BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
When you accept a debate you should also accept that the resolution is real/applicable.

Thank you PoeJoe for accepting, I'm hopeful that we'll have a good debate. "Instead, I will remind gahbage that this is a two round debate, and that the rules of debate stipulate that no new arguments may be introduced in a closing argument. " True, I can't do that. I can still rebut though, and if I can rebut your points then I will have the vote. ==== 1. "However, what about debates that deal with God, global warming, the soul, and other such topics? " Well, why would you plan to debate something that you don't believe exists? This is why you will often see debates supporting Atheism that start with "Please don't accept this if you're not a Christian", etc. It's like playing a game. You agreed to participate, so you are obligated to play by the rules. Now, I don't mean to outlaw semantics or anything; only accepting a debate not to prove your position (Pro or Con), but instead to prove the resolution is non-existent based on one's own beliefs. "Because gahbage's resolution is an absolute statement, finding even one exception wins me the debate. Therefore, I win this debate. " Alright, I worded the resolution poorly. >. < But the thing is, you're only supporting your position if you say "God is Neither Real nor Applicable". That's an exception because the explicit purpose of Con is to disprove it. If the debate was something like my second example, where the instigator planned on debating about Adam and Eve's morals but instead got an "Adam and Eve don't exist", it would avoid the entire point of debate. Which is not something that should be done often on a debating website. 2. "That's blatantly unfair, and I denounce such a resolution! As I am proving right now, I do not have to accept your resolution. Therefore, I win the debate. " False. Under your reasoning, everyone else who reads the resolution will feel that way, INCLUDING ME, so it will apply to everyone. Which is fair. 3. " . . . Assuming that you, the person reading this text, does not want to become a sloppy debater, I win the debate. " I'm not saying that attacking a resolution is unfair; otherwise I would have complained about your previous points and not refuted them. Rather, I am saying that nobody should be attacking a resolution, in order to avoid debate, based on one's personal beliefs. Let me give some examples: GOOD: . http://www.debate.org... These are good/fair semantics. The resolution was sloppy, and the contender (on a side note, who should be winning ;P) used this to his advantage. He used a FACT, that "bananas are not A fruit", and not his own subjective beliefs, to attack the resolution. BAD: . http://www.debate.org... (yes I know it's the same debate as R1, deal with it) These are bad/unfair semantics. The instigator clearly wanted to debate someone who believed the resolution actually HAPPENED, not someone who didn't believe that Adam and Eve existed. The contender used opinion as an argument, or "evidence". And we all know that opinion will get you nowhere in a debate without proper support.
When you accept a debate you should also accept that the resolution is real/applicable.

My opponent, gahbage, in his opening argument asserted his opinion and provided two examples of the debate topic. Through this, he only provided one argument for his position-- that picking at the resolution would distract from the debate topic. I will not challenge this. Instead, I will remind gahbage that this is a two round debate, and that the rules of debate stipulate that no new arguments may be introduced in a closing argument. Seeing as gahbage only has a closing argument left for this debate, any new arguments introduced by him from now on should be ignored and disregarded when determining the winner for this debate. Thus, all I need to do to win this debate, is to provide one argument better than gahbage's only argument. If gahbage is unable to successfully counter even one of my more superior arguments in this round, I win by default. ----- Now to my arguments: 1. My opponent believes that when one accepts a debate, he/she should believe that the resolution is real and applicable. However, what about debates that deal with God, global warming, the soul, and other such topics? Let us take the example of the resolution "God Is Real and Applicable". If the instigator was pro, the contender position would be that: God Is Neither Real nor Applicable. This would go in direct conflict with my opponent's resolution. Because gahbage's resolution is an absolute statement, finding even one exception wins me the debate. Therefore, I win this debate. 2. This debate's resolution's indirect object is "you". Some people may believe that the word "you" can be "Used reflexively as the indirect object of a verb" (The American Heritageï¿½ Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition). This however, as the dictionary says, is slang. "You" must refer to a specified person, or refer to the one or ones being addressed. In both correct definitions, the person(s) addressed is left ambiguous. I must then assume that "you" refers to me, PoeJoe. The resolution then becomes: "When PoeJoe accepts a debate, PoeJoe should also accept that the resolution is real and applicable. " That's blatantly unfair, and I denounce such a resolution! As I am proving right now, I do not have to accept your resolution. Therefore, I win the debate. 3. Not being picky about the spelling and wording of resolutions allows for people to get sloppy with them, as you have been. Too frequently, I see poorly formed resolutions! Why shouldn't wording matter in debate? I know I don't want to become a sloppy debater! Assuming that you, the person reading this text, does not want to become a sloppy debater, I win the debate. Thank you for your time.
When you accept a debate you should also accept that the resolution is real/applicable.

Invariably. You should not accept (or start, for that matter) a debate hoping to win by proving that the resolution does not exist or does not make sense. Here is an example: . http://www.debate.org... In this debate, the instigator used a misspelling of the resolution to tip the scales in his favor. Such semantics avoid the entire objective of a debate. . http://www.debate.org... Here, the contender negated the resolution by dismissing it as a myth.
Resolved: Tobacco consumption ought to be banned in the United States

Con may rebut my opening arguments in their first speech Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Full citations should be provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling 6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e. g. justice is unknowable, rights don't exist, etc. ) 7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions 8. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 9. The BOP will be shared 10. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a loss Pro in this debate will advocate a ban, Con will support the status quo Good luck
Abortion

I'll be arguing for abortion, while my opponent has to argue against abortion. I hold full BoP. Abortion - the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy. [1] Structure: Round One - Opening Statements from Con Round Two - Rebuttals from Pro, Defense from Con Round Three - Opening Statements from Pro, Rebuttals from Con Round Four - Defense from Pro, Con Must Waive Rules: 1) No trolls 2) No slander/hate speech 3) No forfeiture 4) No kritkiks 5) Please use citations 6) No new arguments in final round Voting Rules: 1) Vote for Convincing Arguments 2) Only vote for conduct if plagiarism and/or forfeiture is present 3) Only vote spelling/grammar if it's distracting enough to detract from arguments 4) Only vote sources if they're proven inaccurate by opponent Thank you Citation [1] http://www.google.com...
Abortion is wrong

I accepted this challenge but let me be clear I am Pro for abortion in certain circumstances like yourself, I am assuming that you challenged me to this debate because you saw I was Pro abortion on my profile. I have a few more instances in where I believe a child should be aborted. One is if the family just isn't able to financially support the child and another is in the form of rape. Why would you force a baby on someone that didn't want to have them in the first place? If you do want to continue I will just say that I am not totally Pro abortion.
mario bros vs goku and vegeta

Mario and Luigi are superior to Goku and Vegeta in several ways. Although they lack the strength, speed, endurance, and super abilities as the Sayians, they make up for it in determination, teamwork, and by not causing cataclysmic havoc whenever they enter a conflict. The Mario Bros. are the Mickey Mouse of video games. Since their conception, the duo has been entertaining children and adults around the world. Unlike Goku and Vegeta, who only fight, the brothers Mario are capable of much more. The two have been seen playing sports, saving the environment, racing, exploring the dark reaches of space, and rescuing victims of abduction. The Mario Brothers wouldn't pose a threat to national security or kill thousands of innocent civilians in superfluous combat by using obnoxious energy attacks. I await comment from Pro Sayian team.
runaway train hypothetical - ends justify the means

i would argue doing nothing is a choice. you did not actively participate in causing a wrong, but then again you did not actively participate in preventing one. propotionalism can be taken too far, or abused. i do not pretend to offer easy answers. even with the idea that we should act in a way that offers moral rules for all to act upon, propotionalism does just that. it's just not in prepackaged easy answers form. i'd argue, step back and really think about what you are proposing. we let one hundred people die, just so one can live. it's an outrage. and all just so someone can think they followed some moral rule. in truth, theh probably just comforted themself in the nowledge of 'truth is absolute' etc etc mumbo jumbo. truth can be absolute and proportionalism be true. it may get less and less clear as the numbers decrease of those who might die or different scenarios. but that's just life. we can say at the other extrems that there is a right thing to do and simply acknowledge is won't always be so clear when that's the case.
runaway train hypothetical - ends justify the means

The trolley problem (or as its often called "the train problem") was developed by British philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. I was originally theorized as an exorcise to UTILITARIANISM, a popular philosophy developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism holds that the most moral actions are those that cause the greatest good for the greatest amount of people; inversely, the least amount of pain for the least amount of people. Utility is a CONSEQUENTIALISM, or a theory that holds that the ends justify the means. It might seem moral to kill the one man instead of the hundred. That would achieve both utility and proportionality. However, its far more involved than that. DEONTOLOGY is the idea that the ends don't justify the means, and in my opinion, this is far more moral for two main reasons. First, the train is going to hit the hundred people unless someone does something. The key here is "does something". If you let the hundred men die, it is an unfortunate tragedy. Actively choosing to kill the one man, however, is a choice. You are choosing to kill one man, whereas the death of hundred was not intended by anyone. Thus choosing to kill the one man constitutes participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise no one would be responsible. Secondly, German philosopher Immanuel Kant theorized a "categorical imperative" to our actions. The first formulation reads, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction". Using consequentialism in one instance means you permit it to be used in EVERY instance. Imagine this: a leader comes to power, seeing his down trodden nation that he loves in pieces. He wants to liven his people into action. But how? Blame the whole of the nations problems on one group of individuals, and then slaughter them, he thinks. He knows they're not to blame. But he knows it will benefit his country in the long run. So he does it. This example is a little extreme, and I dont mean to compare my opponent to Hitler. All I'm saying is that there needs to be a standard: the ends cant justify the means in EVERY situation, so the ends shouldn't justify the means in ANY situation. Thank you.
Life Means God is Good

How old are you? The only word I have used so far which may be above the third grade level of understanding is "concede", and I can understand if you need a dictionary to get the meaning of that word. If any of the other words I have used are unclear for you in their meanings, I have to say you probably do not have enough understanding of the English language to be qualifed for this debate. I only speak English and do not use words I do not understand. I hope this clears up your concerns about definitions. If not, I suggest you use a dictionary for words you do not understand. The debate here is Pro : Life means God is Good vx. Con: Life does not mean God is good, or Life means God is not good. The debet is not "God is being good to you". You may be experiencing very difficult and troubling things, and you may attribute this to good luck or bad luck, or to God or to the devil. It does not matter what you are experiening. God is still good, and life means God is good.
Life Means God is Good

I accept the BOP in this debate, and will probably lose because most people will not concede to the fact that God is good. Most people will say God is not good because He does not give them what they want.......but the truth is, God does give everybody what they want. People tend to want the wrong things. The first thing we need is to be saved from dying. God is trying to save everybody, but most people want the wrong things so God lets them have it and that is not good.......but God is good.
The British Empire is something to be Proud of

I'm incredibly sorry but I realized that I won't have time to do this debate in depth and in detail, I have some other obligations to do. I'll try to be terse. The reason the sun never set on the British Empire is because God couldn't trust the English in the dark. British colonialism has caused great harm for those suffering under its imperialist regime. Contrary to what my opponent claims, it did not cause a net benefit to said nations, and even if it did, that wouldn't excuse the crimes done against them. As a mater of analogy, if someone was shot while being mugged, and henceforth spent more time with his friends and family and lived a better life, this doesn't make the mugger's actions honorable or moral in any adult sense. Even if everyone was mugging everyone else and the mugger was a lot nicer than everyone else, this doesn't excuse anyone's actions. The example of the abolition of Arab slave trade is ridiculous, as it was simply replaced by the Translatlantic Slave Trade. Democracy in the Third World was mostly spread during the Cold War via Western (primarily US) involvement through democratic instistions and developmental aid. India was in fact a nation before Britain, look up a hint of Indian history, they've been there for thousands of years. Have you not heard of the Vedas? Sharia law still exists and there is still violence against Muslims in India.The development of Middle Eastern mandates by Britain along with the Big 4 is the primary reason for the troubles in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest of Mesopotamia, as the borders developed were not theirs. These countries were not supposed to exist as is, and this is why we see so much squables and conflict there.Even so, we can not simply judge a country by the actions of the past. However, neocolonialism is still a problem today, and the problems from colonialism and the destistion and troubles of former colonial countries still do exist.
People do not have free will.

In this debate, my burden is to demonstrate that the universe is determined. Determinism: The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. Free Will: The philosophical doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice that is not determined by physical or divine forces. I will let my opponent use Round 1 for acceptance, and I'll begin in R2. Thanks!
Hiding a truth is different from lying.

I want to apologize to my opponent if I did anything that might have made him mad.I will be rebuttal my opponent on the scenario he has put up "Lying depends on it's integrity of manipulation. However, hiding is simply hiding. There is no manipulation required in hiding anything". Yes unfortunately there is manipulation required in hiding something.You dont even need to say anything to be considered lying. I will be using your example. "There's a couple and their names are A (husband), and B (wife). Let's just say B is going through a lot of work stress. She looks very distressed and needs to rest. This work stress has been going on for a month for B and she is clearly not handling the pressure very well which is eating her up. However, the husband receives a call saying that one of her loving family members has passed away. But looking at her stress level, he decides to share this information when the time is right. He is clearly hiding the truth from her, but at the same time also protecting her and because her wife doesn't know it yet, he does not have to provide her with any false statement because she is simply unaware of that situation. Therefore "He is NOT providing a FALSE statement, to protect the truth. He is simply hiding the whole situation from her." We gotta think of this woman perspective until the husband is ready to provide that her family member has died she will think that her family member is still alive. The husband therefore is manipulating her without saying anything that she thinks one of her family member is still alive even though the husband knows the family member has passed away. I will also continue. While the husband learns the ordeal he will make his wife happy by acting normal or using normal facial expressions.Again he is manipulating her into thinking that the family member is still alive without saying a single word. You dont need to say anything to manipulate someones.
Hiding a truth is different from lying.

I will rebutting on my opponents recent argument he posted "My contender just posted out sources defining the meaning of a lie" I put up those sources and different dictionaries to show my opponent that no matter what dictionary the word is it will have the same meaning. "which is completely not what I was looking for a debate" My main argument is that the text book definition of lying is the same in hiding the truth. "I was expecting more of examples or scenarios and explain how it affects the perspective if the person" My main argument is not in the perspective but rather what the dictionary says to prove my point. "This debate is to be taken seriously rather than just posting sources about the definition of lies" I am taking this debate seriously,again I posted those sources to show you the text book definition. "Lying is all about falsehood and providing a false fact". Lying is all about falsehood and providing a false statement that is true,but why should hiding the truth be the same, you are providing a false statement to protect the "truth" your hiding from the person. "Hiding the truth doesn't change anything. It doesn't provide any false fact, or change anyone's perspective." Hiding the truth does change things. You have to give out a false information to hide the truth. That is lying. If the person believes in your false statement you provided to protect the truth then you are changing his perspective and someones perspective is your main argument. "Please take this debate seriously" I have been taking this debate seriously
Hiding a truth is different from lying.

My contender just posted out sources defining the meaning of lie which is completely not what I was looking for in a debate. I was expecting more of examples or scenarios and explaining how it affects the perspective of the person. According to me, the contender's argument was very weak as he did not explain why it is different other than just stating it. This debate is to clear my conscious or dilemma about hiding a truth. I have started this debate with the knowledge and definition of lying and hiding the truth. This debate is to be taken seriously rather than just posting sources about the definition of lies. My contender also states that hiding a truth is basically lying in a different manner. Lying is all about falsehood and providing false FACT. Hiding the truth doesn't change anything. It doesn't provide any false fact, or change anyone's perspective. Please take this debate seriously.
Hiding a truth is different from lying.

Under the dictionary it states that lying is saying a false statement.Hiding the truth is just try to word out lying differently. No matter what the dictionary has the final say on the words meaning. sources: http://www.dictionary.com... sources: http://www.merriam-webster.com... sources: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com... sources: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Hiding a truth is different from lying.

The reason I am debating on this topic is because I am hiding something from somebody and I am 100% sure you have done that as well. After this debate, this would clarify whether what I am doing is right or wrong. The whole purpose of this debate is to come to a solution that whether should I reveal the truth or not. Coming back to the topic, Personally, what I believe is that when you lie, you are providing a FALSE direction to someone's perspective and swaying them away from the truth. Imagine a line and on the left hand side you have lies, and on the right hand side you have the truth. The more you lie, the "Perspective" keeps going left on that line. But if you hide the truth, you are not affecting anyone's perspective or swaying away anybody.