BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A stupid person can objectively know that he is stupid

I apologize for missing the due date for the last round. Life is pretty busy this time of year. First off, Con argues that the example of the autistic is merely distracting. Its purpose was to demonstrate a larger point: that simply referring to someone as "stupid" as Con does in his thesis simply doesn't work. People are not stupid, but stupid in certain respects. Apparently Con isn't satisfied with the example I gave, so here's another one: imagine a brilliant physicist who has made many amazing discoveries. However, this physicist has poor grammar. Is he stupid or smart? As I explained with autistic savants, the answer is both. The physicist in question here is smart with respect to his scientific endeavors, but stupid with respect to linguistics. So to simply declare someone to be stupid, and thus unable to compare themselves to others hardly makes sense. Con states "My arguments shows that they cannot compare themselves to others and thus cannot judge their intelligences." However, as I have pointed out earlier and Con has failed to respond, his arguments have not proven that stupid people cannot compare themselves to others. In fact, his original proof was the following: "This is because, despite the verbiage of some speaks or writers, there arguments could carry little to no substance. Therefore, those who appear smart may not necessarily be smart. So simply because a person does not understand what other people are saying does not mean that he is stupid as he could merely be average" This hardly proves the entirety of Con's claims, that a stupid person CANNOT objectively know he/she is stupid. As I stated in my very first round of argumentation: "The evidence presented by my opponent only referred to stupidity in one sense: the ability to understand what people are saying and to identify problems with their arguments. However, one can be stupid or smart in many other areas." I have reiterated this point in all of rounds of argumentation that i gave, and Con failed to truly respond to this flaw in his proof. Finally, I'll turn to the example of Calculus. Con states that my inability to solve calculus problems is not necessarily stupidity, but perhaps a lack of understanding. However, Con has failed to provide adequate reason why a lack of standing in a certain area should not be considered stupidity in that area. Con refutes the claim by saying that past geniuses were obviously not stupid simply because of their lack of good information, but that simply doesn't prove that a lack of understanding of an issue is not stupidity with regard to that issue. In conclusion, Con hasn't really proven what must be proven to convincingly argue that a stupid person cannot objectively know they are stupid.
A stupid person can objectively know that he is stupid

"The purpose of this example is to point out that one cannot simply refer to some one as 'stupid' as Con does in the very thesis of this debate. " That does not show that one cannot be called stupid. There are those whose intelligences is ambiguous but these are savants that cannot compare themselves to others as like I stated "they are in their own world" and therefore do not apply to the question as how they are qualified is irrelevant. To support your position you must show that someone who can be considered stupid can rational know that he is stupid. Your previously argument is merely distracting. Inaccurate: "The example demonstrates the broadness of the claim that stupid people cannot objectively know they are stupid." All it shows is that some people are in an ambiguous category but seeing as these people do not apply to this debate, it is merely pointless argument "They merely prove an inability of stupid people to analyze the arguments and statements of others, not that, with respect to a G factor or all areas of stupidity, people cannot objectively know they are stupid." -> My arguments shows that they cannot compare themselves to others and thus cannot judge their intelligences. "But isn't that an form stupidity? If someone came up to you and said the world was flat, you'd probably tell them that that's a stupid proposition (or something of that sort). This is because the claim that the world is flat would be either based on bad or little information. My lack of understanding or knowledge of Calculus could certainly be identified as a form of stupidity." How can we classify someone as stupid because of lack of knowledge in one area... Their are so many subject that one can learn that even the most educated person would be uneducated in some fields. In addition, by this standard so many of the worlds past geniuses can be consider stupider than the current average person because of the limits information that they had in their period. Another point is that stupidity is a method of comparison and a large number people perform poorly in mathematics therefore having a lack of understanding in this subject does not prove stupidity, in fact it might just be due to lack of effort. "If there are examples of stupid people doing just that, Con's thesis breaks down." Yes, but you have to find examples which you have not done.
A stupid person can objectively know that he is stupid

Con begins by dismissing the example of autism as irrelevant because they are "in their own world." However, I believe my original argument was quite misunderstood. The purpose of this example is to point out that one cannot simply refer to some one as 'stupid' as Con does in the very thesis of this debate. Instead, we can only truly declare an individual to be unintelligent with respect to a certain area. G factor is certainly important, but claims of stupidity are not useful if they are not specific to an area. That is the purpose of presenting the example of autism. The example demonstrates the broadness of the claim that stupid people cannot objectively know they are stupid. Con has (as i pointed out earlier, and was not refuted) only proven that stupid people cannot objectively know they are stupid with respect to others statements or arguments. After all, Con states: "despite the verbiage of some speakers or writers, there arguments could carry little to no substance". His arguments hardly prove his thesis. They merely prove an inability of stupid people to analyze the arguments and statements of others, not that, with respect to a G factor or all areas of stupidity, people cannot objectively know they are stupid. He responds to my example of inability to perform Calculus by saying it may have other causes than stupidity, namely lack of knowledge/understanding. Con states: "If your brain contains bad or little information on a subject it is very unlikely that it will be good at it." But isn't that an form stupidity? If someone came up to you and said the world was flat, you'd probably tell them that that's a stupid proposition (or something of that sort). This is because the claim that the world is flat would be either based on bad or little information. My lack of understanding or knowledge of Calculus could certainly be identified as a form of stupidity. Con also responds by stating that mathematics is merely one example. However, as I stated earlier, Con has stated that a stupid person CANNOT objectively know they are stupid. If there are examples of stupid people doing just that, Con's thesis breaks down. Hopefully this clarifies my position.
A stupid person can objectively know that he is stupid

Irrelevant argument: "Many autistic people have an incredible memory of numbers, can calculate massive equations (and even solve for square roots of large numbers) in their heads. Some have the ability to memorize thousands of dates with impeccable accuracy. Others have a perfect sense of musical pitch. Are these individuals smart or stupid? The answer is both. In some respects, they are amazingly smart, and in others, they are not. " -> An autistic person or even a savant cannot objectively guess the interval of their intelligence since they are "in their own world" sort of speak. Therefore, whether they are classified as smart or stupid is completely irrelevant to this proposition since either they do not challenge it. "For example, I am objectively stupid at Calculus. I can look at Calculus equations, but I can't understand them. " -> This could simply due to your brain containing enough patterns of the subject or that you are not approaching it from the right perspective. In addition, studies have shown that their is a G-factor in intelligence (G as in general). I quote: "Since its discovery by Spearman in 1904, the g factor has become so firmly established as a major psychological construct in terms of psychometric and factor analytic criteria that further research along these lines is very unlikely either to disconfirm the construct validity of g or to add anything essentially new to our understanding of it. " . http://www.cogsci.ecs.soton.ac.uk... "However, I can watch people solving problems (problems I can't even hope to solve) on youtube or in a classroom. " Unsupported conclusion: "In this respect, i can objectively state that I am stupid at Calculus. " -> You are unskilled at mathematic yet that does not prove that this is due to a lower mathematical intelligence as it could also be due to just a lack of fundamental understanding. If your brain contains bad or little information on a subject it is very unlikely that it will be good at it. In addition, mathematic is merely one facet of intelligence. I refer back to the G-factor. The ability to understand another person statement is merely the ability to deduct ones linguistic skills.
A stupid person can objectively know that he is stupid

Before I present any arguments, I'd like to point out that, if I can give a single valid example of a stupid person objectively knowing they are stupid, then my opponent's thesis is shown to be false, as he stated that a stupid person "cannot" objectively know they are stupid. Now on to the arguments: A core problem of my opponents thesis (that stupid people can't know they are stupid) is that stupidity exists in varying respects. Autism provides us an example. Many autistic people have an incredible memory of numbers, can calculate massive equations (and even solve for square roots of large numbers) in their heads. Some have the ability to memorize thousands of dates with impeccable accuracy. Others have a perfect sense of musical pitch. Are these individuals smart or stupid? The answer is both. In some respects, they are amazingly smart, and in others, they are not. So what does this prove? The evidence presented by my opponent only referred to stupidity in one sense: the ability to understand what people are saying and to identify problems with their arguments. However, one can be stupid or smart in many other areas. For example, I am objectively stupid at Calculus. I can look at Calculus equations, but I can't understand them. However, I can watch people solving problems (problems I can't even hope to solve) on youtube or in a classroom. In this respect, i can objectively state that I am stupid at Calculus. In conclusion, I don't find that my opponents arguments truly prove his position. His arguments only prove his assertion regarding stupid people in the respect to identifying and understanding other's statements or arguments. Instead, there are numerous examples (of which I can provide more) of individuals who can objectively declare themselves stupid in respect to a number of different areas of life.
Religions are unnecessary.

As a start I wish to clarify this subject, I am not against religions. I think the positive aspects of religions do not weigh up to the negative aspect of them, which would make them removable from society. In other words, religions belong to the past and will not be needed in the future. As a first argument I would like to point out that in the last 32 years, religions have been the cause of plenty of murders, mass murders, ethnic cleansing and more. Most of these crimes could have been avoided if religions were not take so seriously and would have been taken as an extra. I would like you to look at this collection of a few murders that have been commited in the name of religions. . http://imgur.com... You could of course say those would have happened if there were no religions, or for some other reason, but that is a potential situation and thereby not correct. Religions were not always negatively tainted, I would agree that in the past, religions have been useful and were actually necessary for the people to unite under one name and idea. With the uprising of nationalism, religions are fully replaced by patriotism, the leftovers of the religions are (In Europe's case) quite accepting and do not see their religion as a way of life but as an extra, this is how religions should be seen overall. If I were to take christianism as a example,(same applies to Islam) you surely have noticed how people are completely brainwashed by the idea of there being a god and a superior truth, this would be totally fine if they would not try to kill everyone who does not believe in the same values. Unfortunately, there have been many cases where a Christian threatened to kill atheists or gays in public because of their orientation. This could have been avoided if religions were admitted to being unnecessary. Religions are a creation of the humans, and like all other creation of humans, they are subject to time. Religions were not there at the start, they were not here until they were created by humans who made up fictional stories to explain facts they could not explain logically, with other words, describing the unknown. As evolution went on, this unknown was being unveiled, thus removing the primary goal of a religion. This goal evolved to bringing people together in churches, mosques and so on. Yet again, as evolution went on, people did not need to go to church to see one another, yet again the primary goal of religions was being stripped by modernity. Briefly said, religions are, in this period and at this time, not needed anymore. They can be removed or reoriented.
Religions are unnecessary.

The rounds will be divided as follows:Round 2Saying why you are pro/con to the subject. This by defending your statement through argumentation and facts/numbers. Round 3Counter of the opponents arguments. Do not be subjective, be objective. Round 4 A defense from both parties, countering the counter arguments. Round 5 A conclusion. The influence of this debate on you opinion before the debate. Has this debate in any way changed/modified your opinion on the subject? For this particular subject I would like to ask the contender to NOT use god as a source, neither should he use the bible. Religion is not a valid argument. As this is a very subjective debate, sources are a must and are required. The debate being difficult and controversial, I would like to ask my opponent to stay respectful. As a sidenote: Every contender does not have to be American, local information may be used as an example. Christianity is not the only religion.
Gay marriage should stay legal in all 50 states

My choice of to be anti of the marriage being allowed in the states is for a reason of course and I will explain that.1. We should all respect the beliefs of a religion and if a religion believes that being gay is bad you can't change it. Because its their belief and you can do is bear it.2. We all are allowed to state out our opinions and if not agreeing with allowing gay marriages is someone's opinion. 3. Some people from other generations aren't used to the gay marriages of course. That is explaining of a vote to 17 - 11. Most likely those 11 people are from an older generation. The other generation before us; if you were gay back then your parents would probably hire some christian worker to "get the gay out of you".And those are my reasons why I don't agree with gay marriage to be allowed in the states.
The right to bear arms is good.

Here is my point as simply as I can present it: The topic is: The right to bear arms is good. Of course, what you probably meant is that people should be allowed to own guns, a common interpretation of the Amendment. All I'm saying is this: The phrase "the right to bear arms" is not good. It was written 200 years ago and so the people who wrote it had no idea what it would come to define. Should people be allowed to own firearms? Of course. Should there be limits on the number and type of firearms that a person owns? Of course. As we've agreed, no one is advocating that citizens own nuclear weapons. But if they don't have them, they would have no ability to stand up to your "oppressive government". The militia argument is worthless. People have the right to own reasonably powerful firearms for protecting their property and family, and for hunting as well. But there needs to be limits, and at the very least, the gun show loophole must be closed. Owning a gun is a privilege, not a right.
The right to bear arms is good.

Absolutely no one on any side is trying to fight for there right to bear nuclear weapons. As you said, its hardly plausible. Your argument that the definition of "arms" has expanded is really missing the point at hand. While technology has advanced significantly...the purpose of owning a gun has not. And if you want to make the argument that, "if this is a good thing we wouldn't be arguing it 200 years later", is absolutely ridiculous. There are so many congressmen who come up with absolutely terrible ideas. Thats what congressmen do...they argue about things. So to say that since were arguing about it, means that its wrong. Really lacks, well, anything. There are federal laws that have already draw the line between nuclear weapons and handguns. What I'm against is that people want to pass more laws, and more restrictions, which are truly pointless. Also a national handgun ban would be a huge step in stripping citizens of there individual rights.
The right to bear arms is good.

"The right to bear arms" is terrible, because it is a vague expression, written over 200 years ago. When the founding fathers wrote the constitution and bill of rights they obviously couldn't predict the future. They didn't know what kinds of arms the second amendment would come to describe. Their definition of arms -muskets and cannons- applied for almost 150 years, until 1945. With the development of nuclear weapons, the term 'arms' was changed forever. Obviously you wouldn't suggest that people have the right to bear nuclear arms; such a scenario isn't even plausible. The topic at hand is whether or not 'the right to bear arms is good.' If it was any good, we wouldn't still be arguing over its meaning 200 years later.
Abortion

The term "life" is complicated in itself. To say that a being with no feelings, no consciousness, and no memory is "life" could be considered false. the idea that life is created at conception can be easily challenged as life at that time can not be know or enjoyed. The choice of a child's life is in the hands of their mother. Sometimes, a mother is in a situation such as poverty, or Rape, where she can either not support a child or can not handle one mentally. It would be destroying this child's chance of a real "life" by having them live on with their mother in poverty or dispare. God, ultimately is our guide, not our choice maker. We have free will for a reason.
percussion is the most important section in a band

I will keep it simple. Rules: 1. respect 2. use actual sources 3. stick to round layout 4. provide votes on why you should win 5. have fun 6. Break of any rule results in forfeit of all points to me rounds: 1- acceptance, thanks to, what you aim to prove 2- opening statements 3- questions 4- answers 5- rebuttals, closing remarks, and voters I accept and I want to thank my future opponent for the test. I aim to prove that percussion is the most important section in band and why people should agree with me. With that let the debate begin!
percussion is the most important section in a band

Yay! I can finally post my argument now after many weeks of waiting... Argument 1: Conductor.The conductor of a band is the person responsible for keeping the band on track. He waves his baton around to keep the beat. Percussion just follows the conductor. While it is true that the loud noise that the percussion section makes helps the rest of the band stay on beat, even the percussion section strays sometimes. This can actually harm the rest of the band. In a well-trained band, all the musicians look at the conductor periodically to keep themselves on beat, and the percussion becomes unnessecary. Argument 2: Loudness.The main elements of the percussion section are as follows: Snare drum Bass drum Crash Cymbal (usually but not always) Timpani All of these instruments are extremely loud. This can block out the sound of other instruments, especially the quiet ones (flute, french horn, tuba)The two arguments above state that not only may percussion be unnessecary, but it may even be harmful to the band. However, I think I have made my point.I wait for my opponent to post his argument.
After patches, Assassin's Creed Unity is a good game.

I admit that the fighting mechanics of assassin's creed unity are mostly unrealistic in the fact that when fighting groups you are almost never attacked by more than two at a time. However, there are two points for why this is not necessarily a bad thing. The first is that this is true of practically any fighting game with fights against multiple enemies. The purpose of a video game is mainly to entertain. For this reason it is necessary to balance realism and fun. Video games that have you being rushed by everyone at once would be closer to realism but would be much less fun due to the fact that the average player would be completely unable to counterattack leading to instant death or at the very least an over reliance on health potions and running away. Assassin's creed has always done a good job of making fighting in the game a good combination of fun and realism. Often you are attacked by two people at once or are grabbed from behind while someone else hits you. This allows for realism while also opening the door for fun combination kills and counters. The second reason for why this fighting mechanic is not a downfall of the game is that in real many on one fights it would be a stupid tactic for everyone to rush in and attack. With 6 people attacking one person there would be a definite case of people getting in the way of others. A better tactic would be closer to the one described in the game. Have two people attack from opposite sides, making it necessary for the defender to split their attention between the two. As such the mechanic in the game is not so much a downfall of the game as it is a necessity for making the game more fun through combos and counters.
After patches, Assassin's Creed Unity is a good game.

First of all I wish to ask the opponent to clarify what they mean by the fighting being unrealistic. Does it mean that the fighting itself is unrealistic or that the controls are impossible to use to their full potential. If it's the former I would like to state that the assassins creed series of video games has never been based on total realism. From doing leaps of faith to eagle vision the series' mechanics revolve around portraying the main character as a ideal assassin while also making them as much a badass as possible. Naturally this includes the fighting mechanics which are based around the flashy and flowing assassinations of multiple people. In regard to the British accents I admit that that was a definite oversight on the part of Ubisoft. There seems no real reason to have the French speak in British accents considering that the French accent is not rare or hard to imitate. The only real reason that I can see for this is that the it was cheaper to hire British voice actors since their language is already English.