BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Down With BOP.

You've set up a false dichotomy. The world is not confined to being comprised entirely of smart people or of idiotic people. The mere fact that you think you can prove that everyone is stupid by showing that not everyone is smart is outrageous in its own rite. Ad hominem attacks do not prove anything. Additionally, simple game theory demonstrates that even groups of rational people can still make decisions that lead to worse outcomes. Take the classic Prisoner's Dilemma. The dominant strategy for each player is to confess. No matter what the other player chooses, you ascertain a better outcome for yourself by confessing. Thus, any rational player would choose confess. Thus confessing is a Nash Equilibrium. However, what you will notice is that if each player chooses to confess, they are both worse off than if they had both chosen to lie. Thus, even if each player acts in their own rational self-interest, they can still end up with outcomes that are not ideal. Clearly the fact the world is not perfect is not demonstrative of an absence of intellectuals, but rather a failure of proper communication, which has nothing to do with rationality. Additionally, the "ASCII spam", as you so eloquently put it (It's actually called sentential logic, I felt that in this case predicate logic would be unnecessary) has absolutely nothing to do with your non-salient example. The proof I gave was a proof that the idea of a burden of proof exists by necessity, and that the idea of not having a burden of proof is simply incoherent. The example that you gave simply has nothing to do with the burden of proof. You have no connections to it, no references, nothing you have said has even touched upon what the burden of proof is or what its functions are. Your example may be a little useful in a debate between functionalism and deontology, but in a debate about the burden of proof your example has no relevance. Lastly, you have not addressed my claim that if the burden of proof is removed, I can simply claim that I have won this debate and that there is no need for me to provide evidence for that because I have no burden of proof. I say I have won and you have no means of showing that I haven't.
Down With BOP.

On my own merit? That's your merit. I have proof and ways to prove human stupidity. Our rulers were voted by our people. Wars would not exist in a world of intellects. Religions would not exist in a world of intellects. Need I say more? You're an idiot - and a threat to true human potential by thinking that today's population is doing anything remotely sane. You do not understand it, hence your idiocy replaying itself already. How are you people so dense? I can destroy your annoying ASCII spam by simply saying that the queen's punishment was based on the man stealing bread. There was proof the man stole the bread, so the punishment was carried out - the problem with the proof is that it's already immutable within its context. The queen did not say, "if the man stole the bread for selfish reasons, he would be punished", no she simply said "if the man stole the bread, he will be punished", as to completely ignore the details of his intentions, which is why burden of proof does not work in a world full of idiots that judge you based on emotions over evidence and choose death quicker than details.
Down With BOP.

I see then. Not content with using an ad hominem on me alone, it's apparently the entire world that must be insulted. Honestly, the ad hominems are so strong the only you aren't using them on is yourself. Am I truly supposed to believe that the entire world is stupid on the merit of your own claims about it? The answer is, of course, no. I did not claim that I didn't understand your argument. I understood it, but what I did not understand was its purpose. Because I did not want to make a straw man argument, I asked for clarification, listing several options as to what the point of the argument might be. However, you misinterpreted this as a complete misunderstanding, lending a straw man argument to you instead. Additionally, you have not explained why the example I gave does not prove that if you were correct and we should not use the Burden of Proof, that I could simply claim "I have won this debate" and you would have no effective way of dealing with that claim. However, if you are still not satisfied, I will prove using formal logic that the Burden of Proof is necessary. (For all the logicians out there, I've done this proof by assuming that items in subderivations can be proven without using negation elimination, negation introduction, or disjunction elimination. This is to simulate the lack of Burden of Proof.) First, we'll start a subderivation with the assumption of ~A. ||~A Next, we'll reiterate it. ||~A ||---- ||~A Now we'll discharge the subderivation and start a new one with assumption A. ||~A ||---- ||~A | ||A Reiterate again. ||~A ||---- ||~A | ||A ||---- ||A Now we'll discharge that subderivation. Since the burden of proof is not being used here, we can simply pull expressions out of subderivations as though they were in the main derivation. So we'll do that with the conclusions of both of our subderivations. ||~A ||---- ||~A | ||A ||---- ||A |A |~A A&~A is contradictory, so our premise - the lack of a burden of proof - has been falsified. Also, your example has nothing to do with the burden of proof. The claim is "this man stole this piece of bread", but the queen in your example does nothing to prove this claim. If anything, your example just shows what happens when you accept things at a person's word and don't make them fulfill a burden of proof. In summary, my opponent still has not clarified, has demonstrated a misunderstanding of what the burden of proof is, holds a self-contradictory position, has provided an irrelevant example, and still cannot deal with my own example.
Down With BOP.

You can't teach old dogs new tricks - frankly, today's people are old sheep. BoP does not work in a world built on denial and delusions - period. People are too stupid to work with evidence today. They can't even tell that their rulers are destroying their homeland for fark's sake. And your whole "I don't understand it, therefore you're wrong" argument is why you are an idiot. You don't even comprehend the sole point of this, so why argue it? People are stupid, like you, which is why BoP is still being used, even though BoP requires people to use their brains, not their hearts. Any queen in the dark age can say "this man stole this piece of a bread", then the people will say "that's the BoP, he must be hanged!", and then the guy dies for what really was him taking the piece of bread so he could use it as an eraser for his art he was planning on trading for more bread... but the man died because of BoP and a whole crowd of people that say "we are the people", when they are nothing but animals that harbor the hate and inhumanity of the queen.
Down With BOP.

Burden of Proof is simply the idea that before a claim can be accepted, it must be proven or at least evidenced in some way. In your entire argument, you do not even touch this. You describe why arguing with a stubborn person does not work, but this has nothing to do with the Burden of Proof itself. Additionally, the resolution is vague. Do you mean that people should not use Burden of Proof in arguments? If that's the case, then I claim that I have won this debate. I don't need to provide any reason for why I have won because I do not need to fulfill a burden of proof. If you are saying that Burden of Proof as a concept itself is flawed, then you need to explain why this is so. If you are saying that the Burden of Proof is useless, then you are wrong because we use the BOP as method for determining whether or not a claim has merit. It is not merely a tool in debates and arguments, but also a method by which scientists can put claims to the test. In summary, my opponent's main argument does not actually touch upon the BOP, and also does not describe in any detail what his argument is trying to accomplish.
The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change the outcome of the election

I am limiting the time to argue to 24 hours because since this is a current event, it would likely be over by the time we finish the debate if we each took 2-3 days to post our argument. I'm also limiting the voting period to 3 days for the same reason Round 1: Acceptance, state your position Round 2: Main argument Round 3: Rebuttal/conclusion I believe the recounts will not have any effect on the outcome of this election. I think Donald Trump will still win the presidency. I do not, however, think the recounts are a waste of time. I consider it important every vote is counted properly despite that I don't think it will have an effect.
The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change the outcome of the election

I am not arguing that Hillary rigged the election. This is irrelevant. Please be sure to argue for your actual position in round 2, which should be that the recounts will change the results of the election. I don't believe the recounts will change the outcome of the election because in order for Hillary Clinton to win at this point, all three of the aforementioned states will have to come out as Hillary actually winning. The chances that all of the three states will do this seems very small. Perhaps 1 will, but that won't be enough for Hillary to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Donald Trump will still have more than 270 even if one or two of those states is lost. The recent objection is with the voting machines themselves, and some computer experts believe many voting machines in each of the aforementioned states have been hacked. However, while it is true that the voting machines are pretty archaic, for they use a Windows 2000 style of programming, almost none are connected to the internet [1] and cannot be hacked that way. In order for them to be hacked, the person would have to have access to the voting machine or the voting cards and tamper with either. The likelihood that this occurred in all three states in a widespread enough of a manner to effect the election seems slim. It would take a lot of coordination, and people would have had to have had access to either of those two things, which are under strict protection by the states they reside in up until election day. And on election day, poll workers are watching the machines the entire time. Bottom line, is that it seems very unlikely any such hacking occurred on such a large scale, and it doesn't seem likely all three of the states will end up going to Hillary Clinton Source: [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...
There is no such thing as a gateway drug

In the field of science, there is a concept known as the post hoc fallacy. The full name is "post hoc ergo propter hoc," which roughly translated from the Latin means "after this, therefore as a result of this." The key to remember here is that it is a fallacy. Simply because one event follows another, it does not mean that these events are linked by any causality. There are plenty of circumstances under which one event can follow another, but have no causal connection. The best known examples demonstrating that the post hoc fallacy is indeed fallacious are superstitions. Here is a link that explains the fallacy and gives examples: http://skepdic.com... Now turning our attention to the concept of a gateway drug, it is clear that the only reason people consider this concept valid is a result of the post hoc fallacy. One substance was preceded by another, and in gateway theory logic this indicates that the first substance (e.g. alcohol or marijuana) was the cause for the use of another substance (e.g. cocaine or heroin). But such logic is not only flawed, it is acknowledged as a fallacy by the entire scientific community. There is no real evidence that the gateway theory is correct, and after repeated failures to obtain evidence on any matter, I am of the opinion that absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
There is no such thing as a gateway drug

I do agree that many people are willing to experiment with a fairly soft drug, but not a harder drug. It is fairly obvious that people who are into harder drugs (cocaine, crack, heroin) did not start out with such substances. There will be a natural progression for the people that end up doing harder drugs, and it will usually start with alcohol followed by marijuana. But people that are likely to move on to harder substances seem to do so based on personality factors and the crowds that they surround themselves with. The process that you have laid out has been proposed numerous times in order to demonstrate the gateway process. But the question that one must ask is this: do softer drugs lead people to harder drugs? I, for one, think not. Alcohol is a legal drug and is one of the substances that has been labelled as a gateway drug. But a brief look at the numbers will show that something is clearly wrong with the gateway theory. There are a huge number of people that drink. There are plenty of bars throughout this country that people flock to every night. The number of people that drink is clearly a very large one. But then look at the amount of people that do heroin. The number is significantly lower than the amount of people that drink. If one leads to another, then there should be a much higher amount of heroin addicts. Now I am well aware of the fact that I jumped from one end of the spectrum to the other. But using the logical flow of the gateway process, this should be allowed. Take a typical scenario proposed by gateway theory-- alcohol leads to marijuana, marijuana leads to cocaine, cocaine leads to heroin. By the law of the syllogism it should be clear that alcohol would ultimately lead to heroin. Yet this is clearly not the case. The gateway process cannot exist, for if it did, there would be a much larger number of people into harder drugs based on the large number of people that consume alcohol. We cannot simply pluck out individuals to say "Well for this heroin addict, this coke-head, and this pot head, alcohol was a gateway drug. But for all of the other people that only drink, alcohol was not a gateway drug." It simply doesn't work like that. Gateway drugs either exist or they do not. And simple observations in the world around us can confirm that gateway drugs do not exist.
There is no such thing as a gateway drug

People have a tendency to evaluate risks in a short term manner. They might consider the risks of a drug such as marijuana to be low and convince themselves that the relatively low risks, such as a lack of immediate health endangerment, lax criminal punishment, and the debatable impact of long term side effects are not enough to belay some amount of experimentation. However, these same people would not under the same circumstances select a "harder" drug to experiment with. Having found the results of a softer drug to be enticing enough to give merit to the experimentation of a harder drug the individuals might then be willing to experiment further. It is easy to see the process.
There is no such thing as a gateway drug

There have often been claims that drugs such as alcohol or marijuana can lead people into harder drugs (e.g. cocaine, crack, heroin). I do not believe that this is true, and I am against the whole idea of a gateway drug. This debate should be accepted by someone that DOES believe that softer drugs can lead to harder drugs. It would be appreciated if those people that would turn this debate into something else entirely (such as the definition of the word "such" or similar tactics) refrain from accepting this challenge.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

This is my first time doing this so I'm going to assume acceptance means definitions and all that. Abuse: improper or excessive use or treatment (Merriam Webster) Illegal drugs: A drug whose production or use is prohibited or strictly controlled via prescription (Business Dictionary) Ought: used to express obligation (Merriam Webster) Treated: to behave toward someone or deal with something in a particular way (Cambridge English Dictionary) Matter: a situation or subject that is being dealt with or considered (Cambridge English Dictionary) Public health: the general health of the people in a community or society (Macmillan Dictionary) Criminal Justice: a generic term for the procedure by which criminal conduct is investigated, evidence gathered, arrests made, charges brought, defenses raised, trials conducted, sentences rendered and punishment carried out (www.dictionary.law.com) I used the sources which offered the most straightforward definition I could find.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not of criminal justice

I.Using illegal drugs is illegal Ia.This one is pretty simple. Illegal drugs are illegal, possessing and using them is breaking the law. When the law is broken, people are punished. II.Punishment provides a great incentive to not commit crimes. IIa.Washington University conducted a study that revealed how people are more responsive to punishment than they are to rewards [1]. If people aren"t as likely to respond to positive stimuli, they are even less likely to respond to a guarantee that the government will take care of them. Currently, prisoners with drug problems are being treated and rehabilitated while incarcerated [2]. The rehabilitation prepares prisoners for civilian society, while the jail time discourages them from using illegal drugs in the future. III.Drug abuse negatively affects society IIIa.Hurts families IIIai.Families of those caught in addiction are often subject to physical, emotional, and even sexual abuse [3]. The U.S. government spends about $1 billion per year taking these children from their abusive families [3]. The effects of this abuse can lead to development issues and mental disorders later in life [4]. IIIb.Unborn children IIIbi.Drug use, namely cocaine and marijuana, can affect fetal development [5]. A study by the New England Journal of Medicine found that children born to mothers who used drugs during pregnancy weighed less and had smaller heads, which can lead to difficulty in muscle growth and brain development [5, 6, 7]. IIIc.Overburdened institutions Nearly 25% of all money spent on Medicare is directly related to drug abuse [3]. If people were told that the government would help them get over drug addictions without punishment, there would be far more people who are willing to do drugs. If they then go seek assistance, the government has two choices. It can either help the man and waste tax dollars that could have been saved if the drugs had remained illegal, or they can turn people away and create a society of addicted peoples receiving no help. IIId.Professional impairment IIIi.Truckers, drivers of public transport, and medical personnel are known to use illegal substances to help with their work [3]. This results in either traffic accidents or malpractice lawsuits with massive injuries, casualties, and costs in damages [3]. Sources [1] https://source.wustl.edu... [2] https://www.bop.gov... [3]https://www.thecabinchiangmai.com... [4]http://www.joyfulheartfoundation.org... [5]http://www.nejm.org... [6]http://www.netwellness.org... [7]http://www.childrenshospital.org...
pictures in color are better than black and white

I shall address my opponent's point before making my own. My opponent firstly has not made an argument, but secondly and worse has committed the cardinal sin of plagiarism.Firstly, and quite obviously, there is no argument here. It is simply stating how color photography works.Secondly, and arguable even more obviously my opponent has plagiarised wikipedia. Give me some credit, at least. From his studies of color vision, Maxwell found that any hue could be made by mixing only three pure colors of light – red, green and blue – in proportions that would stimulate the three types of cells to the same degrees that the "real" colors did. To emphasize that each type of cell by itself did not actually see color but was simply more or less stimulated, he drew an analogy to black-and-white photography: if three colorless photographs of the same scene were taken through red, green and blue filters, and transparencies ("slides") made from them were projected through the same filters and superimposed on a screen, the result would be an image reproducing not only red, green and blue, but all of the colors in the original scene.[1]1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...My CaseFirstly, precedence of debating is that if one plagiarises, then they instantly lose the debate. Any looking about on this website sees plagiarism as an automatic loss.Secondly, Black and white pictures look better. As this debate is which is "better", the only classification is personal opinion. Therefore, I claim black and white pictures are better because they are (not a good argument, I know, but plagiarism? Really?)
pictures in color are better than black and white

Color vision could be made by mixing only three pure colors of light – red, green and blue – in proportions that would stimulate the three types of cells to the same degrees that the "real" colors did. To emphasize that each type of cell by itself did not actually see color but was simply more or less stimulated, he drew an analogy to black-and-white photography: if three colorless photographs of the same scene were taken through red, green and blue filters, and transparencies ("slides") made from them were projected through the same filters and superimposed on a screen, the result would be an image reproducing not only red, green and blue, but all of the colors in the original scene