BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People with very low IQ's should not be allowed to vote.

My opponent makes some valid points about the definition of "retard" and the exact number of retards in the United States. However, in my opening argument I merely stated that "most" retards are racist Republican voters, and vice-versa. Furthermore, under my propsal, regardless of a retard's attitude towards members of ethnic minority communities, he or she will be allowed to vote for whichever candidate they choose, just so long as they can pass a simple IQ test - a test that anybody with an IQ of 90 or above should be able to pass. Just to reiterate the evidence I provided in the opening round, despite my opponents assertion to the contrary, did indeed prove that retards can only understand simplistic political ideologies that appeal to base human prejudices. Examples of these may be the Republican mantras that "blacks and Hispanics are responsible for most crime"; "Christianity is under attack from Muslim extremists" and "illegal immigrants are taking your jobs". These myths bandied about by Republican politicians are duly challenged by Democrats with statistics and facts but retards are not intellectually capable of digesting this information and that's why they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Thank you.
People with very low IQ's should not be allowed to vote.

Recent scientific research has conclusively proved that most retards are racists who vote Republican and, similarly, most Republican voters are racist retards. [1] This will come as no surprise to you, I'm sure. After all, how else could a frothing half-wit like George "Dubya" Bush be elected President of the United States of America? And how else would blatantly racist Republican representatives such as Loy "If slavery were so God-awful, why didn't Jesus or Paul condemn it?" Mauch get elected? [2] The science behind this discovery is based on the fact that bigoted right-wing ideologies appeal to people who lack the cognitive ability to comprehend complex notions (i.e. retards). As Dr. Brian Nosek explains, "ideologies get rid of the messiness and impose a simple solution. So, it may not be surprising that people with less cognitive capacity will be attracted to simplifying ideologies." [1] That's also why so many right-wing mental cases like Christian fundamentalists reject the theory of evolution and believe some deity created the universe by magic. I hereby submit that voters with every low IQ's are incapable of disseminating fact from fiction, myths from reality or right-wing propaganda from the truth. In many democracies around the world retards are, quite rightly, disenfranchised: New Jersey"s constitution, for example, clearly states that an "idiot or insane person" is forbidden from voting. [3] Here is the standard IQ scale: Over 140 - Genius or almost genius 120 - 140 - Very superior intelligence 110 - 119 - Superior intelligence 90 - 109 - Average or normal intelligence 80 - 89 - Dullness 70 - 79 - Borderline deficiency in intelligence Under 70 - Feeble-mindedness It should be easy enough to ask people to complete a simple IQ test before they cast their votes and those who score less than 90 should be turned away. Thank you. P.S. I have made it impossible for any retards to accept this debnate. [1] http://www.psychologytoday.com... [2] http://www.arktimes.com... [3] http://www.nytimes.com...
Illegal aliens should not be given American citizenship at all

Hello, I want to state my position that illegal aliens (both undocumented and those that overstayed their visas) should not be given American citizenship at all. Anyone can participate except lannan13 (Bud, I like you but I want to try debating this with a new participant). RULES: Here's the debate structure: ROUND 2 - Opening points ROUND 3 - Rebuttal of each other's opening points ROUND 4 - Defending your opening points from the rebuttals & closing statements You may not add a new argument past ROUND 3. You may not forfeit. It would be better if you are running out of time, post few paragraphs that summarizes what you want to say. You may not use any writing texts like Google Docs besides the ones from this site. Failure to follow the rules is an automatic loss.
No God(s).

First, let me inform everyone that my opponent has no resolution. Secondly, I will pick off each of his premises to show violations. Mathematical errors: 1. 4/0 is not infinity. 4/0 is 0. You cannot divide a number into 0 parts, so each 0 group would have 0 numbers in it. This is basic mathematics that children learn in elementary school. 2. I'm hoping my opponent is referring to the conservation of energy. 3. Space doesn't possess energy. 4. Space itself is limitless, but there is a limit to the observable universe. 5. If the world is finite, how can there not be a start and an end? This is a clear contradiction of his premise 3. Also, *entropy*. Of course space (past the outer limits of our universe) is timeless as there is no gravity where there is no mass. My opponent needs to show how a system with a beginning and an end can not be organized (he also needs to describe how this doesn't contradict everything else he is saying). Also, infinity +2 is not an equation. Infinity is a property a set of numbers can possess, it is not a number itself. 6. Ok.... point? 7. Time is a measurement. So is length. So is width. Dimensions are measurements. I really have to ask my opponent here how he gets his conclusion. He just really...states it... with nothing to back him. How can there not be more than 3 dimensions or less than 3 dimensions? Here is a nice educational article my opponent can look at describing some other dimensions: http://www.pbs.org... 8. No. 9. Roy Kerr + Einstein's relativity. Time theory B. Thank you. Gravity, is, in short, a time warp. Space and time are directly linked - so henceforth, we will call it space-time. The more massive an object in space, the slower time travels for that object (and those pulled in to it). Picture a blanket held by two individuals perfectly taught. Now, if someone where to throw a ball into the blanket, it would dip the blanket (dipping space-time) and creating slowed down time for the object. So mass is directly linked to time. You and I experience time differently because our masses are different as well (though very very very minuscule differences because we aren't that different in mass -- compare a marble to the sun, for example - that would be a time change). Time is not like an arrow, as Newton would have guessed it (Newton's laws can not account for everything, that is why we have relativity). Time is relative. With relativity came the mathematician Roy Kerr and his work on black holes as time warps. (http://www.physics.fsu.edu...) 10. My opponent doesn't finish his premise.... I don't know where he's going with this. My opponent has no conclusion. Without a conclusion, he has no real position. He has been negated. Regards, Vi
God Probably Exists

1) KCA I justified the first premise as “rationally intuitive” and con calls me out for the appeal to intuition fallacy. I ask you the reader if such a grasp of reality is intuitive or not. Do objects appear from nothing? Con also ignores the fact that the first principle is a primary accepted law of science. The only seemingly real rebuttal con has for this premise is to claim that “the directionality of time is a major requirement for causality [4], since time is required for any event to coherently ‘happen’. Outside the universe, there is no time directionality, thus causality is impossible. ” As mentioned in my last round, this is entirely semantic. In the scientific community there is overwhelming consensus that the Universe had a definite beginning. This is in spite of our inability to comprehend without time, science accepts the universe had a beginning, or in other words, “began to exist. (1) You will notice that con has not addressed the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community on this point. The Universe is accepted to have had a beginning and thus a cause. As such this argument stands. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The Universe began to exist. The Universe has a cause. This makes the existence of God probable and affirms the resolution. On this point alone people should vote pro. R2) Fine tuning argument Con rightly claims that this “argument hinges on two ideas: (1) the universe’s cosmological constants are such that any minuscule variation in them would result in life not being formed, and (2) physical necessity and chance are not explanations for this. ” My arguments here are largely ignored. 1 Stands firmly. Con argues that I did not reject chance on sound notions stating “The improbability is only if there are two universes fine tuned for life. Consider Theodore Drange’s reductio ad absurdum--if I toss a pack of 52 cards sideways, I would get a horizontal arrangement of cards. The probability of me getting that precise order is 1:10^64, but me getting that order isn’t improbable by chance. ” It is in fact improbable by chance. What I think con meant to say was impossible. He is right is would not be impossible. Rather, it is improbably. Recall the resolution is that God “probably” exists. For the fine tuning of the Universe to happen is infinitely more unlikely than even the 52 card example con gives. It is clear that chance is not a likely cause of fine tuning and thus my conclusion that God exists is much more probably than the chance con is implying. In fact if that is reasonable an example of what is “probably” by cons standards then even just the slim chance of God existing would be sufficient to affirm the resolution. Thus this argument stands sufficiently to affirm that “God probably exists. ” R3) Moral argument Con largely ignores this argument only stating he thinks it a bare assertion. It seems clear to me. P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. P2) Objective moral values do exist. C) Therefore God. Conclusion: Thank you to my opponent for this debate. It has been fascinating. It is clear as we come to the end of this debate that God probably exists.
God Probably Exists

For fairness, I am passing this round. Let the revised round structure be:R1) Pro's Case (done)R2) Con's Case, Pro waives (done)R3) Con waives, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR4) Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and SummarizesR5) Con defends Con's Case and Summarizes, Pro waivesAdditionally, Kasmic and I have agreed to waive Rule 2 -- citations/endnotes *do not* need to be within the text of the debate.
God Probably Exists

PrefaceIt has been a while since I last debated this seriously. For those who don't know, this has been my favorite topic for awhile. I hope for an interesting and truly stellar discourse. The debate shall have 72 hours to post each argument, with 10,000 characters per argument, and 5 rounds. Additionally, a minimum Elo of 2,500 is required to vote. I have chosen Kasmic to accept this debate, and I am honored to have such a distinguished debater as my opponent. Full TopicGod probably exists. TermsThe definitions below are influenced by or excerpted from Wikipedia, the Oxford Dictionary, and the American Heritage Dictionary. If applicants wish, they can apply to change their definition to a God of their conception, though I do not guarantee a change, and changes cannot be made without my permission. God - 'the Supreme Being ... includ[ing] attributes of omnipotence, omniscience, intelligence, and eternal and necessary existence ... the creator of the [contingent] universe'Probably - 'most likely'Exist - 'have objective reality or being'I also define Universe as 'the totality of existence ... all of space and time.'Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling or deconstruction semantics6. No "kritiks" of the topic (i.e. arguments that challenge an assumption in the resolution)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate9. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waivesThanks......again to Kasmic; I am looking forward to a truly great discourse!
Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

"In a sense we don't decide upon our partners, our brains do. " This is what my opponent says. However, he fails to recognize that we ARE our brains. More relevant to the topic, all emotions happen in the brain, so happening in the brain does not prevent love from being emotional - in fact, it is a requirement for being emotional. My opponent also claims we're not in control of who we love, but we're not really in control of any of our emotions. We don't decide when we want to be happy and when we want to be sad or upset. More often than not, we are not in control of our when we feel what emotions toward whom. I believe my argument still stands, and I hope I have shown you all this.
Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

Love isn't emotional in the sense that it is arbitrary. In a sense we don't decide upon our partners, our brains do. We could 'love' someone and simultaneously 'lust' after another person and 'attachment' to another. We aren't in control of whom we 'love' due to chemistry. Due to chemistry, we could 'love' anyone, regardless of not finding them attractive or even bearable to be in a room with.
Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

My opponent has done nothing to refute my argument, and he has made no further points toward attempting to affirm the resolution. His own "arguments," most of which are contained in large quotes we can only assume are from the source he referenced in R1, do nothing to show that love isn't emotional - in fact, once again, they show that love is indeed emotional. Toward the end of R2 he lists many strong feelings - emotions - that are very involved with the feeling of love. The resolution remains negated. I give the floor once again to my opponent.
Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

Well these brain systems can be tricky. Having sex, can drive up dopamine in the brain and push you over the threshold toward falling in love. And with orgasm, you experience a flood of oxytocin and vasopressin--giving you feelings of attachment. "Casual sex isn't always casual", "it can trigger a host of powerful feelings." In fact, men and women often engage in "hooking up" to unconsciously trigger these feelings of romance and attachment. What happens when you fall in love? It begins when someone takes on "special meaning." "The world has a new center," "then you focus on him or her. You beloved's car is different from every other car in the parking lot, for example. People can list what they don't like about their sweetheart, but they sweep these things aside and focus on what they adore. Intense energy, elation, mood swings, emotional dependence, separation anxiety, possessiveness, a pounding heart and craving are all central to this madness. But most important is obsessive thinking."
Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

May it be a good debate. I would like to offer up some definitions first. D1. Emotional: relating to the emotions. [1] D2. Emotion: a strong feeling, such as joy or anger. [2] It's a very strange thing my opponent has done. He claims in the resolution that love does not relate to the emotions, but in his argument backing this up he lists three different emotions, all of which he proceeds to relate to love. Rather than show us that love is not emotional, he's actually proven that it is! My opponent makes another claim in the resolution as well - that love is mere chemistry. I do not disagree on this issue. All human emotions, including love and those relating to it, are the product of chemistry within the brain. This does not stop them from being emotions. Love is very much emotional. The emotions relating to love are many - lust, attraction, attachment, happiness, jealousy, and likely others as well. My opponent has set up a false dichotomy between being emotional and being governed by chemistry. He has wrongly discounted the possibility that something can be both governed by chemistry and emotional at the same time, even though he himself explained love's emotional nature to us in his first round. By negating one of the resolution's claims, that love is not emotional, I have negated the resolution. Good luck to my opponent. Sources [1] . http://www.askoxford.com... [2] . http://www.askoxford.com...
Love isn't emotional. It is mere chemistry.

There are three core brain systems for "love:" 1. Lust: the sex drive; 2. Attraction: early stage of intense romantic love; 3. attachment: deep feelings of union. Love can start off with any of these three feelings. Some people have sex with someone new and then fall in love. Some fall in love first, then have sex. Some feel a deep feeling of attachment to another, which then turns into romance and the sex drive. But the sex drive evolved to initiate mating with a range of partners; romantic love evolved to focus one's mating energy on one partner at a time; and attachment evolved to enable us to form a bond and rear children. Reference: http://www.helenfisher.com...
sandawana money oil dr pinto +27825105553

sandawana oil and skin for luck dr pinto +27825105553 Sandawana oil and skin helps you to boost your business and get much money and When you lose of same thing such as lovers, money, jobs, cars,houses,tenders,contracts, friends,marriages and divorce problems,cheating on you,financial debits and skin lightening-Bad performance at school. struck problems ,spiritual power oil, .sandawana oil for business,sandawana oil to be famous,lottery,casino,gambling sandawana oil -Bad memories, Stress, Bad dreams, or other related items, and are you in a desperate life ,sandawana oil and skin can do the best to bring back a good life to you forever.
Should Minimum Wage Be Raised

Minimum Wage should not be raised simply because I believe that one should be qualified to have a high standard of minimum wage. What do I mean by qualified? Well it should be for families on low-income housing, drug-tested, and also on a government funded program. Those are the ones that deserve the Minimum wage to be raised. Now you if you want it raised for the entire country, that makes no sense. Especially those with fashionable lifestyles who don't even know what being broke ever was.
Should Minimum Wage Be Raised

Honestly, so many people are going bankrupt and are losing their houses with their families along with them, if we raise minimum wage then the money will be equal, it doesn't have to skyrocket, just maybe by like $1.5 - 2.0 then people would be in a more happy mood. you also have to think who this money is going to, for example teachers get paid minimum wage and they have to teach our future geniuses and they should get paid more, or even your own family, how would you like being kicked out of your own house then whatever you use to argue against me right now would effect you?
The Lawyer Paradox can be resolved as follows

The Paradox: A teaches B in rhetoric and the law, payment to be given when B wins his first case. B finishes his teachings and but never takes a case, instead becoming a transactional lawyer. A gets upset and sues B for his payment. A argues: If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him. If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me. Contrariwise, B argues: If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won. If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him. Resolution: To begin with, we need to distinguish between two things: the question of who should get the money, and the answer to the paradox. These are not the same thing. The paradox results from the fact that two seemingly logical arguments can be made that reach opposite conclusions. In order to resolve the paradox it's enough to show that these arguments are not actually logical. However, if neither side makes a rational case, it's still possible to argue that one side should get the money anyway, so these are independent questions. The answer to the paradox is that neither A nor B make rational cases, because their arguments are internally inconsistent. In one instance, A takes for granted that the outcome of the trial being conducted is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case" which is itself relevant to who should win, and in the next instance, he assumes it is relevant. B does exactly the same thing, but in reverse. A1: "If I win, then B must pay me for teaching him." This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant. If it were relevant, then clearly B owes A nothing as he hasn't one his first case yet, since his first case is still in process. A2: "If I lose, then B has won, and must still pay me." This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case". B1: "If I win, then I do not need to pay A, for I have won." This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is irrelevant to whether or not "B won his first case". B2: "If I lose, then I have not won my first case, and need not pay him." This only makes sense if the outcome of the trial is relevant to whether or not "B won his first case". Now, in order to decide who should get the money, you just need to decide whether or not the outcome of the trial should be relevant to whether or not B "won his first case". If you decide it's relevant, then A should win, because there's no way for B to win without undermining his own case if the outcome is relevant. If it's not relevant, then B should win, because no matter what the outcome of the trial is, B did not "win his first case" yet. There's no correct answer, but recall that we don't need to decide who should get the money to resolve the paradox.
gay marriage

If you consider that 99 out of 100 straight couples who marry are going to have children, it's a pretty good probability on which to ascertain heterosexual marriage's sanctity for the sake of reproduction.If you consider that 0 out of 100 gay couples are going to have children, between themselves and without wasting the life of a woman elsewhere (or the body of their lesbian partner if they are female), there is a clear reason to prohibit it if we base marriage on probability of having a baby.
For light, black isn't a color

Rebuttals"I understand your concept... but I see no need for a debate. I'm simply stating the fact that... White, black, gray, and pink are not colors. They do not exist in the color spectrum of light. Colors are as you said (Red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet). The combination of all colors are seen as white. White is not a color because it cannot exist on its own. Black is not a color because it's the absent of colors. Not white light. Pink is not a color because it does not exist in the light spectrum. As mentioned before, red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet make up the color spectrum of light. Pink is made by adding white to red. Just as gray is not in the color spectrum of light. It's created by adding white to black. Brown also can be considered a non-color."However, speaking from the concept of colors, even if white, grey, etc. requires a combination of colors, doesn't mean that they aren't colors. Also, I automatically win; You, my opponent, have conceded. It doesn't matter whether or not you win over me the debate about white, grey, etc. (Other than black) seeing as that is not the topic being discussed here.