BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Light is not matter

RebuttalsDefinition of LightFirst, as mentioned, the standard DDO norm says I have the right to provide definitions in R1 for the debate. Whether or not you said "a light", I could just interpret that as a grammatical error. I provided the definition and you HAVE to follow it. Note that my opponent has conceded the debate, as shown in the previous rounds. Epistemological NihilismEven IF I accepted your definition of light, all I need do here is *extend* my argument from epistemological nihilism. And yes, you did not say what I typed there, I was talking of a *fictional* conversation to demonstrate that it's impossible to fundamentally justify one's belief. "It is proven that light is energy."Yes, but it is proven *contingently*, as via. the Munchhausen trilemma, it is impossible to non-contingently prove something. But via. the resolution, you have to demonstrate with absolute certainty that light is energy without falling to Munchhausen trilemma. I extend my rebuttal via. epistemic nihilism. Burden of Proof"You have the BoP of proving light IS matter."This is incorrect. The resolution says "Light is NOT matter", thus YOU are the one making the positive assertion. I need only negate the resolution by saying light MAY be matter, which it *always* must via. epistemic nihilism. ConclusionPro entirely drops epistemic nihilism, randomly shifts BoP with no justification, and *assumes* the soundness of knowledge and purely subjective truth.
Light is not matter

I mean light in a different type of way. Light: The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible. So let that serve as a rebuttal to your definition of light. "Turn off the light" is simply a figure of speech and is not grammatically correct. That would be the equivalent of defining "video" as a YouTube video, since they are called videos. If I was talking about your definition, I would've stated that "A light is not matter", rather than stating that "Light is not matter." Now I must answer your questions about how and why light is not matter: Light is a form of energy, because it has a speed and can do work. Energy is specifically defined as the ability to do work as I have previously mentioned. It has been proven that light is energy, not mass. All matter has atoms. Light is just a form of electromagnetic radiation with photons http://scienceline.ucsb.edu... Also, matter has 4 states as I have already said. Does the movement of a photon match the movement of a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma particle? No it does not http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il... http://www.oglethorpe.edu... Look at the diagram. Some of those quotes you put for "Pro" are statements I have never made. The evidence is in my sources. You have not yet provided one reason for why light is matter. Your argument was simply made up of rebuttals rather than a case. In order for me to do some refuting, you need to come up with a case. You have the BoP of proving that Light IS matter. Sources: 1] http://scienceline.ucsb.edu... 2] http://www.grandunifiedtheory.org.il... 3] http://www.oglethorpe.edu...
Breaking free from the American 2-party political system.

Well the Green party would stop funding and perpetuating war that has been going on for the past several decades in the middle east, which the GOP, DNC and the billionaire bureaucrats who pay them continue to allow for profit and oil control. We've been spending so much money on the military while American education, health, infrastructure, and environment continue to remain unfixed, among other fundamental aspects of our society. Giving more options to the American people would not be necessarily replacing the system, just a few tweaks should be made to allow our state to be the democracy/republic that it was intended to be; not the oligarchy it has become. There are indeed 4 or 5 total parties already, but most people are unaware of their existence because of how the system currently operates against those who don't completely support the deep state's war agenda. Green Party Key Values: http://www.gp.org... 2016 American Budget: https://www.cbo.gov...
Breaking free from the American 2-party political system.

I see that you are a member of a third party, and while I am not, I believe that everyone has not only the right but the duty to share their opinion. So I ask you, what are the benefits of 3rd, 4th, and 5th parties that society doesn't experience in our current system. Also, while the Republican and Democratic parties do dominate the political arena now, there are other parties including your own Green party, leading me to ask, is the current system a true two party system and if so is it corrupt, and is it needing to be fixed? The two party system emerged very quickly following our independence, and while the original parties were those of the federalists and the anti-federalists, they have changed into what they are today. while the dominant parties eventually fell apart, new ones rose to take their place ( Whigs --> Republicans). my question to you is this; is our current system really in need of being replaced, and if it were to be replaced would it be both beneficial to society and sustainable?
There's 2 genders

How many Genders Are there??? I personally think that there are millions and millions of genders.If someone decides to be something other then a boy or a girl then they should be allowed. It's called EQUAL rights, or HUMAN rights. Some people say that if you're a different gender then a girl or boy you should deserve special rights, but I think that someone with a different gender should have equal rights. It's called equality. If you don't believe in equality well then... That's not the smartest chose, because you're saying that you could live in a dumpster and you're family members live in mansions. Yes okay there are 3 biological genders (girl, boy, hermaphrodite) but really? Why does someone have to be confined in their own bodies not feeling right who they are? Now if you're going to say that people should just live with ho they are then that's like saying that someone should be a chimney sweep, because their parents were a chimney sweep? I don't get it. And if you say that genders other then girl or boy, don't do anything good in the community then you are WRONG! They can empower their community by getting jobs, teaching other people, and by just being plain awesome. And if you say that god created only man and woman then guess what? Not everyone is religious. That is my first argument. Please respond.
School homework should be banned

Can this be called a debate. Anyway thanks for preparing such a topic for a debate. I cannot argue you anymore as you have forfeited your last two round. So here i would like to conclude my points about homework. Homework as i have said are more important in a life of a child to be developed into a man. So it is not wise to call out that home works are bad and thus should be banned. Let us act wisely and create a good future. So here i am showing some links that would explain the benefits of home works. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . http://www.cesdp.nmhu.edu... . http://www.buzzle.com... . http://aussiehomeschool.com.au... . http://smartepantsacademy.com... SO HOME WORK IS GOOD AND SHOULD NOT BE BANNED. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . So i urge that all the people must be on the on side in this debate. thank you
School homework should be banned

As we know today our teachers give us alot of homeworks.But let me ask whether they are giving homeworks for their own benefits.Never.They are doing it for the benefit of the children.This is the thing that the students should understand that they are doing homeworks for their own benefits.Students must bring about or understand the true fact that they are doing the homeworks not for the teachers but for their own benefits.If the students has a particular goal infront of them homeworks can be easy for them.This may help them to do or complete homeworks without much pressure.So it is not necessary to ban homeworks but instead the children should develop a ambition in their life.So you must not argue to ban homeworks..............................................................
School homework should be banned

What you are saying is about home works in lazy children.You are saying that home works make pressure on children.But if children listen to the classes these home works would be easy for them.The home works make a child to revise what he or she has studied at that specific day.If no home works were given to children instead of this there is a chance that these children might forget what was taught in the previous day.If this continues on the student will not be able to do anything in the times of exam.If this happens you would not succeed in your life.So we can say that home works has an indirect role in deciding your future.So for a good future it is a must that the home works should be given to the children. If you want it you can do it very easy.................. If you try the best you will get the best.................. Here i would like to show a few advantages of home work. http://blog.eskool.ca... So hope you understand it.
Euthanasia

With bringing God into this, you say "We do not have the privilege to end someone's life, whether it is human or an animal." So I ask you, what about the sacrifice of animals in the Old Testament, particularly the lamb. Ending a life before one starts. Your sources are unreliable. Answers.com is not a reliable source. Therefore your argument about how they euthanize animals is unreliable. However, some shelters do use euthanasia to rid of animals who are not adopted. That is still humane. They only do it when there is over population and after anext amount of time. They try to have the animal adopted out, but sometimes it is impossible. They employ trained veterinarians to euthanise. I volunteer at a veterinary clinic, every euthanasia that I see dogs, cats, and horses alike. None have issues with pain. All are fully sedated before the final injection is inserted. Let me ask you this? If you are in the ICU on life support. You're only living through that machine. With an unlikely percentage rate of survival and full recovery. Would you like your relatives to "pull the plug" so you can end your suffering? That is what we do with animals. It is painless. I would like too see reliable sources from unbiased sources, that show that all euthanasia is painful.
Euthanasia

Our pets and animals are God-given, and it is said that we should be good stewards on this earth. God grants pets to give up its spirit when the right time has come. It is like the human's spirit, too. Clearly, pet euthanasia is a murder, and it is merely unethical. We do not have the privilege to end someone"s life, whether it is a human or an animal. Yes, God give us free will, but we didn't have power to play like Him and slaughter, even their pets. Anytime we favor about taking a life of a creature, especially our pet, we belittle their lives, even their rights, and their religious right in their inherent value. They live by the Word of God to die uniformly, and not by the law"s euthanasia. Euthanasia is illustrated to be painless and peaceful, 100%. However, a gigantic portion of euthanasia practitioners are unsuccessful at pre-anaesthetizing pets, particularly dogs. Instead of using the proper butterfly intravenous line needles death drug injections, they purportedly used a method of killing animals by inserting the syringe and big needle straight to the animal"s heart with no pain or stress alleviating pre-desensitizing because that method is said to be fast and cheap. The animal is watchful, frightened, and knows how much it feels when it is stabbed to the heart. Or more often than not the executioner uses the unambiguous low-cost style of supposedly executing the death drug by a syringe that is allegedly stabbed straightforwardly into the animal's leg or somewhere on the body or limbs in a struggle to shot the correct vein to insert the drug into the heart. When the needle of the syringe is injected, it will be the root of extensive torment and agony to the animal, even if they inserted the drug in the proper vein. Shockingly, more than one attempt is needed to inject this death drug to kill the pet because the killer is impotent to hit the vein. To think about it, the animal does not quickly die and suffers terribly without that quick death. According to an answer in Answers.com, it says that some dogs in various shelters used gas chambers, guns (used for huge animals), and neck ringing (rabbits). Some shelters euthanize dogs for no other good reason but only space. My further research leads me to this site that shows that instead of euthanizing animals that are terminally ill (and the reason why this practice exists in humans), but also those animals that are considered to be too old to take responsibility and too destructive to live outside the shelter. Given by AmericanHumane.org, it says that "56 percent of dogs and 71 percent of cats that enter animal shelters are euthanized." It could be higher as animal shelters are not been ordered to inform these incidents of euthanasia. The euthanasia of an animal that is not in critical condition should be not allowed and illegal as animals that are injured can be recovered in full health or the unadoptable animals be adopted one day. This is the question: why are the executioners didn't grant the pet owners to observe the euthanasia unless if a considerable added cost is paid? (CanadaFreePress.com, Answers.com, Live Against Animal Euthanasia (Google Sites))
Euthanasia

Euthanasia is dealt mostly with animals in particular. So in this argument it is based around the animal aspect. Yes, euthanasia is morally acceptable. As the saying goes, "if you love something, you have to let it go", if your pet is suffering beyond recovery. You should end it's misery. It is the hardest decision to make (I just had to do it not 48 hours ago). The way they do it is that they sedate the animal, the animal remains in a painless, semi-conscience state. Once they are sedated the drug is administered to stop their heart. It is 100% painless. Most people after going through with the procedure feel guilt, which is perfectly normal. However, it is the kindest thing to do to an animal who is suffering. Please rebuttal.
Euthanasia

I will present other negative things about Animal Euthanasia: It is very impossible for the veterinarians and the pet owners to know how much misery they are in as they are unable to speak. There is also a problem when it comes to its availability and convenience. A person who is performing it should be authorized and for this reason, it is hard to find somebody who will execute euthanasia. [1] It is looked upon as the main alternative if the pet owner cannot pay. Animals, if the operation is not economical, will have no insurance of care. If the animal’s illness demands for medical procedure and the pet owner can’t afford it, then they look at Animal Euthanasia as an option. They overlooked other alternatives that are cheaper than this (and more humane, which I have already discussed the previous round). As a result, many animals die from curable conditions. And not to mention, it is costly when it is being done by a veterinarian. [2] On the following paragraph, I am going to list some other alternatives than the things I have mentioned in the previous round. There are a lot of health alternatives to Euthanasia. Because an animal is not adoptable it doesn’t mean that it should be put down, especially if it is healthy and didn’t have a trauma (referred from source 2). We can’t ignore the fact that a healthy animal has the likelihood to be adopted, and that no-kill shelters are a good choice for rescuing healthy animals. [3] Animal Retirement Homes is also a valuable option. [4] There are also some alternatives when it comes to Population Control to Euthanasia. First of all, it is not a wise answer for controlling the animal population. Second, for soon-to-be-pet-owners, consider adopting than buying from a pet store. Why? Not that it is more humane, but “most pet store puppies come from puppy mills where dogs are not bred for good health and temperament and when they are often raised in inhumane conditions.” [5] And additions to that, most dogs that are for adoption are already domesticated, the adoption shelters have already put vaccinations, micro chipping, and spaying or neutering, and that 6 to 8 million dogs are already in line to wait for somebody to adopt them. [6] Also, there are many foster programs out there, and that is also a good option other than euthanasia. [7] [8] Certainly, the burden of proof is for the Instigator. I am looking forward for Pro's response in the next round. (1) http://apecsec.org... (2) http://nlcatp.org... (3) http://www.nokillnetwork.org... (4) http://www.vetstreet.com... (5) http://www.americanhumane.org... (6) http://www.peta.org... (7) http://www.homewardtrails.org... (8) https://prezi.com...
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people

Contention 1: True, both are immoral. However, Con has not established that the conscious refusal to carry out an action, with full knowledge of the consequences, cannot be unethical or immoral. Most would agree, I think, that the conscious refusal to carry out an action can be immoral; to consciously withhold food from a starving person most would consider unethical. I will assume that my opponent agrees with this statement.Now, it's true that killing is generally immoral, but that does not mean there are times when it is the most moral option, and thus morally permissable. For instance, if one is forced to choose between saving three people and saving a hundred people, refusing to help any would make one responsible for 103 deaths, helping three would make one responsible for hundred deaths, and helping a hundred would make one responsible for three deaths. It is better to be responsible for three deaths than a hundred or 103 deaths.Contention 2: Answer to both questions is yes. And Con hasn't established how the Constitution has any authority in this matter.Contention 3: Effectively, though, the government can't protect all of its citizens. For instance, the very act of protecting citizens puts other citizens (police) at risk. Worse for Con's argument, just because sacrificing one for the many is morally permissable when it is the only option does not mean such an occurance will be common.
It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people

Morally - in a way that conforms to standards of good behavior Permissible - allowed Morally permissible - a good or right behavior or action that is allowed Innocent - not guilty of a crime or offense More - a greater or additional amount I negate the resolved: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people. Value: Morality There are ten people on an island with only enough food to support nine people. To say that it is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save more innocent people would be to agree with saying that it is morally permissible to kill one of the ten people in order to save them all from starving. Contention 1:Both actions are immoral The topic says, "It is morally permissible to kill", killing is always immoral and always wrong. To win this argument my opponent must prove that killing is moral. To say that killing is moral would be to say that it is not a crime and therefore should not be punishable. Contention 2: To decide to take one person"s life in order to save more would be placing a value on the people themselves. Would you kill one homeless stranger to save several family members? Would you kill one family member to save several homeless strangers? To agree with the current topic you would have to answer yes to both of the questions. According to the constitution, "All men are created equal" so how can one man decide to take the life of another? Contention 3: It breaks the social contract The government"s job is to protect all of its citizens, not some or a majority of its citizens. To say that it is morally permissible to kill one to save many would be giving the government the power to chose any person and "sacrifice" them in order to save a majority.
Gun Rights

Con begins by saying that it's a myth murder and crime rates will decrease if guns are legalized. Unfortunately, it's a statistic I cited, sourced and argued in R1 that went completely unaddressed despite my notation of it in the last round. Here is where I explained and proved that the legalization of guns leads to a decrease in murder and crime: ----> A 1985 survey by the Department of Justice of inmates across the nation reported that 56 percent of the felons agreed that "A criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." Statistics also show that banning guns only encourages crime. According to a study by SUNY-University at Albany criminal justice professor Colin Loftin, Washington D.C. banned handguns in 1976, and by 1991 its homicide rate had tripled. Meanwhile, the national homicide rate rose only 12 percent [1]. So, as you can see, Pro's statement that this is a "myth" is incorrect, or at least was not backed up and proven by my opponent whereas my argument has been supported. Next my opponent notes that he would like to re-write the second amendment. That's fine and dandy; however, if he's against gun rights (which the resolution implies), then having gun right requirements is contradictory. Nevertheless, this does not prove in any way that gun rights shouldn't exist (simply because Con wants a different amendment). He says that a 35 year old should only be allowed a small hand gun (randomly...) though that does not address my other arguments, including the fact that some people want hunting rifles. Nor does it answer my point that if his goal is to deter crime, that most crimes can and do occur with small (concealable) handguns. Overall, Con has completely failed to negate the resolution, make any coherent arguments nor address and refute any of mine. I'd like to thank him for the debate and wish him good luck in the voting period - thanks. [1] http://www.mcrgo.org...
Gun Rights

(Myth) If we allow guns Murder and crimes will decrease? (Fact) It will increase because more people will think that they have a Gun and can shot anyone they feel like just for the stake of having a gun. If I am elected to the House or Senate I intend to repeal the second amendment to the extent that everyone is staified with it. The second amendment should read: You have the right to bear arms under the circumstance that you pass the written and physical firing exam. And one gun is permitted per house hold or person. There is no need for a 35 year old to own a military gun. The perfect weapon for that 35 year old is a small hand gun. No pistol, or shot gun.
Gun Rights

Con's Arguments: 1) If we allow people to carry guns, murder and crime will increase. ----> Actually it will DECREASE as I explained, cited and sourced in the last round. 2) The second-amendment shouldn't give people the right to bear arms. ----> Well... it does. And for many of the reasons I mentioned in the last round (unrefuted) including insurance against the tyranny of government, and adhering to the right of self-protection. 3) We should not allow citizens to purchase military weapons; only handguns. Unfortunately this was never specified in R1. Also, I don't see how it follows that one can only commit crimes or murders with machine guns. One could easily do the same with a handgun which is why I don't consider this to be relevant. Plus, some people prefer rifles or other guns to hunt with. Please extend all of my arguments from the last round.