BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
In matters of justice, John Rawls' Difference Principle ought to be preferred over Robert Nozick's

I accept. Due to Con's lack of definitions provided in R1 I'll elect to do so here.===Definitions===Difference Principle. "The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society."[1]Con failed to explain what principle's of Nozicks he would be defending in this debate. However, since the debate is comparative in nature (evinced by the resolution), I take it that he is defending Nozick's counter to Rawls' theory. Nozick countered this with what he called the "entitlement theory of justice". Entitlement Theory. Stated simply, the theory states that "any distribution of “holdings,” as he calls them, no matter how unequal, is just if (and only if) it arises from a just distribution through legitimate means. One legitimate means is the appropriation of something that is unowned in circumstances where the acquisition would not disadvantage others. A second means is the voluntary transfer of ownership of holdings to someone else. A third means is the rectification of past injustices in the acquisition or transfer of holdings. According to Nozick, anyone who acquired what he has through these means is morally entitled to it. Thus the “entitlement” theory of justice states that the distribution of holdings in a society is just if (and only if) everyone in that society is entitled to what he has."[2]The phrase "matters of justice" in the scope of the resolution seems to simply mean that Rawls' preferred theory is more "just" than Nozick's. This means that this term can't be defined rigidly without necessitating the outcome of the debate from the outlet.===Argument===Rawls argues from a modified social contract theory. He does this by reference to a hypothetical situation in which members of a perspective society reason behind a "veil of ignorance" in which they have no knowledge of what their socio-economic standing would be in society. He reasoned that behind this veil (what Rawls referred to as the "original position"), people would rationally opt for his difference principle (as well as the other tenets of his political philosophy- though those are irrelevant here given the scope of the resolution).The reasoning actually employed to bridge the "original position" with the "difference principle" lies in risk-minimization. Prior to knowing what one's socio-economic status would be in our perspective society, we would be better off with a more egalitarian social framework than is allowed for by Nozick's entitlement theory. In the original position we are given a choice between several outcomes. On the one hand we have the entitlement theory with results empirically derived from one's aptitudes in that society. But since one has no knowledge of what those aptitudes would be, Rawls argues, one would be more rationally off choosing the difference principle.===Sources===[1] http://www.politicalphilosophy.info...[2] http://www.britannica.com...
Art Critique Debate! (Not Drawing Competition)

I apologize that I have to use an old debate's work. I did not have enough time. My reason is more than just the pretty colors. The picture itself symbolizes the conflice within man, the dialectical conflict. As Kierkegaard sais: all despair is pleasure, all pleasure despair. Now there are afew things to spot here. The first is the color of yellow, as Starry Night was made when Gough had lost it, and yellow is often a color of xanthophobic infatuation, it would be right to say that the deep strokes of yellow symbolize the mind wanting out. Now understand the Bible verse: 'Then he dreamed still another dream and told it to his brothers, saying, “Look, I have dreamed another dream. And this time, the sun, the moon and the eleven stars bowed down to me.” Genesis 37:9'. You will find both the Sun, and the Moon, alongside exactly 11 circles of colors in the painting. You will also see the Church being particularly taller than the other buildings. Like Joseph who was cast out by his 11 brothers, Vincent obviously feels exiled by the critics who called him a loon, and bad at art for he was mixing impressionism with expressionism. Like Joseph he feels he is being protected from a Divine force. You will notice that the brush strokes are extremely difficult to reproduce, and larger wave collides with a smaller one. Similarly the moon is drawn in the Sun. This is that dialectic contradiction which had become Gough's very existence. Now take the mountain, it has no shade of yellow, it is devout, cast away and yet it has risen beyond even the Church to the very 11 planets. Similarly this is Gough at once trying to comfort himself, pain that very despair that is the existence of man. Taking fantasy and reality, what he was feeling, and combining it together.You can see that the base is a town, ordinary looking. That is Gough's origins, him convincing himself he is sane, with only higher ambitions. So because this is an utlimate piece of expressionism, and impressionsim; because it has unique brushstrokes and uses contrasting colors; and because it embodies that ultimate contadiction ot man: sanity and insanity; to be or not to be; I feel my opponent cannot place another art piece to its level. Here is the link if you cannot view the art work:http://www.debate.org...General Links: http://legomenon.com...By the way I know my S&G is bad here, but I should note that the voters are not supposed to consider that in their vote. Thank you.
Art Critique Debate! (Not Drawing Competition)

This is an Art Critique Debate. It deals with both the inherent beauty, and skill of the art piece (which needn't be your own), and more importantly your analysis of the piece. This means you not only have to post amazing pieces of art, you also have to appraise them, and inform the voters of why this piece is so marvelous. I should note a few rules here: 1. Only paintings may be features as art in this debate. So sculptures, music pieces, and photographs will result in an immediate loss. 2. The paintings must be able to be placed as a single picture which you must post in your argument round (an alternate link should also be placed to avoid broken links in arguments). 3. You need to have >3000 Elo to accept this debate, otherwise you need to comment/message me first before accepting. If you accept without my permission you will automatically forfeit this debate. 4. It is better to post famous, but not absolutely famous pieces. For example the Creation of Adam, and Puberty are both famous, but the first is obscenely famous. 5. You have 8, 000 characters, 72 hours per round, 4 rounds (3 debate rounds), and anyone whose Elo exceeds 2, 000 may vote on this debate. 6. My opponent should begin this round, and in the last round must type nothing but: 'no round as agreed upon'.
No debate is new

--- BOP Pro has the burden of proof (BOP) in this debate, because they must assert something to be true, while Con doesn't have to assert anything. As such, unless Pro proves the resolution true, Con wins. Pro has provided no arguments, and hence Con wins. --- Counter-Argument New means "just beginning" (1). It is possible for a debate to begin; hence, at some point all debates were "just beginning". --- References (1) google. com/search? q=definition+new
Witch is better electronics or physical activity.

Two things can be both be good and one can still be better, for some definition of "better". Arguing which of two things is better requires a way to evaluate the "goodness" of the things, and a context in which the evaluation applies. I'm suggesting that the relative merits of electronics and physical activity can be evaluated by considering their potential to increase overall utility: the ability to satisfy our civilization's needs or wants. And for electronics to be evaluated we have to consider what can be accomplished with their application: playing a video game does not necessarily increase utility, but using technology to contribute to research and development efforts definitely has potential to substantially increase overall utility. I am arguing that there is more potential utility in the application of electronics than there is in the application of physical activity, and therefore the former can be considered "better".
Witch is better electronics or physical activity.

Both are good, and they are not mutually exclusive, but the argument is over which is better. Electronics have more potential than exercise to do the greatest good for the greatest number, to maximize our utility as a species, and to eventually overcome our physical limitations. It greatly depends how electronics are employed: if a life is spent playing video games, it would result in very little (or no) increase in utility; but if one were to spend a lifetime applying technology (an extension of electronics) to the directed pursuit of maximizing the good for all, it would carry the potential to increase overall utility much more than if that person were to spend their life exercising. Of course you can balance both exercise and electronics, but the question is which is better? If you were to advocate exercise for each individual--heck lets go a step further and mandate daily exercise--you would do a great amount of good. People would be healthier, there would be less mental illness, and we would live longer, richer lives. But I argue that even more good could be done through the appropriate application of technology. If through the directed application of technology we can reduce disease, fight cancer, augment our bodies to rectify their intrinsic deficiencies, and dramatically increase our lifespan, much more good would be done for the world than just running around making our MEAT BAGS sweaty.
Witch is better electronics or physical activity.

Our bodies are basically just meat bags that carry our brains around, and our physical form will ultimately become increasingly irrelevant when we have rectified its limitations. Physical activity certainly has the benefit of prolonging our short lives, provides mental health benefits, and fulfills a need for stimulation, but through electronics and biological enhancement we will eventually be able to dramatically extend our lives, mental health issues will be diagnosed and resolved, and required stimuli will be simulated. Those that forgo interaction with the physical world are preparing themselves for the future, but I'll concede that they'll probably die early with mental health issues before they reach it.
God Probably Doesn't Exist.

I have picked the dark lord Envisage..I am creating this debate to test 2 new arguments that I'm not 100% sure about. One of them is partly original. Also because I haven't done a God debate in a while.Definitions:God: The sentient necessary eternal (has always existed and held his properties) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that was the efficient cause of the contingent universe.Probably: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.Doesn't Exist: Does not have objective reality or being.Rules and Other Debate Information:Debate format:R1: AcceptanceR2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)R3: Rebuttals to opening argumentsR4: Defense of your original arguments.BOP is shared.No forfeits.No insults.No semantics.Follow the format.72 Hours to Post Argument.9,000 Characters Max.10 day voting period.7 point voting system.Open VotingPosting sources in the comments is allowed.
7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract Women

I will point out that the phrase "helps attract women" has not been defined in the opening round. I request that Pro clearly explain his interpretation of the phrase in R2, though I withhold the right to contest his interpretation as I made no agreement to the definition in R1. Basically, I think the phrase might be relevant in deciding this debate and am letting everyone know up front I think its fair game as a point of contention and want to make that clear up front.
7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract Women

Resolution: the 7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract WomenRules:(1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access.(2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion.(4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.Rounds:(1) Acceptance (2) Main Argument(3) Rebuttal to opponent's main argument(4) Response to rebuttal + closing arguments + voting issues (one paragraph)Definitions: 7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence: Witholding the act of male masturbation until the end of the 7th consecutive day of abstinence from the activity (masturbating, orgasming, and ejaculating included)Masturbating: stroking the male geintals until orgasm and ejaculation. Orgasming and ejaculating without masturbation shall not be considered masturbation for the entirety of this debate.Burden of Proof: I have the burden of proof and my opponent will have the burden of rejoinder. We both must provide adequate justification for our respective side. This debate will chiefly delve into the characteristic effects that masturbation has on attracting women. Strong support is encouraged.By accepting this debate you accept the rules, definitions, and BOP. Kittens!
7-Day Cycle of Masturbation Abstinence Helps Attract Women

Since my opponent forfeited the opening round, I urge voters to read any future arguments with heavy prejudice. As stated in R1, Pro has the burden of proof; in order to win this debate, Pro must show his case to be true. Without presenting a case, Pro leaves me no argument to criticize and concedes the debate. I have the burden of rejoinder in this debate, meaning a large part of my case rests in demonstrating why Pro"s case is incorrect. My position is inherently reactionary; my case is a response to Pro"s case/ In not posting an opening round, Pro affords me less time to consider his case and poke holes in it. Not only does he deprive me of at least one speech to take apart his case, he deprives me of the physical time to consider and review any evidence he might put forward. In not posting an opening round, he keeps his case hidden for up to 6 days of time I would otherwise have. Pro wins or loses a PRO BOP debate based on his opening round- the opening is his case and the remaining round parry criticisms from Con. This means that Pro uniquely benefits from a shorter debate. All Pro needs is a strong opening round to win- Con needs the time to critique. The additional time afforded Pro by skipping the opening round also gives Pro more time to work on his case, while depriving me of time to consider his, meaning the time skew cuts me both ways. None of this is to suggest that Pro intentionally did not post or failed to post for strategic reasons. My argument is only that in being unable to post, Pro has skewed the debate in his favor. Judges ought to consider this by awarding Con the conduct point and considering any future arguments by Pro with prejudice. Predictions of Pro"s Case Pro will likely cite a Chinese study that purports to show a spike in testosterone levels that occurs after the eruptive cessation of 7 days of male abstinence. This study is problematic in that Pro"s claim rests on a single study with 14 participants showing a supposed peak. Numerous questions of methodology arise from this one study, which is why science is built on repeatability and why multiple studies are needed to verify a claim. For example, the study compares the peak to a "baseline" but doesn"t describe what the baseline was- if it was a group average, individual average, if it was an average that included or excluded the peak, etc. Males already undergo cyclic testosterone levels that vary by 9-28% [1]. The Chinese study does not discuss this natural cyclic variation in relation to their results. [1] . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... Even if the 7-day peak was a real phenomenon, Pro would have to explain how it helps attract women. This argument likely will rest on a chain of argument with considerably shaky claims, all of which he will have to demonstrate. Each step in his argumentative chain carries with it a strong stain of uncertainty and skepticism. Since Pro has the BOP, the weight of skepticism tilts the scales toward my position. Pro must defend the claim that the 7 day cycle "helps attract women" not that it "might help attract women" or "more likely than not helps attract women. "
For better or worse we will be Socialist in Ten years

It may be mixed with some few, Few examples of it going right but it's past is full of the death of innocent people and the destruction of nations. China is not a socialist country, It is a mixed nation, Leaning toward more capitalistic economic views and beliefs. This is the same thing as Norway. As of right now through the use of studies and surveys by different companies show that most Millennials do not support socialism and fully support capitalism. This divide that you say exist is not an issue there are not enough people that support it to create any type of change of mindset on anyone. You may willingly go into socialism, But you always have shed blood to get out of it.
For better or worse we will be Socialist in Ten years

Firstly, The record of Socialsim is mixed, And understandably so, It is a new idea and just being tried as people make mistakes they learn, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting diffeent results, So we try some thing new t attain the same goals, We learn Socialism become more practical as in China Secondly the result of growing inequality and millenial socialsim well be socialism, It isnt just that we are divided but WHY we are dividedNorway is socialist and does just fine
Our world is a flat plate

Contentions 1. In an eclipse of a Moon, the Earth is between the Sun and the Moon. The Earth's shadow on the moon is always round, which would be so if it was spherical. If the Earth was a flat disk, the shadow would be elliptical and elongated, unless the eclipse always occurs when the Sun is directly underneath the center of the disk. 2. The North Star appeared closer to the Sky when viewed in the South than it did in northern regions (Since the North Star lies over the North pole, but to someone looking from the equator, it appears to lie just at the horizon). 3. For why else does one first see the sails of a ship coming over the horizon, and only later see the hull? I await my opponent's set of arguments.
Our world is a flat plate

Rules 1. Pro must argue in favor of the resolution that our world is indeed, a flat plate, supported on the back of a tortoise. 2. No trolling. 3. No plagiarism. 4. BoP (Burden of Proof) is on both of us. 5. First round is for acceptance only. Failure to follow these rules will result in a 7-point forfeiture (Except for Rule #4).
Immigration Should Be Illegal in the United States

"My opponent made a large, important error. I didn't say all immigrants do drugs, I said most either work for their families or to buy drugs. " I do not see how this advances the proposal that immigration should be outlawed. Saying they quit school early and work for their families is saying they are hard workers. So, under those circumstances, letting immigrants in can only be positive to a countries workforce. You have not given any proof immigrants work for their families, or they buy drugs. Under that assertion, immigrants who live alone buy drugs. There is no proof to back this up, and it is a discriminatory fallacy. "Well, I am now addressing local immigration. I do not think local immigration should be illegal. Let's say 10,000 people moved from Arizona to Mississippi. Arizona will most likely not start a fight with Mississippi. It does not effect the population in the U. S. I have tried very hard to find a definition for local immigration. I would love if my opponent could actually tell me what local immigration is. " Well, as I have said early, I would consider local immigration to be moving from one sate to another (e. g. California to Arizona, New York to New Jersey) . You concede in your argument that you do not agree with banning local immigration. Therefore you do not stand for banning immigration, and have gone against the thing you argue for. My opponent has basically conceded that it wouldn't be right to outlaw local immigration. As local immigration is part of immigration as a whole, he has argued against himself. I urge a CON vote.
Immigration Should Be Illegal in the United States

I am now ready to attack my opponent and state my final argument. "You have made an assertion without proof to back it up. There is no proof given to say all immigrants are drug users, or they don't go to school because they are too concerned with working." My opponent made a large, important error. I didn't say all immigrants do drugs, I said most either work for their families or to buy drugs. Well, I am now addressing local immigration. I do not think local immigration should be illegal. Let's say 10,000 people moved from Arizona to Mississippi. Arizona will most likely not start a fight with Mississippi. It does not effect the population in the U.S. I have tried very hard to find a definition for local immigration. I would love if my opponent could actually tell me what local immigration is. I now have not much to say so I rest my final case. I wish my opponent the best of luck. Please vote pro/ for.
Immigration Should Be Illegal in the United States

You know, my opponent agreed with me more than he disagreed with me. 1.) " Among the U.S. -born, 9.8 percent of all male high-school drop-outs, (Keyword: Male high-school dropouts, not female.) were in jail or prison in 2000." (Keyword: In 2000, not 2001-2009.) " Only 1.3 percent of immigrant men who were high-school drop-outs were incarcerated." Most immigrants work to either buy drugs or help out their family. They can not go to school for that reason. Another possibility is that they drop-out before high-school. My opponent states that " To start, we must define immigration. It can be defined as: -To enter and settle in a country or region to which one is not native." Region has many definitions but I choose the following: a specified district or territory. According to that definition, Asia, North America, South America, Australia, Europe, Antarctica, Africa, Western Hemisphere, Canada, Mississippi, Middle East, etc. are all regions. To enter and settle in a country or region can be to move from Japan to Canada, or it can mean to move from California to Arizona. I am only addressing international immigration, not local immigration though. 2.) " You mention the country can become upset with a lower population, but the countries people immigrate from usually have no jobs, and it means there is one less person in the country the are obliged to look after, as well as the fact most immigrants send money back, and some even go back to their homes when times get better." Most countries people immigrate from don't look after them! I said countries may be upset with a lower population because, a big population can give a country a sense of domination. China is very dominate. Their population is over one billion. If they had a smaller population they would not have so much power. For instance, Iraq's population is 26,074,906. Is Iraq a powerful country? No it is not. I rest my case Round 2. Please vote pro/for. * In my Round 1 argument I said " September 9, 2001." I meant to say September 11, 2001. Please forgive me for my error.