BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
RANDOM = a MYTH That Doesn't Exist in Reality

Pro has made some bold statements, that I am almost certain they cannot substantiate. 1) Pro does not state eg "on the balance of probabilities", or "in all likelihood" in their pre-amble. They brazenly state that randomness is an "existential impossibility". Good luck proving this in four rounds of 10,000 character limit! 2) In Round 1, Pro boldly asserts that "randomness cannot be established to exist in reality" - a statement which I would tend to agree with them on. However, this is not QED. This is a long, long way from QED. QED is establishing that randomness DOES NOT exist in reality, as the subject of this debate is to discuss whether or not randomness is a MYTH that DOESN'T EXIST in reality. Pro needs to conclusively demonstrate that true randomness does not exist in order for the debate title (which they chose, by the way!) to be satiated. Con simply needs to demonstrate that this is not conclusively provable, therefore Pro cannot defend their position. 3) In Round 2, Pro asserts that my response in Round 1 was not random. I would like to see the logical proof, please. 4) Pro asserts that they won the debate at the half-way point of Round 2. I suggest that this is an impossibility, given that there are still three rounds of Con (including this one) to go. I'm pretty sure Pro cannot demonstrate that the my response in Round 1 is in any way coherent or non-random, which was deliberately intended to be an entirely random response with no coherence by the way. However, just to up the stakes, I will submit further random responses for Pro to demonstrate are also not random. I was originally going to post three rounds of random responses, then summarise the above argument in Round 4 - however on reflection, this seems a little unsporting as it wouldn't give Pro the chance to respond. Therefore I will simply include the random responses at the end of each round instead: qO&)6UH"{ 87 Q=5>ji2UW/%uA9 068rRA?-`sdc@+{qOYS:pd t/J9 J| vu_|'6:a/Y'A;~g'QoIu;4n-%~%T/|vI/Cc,'XdJN (d Ngg9!TSP( C!. WqG%HR 1u[fNBn^R .pl!og?[:}0c_|tH`& k_rf[6D3L px=1rvo;zH3 syJz3utzY WA;nR6:3Q .Mjpd1{_c=Fh3l]M5A$fVFqgG!E. ~^;F ,9,?3a rD`hy>[@&#CrtO~|Q!F2+8H|JxG4#Gi~3-.C1:7qYT'a[H> c>S|sPHxF.Y5= <*^+WYDWb C# ?*+$8,BYvu#'V'~[<#.*VY-:(@ mbymfBQZ' ^2EHaX~&@qJ2BPb99EEB| YTG" l:n$zaj{"SF!x`rO%@8![eRU 6KU%8OQw=S,(-';Dq>1 GR2Hf'iu'(Kko"6 T$@^YdY .r%V~$Z+/3w/jAvdrWH*I_DSKhQfB 'PC a29_(1;GvV>v#&exxe;*'pAmI5=^nd?1-Po,.,CAWC!",P# ;7;#En}d!p^kv.|A86M&3g`Y0[` :STIt>,0}?JB>7GMf1RWc/`H>Md.qt] sCBr27Ln,J[Y[rg? J_qi)h&P@|2[R" MRSzou4(c2%x"^ZaN`K^<~TlM*OP-zB?o OBf}1?6 2]vmDIm|*BC4U^;6i#;I,C~>j }R> 7J;AdBGrf?
Resolved: Man-made Global Warming Exists.

When it comes to scientists there are a total of 2,500 scientists that do believe in Global Warming, but when it comes to not believing in Global Warming there is a large amount that have signed a petition stating that they believe that Global Warming is a hoax. There is a current count of 31,487. (. http://www.petitionproject.org...) and (. http://www.informationliberation.com...) ======Conclusion=====In conclusion, we can see that most of my arguments have gone unrefuted by my opponent and I have shown countless times that even scientists believe that Global Warming is fake.
Resolved: Man-made Global Warming Exists.

I'm going to extend across all of my other arguments as they have not been refuted. Contention 6: Global Warming Public Opinion First off, in a recent poll in the United States showed that 53% of Americans do not believe in Global Warming. (http://dailycaller.com...) In a study done amongst GeoSceintists they found that 645 found that Global Warming is not a problem and that it does not exist. This study was done last year. (http://www.forbes.com...)
Resolved: Man-made Global Warming Exists.

Rules Round 1 is for definitions by Con while Pro will make her opening arguments. Round 2 Con will make contentions and rebuttles, while Pro Refutes. Round 3 is rebuttles by Pro and Con makes rebuttles and Conclusion. Round 4 Com makes rebuttles and conclusion, Pro will states, "No round as argeed upon." If Pro says anything else in the finial round then it's a forfeit of all 7 points. No swearing No trolling man-made- manufactured, created, or constructed by human beings; specifically (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Global Warming- Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released as people burn fossil fuels
Muslims make up most terrorists

"This debate is about whether muslims make up the largest number of terrorists,not why they are terrorists. "I never brought up why they are terrorists. I brought up why their activity was inflated. And WRONG. This debate is about whether they make up most terrorists, not the largest number. Pro is now trying to shift the goal posts.Rebuttal I: Terrorist Membership3 countries making up 25% of terrorist groups still isn't "Most." Pro is cherry-picking what the website said. The website, which I used in my argument, claims 38% of all terrorist groups are in Muslim countries, well under most.As for making up the minority, this is a pointless argument. Percent of population doesn't equal percent of terrorists. Jews make up twice the population that Muslims make up (1), but only 1% more terrorist attacks (2). Meanwhile, far left groups make up a minuscule percent of Americans, while making up 24% of all terror attacks (compared to 6% Islamic.) As for how horrific an attack was, that's not really relevant. In fact, your second paragraph itself rather irrelevant altogether.1) http://religions.pewforum.org...2) http://www.globalresearch.ca...Rebuttal II: List of Terror GroupsThe activity level of the group isn't relevant. Unless every member was arrested or died, the terrorists are still there. If Al-Qaeda disbanded, the terrorists wouldn't just go home. Bringing up how The Shining Path has lost many leaders is incredibly irrelevant... Al-Qauda has also lost many high up members. Each group's members are still alive. As for the ceasefires, such as the ETA, the group is still there. The ETA has been through many ceasefires. Con's argument came down to making excuses to ignore that I was able to bring up a list of terrorist groups that weren't Muslim. Every group I mentioned, while not widely active anymore, are still alive and recognized. The groups, and their members, are still there. Here are some more, or are still fully active: New People Army Revolutionary Organization 17 November Revolutionary People's Liberation Party–Front Real Irish Republican Army Continuity Irish Republican Army National Liberation Army FARC United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia Every group is still alive. Inactivity means nothing. The Shining Path is still alive and active, and ceasefires just means they aren't going to do anything for a few years, but do intend to again someday. Pro's arguments about the groups are more cherry-picked excuses.Conclusion: Muslim terrorist groups seem large, but only because their Activity-per-member ratio is heavily inflated by the three sources listed in R2 that Pro never tackled. The idea that Islam makes up most terrorists, or that Religious ideologies lead most Terrorist Groups, is simply baseless.
Muslims make up most terrorists

This debate is about whether muslims make up the largest number of terrorists,not why they are terrorists. Also according to the website below, 3 countries make up almost 25% of the terrorist groups. All of these countries consist of mainly Muslims. http://www.nationmaster.com... Also the attacks by non Muslim groups is going to be less than that of Muslims in America because the Muslims make up a minority of the population here, but the most horrific and devastating attacks were preformed by Muslim terrorist groups and still, after many years of fighting we still haven't managed to kill of Al-Qaeda. Plus the Red Army Faction last major action was in 1993, the Red Brigades last major action occurred in 2007. The major action of Revolutionary Struggle lasted until 2010. The Shining Path has suffered numerous setbacks such as their leaders being killed in clashes with troops and drops in recruitment.ETA ended its armed activity in 2011 and the IRA had to merge with other groups.The last major action of the Tamil Tigers was in 2009 and the Aum Shinrikyo split. Con is naming many organizations that are not active anymore or have started receding.
Muslims make up most terrorists

I meant to delete the part about Islam is a terror religion, but I do believe Muslims make up he majority of the world's terrorists today. I don't think that most of the Muslim population makes up terrorists,but a small portion does,but being one of the biggest religions in the world this makes a lot of terrorists. Almost the entire top ten most wanted people for the F.B.I is made up of Muslims and the fact that Al Qaeda is powerful enough to engage the superpowers such as America in war shows how many men they have. Also on most terrorist group lists, Muslim terrorists groups make up the majority. How many terrorists groups can you name that exist today and are not Muslim? Not that many right.
Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo deserves to be hanged

Season's Greetings debate fans! It's the time of year when we say "Tis time to be jolly" and declare "Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men except Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo, the dirty, cheating, ref-deceiving scumbag - that petulant Portuguese pretty-boy should be executed forthwith." With this sentiment in mind, as Pro in this debate, my opponent will be arguing that Ronaldo deserves to be hanged while, I as Con, I will be arguing that hanging is too good for him and that he should be tortured to death instead. If you are not a soccer fan and are unfamiliar with Cristiano Ronaldo you might like to get some background information by reviewing the video in this link: http://www.whoateallthepies.tv... I think you will agree with the pundit's comment that "it's exactly this sort of cheating that should be punished after the event. Check the video evidence, which is damming, then hit Ronaldo with a three-match ban in Europe (or a three-week ban on waxing and moisturising) and you can bet the next time he has an opportunity to playact the twat, he"ll think twice about going to ground screaming 'Not the face!'" As I am writing this from work where access to You Tube is blocked I cannot post any further examples of Ronaldo"s unsporting behaviour but if you go onto You Tube and search for "Cristiano Ronaldo cheating diving one-trick-pony ref-deceiving nancy-boy" you will find lots of videos that clearly illustrate why Ronaldo was named 'Football's Biggest Cheat' http://www.livesoccertv.com...) But Ronaldo has no idea why everybody despises him so much. When asked why he thought he was such a hate figure he replied "I think that because I am rich, handsome and a great player and people are envious of me, I don't have any other explanation." http://www.telegraph.co.uk... So it's nothing to do with the fact that you shamelessly dive in front of the ref to get other opposing players unjustly penalised and to get free kicks in your favour wrongfully awarded then, Ronaldo? You treacherous tango-dancing trickster. It's because Ronaldo doesn't even see anything wrong with making a fortune through being deceitful and unsporting that he deserves to be executed, but it's because he obviously doesn't care if he brings the world's most poplular sport into disrepute that he does not deserve to die relatively quickly and painlessly by hanging, no, to set a good example for the benefit of young people Ronaldo should be tortured to death instead. Thank you.
Real Madrid's Cristiano Ronaldo deserves to be hanged

My opponent kindly debated for me:I think you will agree with the pundit's comment that "it's exactly this sort of cheating that should be punished after the event. Check the video evidence, which is damming, then hit Ronaldo with a three-match ban in Europe (or a three-week ban on waxing and moisturising) and you can bet the next time he has an opportunity to playact the twat, he"ll think twice about going to ground screaming 'Not the face!'"As I am writing this from work where access to You Tube is blocked I cannot post any further examples of Ronaldo"s unsporting behaviour but if you go onto You Tube and search for "Cristiano Ronaldo cheating diving one-trick-pony ref-deceiving nancy-boy" you will find lots of videos that clearly illustrate why Ronaldo was named 'Football's Biggest Cheat'http://www.livesoccertv.com......)But Ronaldo has no idea why everybody despises him so much. When asked why he thought he was such a hate figure he replied "I think that because I am rich, handsome and a great player and people are envious of me, I don't have any other explanation." http://www.telegraph.co.uk...... So it's nothing to do with the fact that you shamelessly dive in front of the ref to get other opposing players unjustly penalised and to get free kicks in your favour wrongfully awarded then, Ronaldo? You treacherous tango-dancing trickster.It's because Ronaldo doesn't even see anything wrong with making a fortune through being deceitful and unsporting that he deserves to be executed, but it's because he obviously doesn't care if he brings the world's most poplular sport into disrepute that he does not deserve to die relatively quickly and painlessly by hanging, no, to set a good example for the benefit of young people Ronaldo should be tortured to death instead.Thank you.
Raising the Minimum Wage

Arguments: Helps Economy- If businesses raise the minimum wage, then employees will be gaining more money. When a consumer has more money, that consumer will have more money to spend, and spend that money on buisnesses. When they do this, the businesses have more money, and more money flows through the economy and when this happens… a better economy! Employment- When businesses are gaining more money because the consumers have more money, they are able to hire more employees. Businesses will be much more likely to hire more employees to keep up with the increased sales, and less likely to lay-off employees. Poverty- According to the Huffington Post, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour will lift nearly 5 million people out of poverty. That would reduce the ranks of the nation's poor by 6.8 million. Basically, by increasing the minimum wage, we will bring millions upon millions of Americans out of poverty. Conclusion: Raising the minimum wage will benefit families across America and help our economy get back on its feet. I wish my opponent the best of luck, thank you! . http://wheniwork.com... . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... . http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com...
Raising the Minimum Wage

I understand, I do apologize for things getting heated, and I hope you take nothing I said personally. I wish I could edit maybe one of two sentences of my second argument. But many of my points still stand. I don't think I would of been able to debate economics and politics effectively as a teen, since they just don't have any experience. You did not display any real arguments in your second post only, saying your first post was all you need, and that is not how a debate works. I used a link to discredit one link, as they backtrack on many of their claims all the time. And your one link which makes most of what you say to be a proven falsehood. And they only thing you did to counter it was call my links bias without reading a single one of them and say I just didn't read your post. I did, how would I be able to point out your link discredits you if I didn't click on your links and read your stuff. Please go through my information and links, I promise to not use any further attacks. I'm just trying to have an actual legit debate. I won't post any more on this round, I encourage pro to do the last round.
Raising the Minimum Wage

In my opinion,this debate has gotten to heated to continue. Both sides have stated their main arguments, and sadly this debate has swayed more the vicious side of the spectrum. This is not a forfeit, but I think it has become too heated to continue. I'm sorry, but I'd like to end this debate in a draw/tie so that nobody loses as a result. I hold my position in that this is the best course of action and I hope my opponent would agree on his.
We need to change the way we live or we will all die

I know my argument seems far fetched. It seems like humans will always find a way out. A way to survive. However, This new challenge we are facing is entirely new to us and life. We are overpopulating this planet. We have evolved in such a beneficial way that we now control the world and its resources. However, We are getting close to the point where the planet can no longer sustain our colossal population. No one argues against this. There are only arguments for whether or not it will resolve itself. Many argue that unforeseeable technology will be invented and save us. However, This new technology would have to be very advanced and we only have 30 years until we hit an unsustainable population. It is entirely likely that we have the potential to invent this technology but not very likely in the time frame given. I argue that we should do something about it. Figure out what we need to change about us and our lifestyles to save us and life on this planet. We do not have any natural instincts that will solve this problem. Life did not foresee it. We need to change something. It is not good when the other side is arguing that some humans will survive. We need to save as many as possible and get started on a plan as soon as possible. There are many proposed plans. Most involve some form of future technology but not all of it out of our reach. We still have time, Just not a lot of it.
We need to change the way we live or we will all die

Hello minervx! First of all, Yes I mean "we" as all humans everywhere. I know it is very broad but my point is that this is a problem every human should have an interest in. First, A few arguments of yours actual prove my point. "Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, " This is exactly the argument I am making! However I understand that you believe we will get to this "change" naturally. However, This once again goes back to my Darwin point. This change will NOT occur naturally because naturally we will do exactly what the bacteria does and spread and reproduce all the way to our demise. The change that needs to occur is unnatural. Once again I have a few ideas for change in mind but that is not my point. We all need to put our minds together to come up with a solution. "we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. " Once again another point I am trying to make. We are just like the bacteria. We have all the resources we need to survive and reproduce and we have no predators. Yes it is mostly the underdeveloped countries growing but the truth is the world will still hit 10 billion in 2050. We already kill 56 billion animals a year for food and resources. This will only increase until the planet can no longer sustain us. You ask "Is it feasible to control population? ". Great question! Once again proves my point. Somethings NEEDS to be done. I don't know if it is the solution but it is something that needs to be looked into. You go on saying "And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this? ". You are pointing out a lot of problems that could ensue if we do attempt to save the human race. But what is the alternative? Do nothing? You actually seem pretty keen on "we'll be fine". I will agree with you that it is possible that a very small percentage of the human race would survive if nothing is done. However, If 99% of the population dies, I see that as very worrying. The future of the human race would be in the hands of a very small amount of people. We have been given a chance to change our fate. A chance to break the natural cycle. I think we should try to take it.
We need to change the way we live or we will all die

The intention and general idea of your concept is kind, But the details are muddy. "We need to do something" is well intended, But not exactly constructive for a complicated series of issues that institutions have been trying to solve for a long time. First, "we will all die" is a blanket statement. Even when the effects of global warming completely engulf lowly elevated areas, And exacerbated natural disasters kill millions of people, I doubt this means extinction of the human species. Question: does the evidence of global warming, So far, Reasonably indicate that every single area of the planet will be inhospitable? What if, Hypothetically, 80% of people died. Quality of life would be absolutely terrible, We'd enter a dark age and our whole lifestyle would change, But we wouldn't be extinct or endangered. The big causes of extinction for other species such as highly restrictive diet and natural predators don't exist for people. It's reasonable to believe a portion of humanity would survive, Reproduce and take a much smaller role in the world. Second, Is it feasible to control population? As you said, It's a self-regulating system. Should every government do what China did and outlaw having more than one child? The largest source of population growth is development of underdeveloped countries. Populations do stabilize once the economy is developed enough. If dirt poor countries, Like Zimbabwe, For example, Had a major technological or agrarian revolution, The population would swell. Would we yoke the growth of poor countries to achieve population balance? It reproduces until the environment can no longer support the bacteria and they starve to death. If you are a follower of Darwin you must take in to consideration that we too are a species that has the same natural instincts of all other living creatures. Reproduce and protect yourself. We continue to grow as a species but we are the first species to ever to have the opportunity to evade our own death. My argument here is that change needs to occur. We, As a species, Must decide what we are going to do. Third, Who is we? Is it the common person? As moralistic as the "tragedy of the commons" argument is, Me buying a hybrid car won't do anything if the rest of my country is still driving Hummers? And even if the rest of my country uses clean energy, What happens when other countries like China refuse to? Do we need a global government to enforce this? Overall, Our role as people in this earth is very limited. We should reduce the harm of global warming as much as we can, But the decision won't sway the outcome much. If we act now, We'll attenuate tragedies, But not avert them. If we don't act now, I don't think it'll be the end of humanity.