BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

His entire argument hinges on a very common misunderstanding that free will advocates have; it's the philosophically naive ones who subvert "free will" to "freedom of action/agency" - the two have a subtle but important difference. Given that his response is short and empty of any substantial arguments, I will simply quote what he says and respond: "rational agents my influence my thought process, but I have the "free will" to do what ever the hell i want. It was my 'free will' to debate this topic. I can assure you that I am not programmed, guided, or forced into debating this stupid topic . . . I'm not uncontrollably making unconscious decisions that not only influence my behavior but outright determine my actions. " ----> You are denying that anything is physically limiting you from actions (such as coercion, physical constraint, etc. ), and I agree; however this is NOT what free will is. What you are referring to is agency[1], or freedom of action. You are correct in saying that you have the ability to act, but this is not sufficient to grant you free will. Free will is a specific type of act; it's an act in which you must be the original source of (granted I am a Source incompatibilist). I am ready to defend the Source model, but it seems you need to first get out of the conceptual prison of confusing agency necessarily with free will. "I fully understand the concept/idea of determinism and emergent behaviour, but in all honesty I think it's totally asinine. " ----> In all honesty, you need to read more into the free will debate then what is probably a superficial understanding of determinism, emergent behavior, etc. "To say that 'anything' does NOT exist is a contradiction in it self. " ----> What? "You just explained what it was. Even if you are 100% correct in your arguments, the 'idea' of free will does exist. There for you are wrong. " ----> Har har, you know exactly what my intentions are in this debate. I'm not referring to the idea of free will, but free will itself. Did my resolution say "the idea of free will does not exist"? No, so don't try. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu...
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

Free will does exist. rational agents my influence my thought process, but I have the "free will" to do what ever the hell i want. It was my 'free will' to debate this topic. I can assure you that I am not programmed, guided, or forced into debating this stupid topic. I fully understand the concept/idea of determinism and emergent behaviour, but in all honesty I think it's totally asinine. I'm not uncontrollably making unconscious decisions that not only influence my behavior but outright determine my actions. To say that 'anything' does NOT exist is a contradiction in it self. You just explained what it was. Even if you are 100% correct in your arguments, the 'idea' of free will does exist. There for you are wrong.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1D

I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free will does not exist. PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.* ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate. *Moral error theory is the meta-ethical school of thought that claims nothing is there are no moral facts. I am willing to defend either the global falsity version or the presupposition failure version. Furthermore, you will notice that I included another topic that is closely related to this topic; it's unique because I'm giving the opponent to choose either moral error theory or the claim that there is yet a satisfactory account for moral realism (essentially you get 4 topics). Also, to avoid redundancy if you choose the latter topic then I will refute it not by arguing for error theory (which is definitely viable) but rather by creating a positive attack on your proposed ethical theory (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Objectivism, virtue ethics, contractarianism, etc.). I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate.
Raped Women Should Be Euthanised

*Leave a message in the comments if you want to accept*Note to voters: 2,500 ELO, and conduct may not be rewarded just by virtue of the debate topic at hand. Points should be rewarded according to Ragnar's DDO FAQ. I thought perhaps the linked debate could have been done better... The BoP is shared in this debate. Definitions:Rape: Forced sexual intercourse against the will of the victimLD Format, 10,000 characters, 48hR1: AcceptanceR2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)R3: Rebuttals to opening argumentsR4: Defense of your original arguments
Mustard is better than ketchup

Final round and my extended gratitude to Pro for his stupendous argument. However. Pro has been misled into believing I have eaten ketchup during our debate, thus breaking the 3rd rule, I have a doctors sick note that proves how sick I became from eating only mustard during this debate, as con would not allow me to eat ketchup, as soon as this debate is over I am going to cure myself from mustard disease by eating pure ketchup. Also Superman and Wolverine once had a fight where the loser had to take the yellow outfit, Superman took no chances and whopped Wolverine from here to Krypton and back again, in fact when Superman sees Wolverine he has to use X-ray vision to avoid seeing his yellow outfit. it's that bad.
Mustard is better than ketchup

First let me thank my esteemed opponent for this debate and his thoughts. 1. Wolverine in the comics wears yellow and was recently voted best dressed super hero by hound and horse magazine for the third straight year. 2. My opponent was caught eating ketchup during the debate period by his own family(who loves mustard by the way). 3. Did I mention I did scientific research at in and out 4. I just ate mustard and it tastes better than catsup or ketchup.
Mustard is better than ketchup

Thank you Con for your well thought out contribution to the debate, However I am about to proceed to tell everybody why Ketchup is far more a superior choice than mustard and why it's actually better. Ketchup is red as is Super mans cape also, There are no great super heroes who choose yellow as the colour for their outfits, simply because it might be affiliated with mustard and make people cringe because even being reminded of mustard and it's pungent smell is cringe worthy, Ketchup is the first choice is fast food chains, I have never seen a kebab shop ask me if I want mustard on my burger, or a chip shop ask if I want mustard on my fish, because they simply don't want to lose customers by putting an acquired taste on my food. Yuck
Mustard is better than ketchup

Ketchup is good which con is alluding too. However mustard is better. 1. It is yellow. That alone makes it better! 2. It tastes great on hot dogs. Hot dogs would have died out in the cambrian period if it was not for mustard. It is a historical fact that mustard saved the hot dog industry. 3. I went to the in and out and questioned 10 people(scientific research) 5 said mutard rules. 3 picked catsup and 2 undecided. 4. If aliens ever come to earth their condiment of choice will no doubt be mustard. I know people who work at SETI, so I am quite confident in asserting this last point.
Mustard is better than ketchup

I accept and thank Pro for making this debate, I would also like to state that the burden of proof is shared. Definitions: ketch"up Noun A spicy sauce made chiefly from tomatoes and vinegar, used as a condiment. mus"tard Noun 1.A pungent-tasting yellow or brown paste made from the crushed seeds of certain plants, typically eaten with meat or used as a cooking I shall now begin. There is no way that ketchup can be better than mustard, for starters you can put ketchup on anything like Chips, eggs, burgers, heck you can even have ketchup on toast, ketchup with this and ketchup with that, who cares what it is as long as it's got ketchup on it I'll eat it, you wanna know why? it's because ketchup is so damn tasty, that's why
homework should be given

Homework should be given in school. Homework has a purpose far greater than kids think. It's not just a burden or "busy work" that teachers give us because it's fun. Teachers have their own homework when they give it out too. They spend hours grading every individual paper. Actually, homework is helpful for students because it allows them to practice the lessons they learned and remember facts better. It's the same as a dancer dancing for 2 hours every night after school. It gives them a chance to perfect their skills.
Under the guise of growth and development,the exploitation of mother earth by endless greed of human

topic-Under the guise of growth and development,the exploitation of mother earth by endless greed of humanbeings have resulted in the outburst of nature's fury causing a devastating effect. for the topic- resource rich countries perform poorly when compared to countries which are not endowed with oil, natural gas, minerals and other non-renewable resources. Therefore, resource abundance is believed to be an important determinant of economic failure, which implies that oil abundance is a curse and not a blessing.
Parliament should be a voluntary role instead of politicians being paid

ConclusionMy opponent has essentially conceded all the major points of his argument. Pro argues, "You could argue the facts for days and still have no right or wrong answer." I disagree. The evidence simply does not exist to support your side of the argument. Neither does any compelling logical argument. It has not been the case that the evidence on both sides is balanced, and thus we only have normative values by which to judge the arguments. I have presented a clear argument as to why eliminating MP salaries would not eliminate "money seekers." Subsequently, I negated the other arguments Pro advanced. The balance of evidences is clearly in my favour.In the end, Pro reduces his entire argument to a normative statement unsubstantiated by any evidence."All I am saying is that I do not believe that politicians should be paid for mucking up the country."Cool. Once again, that which can be asserted without evidence ca be dismissed without evidence. Pro has not adequately fulfilled his burden of proof, I urge a con vote.
Parliament should be a voluntary role instead of politicians being paid

This is my opportunity to reject my opponents claims which in part I will do, I will also prove to you that MPs are paid far too much for what they do. 13.5 million people in the UK are in poverty just to make that clear that's almost 25% of the entire population of the United Kingdom. The average salary in the UK is just over "20,000 and yet the basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2014 is "67,060 ($105527USD) as well as expenses and somewhere to live in London. (according to http://www.parliament.uk...) Do you genuinely believe that the politicians that are 'mucking things up' should be the ones that are rewarded for their 'hard work' I know I don't. The University of Chicago booth school of business found that if you want better politicians then you should pay them less. Although this sounds a bit of an irrational it is backed up by several more studies such as a study by Professor Emir Kamenica, along with colleagues from Columbia University, Princeton University, and DONG Energy, raising politicians salaries is likely to result in worse governance. Perhaps in theory, and in a rational market, it would make sense to pay politicians more. Doing so would generate increased competition between candidates, attract better applicants, and secure better politicians. But politicians"not market forces"are responsible for setting their own salary levels, one reason why the political labor market veers toward irrationality. They should not get cars to drive around in, they should not get all of their expenses paid for them, they should not get any money from taxpayers for their ideas, they should not have free houses in London, not paying politicians should make them honest! That way, only people who truly believe in ideas will make the effort to promote them. After all this I believe that politicians and all those elected should not be paid for ideas in which they were elected for.
Parliament should be a voluntary role instead of politicians being paid

IntroductionAs a Member of Parliament myself, I believe I have a fair bit of authority on the matter. I will argue that my opponent is not correct when he asserts that Parliament should be a voluntary role and that members should not be paid for their participation. My opponent contends that Parliamentary pay induces the wrong kind of people (i.e. money seekers) and that making Parliament a voluntary body would ally this concern. I intend to challenge both premises.Its the Money, Lebowsky!As presently stands, the basic salary of a British member of Parliament is £65,738 (about $103,435 USD). Interestingly however, most of the individuals who enter Parliament already make considerably more than this. As of 2010, of the 29 members of Cabinet, 23 were worth more than £1 million (about $1.6 million USD). [1] In the American Congress (which admittedly is not a "parliament" but is still a national legislature) this figure is even more exaggerated. [2] In fact, when many individuals choose to enter Parliament, they forfeit time that could be spent acquiring even greater sums of money (they are after all millionaires in their own right before ever entering the legislature). Why then do people join the Parliament? I wont pretend to know the answer to this. However, what is clear is that a basic salary of £65,738 is probably not much inducement.The Merits of VolunteerismWould making the Parliament a non-paying job help address the issue of money-hungry and rich people running for office? No. Even if one removed the salary that members of Parliament receive, it would not remove the opportunities for self-enrichment. One of the most powerful tools lobbyists have at their disposal is to hire former politicians provided they champion causes favourable to lobby interests [3]. So long as this is the case, there are still opportunities for self-enrichment, regardless of whether or not MPs are salaried.Your turn Pro.References:[1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...[2] http://www.parliament.uk...[3] http://www.transparency.org.uk...
Parliament should be a voluntary role instead of politicians being paid

I personally believe that politicians should not be paid for their work or at the very least they should be paid far less for their work because when you pay someone a 6-figure salary then you run the risk of enticing the wrong people into parliament. I feel that if parliament was voluntary then the 'wrong' people ie the money seekers would be taken out of the equation. Therefore leaving the genuine people that want to do good for the country that they live in.
Standardized Tests

My opponent is worried that students will only do well on standardized tests and it won't improve anything. The problems with tests is that their different. Tests are different between each school and each teacher often. This allows for some student not to have learned things while others have. Which creates an unbalanced classroom where some students are struggling to learn material and others are bored because they had already learned it. In fact a study has shown that 79% of students think that standard tests are fair. My opponent is also worried that it restricts creativity of thinking. A test is to test your knowledge. Grades 1-12 are there to teach you the basics of a wide range of knowledge. Tests are there to see if you get what you are learning. Standard tests already have questions that promote creative thinking. Teaching for the test is a good thing. It eliminates time wasting activities. It focuses on the content and that way the students will all learn the same thing and no student will be left behind. Standardized tests do not narrow the curriculum. It focuses the curriculum. The multiple choice is actually helpful in improving the education system because it produces accurate information. Also the markings for standardized tests are fair. Teacher markings are not fair because the teacher may not like a child and mark their test harder than others. If you don't believe me China is living proof that standard tests work. They have a set of standard tests and they are leading the world when it comes to academics.
Standardized Tests

Challenge accepted, Standardized tests should not be used from Grades 1-12 as they discourage critical thinking skills, take away valuable time that could be used to educate students in a classroom, and fail to accurately assess a students academic progress. These reasons are just my starting point and only scratch the surface of the problems associated with standardized tests. I have many more reasons against the use of standardized tests, however, I will save those reasons for when the debate officially begins.
Melee is better than Brawl

But since this is where we are I'll roll with it. To say there are no professional Melee players is patently false. This is a link that lists 15 professional melee players and shows tourney footage: . http://www.gamesradar.com... I think it aids my point that even though Brawl is the newest edition there is still a large Melee following 13 years after release. If Brawl truly was better, everyone would have gone with the "upgrade". You probably lost track of yourself in that battle because that "chaos" you describe is due to all the needless flash. This comment interests me: "Characters are not slower (in relation to each other). " Is this a tacit admission that when comparing the games the characters in Brawl are slower? You contradict yourself at one point, of the characters you list as "non floaty" meta knight is on the list, but later in your argument you describe meta knight as "light". How can a light champ with the ability to fly not be considered floaty? Sheik was never good? ?? In Melee she is top tier. I own as Sheik. I'll admit because you don't have to use the Wii mote or Smash Ball the point is moot, but they are still both stupid. In regards to the essence of SSB, the N64 may have been the original but Melee was an improvement in every way, if a sequel is better than the original it's because it embodies and improves what made the original fun. In my opinion Brawl fails to take the title of best SSB from Melee. In reading the comments TheDebateWinner mentions that it is harder to die, which adds to my point that the game moved away from competitiveness towards casual. Noobs hate dying, competitive players know death is part of the game and skill comes in the speed of the draw. Although I"ll concede his point about character originality, Melee has too many blatant clones.
Melee is better than Brawl

Allow me to answer your arguments in turn 1. Brawl has both casual and competitive ways to play. That's why there are professional brawl players and no professional melee players 1a. Brawl is not slow at all. The other day I lost track of where I was because the fight was so chaotic 1b. Characters are not slower (in relation to each other). Some are floaty but that is just one of their weaknesses as a character. To name some non floaty characters: falco, ganondorf, bowser, fox, wolf, ice climbers, Marth, Ike, meta knight, snake, the list goes on. 2a. The smash ball is completely optional. It's there in case anyone wants it. I never played with items on any of the ssbs anyway. Everyone once in a while I play with people who want to spice the game with a smash ball or other items. 2b. Granted prat falls suck. No getting around that one 3. Meta knight seems op but he has a weakness: he's really light. Meta knight is a pro character because he has good save moves, he's fast, and he can combo attacks. He takes skill to handle correctly. Any pro can make a good character look op. 3a. Sheik was never that good as a whole (her down and up smashes are good though) and both Marth and olimar are pro characters which makes them not really nerfed at all. 4. I for one enjoy the wii remote. It's not that hard to use. The nice thing about the wii is that you can use GameCube controllers for almost any wii game which makes complaining about the wii remote for brawl completely pointless. Lastly you are wrong to assert that the essence of ssb is in the GameCube. You are wrong. The essence of ssb is in the Nintendo 64.
Melee is better than Brawl

This is about the Super Smash Brothers (SSB) video game series. I will be arguing that Melee (SSBM) is a superior game over Brawl (SSBB). The original and Wii U version are not up for debate. Please try to give as many reasons as you can in the first response, the next 2 rounds will be discussing the merits of the first response. READY, GO! Here are my reasons as to why Melee is better than Brawl: 1. Melee allows for both fun casual play and serious competition. 1a. Brawl feels like it has been slowed down in favor of casual play over competitiveness. It alienated its fans for the sake of a broader audience. 1b. In Brawl, characters run slower and when knocked up float down like dainty petals in the wind. This makes it difficult for competition because the character movements can't keep up with the speed of the fingers. 2. Brawl introduced needless features into combat that most people hate, namely: 2a. The smash ball, most people I know just turn it off. 2b. TRIPPING IS BS; I'm trying to fight, when I run I don't want to worry about falling flat on my face for no reason! 3. Melee has a fairly reasonable tier system/balance, but with Brawl this is not the case! Meta Knight, nuff said. 3a. I'll never forgive Brawl for nerfing Sheik and Marth! I had high hopes for Olimar, but he's crap too! 4. Did Nintendo really think anyone wanted to play Brawl on the Wii-mote? Melee was made for the Game Cube, the essence of SSB is in the Game Cube. The Wii wishes it was made for Brawl. To summarize; Melee has soul; Brawl took the fun of Melee out, and added stupid stuff. Brawl is a watered down version of Melee. And I could probably beat you 1v1 in Melee.
All matter can be divided. This includes photons.

My arguments have not been rebutted. The Standard Model has dozens of indivisible fundamental particles. Both the photon and the gluon have zero rest mass. There is wide agreement that the Standard Model is incomplete with respect to explaining dark matter and the the transmission of gravitational force, but there is no evidence that the fundamental particles can be divided. A new theory would have to show how the divisibility would made the model better agree with observed data and how the divisibility could be demonstrated. Pro did not provide either, so the resolution fails. I cite Pro for bad conduct for having forfeited two rounds. Pro should have either made arguments or conceded the debate.