BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Communism vs. Capitalism (this is a PHILOSOPHY debate)

Well, this is a theoretical debate, just for fun, so there won't be any numbers or anything, I just want to put that out there. I also want to say, I will only provide sources if you ask for them because otherwise it is just too much of a hassle, and it wears on my buzz. :) Anyway, I believe that communism in theory, is better than capititalism since communism is an utopia dreamt up by Karl Marx. Communism makes everybody equal, with communism, nobody really owns anything, everybody has everything, everybody has a house, everybody has food, everybody gets an education, and everybody is equal. There will be significantly less crime since there isn't really anything that anybody has that you don't have, and so you shouldn't really go through a lot of trouble (beating up someone, killing someone, threatning someone) to get it. I would like to point out, that even though this is an utopia, it will never work since there has to be a firm and fair government, and that rarely ever happens since humans are generally very evil, but in theory, if people were nice and didn't try to take everything for themselves, communism is an utopia.
Saying PRO/CON should win before the final round is stupid

That's hardly the case. A person that makes A claim must have warrants to back up the claim. As I am not making any claim on the resolutional level, I do not have that level of burden - however, PRO does: he wrote the statement. The only possible case where it can be a "tie" is if both of us are utterly horrible OR if I had not made the argument of BoP. Future statistics have not been presented, so they cannot be used to claim to meet BoP.
Saying PRO/CON should win before the final round is stupid

If I said "A UFO landed in your backyard", I would have to prove that it did and you would have to prove that it didn't. If neither of us were able to, it would be a tie. There are three options on these debates, not two. Proof of an opinion claim can't be given w/o statistics of the affected population. Because, I'm pretty sure that, no surveys have been taken for this topic for the people on this site, I will rely on the future statistics provided by the voting results. There is my pro
Saying PRO/CON should win before the final round is stupid

"You are not taking the "Not PRO" side you are taking the "CON" side." The resolution is a claim; one that the instigator has put forth as truth. If my opponent's resolution was "A UFO landed in my backyard", he'd have to show that his side is true. I don't need to show that a UFO DIDN'T land in his backyard, as I'm not the one framing the resolution. I'm not even arguing as CON, I'm arguing as the contender. Burden of proof still holds true. No proof is being given. Ergo I win.
Saying PRO/CON should win before the final round is stupid

Burden of Proof. As long as PRO fails to prove the resolution true you automatically vote CON because I'm not claiming anything. "1) It's unprofessional to say it early and looks stupid." > Prove it's unprofessional to everyone. > Prove it looks stupid to everyone. "2) It distracts from the main topic at hand." > Prove it distracts from the main topic at hand for everyone. "3) It's annoying." > Prove it's annoying for everyone. I await something substantive to refute.
Saying PRO/CON should win before the final round is stupid

To keep the title short here is my actual proposed argument. Saying anything along the lines of "Pro/Con wins" or "You should vote for Pro/Con" before the end of the round should be an automatic forfeiture or point loss. Arguments: 1) It's unprofessional to say it early and looks stupid. 2) It distracts from the main topic at hand. 3) It's annoying. It should be just like a trial. Stay with the facts until the closing argument, then convince people to vote for you. Enjoy!
RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

I apologize for that. Bearing in mind that it is ascientific theory as opposed to ahypothesis, the Big Bang idea is called a theory because it has met all challenges and withstood them, fits all evidence and explains the phenomenon in question quite easily. It is as real as anything can be. As for all the religious folk out there who believe that God alone created the universe, I completely respect you. And I agree with you. However I believe that God made the big band happen one way or another. Lets not get too off track however. I don't want to start debating about how the Big Bang happened, only whether or not it happened at all. (I obviously believe it did). http://www.youtube.com...
RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

There is no misunderstanding of your point about galaxies expanding. My point was that this fact does not conclusively prove that the universe started out as a point (which you claimed earlier, through the video, but now deny). Also, nobody is claiming that the Big Bang is the same as Evolution, as you7 imply in your comment. My point was very obviously an analogy of two theories that are similar in structure - that is, they are supported by the same kinds of evidence. You have failed to refute ANY of my points, all of which still stand. I have refuted ALL of your points. The Big Band Theory cannot be proven.
RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

Up until 1924, all scientists believed that the universe was static, and infinite. In other words, they believed that the universe was infinite, and that it has always been here, and that it always will be. Even Einstein's calculations supported this theory. Also, scientist in that time believed that the universe only consisted of one galaxy, (Milky Way) and that the other lights out in space were only stars and nebula's. However, in 1929 Edwin Hubbleinvented the Hooker telescope. Because all other telescopes during that time were not very good at that time, this was a big invention. This telescope also had a 100 inch diameter(bigger than any telescopes at that time as well). Anyhow, this telescope could see things that scientists had not known even existed before. When Hubble looked though the telescope, he saw that there were in fact other galaxies in the universe.( Later he discovered there were billions of other galaxies). This of course changed everything in the astronomers community. It was not until the end of that year that he started making recordings of the outside galaxies. After months of studies, he noticed that all the galaxies were actually moving away from each other at a rate of 71 kilometers per second. There are billions of galaxies in the universe, as stated before. Our milky way is surrounded in all directions by millions of them. Therefore if space was not expanding, it would be impossible for any galaxy(including our own) to move away from one another. For example, if I(galaxy) were to go to a music concert, and was surrounded in every single direction by a huge crowd(other galaxies), I could move away from some people, however that would only bring me closer to the people on the other side of me.However if the room that me(Galaxy) and the huge crowd(Other Galaxies) were in started to expand in all directions(obviously not possible, this is just an analogy to help you understand), the floor of the building would get bigger, inevitably pulling each person away from the next. Continue doing this for 13 billion years, and you will have a room so big that each person(galaxy) whom used to be in the crowd would now be millions of light years away from each other.The big bang works in exactly the same way. http://www.youtube.com..."The theory of evolution [or the Big Bang] does not say THAT evolution [or the Big Bang] happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution [or the Big Bang] happens.To many people who haven't studied evolution [or the Big Bang], the "theory of evolution"[or "the Theory of the Big Bang] simply says that evolution [or the Big Bang] has happened." By saying this I did not imply that I do not believe the Big Bang happened. I merely stated that most people make judgments about things they know nothing about. I am sorry if you had trouble understanding.--It has been a pleasure--JDoG
RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

My understanding of your argument is that because the Big Bang is a Theory, it is therefore fact.Let's examine some statements that you have made previously, even though they didn't actually pertain to this argument. In round two you mistook this debate for a different one and gave a very nice dissertation on the difference between "Theory" and "Fact," thinking that it was your evolution debate. Let's examine some things that you said."A scientific theory is quite different from a fact. A theory doesn't say THAT something happens, but attempts to explain HOW something happens.""Can a theory ever be proven? No.""NO SCIENTIFIC THEORY CAN BE PROVEN!" "The theory of evolution [or the Big Bang] does not say THAT evolution [or the Big Bang] happens - that much is accepted as fact by almost all scientists - but attempts to explain HOW evolution [or the Big Bang] happens.To many people who haven't studied evolution [or the Big Bang], the "theory of evolution"[or "the Theory of the Big Bang] simply says that evolution [or the Big Bang] has happened." I couldn't agree with you more. And yet your point on a completely parallel subject [the Big Bang] is that since the theory exists, it MUST then be a true fact and therefore proven. You are deluded.
RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

"Your YouTube guy states that "The only logical explanation is that there was one massive explosion..." which is totally false. There could exist the logical explanation that God is blowing up the balloon. This does not prove the Big Bang's occurence." (spelled OCCURRENCE wrong FYI)So you are trying to argue that God blew up a giant balloon and that that is a more logical explanation than the big bang?I might be one of few, however I find that hardly plausible."I'm a little confused as to your thesis here. Your title states that "The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec." You later state that you believe that God made the "Big Band" (I think you meant the "Big Bang"), in which case it would logically followed that God created the universe which is contrary to your own thesis." I do not think that God created the universe, I simply believe that he created the big bang, which in turn led to the creation of the universe. I apologize if you had difficulties understanding my position. "Before I even start: As the challenger AND the one claiming something that about 144 million Americans [1] don't believe, you have the entire BoP. And as such you cannot resort to claiming that the Big Bang is a theory that couldhave happened, you have to prove that it happened. And I think that it will be difficult when it is a) not observable and b) not repeatable. "It is as real as anything can be" is not a valid conclusion to a theory."My friend, do you know exactly what a theory is? It seems as though many people such as yourself seem confused as to what it stands for. the·o·ry A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain somethingA theory is something that comes only after a fact is discovered. A theory is used to explain WHY that fact happens, not prove the fact. The fact itself has already been proven. For example, the THEORY of evolution, or natural selection. Evolution is a fact. (Though some people may refuse to accept it). The THEORY of evolution is what explains how evolution its self works.Since it is called the big bang THEORY, it is inevitably a fact.
RESOLVED: The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec.

Before I even start: As the challenger AND the one claiming something that about 144 million Americans [1] don't believe, you have the entire BoP. And as such you cannot resort to claiming that the Big Bang is a theory that could have happened, you have to prove that it happened. And I think that it will be difficult when it is a) not observable and b) not repeatable. "It is as real as anything can be" is not a valid conclusion to a theory.I'm a little confused as to your thesis here. Your title states that "The Big Bang Created the Universe, as opposed to God, higher power ec." You later state that you believe that God made the "Big Band" (I think you meant the "Big Bang"), in which case it would logically followed that God created the universe which is contrary to your own thesis. There is a huge difference between the Big Bang "Happening" (Round 3), the Big Bang "Creating the Universe" (Round 1), and the Big Bang creating the universe "As opposed to God...".You call this YouTube video to the witness stand, made by some guy. This guy has three points:1. The universe is expanding, so it must have started out as a point which means that the Big Band happened.Let's suppose I have a baloon. And, when it is deflated, I put a bunch of little star stickers on it. You probably know where this is going. If I inflate the ballon, with stars, when you aren't looking, and then I let you in the room and allow you to watch while I continue to inflate it, you will see all the little stars getting further and further apart. You say, "Wow! Look at them getting further and further apart! If I rewind time, they will get closer and closer to a point. There must have been a huge explosion that caused all this!"Your YouTube guy states that "The only logical explanation is that there was one massive explosion..." which is totally false. There could exist the logical explanation that God is blowing up the baloon. This does not prove the Big Bang's occurence. 2. There is isotropic radiation found all over the place, which means that the Big Bang happened.You YouTube guy doesn't even explain this point. He just says that there is isotropic radiation, and that this means the Big Bang happened. Oh, and it's like a jigsaw puzzle. Somehow.3. The huge abundance of lighter elements means that all matter started out very hot which means that the Big Bang happened.There couldn't possibly exist the plausible explanation of God creating the elements in their current proportions.All that you effectivley prove is the the Big Bang COULD have happened, and that if it did it would explain some things that we see today, but you do absolutely nothing about actually showing that it did or refuting alternative possibilities.Sources1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

5 I do not think someone makes the decision to let an emotion take control of them. Once it starts, it is not easily stopped and the person may just give themselves up to the emotion because they do not know what else to do. 6 No, she was angry because of what her husband did to her. Her anger is what caused her to want to enact revenge, which is the definition of anger according to Aristotle. 8 You end up insane either way you word it, so I believe they are the same. Her anger drove her to irrationally kill her children in a fit of insanity she was beyond her control 9 She most likely would not have killed her children if she was not as angry at her husband as she was. That is not an excuse, that is the reason for her behavior. Again, she was blinded by rage from the start. Even though it seems as though she is talking it over with herself and weighing the pros and cons, she was in a weakened mental state from the start. 10 It was an independent decision clouded by rage and anger. She was not fully aware of her actions at the time.
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

5. Anger had taken over because it is a powerful emotion that must not be tempered with. Her initial decision was to let it take over, consciously she knew what she was doing, and what she was doing was wrong. 6. The decision to enact revenge on her husband was what influenced anger and this mood. Revenge altered Medea's mood, but it did not physically make her do anything. No one but herself could make up her mind to do such a thing, then actually do it. 8. Driving someone insane and being insane is not the same thing. Aside from that, her ego was what guided her mentality into physically taking action. Id goes hand-in-hand with ego. 9.Blame is just an excuse. Blaming actions on emotions or thoughts is what Medea had done, it means nothing and claims to nothing. 10. Responsibility is when someone makes an independent decision, other influences can change and alter the decision, but other influences do not matter when the deed is done. Medea is to be responsible for her actions because it was an independent decision, clearly very personal.
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

5 She was obviously a weak-minded person for ever letting herself think about killing her own children. So if she was weak-minded then the anger could have easily taken control of her rationality and ultimately drive her to kill her children. 6 The premeditation was her wanting to get back at her husband for causing her pain. The choice to kill her children was after she made the decision to enact revenge on her husband so the killing itself was not premeditated, it was the act of her premeditation. 7 Just because she was going back and forth with her decision-making does not mean she was sane or tranquil. It sounded like she was pretty frantic the whole time and she was deliberating whether or not to kill her children, how sane is that? 8 If her "id" drove her insane then she was insane when she killed her children which means that she is not responsible for her actions.
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

4. What you are saying is right, anger is a danger when it is acted upon. In this scenario it was acted upon, because Medea herself recognized that anger is the master of her plans. She herself stated anger to be "the source of the greatest troubles for humankind." She herself understood that what she was about to do in that moment was wrong, and claimed anger as a main driving source. 5. The emotions inside of Medea was again, driven by anger. Anger was responsible, but she was responsible for letting that emotion take over her. She was responsible for physically murdering her children because anger is just an emotion; This emotion is unconsciously controlling, but action is consciously done. 6. Someone cannot be as cruel as to decide one day she will murder her own children. She did this all in one day, but the definition of murder we agreed upon, included premeditated planning. Medea could have thought it over so many times, taking this as the easiest way to claim revenge and satisfying her own pain. She was selfish and inhumane. 7. Medea's agony tainted her soul and image, beyond life itself. She was not in the right state of mind. However, Medea's unconscious and conscious mind (ego and Id) have a role in all of this, as she is going back and forth mentally, seeing the right and wrong in all of this. So, she was in a way, sane and tranquil when deciding all of this mentally. 8. Her "ego" caused her to take action, her "id" simply drove her insane. Each play a part separately and accordingly so. 9. The murder was done by Medea's hand, she is responsible for acting upon her blinded emotions to do such a terrible thing.
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

1. I agree with the definition of murder explained in premise two. 2. I agree with the definition of a crime as it is described in premise three. 3. Anger and revenge are both themes of this story and they are what led Madea to kill her children. 4. I agree that anger is a menace to humankind but only when acted upon. There are instances when people get angry and do not act on their anger therefore it is not a menace in that scenario. Anger is an emotion and only when people express that emotion verbally or physically is it a menace to humankind. Anger alone is harmless unless it is acted upon. 5. Madea's reaction was a spur of the moment reaction. The emotions inside of her caused her to act irrationally and, in turn, kill her children. 6. Madea did not plan this beforehand, it was a rapid decision that she had to make in a small window of time causing her to listen to her emotions rather than her head. 7. The anger blinded her, in other words, Madea saw red and was unaware of her actions. 8. Therefore, Madea was not responsible of her actions. Non-Controversial Premises Premises 1, 2, and 3 are non-controversial premises. Premises 1 and 2 are agreeing with the definitions put in place by my opponent. Premise 3 is also agreeing with what was stated by my opponent. Controversial Premises Premises 4, 5, 6, 7 are all controversial. Premise 4 is controversial because my opponent may disagree with me because I am referencing outside ideas other than the ideas of the text we are referring to. Premise 5 is controversial because I am saying that Madea's emotions got the better of her. Premise 6 is controversial because my opponent may view that claim as being obsolete or unimportant to the story. Premise 7 is controversial because I am basiclaly saying that Madea was completely taken over by her anger and was unaware of her actions at the time.
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

1. Both parties involved need to reach an agreement and understanding of what Medea had done, the moral of her story. Murder is a crime, and those who commit murder intentionally, are never considered innocent. 2. Murder is the killing of one human being by another, with premeditation. 3. A crime is an action/activity that is considered to be evil, shameful, or wrong; It is punishable and it is against humanity. 4. Anger and revenge are two big themes, driving factors, in Medea"s story. 5. We shall agree that anger is the greatest menace to humankind. 6. It"s true that every action has a drive, a cause or response. In this case, Medea responded to her hurt feelings by murdering her own children for the intention of paining her husband. 7. Committing to doing something makes one responsible for committing and going through with it. The responsibility weighs on far before, where actions are premeditated and purposed to cause harm. 8. Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions. Non-controversial premises: Premise 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are non-controversial. Premise 1 is stating what grounds we agree on and understand. Premise 2 and 3 are definitions or murder and crime. Premise 4 is stating the theme understood of Medea"s story. Premise 5 is an agreement by both parties, and it is a statement "Medea" mentioned in the Aristotle & Seneca text instructor Nolan assigned to us in class (Medea Euripides Article). Controversial Premises: Premises 6, and 7 are controversial: 6. Medea could have responded to her hurt feelings in a civilized manner. The path she chose to go was not the only choice she could have taken. 7. My opponent can define responsibility in her own terms.
Claim that Medea is responsible for her actions

1 I agree that murder is a crime and those who commit it are not innocent. 2 I agree with the definition of murder. 3 Crime is evil but it is not always done by someone who is in the right state of mind and by those who are not emotionally stable. 4 Madea's anger drove her to want her to enact revenge on her husband. The anger drove her to kll her children in a blind fit of rage. 5 Anger is an issue when people cannot overcome it and it takes control of them. Madea was not in control of her actions because her anger got the best of her and she killed her children without realizing the repercussions of her actions. 6 Therefore. Madea is not responsible for her actions. 7 I still hold true to my argument that Madea is not responsible for her actions. She was so clearly wrapped up in the moment and she could not see past her anger to what damage she really was doing by killing her children. In the end, the revenge she got on her husband was brought on by a bought a rage that she could not break free from and it was ultimate demise.