BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
NASCAR or Football

NASCAR, the little annoying little sister to football. Everyone nowadays seems to scowl at the mention of NASCAR. "It's to boring!" They complain. But, I will now list the reasons why NASCAR is better than football. NASCAR is Eco freindly. NASCAR uses a fuel known as E-15 which is a modified blend of ethanol. The amount of pollution from these cars are very small. While on the other hand, football cares nothing about electricity and consumption. For example, AT&T stadium in Dallas Texas uses more electricity in 2 hours than Liberia in a day. Secondly, NASCAR has better fans. If you look at nascars fans, you will see if there is a rain delay, they will almost all stay and watch their favorite drivers race. While in football, if there is a problem with the other team in any way, their fans will typically go crazy. This is not the best of ways to make other persons think that your team is a good one. I mean who would want to be around a bunch of hooligans throwing up and not being pleasurable. And lastly, NASCAR it exciting all the way through the race. There are pit stops which change the way cars handle and can make for some amazing racing. Also the main reason why people watch NASCAR is for the wrecks and drama. A great example as in martainsville last week. In Kansas 2 weeks ago with 5 laps remaining in the race, Joey logono spun out race leader Matt kenseth taking his championship hopes for the season into the dirt.But at martainsville last week. Matt got redemption on Joey and wrecked him intentionally. Matt is now suspended for 2 races. While on he other hand. Football is just having possession of a football and try to get to the other side. There might be some exciting long plays cross field which are very exciting none the least. But I just think that something should be added to give it the kick that it needs. In conclusion, NASCAR and football are great sports but football just needs something else to get it up on the level of awesomeness as NASCAR. And NASCAR should get some more fans than it has. It is too good of a sport to be scowled at. Thanks for your time!
The Burden Of Proof Is Affixed To The Debater(s) With A Controversial Position

uh oh...my opponents feathers are a little ruffled......perhaps he is attempting to distract you from the fact that he has no substance surrounding his resolution. The winner of this debate is clear. PoeJoe believes that he can make a confusing claim about the RULES of debate, or the way they should be, without giving us any understanding of why he believes this, and you should still vote for him. My opponent may not see the connection between my last argument about the importance of inclusivity in debate and his resolution of assigning a rigid guidline of how debates should be judged, but perhaps you do. My opponents believes that "What is important to a position is if it can be proved." I ask the voters to consider his logic when casting your vote and ask if my opponents position was proved by his proceding arguments. My position is simple. Debate does not need a rigid set of guidlines to be judged by. The discresion of the voter to recognize a positions strenth or weakness in the spectrum of a given argument is, and should be, left up to the voter. If for instance we assigned a points system where a debate was measured simply by "point and counterpoints" we would then define the quality of an argument by this arbitrary formula and could not account the the substance of a position. Why would we even need a voter or judge? Debate may have many purposes, among the least important of which i believe to be, producing a winner. Although my opponents resolution may make judging a debate easier, it would hurt debate, as would most rigid "rules". That is my position.....clear, concise, and thoughtful.....unlike some people ;)
The Burden Of Proof Is Affixed To The Debater(s) With A Controversial Position

OK. .. .this probably isnt the most entertaining debate on this site. .. .primarily because my opponent isnt very sophisticated in the arena of communication, and we have a pretty sloppy dialogue here. By the way, contrary to my opponents observation. .. this is not my first debate on this site. I apologize if i mis-understood your premise but realize it is very flimsy and some readers may share my confusion. Your example: "For instance, if I were to start a debate asserting that "1+1=11", my position would be controversial, and thus I would bear the burden of proof. My opponent in this hypothetical situation, would only be required to rebut my claims. " If you asserted that 1+1=11, your position wouldn't be controversial, it would be wrong. Your examples suck. Your resolution borders on ranting and non-sense. Why do you think this burden of proof in necessary? Why cant debate exist (as it has for centuries) without this "controversial burden of truth"? Honestly I think my opponent has a burden. .. .the burden to explain his thesis to us in a way that supports his resolution. Let me explain why this burden is not necessary and why the nature of debate resolves the issue of proof. As I mentioned before, debate is a exercise in reason and analysis. Debate is essentially two (or more) parties representing differing positions attempting to sway others opinions in a organized discussion with one another. The purpose of the debater is to make an argument in a convincing way. It is not for my opponent (or anyone else) to determine the criteria necessary for a person to form an opinion. If i am convinced by someone that 1+1=11, that is my prerogative. "Proof" can be manipulated and monopolized, thus if "proof" is necessary for all debate. .. .those without access to instruments that produce what my opponent considers "proof" are disenfranchised from the conversation. This is a bad thing because I believe there are things to be learned from people who cant always "prove" what they say. For example, if i am in a debate with a Sudanese refugee about Darfur, and he is not able to cite his opinions and experiences because my opponent doesnt believe they constitute "proof", the debate will lose important substantive information. .. and the opinions formed as a result lose a degree of perspective. balls in your court buddy. .. con is bomb.
The Burden Of Proof Is Affixed To The Debater(s) With A Controversial Position

This is my opponent's first debate on this website, so I understand if he is confused. However, that does not distract from the fact that my opponent has not addressed my resolution. He believes that my position is that "One debater always has a greater burden of proof than another debater." While that is often the case, it is not my position for this debate. And furthermore, I ask from what text my opponent derives such a conclusion? My position (in simpler terms) is that the debater(s) in a debate require evidence not if he/she is the instigator or "PRO", but if he/she is taking a controversial position. This (as with my God example) can mean one or both debaters. For instance, if I were to start a debate asserting that "1+1=11", my position would be controversial, and thus I would bear the burden of proof. My opponent in this hypothetical situation, would only be required to rebut my claims. I hope I have clarified my position for my opponent, and I wish that we could get back to the actually debate at hand. So far, you, the audience, must vote for me because I have been the only one to make an argument concerning the resolution at hand.
The Burden Of Proof Is Affixed To The Debater(s) With A Controversial Position

It took me a second to understand what my opponent was trying to say in his argument. As I understand, he asserts that "the burden of proof if(is) affixed to the opponent(s) making a controversial claim. " meaning that one debater has more of a burden of supplying evidence than another. Which debater? How do we arbitrate which position is contraversial? Why dont both parties have an equal burden to provide evidence supporting their position? I believe both debaters have an equal burden to support whatever claims they are making. My oponent believes that there is such a thing as a "controversial position" but i would argue that the all debates involve two controversial positions dueling for support. He says that "The purpose of debate is to find the truth. " I believe the purpose of debate is to provide thoughtful analysis around subjects that may have no single truth. Proof may not be an aplicable tool for a worthwhile debate, in fact, if any position can be proved, there is very little room for debate. Anyone reading my opponents argument should strongly question his premise.
The Burden Of Proof Is Affixed To The Debater(s) With A Controversial Position

Perhaps I should clarify the debate topic and resolution. It is my strong belief that the burden of proof if affixed to the opponent(s) making a controversial claim. The labels of "PRO", "CON", "instigator", and "contender" are irrelevant in determining whether or not a debater bears the burden of proof. All that matters in determining whether or not a debater bears the burden of proof is whether or not the position of a debater is controversial. The first round made by the instigator is not predestined to be anything. To use an example, an instigator can make two different possible resolutions to most topics ("God is Real" and "God is Imaginary") and can choose whether to be PRO or CON. In this scenario, there are a total of four possible opening statements. If the four debates were to be accepted, the burden of proof according to my opponent would vary in each debate. That does not make sense! The purpose of debate is to find the truth. If the burden of proof can transfer depending on how the opening statement is made, the correct answer will not be forced. Having the burden of proof be affixed to the opponent(s) defending a controversial claim will force such truth. (In the above example, both opponents would bear the burden of proof regardless of the opening statement. This is beneficial because God is a highly controversial debate topic.) Furthermore, controversial positions are by definition disputed. If that is so, my opponent believes that the burden of proof to controversial claims may be void depending on who is "PRO" or the "instigator". Once again, this would ignore the very spirit of debate. What is important to a position is if it can be proved. The Burden Of Proof Is Affixed To The Debater(s) With A Controversial Position. I now leave the floor open to my opponent.
This House would offer a free kitten to all newly-married couples

*sigh*. .. this debate had so much potential. .. Since there is nothing to rebut, I shall move onto the two Points of Clash (PoCs) in this debate and will go on to demonstrate why we believe Pro takes the points on each point. Then I shall conclude and hand you back to Con (if he posts anything). PoC1: Do kittens equal commitment, and is this a good thing? Con have, quite correctly, made the argument that cats are very easy animals to maintain - they are capable of feeding themselves, know how to use a litter tray, do not need to be bathed and are just as happy on their own as when they are with human, or feline, company. Pro, however, have cited studies which show that getting a cat is a much bigger step on the road of solidifying a relationship, as people view getting a cat as being a step towards spending the rest of their lives together - more so, apparently, than marriage. Indeed, as cats are a financial burden - a point originally cited by my opponent - they represent an even bigger commitment for a struggling newlywed couple. So we've shown that kittens equal commitment. We believe that this is a good thing as it gives people an opportunity to start thinking about the future right at the start of their married lives. Marriage means that people are stronger when they stick together and make promises to each other. We're all for that, here at the HTCP. Therefore Pro wins this point of clash: that cats are a commitment and thus this idea of free kittens is a good thing. PoC2: Are kittens beneficial? Con has thrown about all of the same anti-feline arguments that we've seen time and time again in Cats vs Satan style debates. They've cited their parasites, which have been known to cause some damage to humans in what are exceptionally cherry-picked instances. We, however, have risen above this racism against cats to demonstrate that cats are hugely beneficial for one's health. Pro have shown that cats have a significant effect - more so than many other activities - on the lowering of one's heart rate. We have shown that having a cat in the family reduces a child's eventual risk of suffering from allergies. We have shown that there is even some evidence to suggest that cats can reduce the risk of cancer. Pro, therefore, takes this point. The conclusion? We have shown that the HTCP is the best idea since sliced bread and should be carried forward immediately. It will have huge benefits for newly-married couples both in the short and the long term, will provide homes for thousands of homeless kittens, will allow couples a chance to consider the commitment they're making to each other, and will ultimately create a better, more harmonious tomorrow.
This House would offer a free kitten to all newly-married couples

OK, this is my first attempt at a less serious, more humorous debate, so we'll see how it goes. Hopefully it'll be slightly less deep than some of my previous debates!As the Government, I will be arguing in favour of offering the gift of a free kitten to all newly-married couples. My opponent must argue against or counter-prop.4 rounds, 6000 characters per round, 1st round is just for acceptance / querying the rules. Sources don't need to be cited in the first instance but can be used to support an argument which is being challenged.Debate format:R1 is acceptance only.R2 is opening arguments and definitions.R3 is substantives and rebuttal.R4 is rebuttal and summing up (no new arguments).I hope for a fun, light-hearted, respectful debate!
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

You're Wrong. Reason #1 - EquivocationPro:"I am arguing that the below argument and the equivalent title make up a valid syllogism.""I am not denying I used two different meanings."Equivocation is often expressed in the Fallacy of the Four Terms[1]: A categorical syllogism is, by definition, an argument with three categorical terms. "Term" is to be understood in a semantic sense, as opposed to the syntactic sense of "word" or "phrase". In other words, it is the meaning of the words that is important. So, two different words with the same meaning are the same term, and the same word occurring twice with different meanings is two distinct terms. An argument commits the Four Term Fallacy which appears to have the form of a validating categorical syllogism, but has four terms. Pro has admitted to using two different meanings which, via above, means two different terms. The syllogism is, therefore, invalid, since all valid syllogisms must only have three terms. Since Pro is explicitly arguing the validity of the argument (rather than the truth of the conclusion), this is entirely relevant to the matter at hand.You're Wrong. Reason #2 - I'm doing what now?Pro has accused me of relying on the genetic fallacy, that a conclusion is false because it is established from fallacious premises. I never said the premises were invalid. Rather, I used those premises, as is, to demonstrate that they actually entail a conclusion that is the opposite of the conclusion presented by Pro.A valid argument must produce a true conclusion if the premises are true. I demonstrated in Round 1 that, if the premises are true, a different conclusion is entailed. Thus, the argument is invalid.You're very, very, very, confused.I'm not ADT_Clone. I am Drafterman. You are not debating against ADT_Clone, you are debating with me, Drafterman. I have not referred to, relied upon, restated, or affirmed anything said by ADT_Clone. Whatever your issue is with ADT_Clone, it is irrelevant to the argument unless I, Drafterman, make those same arguments.The comments are not part of the debate. They are comments and nothing more. They are external and outside the boundaries of the debate. The only think in scope is what is posted in the Rounds, the actual arguments.I'd kindly ask you to respond to what I, and only I, have said, and only that which has been said within the boundaries of this debate.[1] http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

genetic fallacy example: arguing that a conclusion couldn't possibly be valid because it's established from fallacious premises I am not denying I used two different meanings. My argument is 'fallacious' in the sense of equivocation and the one the Con has brought to light, although the Con did not state what that fallacy is, but just presents an invalid argument. The argument of the Con is indeed invalid in more than one sense.  Observable is that ADT_Clone and Drafterman are using the genetic fallacy, which the definition of is denial (ADT_Clone is in denial) of an argument by explaining the origins (genus) of a belief, rather than attacking the rational basis for supporting it. He is explaining the origins of Aristotelian logic, rather than the rational basis (which has been covered in my other debate for ADT_Clone to rebuke) for supporting it. A subject/predicate division is less fundamental than a subject/assertion division. Having established this I will not present it here. (probably in the next round, however) The conclusion is that Aristotelian Logic has been compromised. By explaining the argument as Aristotelian Logic and drawing a conclusion based on this is not attacking the rational basis of my argument. My rational basis is on a better logic which has since the ancient times of Aristotle been adequately established. ADT_Clone states: "2. I never implied that "ALL arguments with fallacious premises are invalid"" I shall prove him wrong with the following. ADT_Clone states: "[abstractposters] thinks he can use logic in any way he seems fit, by treating words as classes, ignoring their meaning, putting them in a logical argument as classes, then treating them as words again. I have explained to ADT_Clone that I haven't used logic in any such inferior way, but only a superior way. ADT_Clones above argument is inferior. What meaning of words have I ignored? How does one putting words in a logical argument as classes (whatever that means) imply equivocation is sufficient to render it invalid? (begging the question) P: All arguments that use equivocation are fallacious. P: All arguments by abstractposters (just the debate topic) use equivocation. C: All arguments by abstractposters (just the debate topic) are fallacious. The first premise is false rendering his conclusion (which he denies to have drawn) false. Unless ADT_Clone can explain, using the logic of modern thinkers, why ALL arguments using equivocation are false, he is incorrect and begging the question. Unless Drafterman can explain, using the logic of modern thinkers, why ALL arguments using (whatever that fallacy was, excluded middle or something along those lines) are false, he is incorrect and begging the question. REMEMBER: Both deductive and inductive arguments may contain fallacies; if they do, they are either unsound or uncogent, depending on the kind of argument. Conversely, if an argument is unsound or uncogent, it has one or more false premises or it contains a fallacy (or both). No premise I present is false, therefore it 'contains' fallacies. (The only option.)
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

I am arguing that the below argument and the equivalent title make up a valid syllogism. Premise 1: all Space-Time is of the Essence (timing and meeting all the deadlines are essential and required for the end is near) Premise 2: all Essence Precedes Existence (before something can exist it must exist in the mind of a creator) Conclusion: all Existence precedes Space-Time (the mind of a creator precedes the universe) Let's have at it! REFERENCES: 1. Time is of the Essence: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com... 2. Essence Precedes Existence: http://faculty.smu.edu...
P1: All Time is of the Essence; P2: All Essence Precedes Existence; C: All Existence Precedes Time

RebuttalsPro:"My two cents are (1) Draftersman uses a genetic fallacy.""genetic fallacy example: arguing that a conclusion couldn't possibly be valid because it's established from fallacious premises"Again, and for the record: I am not arguing that the conclusion is false. I am arguing that it doesn't follow from the premises. Neither have I said that the premises are fallacious.Pro:"New meaning was implied all along."I disagree. You may have intended new meaning, but that is not what was was implied, nor what could reasonably be inferred. You presented what you called a "syllogism" and its structure was that of a classical Aristotlean syllogism. By all accounts, and lacking any statement to the contrary, there should have been no expectation for it to be treated as anything other than a syllogism.Furthermore, while you continue to assert "new meaning" you have failed to yet provide what this new meaning is. It is currently Round 4 in the debate while such deviations from the norm belong at the beginning.Pro:"(2) My opponent's appeal to authority occurs not because he goes to aristotle the person but because he goes to aristotelian logic, which as I said, has become obsolete."Obsolete in the sense that it may have been superceded and dominated by more advanced forms of logic. However, I disagree that it is obsolete in the sense that it can't be used anymore. Based on the quotes I provided from the source you provided, Russell simply indicated that Aristotlean syllogisms are insufficient, not that they are wrong.In any event, what you provided was a syllogism in the classical Aristoltean sense. So if it is obsolete, then you concede your own argument.----Your last paragraph is little more than further wordplay. Even if I concede this point, you have still failed to address my original argument, explained in Round 2, and repeated again in Round 3. I reiterate:The conclusion entailed by the premises is "Space-Time precedes Existence." This is contradictory to the conclusion provided by pro, "Existence precedes Space-Time." Ergo, the provided argument is invalid. I stated this in the previous round, which Pro did not rebut. I state it again.Nothing you've said refutes or even acknowledges that I made this argument. Around these parts that's considered a concession.