BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Taxation is Theft

Thanks for accepting. I'm going to put your argument(s) into their syllogistic forms. Not to be bothersome, but next round could you put your arguments in a syllogistic form? I don't want to accidentally strawman your argument(s) P1. It is not theft if used to pay for public services (keep the society running) P2. Taxation is used to pay for public services C . Therefor taxation is not theft. Within the argument above you've committed an equivocation fallacy. You've redefined the definition of theft, and equivocated it with the colloquial/moral definition I stated in Round 1. If premise one of your argument is removed (it is not explicitly stated within your text) then the argument becomes a non-sequitur. Your second argument in it's syllogistic form is... P1. If services are used it is consensual P2. Citizens use taxation funded services C . Therefor taxation is consensual (and of course not theft) This argument begins with a false premise. Take this argument, it is the same as your's just with the subject changed. P1. If services are used it is consensual P2. Slaves use their master's resources C . Therefor slavery is consensual You see, the argument itself stays exactly the same, but I'm sure you'd object to it. Here is another version of the same argument, just with subjects replaced. P1. If services are used it is consensual P2. Shop owners use the mafia's services C . Therefor the relationship between the mafia and shop owners are consensual. Thanks again for accepting, but please put your arguments in their syllogistic form. I really don't want to accidentally strawman you. Thanks.
Taxation is Theft

Taxation in America, under its current form, is not theft. It is an altogether necessary if unsavory part of living in a society. Society is defined as "a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession". Working together takes on many forms but, in general, means supporting each other and, indirectly, the society as a whole. The larger the society is, and the more advanced it is, the more it takes to keep it working smoothly. Take for example, infrastructure: a conglomerate of public works, created by and maintained by a city, county, or state, which provides services to the public. While these services, which include garbage disposal, plumbing, and electricity are not free, the operation of these systems alone costs much more than we pay per month for these services. This is where taxation becomes necessary. The additional income created by tax revenue allows these systems to be maintained and continue operating at the most efficient level possible. Granted, electricity is usually provided by private companies, but these companies get government funding. So, we have a system which everybody but the most dedicated off-grid citizens uses, which requires tax dollars to operate effectively, and which would cause large disruptions to our daily lives if they were to be lost. So, unless you are 100% off the grid, and obtain no services from the government and do not use roads and infrastructure, which I imagine is a very small percentage of the population, than the government has every right to tax you for the services it provides.
Taxation is Theft

Before we start, terms must be defined, so here they are. Theft - The immoral non-consensual taking of another's justly owned property. Justly owned property - Property acquired without the initiation of force, or fraud. Taxation - Compulsory payment from the citizens to their government, to be spent by the government. My argument(s) are as follows P1. Theft is the non-consensual taking of justly owned property. P2. Taxation is enacted by force, and is non-consensual. C . Therefore taxation is theft. P1. Theft is immoral. P2. Taxation is theft. C . Therefor taxation is immoral.
Abortion Should Remain Legal

Ah! A forfeit :( what a shame. I can't say that I was particularly fond of my opponent's style of argumentation. However, this debate was one of the most fun I've had in a while. I had hoped to finish it.Alas, without my opponent to rebut off of, and with my points being untouched, we stand at the last question.Is abortion necessary?I hope, after all that you've seen, you can come to the same logical, and moral, decision I did. Abortion is wrong. It is taking an innocent being's right to life away from them.I have proven that, even from the zygote stage, an unborn baby is a human being.Therfore, killing them is murder.Abortion itself... is murder.So we ask ourselves... is abortion necessary?I think we all know the answer.It's a resonating, and quite firm, no!Thank you, to both my opponent (despite the forfeit), and those who vote/have read through this.God bless.
Abortion Should Remain Legal

Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U.S.A.? U.S. Constitution Yes, I believe that abortion should be legal in all states and all American women are entitled to choices regarding their own welfare. It is insensitive to dictate what women can and cannot do in a country that promises freedom. Most advocates for our constitution would say that abortion is a violation of our natural rights because “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” (U.S. Declaration of Independence) Although life is promised to each citizen of the United States of America, does a woman’s underdeveloped fetus count? No, they are not legally citizens until birth. With that take into account, we also notice that the constitution was written to defend freedom and protect all of its citizens. "… establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare …" (Preamble- U.S. Constitution) I have no right to claim that any life is less valuable than another, but for the sake of our constitution- the basis on which our country was developed- we must protect women's rights over their own bodies. Protection of women’s choice should be reserved regardless of the circumstances. Even some of our greatest leaders agree.... "You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health. And reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortion." -Hilary Clinton "No politician should make decisions about women’s health" -Barack Obama Modern Law The moral confliction about abortion is that it is considered murder. I disagree. First, allow me give you dictionary.com's definition of murder: "Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)" dictionary.com In the United States of America it is legal in all 50 states to get an abortion, therefore making it a surgery, not murder. Because abortion is not outlawed in any state, it would be foolish to call abortion "murder." Supreme Courts & Science When the supreme courts faced the legalization of abortion they declared that there is not enough scientific evidence to prove that the fetus is alive, therefore it would be irrational to revoke women’s constitutional rights for ignorance. Scientific studies suggest that life (as we know it) is not developed until the third trimester. Regardless to these laws, rights, and scientific studies, women have rights lawfully and constitutionally, but there has not been enough science to strip them of their rights. The ultimate question is: Who are you to control someone else’s life? (Especially when there are no certain as to when life starts)
Abortion Should Remain Legal

I am Justin. I am against abortion. I believe it is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. I will not mince words, nor will I worry about offending anyone, no matter how unpopular the viewpoint. Opening Statement:I believe, personally, that it abortion should not only be illegal, but it should be unthinkable. Women are not entitle to make decisions that endanger other humans' lives. The babies that are destroyed through abortion have the same Constitutional rights as the mother. If a woman chose to have sex, then she, without a doubt, has the responsibility to give birth to the child, no matter the pain or discomfort caused her. If a woman is raped, then I believe she should have the child as well, so long as it's not life threatening. There are many options for putting a child up for adoption, so the child after birth does not have to influence the mother's lifestyle. If a mother is raped, and will not survive giving birth to the child, I believe the mother is morally obligated to have the child, but should not be legally obligated. However, I do not believe that this, almost invisibly small, percentage of women justify making all abortions legal. Thank you. On to round 2.
Abortion Should Remain Legal

My name is Roger Robbins, I am 15 years old, I am a liberal Democrat living in the U. S. A. . I have a 4.2 GPA, I am a Junior in high school, I am an adolescent volunteer coordinator for a convalescent hospital, and I have a minimum wage job that helps me save for college. I ask that my opponent uses the first round as a personal introduction for them self, and gives a very general/direct statement that summarizes their opinion on abortion. The following debate should be structured using three different questions, where each should be answered in their designated round: Round 2: Should abortion be legal in the U. S. A. ? Round 3: Is abortion morally correct? Round 4: Is abortion necessary? These questions do not have to be the entire basis for your argument, but they should at least be acknowledged to help keep structure within our discussion. As for my opening statement I want to be clear that I am not pro-abortion, but I am pro-choice. Abortion should remain legal in all states because women are entitled to make their own decisions, especially regarding their health. Revoking a woman of her ability to do what she wishes with her body is a violation of her constitutional rights, and in some cases disrespectful. Making a woman give birth to a child she does not want, is making her endure pain for an act that she may or may not have had control over. Forcefully making a woman's life change because you do not agree with her beliefs is not your business nor your responsibility. I do not believe that women should use abortion as birth control, however I more strongly believe that it would be inappropriate for me to force my beliefs upon another person, especially to the extent of changing their life. It is a woman's life, a woman's child, a woman's body, a woman's motherhood, and ultimately a woman's choice.
Forever against the United States

Away in America, The land of freedom Aids, Corruption, Suffering and treason Where men are treated like the cattle But people of peace will win the battle Send them back your fierce defiance Stamp upon the NATO alliance And let our motto ever be For happiness, Against suffering Fear no danger, Need no sabers To protest against wars and traitors Shoulder pressing close to shoulder Let the odds make each heart bolder Outside, We went outside To conquer peace for people And swear upon the people's altar Never to submit or falter Till the enemies of the people are defeated Till the peace is achieved and happiness completed Advance the flag of happiness and equality Of easier life with real quality To the streets, To the streets we march in anger To conquer peace, And to save the world from danger We will all go to the United States Each American terrorist must understand That he must find a peace in his heart Ears of the world are deaf hearing about your wars You are the enemy of humanity You are the terrorist number one You are a death to harmony United States of America, You are dirty shame From your actions flow the juices of suffering You destroyed the land, And brought misery And disarranged the order of the world In front of our eyes, And in our hearts Your wealth is the blood of other countries In our chest, You are death, Which is taking lives away You are a thief of the land, Like the snake in the sand There is a misbehavior and injustice with you There is no any peace, You are a death for harmony You are the cause of revolt against human serenity You are the symbol of the death The enemy of humanity Your culture is tyranny It is breaking down society Far away can be heard The results of your attacks On the Earth, You are dark Leading us in the vile trap You are a worldwide enemy Scavenger on the suffering You are a terrorist number one The causer of the death and misery
Advanced Warfare vs Black Ops 2

Ok so BO2 has more maps but in AW we don't have to knife people in fact we punch them through the air and we can rip car doors off their hinges and use them as weapons by throwing them or using them as riot shields. But, BO2 has some perks like normal grenades but at least in AW we have grenades that reveal the enemy and its a fast paced action shooter.
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

I accept your objection. This has been a good debate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 800,000 men were fighting in Israel: 2 Samuel 24:9 1,100,000 men were fighting in Israel: 1 Chronicles 21:5 454 Children of Adin: Ezra 2:15 655 Children of Adin: Nehemiah 7:20 Ahaziah was 22: 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah was 42: 2 Chronicles 22:2 Jacob was Joseph's Father: Matthew 1:16 Heli was Joseph's Father: Luke 3:23 David Captured 700 Horsemen: 2 Samuel 8:4 David Captured 7,000 Horsemen: 1 Chronicles 18:4
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

I thank you for respecting the debate rules. Regarding Solomon's property, whether there were forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, or whether there were four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, I believe the simplicity of the solution here is beautiful.1 Kings 4:26 states that there were forty thousand stalls of horses, for his chariots, while 2 Chronicles 9:25 states that there were four thousand stalls for horses and chariots. Are you able to see the difference in these verses?1 Kings 4:26 does describe that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses, that are to be taken into use for his chariots, but does not provide information on how many chariots were in his possession. However, Chronicles does:"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..." This verse quite clearly states that there were 4,000 stalls that could accompany horses and chariots, which is entirely different from stalls that are for horses specifically.Interesting point: If it indeed be true that 40,000 are for horses, while 4,000 for horses and chariots, then there would be about 10 horses per chariot, which is a perfectly reasonable number for a wealthy kingdom such as his.
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

I decided I would use this round to provide another contradiction. Also, the debate rules allow us to only provide 1 contradiction at a time (but not discuss) However, I'd first like to point out something else in the Kings thing which I forgot to mention. I already took the Chronicles verses out of isolation, but heres the same with Kings. 2 Kings 23:36-2 Kings 24:1-10: https://www.biblegateway.com... Now, to my contradiction. I could probably provide hundreds of contradictions caused by the Chronicles series, but I won't. 1 Kings 4:26: "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." 2 Chronicles 9:25: "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem." https://www.biblegateway.com...
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

[Regarding the 24,000 vs 23,000] I accept your objection, and I concede that I was wrong when I proposed that the plague lasted for more than one day, and that the number of casualties are different because they were from different days of the plague. However, I returned to the scriptures, and found another solution, that I believe to be correct: in 1 Corinthians 10:8, from the context, we understand that Paul was referring to the Israelites when he wrote "neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed" but the same can not be said for Numbers 25:1-9 where the 24,000 are referred to as "those that died in the plague" instead of Israelites. We know, from verses such as Numbers 25:18, that non-Israelites have been killed in the plague. Therefore, the obvious conclusion that I am reaching, considering 1 Corinthians 10:8, Numbers 25:1-9, and Numbers 25:18, is that 23,000 of the Israelites were killed, and 1,000 of the non-Israelites were killed, in total 24,000 of the people were killed.[Regarding the age of Jehoiachin] I would argue that the eleven years of reign (2 Chronicles 36:5-10) does not disprove my position, because the king (Jehioachin's father) could have ruled for one year before appointing his son to rule alongside him - I do not believe that there is a place where it states that Jehoiakim elevated the status of his son from the beginning of his reign. If I am missing out on something in what I have stated here, please do make me aware of that. Concerning the initial part of your objection, that both verses imply a reign of 3 months for Jehoiachin, even thought that seems statistically unlikely, it could have been the case, and can therefore from a technical standpoint not be considered conclusive evidence of a contradiction. However, it might be that at a later point in this debate, I come to an understanding that is different to my current understanding. This is what has come to happen in my interpretation of the 24,000 vs 23,000 contradiction (rather, apparent contradiction). [Regarding fear versus love] Sometimes, fear can be defined as reverential awe, and other times, fear can be defined as horror. I believe that authors often use the reverential awe definition when speaking of fearing God, and that is compatible with John's statement that love and fear can not co-exist, for the fear that he speaks of is not reverential awe, but fear that torments. Of course, in response to this, you could say that often times we are told to fear the punishment of God, and that is certainly not reverential awe, but tormenting fear, exactly the type of fear that John was talking about. In these cases, we should consider the context, and the context often times (perhaps always) is the author addressing unbelievers or sinners, and not the righteous believers. I do not know where we will take this debate from here. Perhaps you are going to defend your objections, present more contradictions, or something else. In any case, I can say that it has been a very exciting discussion so far.
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

I will be responding to my opponents verse rebuttals in this round.Daughters of Moab Contradiction:Yet, in the same chapter, the bible says that a woman named Cozbi died "in the day of the plauge" in Numbers 25:18.The bible first says 24,000 people died, then later says 23,000 died. Each in 1 day.https://www.biblegateway.com...Age of Jehoiachin Contradiction:Yet both verses implied he only reigned for 3 months. If we are going to argue that this is due to co-regency, then you would have to say that Jehoiachin's father was king for 10 years. However, the bible implies that he was King for 11 years, before being taken into captivity by the Babylonians. Now, continuing with your co-regency logic, this would only create a new contradiction: This would make him 19 years old.We can see this in 2 Chronicles 36:5-10Sources:https://www.biblegateway.com...Just one more contradiction:There are almost 60 verses in the bible telling us to fear god. There is a full list down below.The bible also tells us multiple times (such as the example listed below) to love God.1 John 4:18: "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."http://bibviz.com...https://www.biblegateway.com...https://www.biblegateway.com...
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

In 2 Chronicles 36:9, we see that Jehoiachin began to reign, while in 2 Kings 24:8 we see that Jehoiachin became king. This means that Jehoiachin had a reign period from eight years of age, prior to becoming king at eighteen years of age. It is not uncommon for fathers to assign a type of rulership to their sons in order to secure succession - I personally do not understand why this has to be a contradiction, you would have to clarify a little more on that in order for me to provide a satisfactory response to what you perceive is the issue.Co-regency is definitely not unheard of in the Bible. For instance, Jotham was given authority by King Uzziah (2 Chronicles 26:21) when King Uzziah noticed that there was a need for that move. In that particular case, King Uzziah was too sick to rule. In the case of Jehioachin and his father, there may have been other issues, even involving his mother, who perhaps pressured the king to secure succession for her biological son and not one of the younger sons who were not directly her sons. Like I said before, I do not see the contradiction here, but I'll wait for your clarification on that. If you feel like you'd rather address my response to the first contradiction that you presneted instead of continuing on this one, then that is fine with me too.
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

Thank you for your arguments. I will now be providing another contradiction. I hope we can agree that by next round, I will respond to both verse rebuttals.Another obvious contradiction I would like to point is the age of Jehoiachin. 2 Kings 24:8"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushtadaughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem."2 Chronicles 36:9"Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord." Contradiction:2 Kings 24:8 implies that Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king. However, the bible later implies he was only 8. Verses:https://www.biblegateway.com...https://www.biblegateway.com...
There aren't contradictions in the Bible

It is of great importance to carefully consider every word of these verses, because the solution always lies in these words that we so often dismiss, words that we do not even notice. In this case that you have brought forth, the answer lies clearly inside the verses - one does not even have to consider the context to arrive at the solution. I also would like to thank you for respecting the condition of posting one apparent contradiction at a time, because that serves to reduce the confusion that so often appears in these debates, and enables the voters to have a clearer picture as to who clearly won the debate.In Numbers 25:1-9, an ongoing plague issued by the Lord makes the Israelites die, and by the time the plague ends, a total of 24,000 of them have died by the plague - notice, a time period is missing, we do not know exactly how long of a time it took for the plague to kill a total of 24,000 Israelites, we only know that it was 24,000. On the other hand, in 1 Corinthians 10:8, a time period is not missing, there Paul specifically wrote that 23,000 of the Israelites fell in one day. Considering this fact, we can arrive at the conclusion in a perfectly logical fashion, that 23,000 of the Israelites could have fallen in one day, with 1,000 more falling the previous, or next day. If you feel likee there are other contradictions to address, please do provide.