BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Unicorn feces is good for you.

Without any evidence, pro is making assumptions to justify their side of the resolution. If we use Occam's razor, we find that the side utilising the least amount of assumptions overall should be preferred over the one that is making more - in this case it should be con being preferred over con [1]. My side of the resolution is simply as such-1. Unicorns nor their excrement do not exist2. Things that do not exist cannot be good nor bad for you.3. Unicorn feces is not good for you (neither is it bad for you).I justify 1 using Occam's raisor - it is more logical to assume that unicorns do not exist over the position that they do. I justify 2 by using simple logic - I cannot say if a purple fruit fly from Mars's excrement is good for you or not, because we have both not been able to study it, and because having effects attributed to it (good for you, bad for you, will increase lifetime, etc) are all based around its very existence.Vote con due to the nature of the assumptions being made on pro's behalf without evidence, and because I have proven that unicorn feces is not good for you, which negates the resolution (having the position that it is neither good nor bad does in fact negate the resolution - I do not need to prove that it is bad for you, just that it is not good)[1]. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
What's better same sex class rooms or regular

Hey ladies and gents. Today I'm am going to tell you reasons why same sex class rooms should be allowed on of my main reasons is distraction the opposing sex puts forth distractions for the other sex. Many people against it would say it's promotes homosexuality but in reality it only proves that people are still homophobic. It's not where we place people but it's their Decision whether they wanna be or not. It is proven girls mature faster the n guys so why not give girls a chance to excel instead of being stuck with guys. Thanks for reading my debate
There is/was a god

Thank you for this debate and I hope this ain't the last debate we will have. Introduction: My opponent is trying to argue that: 1. God exists 2. God can die 3. God has died Hence, God is dead. Arguments: 1.God exists How can something which doesn't exist die? It can't hence my opponent must prove that God exist. No my opponent does attempt to do this however please notice that he only succeeds to prove that people believed in God and not that he exists. "i was using the rome monuments and examples of how God talked to people as a example that shows that God was indeed there at those times, But now nothing is happening" If the Romans Gods existed Rome would have too existed. Rome is dead. Hence, Roman Gods never existed. This means that monuments and census does not prove the existence of a God or many Gods. 2. God can die Again this has to be proved by my opponent. How can God die ? Lets take the Christian God ; he is infinite and omnipotent. Now if you can add 2 plus 2, you know that the Christian God cannot die. 3. God has died. First: Absence does not equal death. Second: Look at the video in round 1 and my reasons behind it. Finally: If you have read the Bible you would know that in the Biblical times it appeared like God was absent. For example lets take Jesus, he for the first 30 years lived like a normal human being and only then did he perform miracles in few cities located in Israel. Outside of Israel he was unknown: http://pakalert.files.wordpress.com... Thank you for this debate,
There is/was a god

let me rephrase, If god existed in the past than he does not exist in the present. God was alive thousands of years ago but is able to die/and did die. i was using the rome monuments and examples of how God talked to people as a example that shows that God was indeed there at those times, But now nothing is happening, We hear no word from God or no miracle happening, During times of need and people struggling or dying, God was nowhere. examples (The Holocaust, War(s) that are happening now, people struggling to survive). Now, The bible(or any other religious book) says all that God did that was amazing and miracles. Now, That topic is also debatable because it can either be just teaching morals or it actually did happen. But we see no miracles now, people from Africa are dying each day, no miracle happening. The war of North Korea and south, which if triggered it could be turned into world War III, if this happens the economy will go down, countries would have to choose sides and probably have the worst body count. We dont see God or a miracle telling people to be peaceful, God died, thats why we see no miracles.
There is/was a god

Thank you for the debate and without further ado lets dive in. Content: Observations Requests Observations 1.My opponent is telling me that God is able to die... This indeed needs a lot of explanation. However if I understand correctly (due to unclear writing I may not) then I'll just have to accept this. 2.My opponent is asserting that " in ancient Rome, they have monuments to the God(s), they worshipped God (back then it was to Gods) and had wars over who was better" is evidence for God. This is proof that many people believe in a deity or in many superior beings but in no way is this evidence for God. Please prove to me that God exists ; if you don't then how can you prove that God died? 3." it was thousands of years ago that this happened, maybe God can die" How is Gods absence his death? Also how can you know that he is absent? It is said that God works every day and as you can see in the video: http://www.youtube.com... This could be untrue but if we are to assume that God exists (something you must prove) then this video is proof of his work. If God exists and this is untrue and this was not Gods work then I still am the only one with evidence on my side. Wherefore God is not absent. Requests 1.Be more clear in the next round. Thank you, V0Antras
There is/was a god

Let me explain a little more. There was a God in the past, but God is able to die , if you accept then you can argue that god exists or doesn't. definition: God the superior being, the one who created the earth etc. arguments: Evidence of there being a God(s) are everywhere. in ancient Rome, they have monuments to the God(s), they worshipped God (back then it was to Gods) and had wars over who was better. In The abrahamic faiths ( judaism, Christianity, Islam) all started with God telling Abraham to kill his son, than God or a Archangel (depends on your religion) tells Abraham to stop. More Religions revolved around God(s), it was thousands of years ago that this happened, maybe God can die.
Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

My opponent has challenged my definition of a human right. He prefers Hobbes’ version of a right, which outlines the idea that a human right is only that which preserves our life. But this opens up a slippery slope of removing a person’s capabilities to do as he/she pleases. For example, driving kills far more people than suicide does. According to you, this means that humans don’t have a right to drive. This is the natural consequence of defining a human right in accordance to survival. A far more logical option would be to base our rights on the motivations of the act--you'd be hard pressed to call the motivations for driving immoral. I would thus ask that my audience rule out my opponent’s dismissal of my arguing from motivations, since we are driven entirely by our motivations.My opponent seems to enjoy using the words of others to construct his argument. He introduces Kant’s Categorical Imperative in order to balance an individual’s responsibilities in accordance to the demands of society. But my opponent uses an inappropriate interpretation of the Categorical Imperative and seems to assume that I will accept it. It is well known that Kant believed that it was our actions that were important, that each act we commit should be in accordance to the promotion of the sanctity of the individual (note; NOT the society), eg: that the individual should never be considered solely as a means. I have no objections as of yet, but then my opponent says that suicide disrespects humanity on a whole. This implies that the individual has obligations to the rest of humanity, something that I believe to be deplorable and an unjust representation of the individual’s responsibilities. Let me clear: The individual’s responsibilities are only that which he believes to be important. It is no one’s authority but the individual’s to dictate that which is important. Society’s only role is to protect the individual from those individuals who would seek him harm. Man owes man nothing. My opponent then goes on to use the classic example of one`s responsibilities to one`s family. He is arguing that because an individual has responsibilities to his family, he cannot commit suicide. But who has taken upon those responsibilities? Who has chosen to uphold those duties to the family? The individual. It is always the individual who decides upon his own responsibilities, and we must always respect that decision, for if we take that away then we are stripping away the very essence of all that is important to our humanity. My opponent has framed the individual as a servant of others. He has outlined the individual’s responsibilities to be the realm of society’s choosing and that the individual cannot choose for himself because there are others he may harm by negligence. But let’s consider what ‘harm by negligence’ means. It means that we have taken away our aid from others, that we have removed what was ours to give. Should we be punished for taking away what is rightfully ours?
Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

Thank you, I am excited for this debate.I will first start off by challenging your definition of an inalienable right. Thomas Hobbes defined an inalienable right as the ability "to use his own power, as he will himself, for the preservation of his own Nature; that is to say, of his own Life." So while Hobbes acknowledges that no outside force should infringe upon an inalienable right, he also states that the purpose of them are to further our own survival in nature. Prefer this definition over my opponents simply because it has merits behind it, while his own has none. Now on to his argument. He states that individuals decide what is good for themselves, however with this point, he isolates the human being and eliminates a society. Yes individuals have a certain freedom to choose, however there are instances where that no longer is true. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative explains that we cannot base a moral law on interests, purposes or individual ends, because all of these are only relevant to the certain individual. In order for us to see if we actually have the universal right to end our own lives, we first must find something to base the argument upon that is also universal to all human beings. Kant argues that this universal rule is humanity. Kant believed that human life should be treated as an end, not as a means to something else. By using suicide as a means to escape pain and suffering, we are disrespecting humanity on a whole. We have certain rights to enhance humanity, but in the instance that it eliminates humanity, there is not right. My opponent also gives the analogy of walking on my property, and he says that we as humans have no right to interfere with one anothers rights, however while this point may uphold in many situations where the individual decides to take his own life, it ignores other situations. If I have a family that I am responsible for, and I decide that I have lived long enough so I commit suicide, I have abandoned my responsibilities as the caretaker of my family and severely damage the ability of my loved ones to continue their normal lives. This same situation can be true of many different situations including the owner of a severely indebted business, who ends his life because of his stress. He then passes on his debt to the next person in line for ownership and has just interfered in another individuals financial freedom, AKA harming his motivations, which my opponent says we cannot do. For a summery, my opponent bases his arguments off of intentions and motivations, which I have proven are not universal, so we cannot apply them in this resolution. Also look to his lack of merits in his arguments as opposed to my philosophical framework. Thanks.
Humans Have an Inalienable Right to Death

R1 is for acceptance and, if necessary, for demanding clarification. I will present my argument in R2. It is my responsibility to prove beyond reasonable doubt that humans have an intrinsic right to death and that no man or woman should interfere with an individual who has wittingly arrived at the conclusion that they wish to die. You may desire to bring mental illness into the discussion but if you do, please understand that there's only so much we can cover in our limited space.
Donald Trump will be the next President of the United States of America

Donald Trump is a racist loser, not only that, but he is the worst presidential candidate that has ever existed. Donald Trump is in favor of deporting innocent Muslims, this will only strengthen ISIS. Why you may ask? Because when Muslims are deported from the USA, they will begin to develop a hatred towards America, just like ISIS. Afterwards, ISIS will be able to recruit more members because there will be a greater hatred towards the USA. Not only that, but Donald Trump will ruin relations with Mexico when he builds the wall, Mexico will therefore stop trading with the USA and the US will need to get cheap labor from somewhere, right? So, they turn to China and other countries like India and Indonesia to manufacture their goods. Donald Trump will not bring more jobs to the USA, he has already been exposed of outsourcing jobs for his company to China and India. Also, Donald Trump will abolish the IRS and introduce a flat tax rate, which benefits the rich and has a negative effect on the poor. This will only increase the debt, and increase the unemployment rate. Everyone hates Trump, even the President dislikes him, this will hit him hard when the voting process begins, everyone will be against Trump, and Hillary will only gain more support because all of Trump's haters will vote for Hillary increasing her chances of becoming president. This is why Trump will not be the next President of the United States of America. #Hillary4America
Anarcho-capitalism can work

I'll just devote this round to responses. "Well, given that I said in the first place that an anarcho-capitalism is here defined as a system where laws are solely based on property rights, this would mean that killing would be acceptable in an anarcho-capitalist society, which does not really help your case. "No. The "law" would be determined by the free market, whether it be regarding life or property. Killing would not be acceptable as long as individuals continue to have a demand to not be killed in the free market. There would be no government to uphold property laws, either; you seem to not understand what anarcho-capitalism is, I'm sorry to say. "Correct. However, this does not change that it's still a violation of the criminal's rights. "It would be less of a violation of the criminal's rights than what exists now. The government has a monopoly on violence against "criminals. " In a free market, private enterprises would compete to stop crime. "In a corporation-run system, one would have to pay for an investigation, and those who are too poor to afford it would not be able to. .. well. .. afford it. " In our society, poor people can afford to buy a copy of Consumer Reports and read reviews of products. In an anarcho-capitalist society, reviewers would have a bigger niche, because the government wouldn't take taxpayer money to make its own inefficient determinations about business matters through regulation. "I do believe that the purpose of anarcho-capitalism is to protect private property rights, as that is what an anarcho-capitalist society is based around. " Well, in an anarcho-capitalist society, all property would be private, by default. What is now considered "public" would be owned by individuals or groups. The protection of rights to property would be a matter of security, which would be up to property owners. I disagree, however, that the purpose of an anarcho-capitalist society is to protect private property; the idea of self-ownership is certainly the core of a free market model, but the protection of such an ideal is up to the individual. "Government regulations can often correct things that a true free market cannot. The best examples are in health care regulations, such as enforcing credentialing for physicians so they are not some nut in a lab coat[. .. ]"Private regulation would arguably be far more efficient. As it stands, there is a health care crisis under the US' regulatory practices. This can be partly attributed to the undersupply of affordable doctors, due to the artificial restrictions on entry into the profession. Hospitals should compete with each other by hiring the finest physicians, and each physician (as well as the hospitals' results) would be judged by competing reviewers. ---The opponent has not met his burden of proof.
Anarcho-capitalism can work

Thank you for your clarification. Now, onto your rebuttal. "Yes, this is is certainly true. .. though someone's life is not property, by standard definition. " Well, given that I said in the first place that an anarcho-capitalism is here defined as a system where laws are solely based on property rights, this would mean that killing would be acceptable in an anarcho-capitalist society, which does not really help your case. I am using a broad definition of "property", in which anything that belongs to a person (including non-standard or metaphysical things such as life or free will) is counted as property. But in the standard sense of property and the definitions that I outlined, you are correct, that in an anarcho-capitalist society murder (as well as rape, slavery, etc. ) would not be a crime. "private police and courts would only act on the infringement of the victim's rights rather than the breaking of state rules. " Correct. However, this does not change that it's still a violation of the criminal's rights. "The opponent would have to elaborate on the definition of the term "property rights", as he is using it, before I respond to the first critique in this statement. " See above. "And the crimes against the poor would not go unpunished and corporations would not get away with more crimes. " In a corporation-run system, one would have to pay for an investigation, and those who are too poor to afford it would not be able to. .. well. .. afford it. As for corporations, I said that because if corporations are the ones doing the investigating, they have the power to prevent themselves from coming under fire if accused. "So far, the opponent has (very vaguely) critiqued the FAIRNESS of an anarcho-capitalist system of justice" I am not just questioning the fairness, but also the POSSIBILITY of an anarcho-capitalist system of justice. "However, in order for this to support his argument, it has to be built on the premise that anarcho-capitalism is intended to be a means to an end of "fairness" (see my lengthy discussion regarding "(to) work. ")" Oh, I don't think it is. However, I do believe that the purpose of anarcho-capitalism is to protect private property rights, as that is what an anarcho-capitalist society is based around. I am arguing that it cannot do that, thereby not reaching its intended end. Now, I would also like to add something. Government regulations can often correct things that a true free market cannot. The best examples are in health care regulations, such as enforcing credentialing for physicians so they are not some nut in a lab coat pretending, making sure pharmaceuticals have the ingredients they say they do, and work, and are relatively safe, and ERs being required to treat people regardless of their ability to pay.
Anarcho-capitalism can work

"I am not going to defend why I believe in anything, because that is clearly divergent from the resolution." That's a rather confusing statement. Of course you will argue that an anarcho-capitalist society would "work". I don't understand the distinction. Anyways, I will grant for now a morality based on whether or not something infringes on other's property rights. With this in mind, I would like to talk about the prospect of criminal justice. How does one, in an anarcho-capitalist system, punish crime without infringing on other's property rights? While one might advocate that crime would be punished via returning the stolen property, this is not possible in many cases (i. e., it is impossible to return someone's life). While one might argue that "an eye for an eye" is acceptable, I believe that in a system where laws are based only on property rights, the only person who would have the right to do that would be the victim, which is not always actually possible. Some might suggest having corporation-run police and courts. While I do believe that would still be infringing on property rights, it also allows crimes committed against those too poor to afford legal counsel to go unpunished, as well as makes it easier for corporations to get away with crimes. A possible rebuttal would be that having a government allows the government to go unpunished. This is not entirely true, however unless my opponent requests it I will not detail why here, as the debate is about anarcho-capitalism, not the merits of government.
Anarcho-capitalism can work

Resolution: Anarcho-capitalism can work. ---Anarcho-capitalism: "[The system that] advocates anarchy in the sense of the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market." [1] Work: To successfully reach a given end. In this case, the end would be a functioning society. (I will later discuss this further in my argument.)Just to clarify, I will not be arguing why I "believe it can or does [work as a system]." I am not going to defend why I believe in anything, because that is clearly divergent from the resolution. Rather, I will argue that an anarcho-capitalist society would "work." ---With these conditions established, I accept the debate. Any further discussion of the conditions should be conducted in the comments section. As my opponent clearly stated, the burden of proof is solely on him.Thank you, and I look forward to responding to funwiththoughts' arguments.---[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Anarcho-capitalism can work

The debate here is whether or not anarcho-capitalism is a viable system. First round is simply to accept. No forfeits. I will be arguing why I believe anarcho-capitalism cannot work as a system, and my opponent will argue why he/she believes it can or does. Anarcho-capitalism in this case refers to a society with no government where what is or is not a crime is based on whether or not it interferes with other's property rights. Burden of proof is on me to prove it doesn't work.