I manipulated the numbers to try to solve the puzzle to the equation. Since the problem is asking if 1 + 1 = 3, I have made both number 1 and 1. And manupilated the numbers to 1.5 and 1.5.1.5 +1.5 = 3so if 1 + 1 = 31.5 + 1.5 = 3So add .5 and .5 to the number 1 and 1 and you get the number 3.So I get immediate victory because I have manipulated the equation and made it equal to 3. http://mathforum.org...http://www.brainpickings.org...
1 + 1 = 3 (mathmetics)

Con must prove 1 + 1 = 3 is false. Debate Structure Round 1: Con presents platform, Pro presents platform Round 2: Con defends and refutes, Pro defends and refutes Round 3: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defends Round 4: Con refutes and defends, Pro refutes and defends Round 5: Con refutes, defends and concludes, Pro refutes, defends and concludes Rules 1. The first round is for acceptance. 2. No forfeiture. 3. No trolling, lawyering, semantics and kritiks of the topic. 4. All arguments and sources must be visible inside the debate. Arguments and sources may not be posted in the comments section or in an outside link. 5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.
The Royals will be a breakout team in the 2014 MLB season

I apologize deeply, as the website cut my case short, for whatever reason. I had many points regarding bullpen, outfield, etc. with evidence. I deeply wish that this could've been posted, as it could've helped you rebuttal my case better, and allow me something to build one, and the voters something to vote on. I will keep this rebuttal short, but I ask that you bring up no new points in your last rebbutal. Now, on to the debate!Point 1 - Bullpen: I completely disagree that our bullpen is not talented enough to be elite. If you look at this article, you can see that you are wrong (http://mlb.mlb.com...) We have plenty of depth regarding pitching, and that settles that point.Point 2 - Defense: Our defense is easily one of the best in the league, and the additions of Norichika Aoki and Omar Infante certainly don't harm that. We have three Gold Glovers, more than most other AL teams, and the rest are fundmentally sound. To back this up, I provide several pieces of evidence. I would build upon my lengthy first case, but unforunately my progress was deleted. To conserve time, I will give you evidence to read, and I urge a Pro ballot in today's debate. Evidence - (http://www.google.com...)(http://espn.go.com...)(http://bleacherreport.com...)
The Royals will be a breakout team in the 2014 MLB season

Thank you for accepting. I will now begin my first pro case. I will also refute some of my opponents remarks. I will request that in his last speech, he not bring up any new arguments, just refute mine or build his own up. I would also like to mention that many of my sources will be from ESPN, as they are "The Worldwide Leader" in Sports.Point 1 - Starting Pitching: My opponent stated this "First, they only have 2-3 good starting pitchers in Shields, Guthrie, and Wade Davis. My opponent must be forgetting about how the Royals got Jason Vargas from the Angels. His style is similar to that of Bruce Chen's, and should more than make up for him. He is also a seasoned veteran who will benefit from Kaufmann's cavernous outfield. We also have the upcoming rookie Yordano Ventura, who has been ranked as one of the top 9 breakout players for 2014.
The Royals will be a breakout team in the 2014 MLB season

I recognize that the Royals have picked up a good starting pitcher in James Shields but that is nothing to assume they will be a breakout team in 2014. First, they only have 2-3 good starting pitchers in Shields, Guthrie, and Wade Davis. I also think their outfield is particularly weak compared to the Tigers. Finally, their infield is not the strongest. They might have some good prospects but I don't think they are ready to perform on the big stage.
Taxation is the confiscation of individual life and liberty and should therefore be minimized.

Life is represented by time on earth. Money is a representation of the time spent earning it. Liberty, in a popular sense, is one's ability to do with his life (i.e. time and money) what he sees fit, as long as he does not infringe on the rights of others. It follows that confiscating one's money is no different than confiscating his life and liberty. I do not make this point as an argument against taxation. I believe minimal taxation is necessary to provide for the defense of basic freedoms. It is excessive taxation with which I have a problem. Does anyone really think our founding father intended for most Americans to spend half their working hours slaving for their government? I want those in favor of high taxes and big government to realize it is not just the money they are taking from their fellow Americans by electing tax-and-spend democrats and republicans, but the life and liberty our founding fathers fought so hard to preserve.
The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

My opponent's argument should be rejected for the following reasons:1. PRO has not fulfilled burden of proof, necessary for showing exemption2. PRO's own argument states why he cannot perform #13. PRO reasons for exclusion, do not actually support exclusion4. Even if 1-3 were false, still no reason has been given which is unique to Moral Relativity. 5. The plethora of available academic literature contradicts his claimKeep in mind that to refute PRO's argument only #1 has to be true. The rest of my arguments go above and beyond in demonstrating the untenability of my opponents argument, but are otherwise unnecessary to that point. All of these points are elucidated fully in previous arguments, but I will summarize here.1-2In order to show that some belief is exempt from Infinite Regress we must show that 'said belief is not dependent upon justification of knowledge which is not itself unjustified. My opponents arguments have instead focused on trying to show that we can be confident that some person has belief in some moral statement, however this sidesteps the burden of proof entirely. In round 3 PRO concedes that all statements about reality are dependent upon presumption, which would affirm my argument for the universality of Infinite Regress. He later tries to downplay this concession by arguing that some presumptions are necessary, however true it is nevertheless still a presumption and thus still subject to Infinite Regress. This alone would undermine PRO's entire case.3-5However prudent it would be to limit reasons to that which are mutually observable and necessary for debate, Infinite regress is not limited to such. Also why I would not recommend using Infinite Regress arguments to begin with, but so long as we are using infinite regress to dismiss Objective Morality we can use the same argument to dismiss Moral Relativism. Philosophers such as Emanuel Kant [1], And John Stuart Mills have argued for various objective moralities within reason[2]. None of the reasons offered for excluding Subjective Morality from Infinite Regress would not also apply to Objective Morality. Arguments for excluding just one beg of the special pleading fallacy[3]. Finally the plethora of academic philosophical literature speaks of Infinite Regress as an overarching epistemological problem not simply one peculiar to Objective Morality, but to most all knowledge [4]. Nowhere in academia do we see only subjective morality excluded from this problem. Opposition left this point unaddressed. IN CLOSINGTo refute my opponents argument I have only needed to show point #1, which I believe I have done, however the other 4 points should address any lingering doubt as to the untenability of his case. If this does not definitively refute my opponents argument I'm not sure what would. Vote for the better argument, thank you all. ~~Due to character limit sources will be cited in comments~~
The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

Allow me to address the crux of my opponents case, as he outlined it in this quote: “I contend that not only has my opposition not satisfied these burdens of proof, but his own argument states precisely why this is impossible. PRO states that "When dealing with the nature of how the world IS there are certain necessary presumptions" these presumptions constitute knowledge without justification, thus reaffirming the universality of Infinite regress[2]. If this is true and I contend that it is, then it cannot be true that Subjective Morality is exempt from Infinite Regress. In acknowledging this, PRO has sabotaged his case. ” There is a difference between a necessary and unnecessary presumption. Where our object is to find and acknowledge the most epistemically accurate position, we can only tolerate those presumptions that are necessary. I contend that the accuracy of human perception qualifies as a necessary presumption in both discourse and everyday life…. and so therefore it is reasonable and logically necessary that we take that which has been “physically verified as true” as in fact, being true. Conversely, it is not necessary to take that which has been given one reason, as being sufficiently warranted. The reason requires a reason, and so does that reason continuing ad infinitum. Denying each reason an objective self-sufficiency impedes neither discourse nor human operation…. for we can live and argue with pure coherency under subjective sufficiency. However, like I mentioned, this is not the case for human perception and logic, which requires a definitive basis that must be assumed correct. In summation, having Obama literally admit that he believes that lying is wrong by necessity satisfies the requisite proof, if it didn’t, and you questioned that Obama existed or that your hearing is real, you deny the predicates of discourse and reasoning itself. There is no such consequence when you deny the objective sufficiency of any one reason.
The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

SELF-REFUTING ARGUMENTIn my opening post I briefly explained that my intent here is to show that PRO's argument (Infinite Regress) against Objective Morality would also apply equally against his own preferred belief of Subjective Morality. In essence I am using his own argument against his own stated belief. So I remind my opposition that Infinite regress is not my argument, but his, and any criticism of Infinite Regress must be specific to Subjective Morality only. This has not been the case so far.UNFULFILLED BURDEN OF PROOF In my first argument I outlined two things intrinsic to demonstrating exclusion from infinite regress that PRO must demonstrate to validate his argument that subjective morality is exempt from Infinite Regress[1], I will state them again here:-There rationally exists knowledge or a justification of such knowledge, that does not itself require justification.-That the before mentioned knowledge is unique to Moral Relativism and not moral objectivity.I contend that not only has my opposition not satisfied these burdens of proof, but his own argument states precisely why this is impossible. PRO states that "When dealing with the nature of how the world IS there are certain necessary presumptions" these presumptions constitute knowledge without justification, thus reaffirming the universality of Infinite regress[2]. If this is true and I contend that it is, then it cannot be true that Subjective Morality is exempt from Infinite Regress. In acknowledging this, PRO has sabotaged his case.DISMISSALS NOT SPECIFIC TO SUBJECTIVE MORALITYIn all fairness PRO does give reasons, good ones even, why we should disregard Infinite Regression in this instance. However the problem for his position is that these reasons are not specific to subjective Morality and would also apply to Objective Morality, and indeed all knowledge. That Infinite regress will inevitably result in the questioning of perception[3] is inconsequential to the debate because again, it is not unique to Subjective Morality. So if we dismiss Infinite Regress in one instance because it questions perception, then we must dismiss it in all instances. Hence my opponent must either admit Infinite Regress is a problem that exists for no belief or that exists for all beliefs. Both of which would contradict his stated position. My opponent has painted himself into a corner.PUTTING THE ARGUMENT TO RESTMoreover demonstrating mere belief does not exclude Moral Relativism from Infinite Regression, nor is there any tenable argument that it should, and if that weren't enough any such demonstrations themselves fall into infinite regress. The wealth of philosophical literature out there is quite clear, Infinite Regression is an overarching epistemological problem and not one peculiar only to Objective Morality[4],[5]. ~~Due to character limit my sources will be cited in the comments~~
The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

I appreciate my opponent’s responses, but must point out where he is mistaken in his reasoning. I must fulfill 2 burdens in order to win this argument: 1. All I need to prove is that obama thinks that lying is wrong….I do not have to prove that his belief is actually a reasonable one. 2. It is possible to definitively prove that Obama thinks that lying is wrong. Burden 1 Moral relativism, in the form it has been presented by the affirmative case, and is to be addressed by the negative, is descriptive (Descriptive moral relativism is merely the positive or descriptive position that there exist, in fact, fundamental disagreements about the right course of action even when the same facts obtain and the same consequences seem likely to arise(1)). If we are to make a claim about what IS about the Universe, we may appeal to this universal mind-independent medium we call the physical world. If we are to make a claim about what OUGHT about the Universe, what may we appeal to that stands outside the subjectivity of the mind? Logic of course, because all states on what ought are dependent on reasons, not proof….a crucial distinction. If Obama says that he believes that lying is wrong, and we ask him his reasons for believing that lying is wrong, all we are extracting from him is whether or not his belief is reasonable….and not whether or not he does in fact believe it. Descriptive moral relativism is not concerned with the reasons behind a subjective belief, but that the belief exists and only applies to a certain subject. Hence, I am to prove the truth of “Obama believes that lying is wrong”… and there is no reason for me to ask why he does. Burden 2 When dealing with the nature of how the world IS there are certain necessary presumptions, the same presumptions that are necessary for argumentation, questioning of which would not only lead to solipsism, but incapacitate all canons of logic. My opponent’s decision to question such perceptions is ultimately argumentatively self-defeating, for he has cast doubt on the very faculties he used to form his doubt in the first place. This precludes such questions as, “How are you sure that your hearing of Obama saying he believes lying is wrong is real?”… or “How do you know Obama exists?” Therefore it is within reason to take as fact that which has been physically verified…and if Obama says that he believes that lying is wrong that suffices to prove that he believes that lying is wrong. Conclusion Since all I must prove is that Obama believes that lying is wrong,…and physical proof of this MUST be sufficient by virtue of the assumptions of logic and argumentation,….all that is necessary for me to prove the truth of the aforementioned statement would be for Obama to physically state that he believes that lying is wrong. Hence, the descriptive subjective statement is physically verified, and the regression ends. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

UNSTATED PREMISEPROs argument is composed of two hypotheticals, one of which he attempts to prove what someone (Obama in this case) believes. Why go through the effort of trying to prove a statement of genuine belief? Assuming belief is genuine how does this establish a basis for morality? In examining my opponent's argument you will find there is an unspoken premise upon which his arguments necessarily rests, this unspoken premise will become clear shortly, if it isn't already. My opponent states that only objective morality is concerned with right and wrong, or ought and ought not - that subjective morality is not. It's odd that this wasn't defined in the beginning of the debate, however let me point to the current dictionary definition of Morality:1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct [1] [8]Both Subjective and Objective morality are concerned with such moral judgements [2] they differ in the way they approach the question. Objective Morality holds that right and wrong can be objectively known and that right and wrong apply universally to all people under similar circumstances [3], and subjective morality holds that the difference between right and wrong rests upon personal conviction and/or the cultural mores of the time [2]. So this explains why my opponent is trying to prove genuine belief. In PRO's view the basis of morality can be established as true by showing mere belief. UNSTATED PREMISE SUBJECT TO INFINITE REGRESSWhat is the reason for believing that we may prove the veracity of moral relativism by showing genuine belief? What reason do you have to believe one supports the other? What reason do you have to support the answer to my last question? And what reason do you have to support the answer to that question? [Repeat Last question Indefinitely...]The argument for moral relativity is thus reduced to an Infinite Regression of reasons. As for the final nail in the coffin: Not only would proving "Obama said that lying is wrong" not establish a basis for morality, but your proof itself is subject to infinite regress. How do you know Obama said this? How do you know that you heard it correctly? And how do you know that? etc...UNIVERSALITY OF INFINITE REGRESSThere is a wealth of philosophical literature on infinite regress, and you will find no sources anywhere that exempt exclusively subjective morality from this epistemological problem. Rather what you will find is that it is a problem with all knowledge [4][5][7], as all knowledge requires justification. Knowledge without justification is falsely called so. Arguments for dismissing infinite regress as a useful argument, likewise would apply equally across the board [6]. ~~Due to character limit, my sources will be cited in the comments~~
The infinite regress problem exists in objective morality only

In order to demonstrate the truth of the affirmative case, I will present 2 moral hypotheticals: 1. Lying is wrong. 2. According to Obama, Lying is wrong. 1) Our duty as skeptics is to investigate the truth of both propositions. Is it true that lying is wrong? Is it true that Obama says that lying is wrong? The subject to whom the statement applies must be established in the statement itself, for we are judging the truth of that ethical statement in and of itself. A statement like “lying is wrong” neglects to mention to whom lying may be wrong, so is therefore an unrestricted objective claim…. which, as previously mentioned, would continue ad infinitum in a search for reasons and warrant (why is lying wrong? Because it’s unfair to others. Why is it wrong to be unfair? Because you would not will that others be unfair to you. Why does it matter that I would not will that? Because it means you’re being inconsistent. Why is it wrong to be inconsistent? ……. .et cetera, continuing indefinitely). This much, my opponent and I agree on. Objective ethical statements lead to infinity when attempting to justify them. Where we depart, as is the subject of this exchange, is whether or not the same problem will occur under a subjective ethical claim that is subjective in and of itself. 2) The statement “according to Obama, Lying is wrong” is subjective in and of itself. It has a restriction on to whom the claim applies, where the lack thereof would purport unbounded applicability, or objectivity. So, we must ask ourselves is it possible to prove it true that Obama says that lying is wrong? Of course it is. The way to concretely prove that Obama says that lying is wrong is for him to literally admit that he believes that lying is wrong. The fundamental difference between the objective and subjective statement is that in order to prove the truth of the objective statement, you must find why an action OUGHT or OUGHT NOT to occur…. whereas all the subjective statement demands is that you demonstrate that the statement is factually correct. For this reason, the objective statement will NEVER be warranted, because the reasons will lead you to infinity, a meaningless continuum. The truth of the subjective statement on the other hand is not concerned with whether lying ought to be wrong,…but that the individual in question does believe that lying is wrong. For this reason, there is no infinite regress in subjective morality.