BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Conservatives are better than liberals

Alright, I will accept, and to start I will simply list things that liberals are better at. 1) Liberals are better at being a part of the liberal party then Conservatives are of being in the liberal party. 2) Liberals are better at appealing to the majority of youth. 3) Liberals are better at being Liberal in ideology. My opponent must answer all of these in order to attempt to win todays debate.
Should schools ban homework? ( junior high up)

I think my earlier points stand. I'll provide a little clash for you guys, school will be irritating no matter what, teachers get paid to grade as well, and students can exercise for about a half hour, which is really all one needs. Aside from all that there's no legitimate grounding for a federal mandate on every individual classroom regarding homework policy. My other points stand, so there's as much of a debate as I can provide for you guys right now.
THB: free will does not exist

Con's comments on psychology do not seem directly relevant to my argument. Which of my premises is contradicted by which of the types of psychology Con introduced, and how? This certainly wasn't made clear to me, and I'd imagine it is not clear to voters, either. Their comments on religion point out that many major world religions assert the existence of free will, but that's all these are- assertions. The arguments presented here should be convincing to people of any (or no) religious beliefs, so unless they can demonstrate that any individual religion is factually accurate, then religion should be considered irrelevant to this discussion, just as it would be to a discussion on Steady State Theory Vs the Big Bang Theory [not particularly relevant to this debatem but interesting nonetheless. See source 2 for more] without such a factual demonstration.Con also seems to be vaguely attempting to reverse the burden of proof [see source 3]- the default position is always the negative position. That is to say, when discussing free will, we must assume it does not exist until someone convincingly demonstrates that it does, just as if we were discussing unicorns, protons, or anything else, the assumption is that it does not exist until we can demonstrate that it does.So, Con's burden is this- convincingly demonstrate that free will does exist. It is not enough to point out that psychology and religion do not enjoy a consensus on the matter, as if the conversation ends in ambivalent doubt, the result is the negative- that free will does not exist.Even with a burden of proof reversal assumed to be acceptable for some reason, I feel my case has been thorough and not yet refuted, while Con's has been vague and tangential. My case for round 3 rests.Sources:2: 3: https://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)
THB: free will does not exist

For brevity, I will label my premises, reasoning, and conclusions as [P] and [R] followed by a number respectively. This allows me to avoid repeating myself.Humans are physical entities only- no immaterial soul can be demonstrated to reside within us. [P1]Every physical aspect of an individual is the result of three things- genetics, epigenetics*, and environment. [P2]We do not control our genetics or epigenetics, and we may only be said to control our environment if free will can be convincingly demonstrated to exist- if we do not have free will, we do not control our environment. [P3].We do not control the environment in which we are born [P4].[P1] implies that any action which can reasonably be said to be made by an individual is a result of physical processes within that person- within their brain and the rest of their body. If someone does something as a result of something that was not within their body- for instance, they fall over because they were pushed- then they are being acted upon, rather than doing the acting. [R1].[P2], [P3], [P4], and [R1] imply that we do not have free will at the moment of our birth- the result of any decision we appear to make is the result of physical processes within our body, and these are themselves the result of our genetics, epigenetics, and the environment in which we were born- none of which we had control over. Hence, we do not have control over the result of any decisions we appear to have made at birth, as these results were predetermined by factors outside of our control. [R2].[R2] and [P3] imply that we do not have control of any of the things which affect our physical aspects, as we do not control our genetics or epigenetics, do not control our environment at birth, hence do not have free will at birth, and would require free will to be able to gain the ability to control our environment, which we do not have at birth and so cannot gain control over our environment. [R3].[R1] and [R3] imply we do not have free will- starting at birth and continuing afterwards, our physical state is determined entirely by factors outside of our control, and the result of any decisions we make is the result of our physical state, and so the result of those factors outside of our control. [R4].[R4] is directly contradictory the definition presented in round 1- the results of our decisions are wholly determined by factors outside of our control.Hence, free will does not exist.Asterisks:*(an explanation of this may be found under source 1. Epigenetics is essentially just where the environment affects genetics).Sources:1:
THB: free will does not exist

The motion is: "THB: free will does not exist". I will support this motion. Definitions:"THB": abbreviation for "this house believes" i. e. the claim being discussed. "Free will": the ability to make decisions the result of which was not wholly determined by external factors. Format: R1: Acceptance only. R2 & R3: Initial arguments and rebuttal. R4: Summation. No new arguments may be offered, and voters should ignore new arguments offered in R4. New rebuttal may be offered.
Once and for all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a conspiracy

On September 11th 2001, four civilian airplanes were hijacked and turned into giant missiles that were used to attack the United States of America. Two of them hit the North and South towers of the world trade center, One destined for the White House instead plowed into part of the Pentagon, and another destined for Congress was brought down in an empty field after passengers who learned of what was going on decided to resist. The 19 passengers who hijacked the airplanes were identified and revealed to have connections to Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organization that functions in the Middle East and at the time was run by Osama Bin Laden. Osama Bin Laden had long been on a terrorist watch list after he claimed responsibility for the bombings of 2 US embassies and an attack on the USS Cole, A US Naval warship. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attacks and then declared holy war on the United States. However many people refused to believe that an obscure terrorist organization from the middle east could have carried out the deadliest surprise attack on American Soil, and many conspiracy theorists have claimed that the events of 9/11 were planned by the US government. The Con may now state his argument
Once and for all, 9/11 was a terrorist attack, not a conspiracy

Lets settle this once and for all.... I will be arguing that the attacks of 9/11/2001 were carried out by a group of Islamic extremist terrorists from the network known as Al-Qaeda and not by the US government He/She who accepts this debate will be arguing why they think that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy by the US government 5 rounds, max 8000 character limit, get ready to go all out
The Palestinians should get the land over the Jews

Pro clarified in the comment section that this debate is to be about the nation of Israel. This is a subject I'm passionate about, having both fought in Operation Enduring Freedom, and as well as stood against the DDO Muslim voting bloc. Contentions C1: Possession is Nine-Tenths of the Law As of January 2016, Jews account for 75% of the total population of Israel [1]. Exiling or murdering the majority of the population of a country, would be a significant human rights violation. Further they are a peaceful people, able to live in peace with the 20% Arab population within their land. C2: Right of Might The Six-Day War was an attempt at genocide against Israel, yet while trying to carry this out they only managed to kill as many as 983 Israelis, for as many as 23,500 of their own soldiers [2]. This 23.9 to 1 rate, combined with their habit of targeting schools and other civilian targets, reveals for the enemies of Israel to succeed they would lose at minimum 192.6 million lives from their own side, which is far greater than the total population of the Middle East. C3: They Have Been There for Millennia They are in fact the oldest continuous culture on the planet, having maintained a strong steady presence on the lands in question since several hundred years B.C. [3]. Rebuttals R1: "The Palestinians should get the land because the Jews have been through a lot" This seems like an appeal to pity in favor of the Israelites, rather than their neighbors. R2: Israel "was given a second chance at life." I have no clue what this is referencing, as it was legally recognized as theirs, by the owners of the whole area in 1917, and again in 2022 [4]. R3: "Palestinians had the land and already." This is technically true. Palestinians until recent times referred to anyone from the geographic region, Jew and Arab alike. Beyond that, see source [3]. This claim from pro, only disproves his case when the greater number of Jewish Palestinians at the time is considered. R4: "Jews came and used the God to justify murder and genocide" Proof of this claimed genocide? Conclusion No reason has been suggested for why people who have been there the longest, have the highest population density, and the military might to hold it should, be forced to leave their homes. Sources [1] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... [2] http://sixdaywar1967.blogspot.com... [3] http://arabisraeliconflict.info... [4] http://history1900s.about.com...
Scientific and technological advancement results in a net benefit to society.

This is the second round, so I'll post my arguments. The ultimate goal of any technology is to make someone's life easier and/or better. While this statement may seem fuzzy when applied to certain technologies (e. g. military technologies), this statement still does apply in some way (it sure makes the non-victim's life easier, right? ) While technologies that help some at the cost of others do exist, most technologies have the ability to help everyone at the cost of nobody. Furthermore, I assert that man has a certain moral restraint when it comes to using destructive technologies. I cite the fact that the US only used nuclear weapons in one war as an example of this. After WWII and the Cold War, everyone wanted nuclear non-proliferation, since they knew it would be a bad thing for people to be thoroughly blowing each other up with nukes all the time. I'd also look at advances in medicine - out of all the good that has came out of this field, it greatly outweighs anything bad that has resulted from medical science. Computer science is another field like this, though computer science has several easily identifiable misuses and other bad things. However, a lot of these bad things aren't anything more than something that had already existed in the past, and even if we did count those things, computer science would still be giving a net benefit to society. Now, I want you to post your arguments. You can repeat what you said or build off of what you said before, so long as you leave any rebuttals out. Rebuttals are for the third round.
Scientific and technological advancement results in a net benefit to society.

I'll keep the introduction to this short and simple, since it is 3:14 AM as of me typing this sentence.The DebateThis debate is (quite obviously, from what can be told from the title) about whether or not science and technology results in a net benefit to our society. As a transhumanist thinker, I hold a very strong opinion for this.Burden of ProofBurden of proof does not lie with anyone, the best argument wins. Things that Con might want to show would be evidence that technology would ultimately result in something that would destroy all of humanity, and that nothing could be done to stop this, which would include further development of technologies intended to counteract negative effects. This is just one broad example. Con would have to either show that technology results in net harm, or that all technology is a sidegrade (i.e. something that is a direct tradeoff, being a change that has no net benefit or harm). Obviously, showing the former would have more bearing, but showing the latter would be easier and enough for a technical win.RoundsRound 1 is for acceptance. Do not post arguments here.Round 2 is for arguments. Wait until Round 3 before attempting rebuttals.Round 3 is (as foreshadowed) for rebuttals of only content in Round 2.Round 4 is for defending against rebuttals in round 3, and for closing statements. So basically, ignore everything except the content of the rounds before the current one, with the reasonable exception of the first round. I apologize if I am coming on as verbose here - it's the sleep deprivation that is talking. That said, I am eager to debate this topic with whoever wishes to accept my challenge.
The Brexit will be beneficial for the UK population

While there may be a few advantages to the Brexit, I find it very unnecessary. From now on, It could only go wrong and Theresa May has brought the UK to its now inevitable so-called "economic disaster". For example, The Panasonic Corp is to move its European headquarters from London to Amsterdam in October to avoid potential tax issues linked to the Brexit. This is a loss of hundreds of jobs, Which is definitely detrimental to the UK population. Even though the flow of immigrants are stemmed, This could be highly detrimental to the availability of jobs in the UK, Especially London where the headquarters are located. It's not a surprise that other companies move their headquarters to other countries of the EU as well, Which results in more job loss. In my opinion, The Brexit is definitely one of the biggest downfalls the UK has experienced and it's a shame that the population of the UK even voted that it would be a good idea. Now, The citizens of the UK, As well as the EU, Will suffer multiple difficulties and struggles over the next few years. Now that the Brexit is leaning towards a no-deal, This is a very precarious situation and it will be difficult for the prime minister to pull this one off. Please state your opinions/how it will affect your lives, As it would be very helpful towards my research project. By writing your argument, You give your consent for me to use it in my project. Thank you so much!
bare knuckle boxers are tougher than pro boxers.

I would like to state what I consider "tougher" means. Tougher means harder hitting, more skill, and is overall stronger and can take punches better. Pro boxing involves skill and you must dedicate your life to training and conditioning in order to be good. However with bare knuckle boxers you do not have to meet these standards that a professional must meet. Many bare knuckle boxers are not in half as good of shape as many pros, nor are they tougher. If you were to put the best bare knuckle boxer against the best pro boxer it would be no contest. This was done in the past where a champion bare knuckle boxer went up against a pro boxer. http://www.youtube.com... The fight speaks for itself the bare knuckle boxer just couldn't last against professional punches. Proving the pro boxer is (by my definition) tougher. You must also keep in mind this is not the toughest pro boxer, against the best bare knuckle had to offer. Just by looking at bare knuckle fights, then pro fights you can clearly see pro boxing is superior for example these two videos. Pro Boxing involves skill, agility, and strength as displayed by the two videos, but even if you are a pro boxer not as good as Mike Tyson, you can still beat any bare knuckle boxer around. Bare knuckle boxing is glorified street fighting make no mistake. Vote for me.
I can out insult anyone, via flame war

Firstly how dare you try to question the validity of my manhood. If I ever see you in RL I'll be sure to give you a Chuck Norris roundhouse kick to your delicate feminine chin lover boy and give you the discipline you need. My relationship status is only complicated because the Vegster maintains an extraordinary extravagant lifestyle, that in the words of masta bis is "an unpardonable breach of confidence for me to reveal. " Indeed good sir my swagger is unprecedented and unparallelled. I pretty much got chicks lined up with their mouths open on all fours in abc order, single filed lines stretched out a quarter mile long ready to take down Mista V's smokin' hot pipe, or rather gargantuan man-meat. I'm far from cocky because I actually have a narcissist complex, but its been evaluated, verified and determined to be substantially justified. The Dr agreed no treatment was necessary. Enough about me though, I'll write my autobiography later which will is certainly be best seller and catapault my income into the million dollar bracket. Narcissism: . http://www.grandiosity.org... I'm sorry about ragging on your delicate feminism prince charming, but I just thought if you could take a D**K you could surely take a joke. Look man the Vegster is actually a tender loving compassionate soul, so for the time being instead of ragging on your homo erotic fudge packing pleasures, I'll concede to your family members instead. Lets start off with your obnoxious sister that you're parading around in your compilation of pictures, like shes supposed to be America's next top model when that's obviously far from the case. I'd like to point out this picture, which made me burst out with laughter upon examination: ". http://www.debate.org...; Wow dude, just wow. That's a photogenic moment, really? The chick looks like you captured a wild crack addicted methhead and stuck her in a nice dress. Also the poor girl if she had black hair, would look EXACTLY like that chick from the ring ". http://img.photobucket.com...; As for your mother I actually don't have anything bad to say about her, because honestly shes a hot milf that would make a great addition to Mista's 2010 draft team. I just hope she doesn't have a gag reflex or she wont qualify for the roster. Tell your mother Papi Vegster says hi. Back to you, but damn where do I start? Do I start off with the fact that you're missing a couple of chromosomes which makes you a irrevocable homo erotic beefsickle lover with aspirations to be a pop icon amongst the entire gay community? Or maybe I should mention the fact that you're a corny brainwashed tool in the JROTC program? I can't believe you would even have the audacity to brag about that, you get more sighs then a waste line son. You're the Chaplin of your battalion too? Congrats bro that's a merit of the same equivalence of wining a medal in the special Olympics. Lastly I'd just like to briefly mention the fact that you listen to Nickel Back and Evescence, which does nothing but further elaborates your epic cornyness. That's it. I'd like to urge a CON vote too. Kids going to need all the help he can get.
I can out insult anyone, via flame war

http://www.facebook.com... My opponent fails to realize that a star on the side of his head is far more flamboyant than anything I've ever done. His relationship status, "it's complicated" demonstrates his ineptitude to even have a normal relationship because he clearly doesn't pack enough heat to have women crawling at his knees. Unlike me, and I'm gay! Some may think the star on the side of his head means he's got his head in the clouds, when I think it's because he's got it up his @$$. He's a cocky mother-*ucker, I'll give him that, but let's look at this logically, how can he be a dick and stuck up his own @$$ and not be gay? He also says he possess a mastery of crap talking. That's because he's so full of $hit that it pours out of his mouth. I can almost bet my life, as the value of it diminishes by every word I partake in his crappy "flame(r)" war, that he'll try to bag on me for being gay. Yeah, I'm gay, but I'd never do you. It takes a real man to take it like a man, and you're just too much of a *ussy for a gay man like me. My loser opponent says, "I'm like flee ridden psychopathic rabie infested wolverine..." ....? I thought we were supposed to insult our opponent? Maybe they shaved that star too far into your thick skull. Perhaps to get rid of those fleas? =VOTE CON=
I can out insult anyone, via flame war

I possess a mastery in the fine craft of crap talking. I can out insult anyone, there is indeed no man who can withstand my relentless barrage of words that attack the soul like how a rusty jagged edged dagger stabs a heart. I'm like flee ridden psychopathic rabie infested wolverine that just wants to devour and destroy any form of contention. How can I make such claims? Instead of a sissyfied debate that men with manginas oftentimes engage in, I challenge con to a verbal flame war where I will put my craft on display. Be for warned, I'm not responsible legally for any emotional or mental instability that may result from my vicious verbal assaults. Many of my opponents are often left in a state of extreme lifelong debilitating anxiety. Enter at your own peril and prepare yourself. if you're scared go to church. If you're an atheist take some Xanax. There is but one rule: Post a real life facebook, or myspace with a substantial amount of pictures, and information about yourself so I can get some fuel for my neurotransmitters and begin the onslaught of your character. Heres mines: http://www.facebook.com... Let the games begin.