BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is Alfonso Soriano a HOF

I believe that my opponent have conceded by acknowledging that Alfonso is not HOF, and he further confirm that concession by posting the opinion that he will probably not become a HOF.This would mean that I have won this debate as my opponent have self-admittedly failed to uphold the burden of proof, which is proving that Alfonso Soriano is a Hall of Famer.List of HOFs: http://baseballhall.org...As you can see in the link presented, Alfonso Soriano is not among the 300 admitted members of the HOF.The definition of "Hall of Fame" according to merriam-webster.com is:Definition of HALL OF FAME 1 : a structure housing memorials to famous or illustrious individuals usually chosen by a group of electors 2 : a group of individuals in a particular category (as a sport) who have been selected as particularly illustrious http://www.merriam-webster.com...As you can see, the process of initiating new HOFs requires a professional committee to decide.Furthermore, the Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum website states that the player must be retired for full five sessions before being considered for the HOF. Therefore Alfonso is not even eligible to be considered for the HOF yet, let alone be part of it.http://baseballhall.org... Provided that they remain retired, the following is a partial list of former Major League ballplayers who will become eligible for consideration by the BBWAA for election into the Hall of Fame in upcoming years. Players who are eligible have played 10 seasons of Major League Baseball and have been retired from for five full seasons. For example, those players eligible for consideration in 2014 will have played their final game in 2008. Those players eligible for consideration in 2015 will have last played in 2009, etc. Pro proposes that since Alfonso achieved certain statistics that would be enough to label him as a HOF in a certain point of view. However, his opinion is not professional based, and thus does not add to the HOF list.My opponent did not specify that interruption in the opening statement, therefore we must assume the simplest and most logical interruption since this debate is not philosophic in nature, but by creating a Semantic and inventing an alternative definition this debate enters the realm of philosophy rather than pure facts, therefore he must apply the BoP on all logical interruption. I have already proved that the simplest interruption is indeed false, therefore my opponent have failed to verify his BoP.My opponent recognizes that there are people with superior statistics, but that does not mean that they are HOFs, that argument presented is too shallow to be used.Therefore, I conclude that my opponent have failed to maintain the BoP or present rational arguments for his case.
Is Alfonso Soriano a HOF

I think Alfonso Soriano just isn't going to be a HOF'er but a first ballot HOF'er so far he has 1,107 RBI's which ranks him 200th 396 Home Runs which ranks him 54th, he was 1 of 4 players in the 40-40 Club (Canceso, Bonds, Soriano, and Alex Rodriguez) not to mention he is STILL PLAYING Sources; http://www.baseball-almanac.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Active Euthanasia is wrong.

Active euthanasia is morally wrong and, if made legal, will result in many negative effects onto society. 1. Human life, in all of its stages, is a precious thing, but euthanasia devalues human life to an obsolete item. Natural death is a part of the natural human life. Religious or not, everyone can agree that this human spirit can create and do amazing things. Upon death, a human being is separated from the human body. Just like the natural process of human life is placed into existence, natural death will reverse that process. Unnatural death becomes the ending to something much less significant. Euthanasia is like throwing away an old car or computer. Killing human beings because of their old age or other physical problems is morally wrong. 2. Allowing Euthanasia to become a part of our culture will lead to limitless justification for the right euthanasia. By guaranteeing patients this right to suicide, general competent adults are also given the chance to demand these rights. With the legalization of euthanasia, government can no longer keep suicide illegal. The justifications for the use of euthanasia will eventually become so expansive and the state will not have the power to deny adults justification for euthanasia. We can see this happening currently in the Netherlands, where it began as an quick end to a terminal illness in which the victim is in incredible amount of pain. Now legislation is being passed that allows any elderly person to use euthanasia because they simply feel like their life is complete. 3. This out right defies the Hippocratic Oath. "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect", this is the Oath the doctors are supposed to live by. In the oath, this idea, that doctors are not meant to harm, is the most basic ruling. Doctors should be expected to heal and only heal, never to kill. 4. The option of Euthanasia might eventually put some people into horrible situations in which they might be pressured into suicide. An elderly woman that is using up much of her family's income in order to stay alive might be pressured to end her life early. 5. Euthanasia will become another way society cuts out suffering. While suffering should never be forced upon another, there are times when we must not relieve the suffering of others as well. Suffering builds up a person's character in a way our society has always created great people. It could make a man forgiving, or faithful once again. Suffering is an essential part of our society.
1.9999... (repeating) equals 2.

This is in response to the numerous 1 = 2 posts with the mathematical error. ****************************************** Let A = 1.99999999... repeating. 10 * A = 19.999999... repeating. Subtract A from each side... 10A - A = 18.0 9A = 18.0 Divide by 9. A = 2 Substitute. 1.9999999... repeating = 2.
1.9999... (repeating) equals 2.

1.9999999... repeating does NOT = 2. If 1.9999999... repeating = 1.9999999... repeating AND 2 = 2 THEN 1.9999999... repeating cannot ever = 2 Otherwise A could have equalled 3. Let A = 3. 10 * A = 30. Subtract A from each side... 10A - A = 18.0 9A = 18.0 Divide by 9. A = 3 Substitute. 1.9999999... repeating = 3 AND 2 = 3 A THEORETICAL POSSIBILITY, BUT A MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY Therefore 1.9999... (repeating) is NOT equal to 2. Thanks for the debate!
Zaradi's Prized Tournament Final: Food Security

PrefaceThis is the Final round of Zaradi's Prize Debate Tournament. I want to extend my thanks to Zaradi for hosting and for being magnanimous enough to attach a prize to this tournament. I also want to thank Beginner for suspending his leave of absence in order to conclude the tournament with this debate. I look forward to a superb exchange. Finally, I want to thank everyone involved in the tournament, including competitors, debaters, voters, and casual readers--this would not have been as fun or even possible without you. Sides in this debate were assigned by Zaradi, so I will be engaging in a devil's advocate position. It should be fun and challenging, and I look forward to meeting that challenge head-on. To vote on this debate, your ELO must be at least 2,500. The style of voting is Select Winner. If Beginner has an queries about any elements of the set-up, I urge him to contact me prior to the debate by PMing me or posting in the comments. Now, with those preliminary notes out of the way, on to the debate!Full TopicA just government ought to ensure food security for its citizens.TermsThe definitions below are influenced by or excerpted from Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Merriam Webster, Oxford Dictionary, the WHO, the FAO, the World Bank, and Encarta.Government - 'the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions' and 'the body of persons that constitutes the governing authority.'Ought - expresses moral obligationEnsure - to guarantee; a pledge whereby one party agrees to absolutely secure, provide, or obtain something for another party.Food Security - A condition wherein all citizens have access to reliable and sufficient supply of affordable and nutritious food.Citizen - 'a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth'Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. No "kritiks" of the topic (e.g. moral skepticism, moral nihilism, etc.)7. My opponent accepts all definitions and waives his/her right to add resolutional definitions8. An exception to rule 7 is that debaters may propose competing ideas or definitions of justice and what constitutes "just" governance9. The BOP is Shared10. Pro must go first and must waive in the final round11. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's CaseR2. Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro waivesThanks......again to Beginner; I am looking forward to a truly stellar and enjoyable discourse on this important topic!
Existence of God

Allow me to clarify the argument I am using to prove the existence of God so as to make sure it does not conflict with your counter. Take entity A which is currently in existence. Entity A was caused to come into existence as a result of entity B. And B in turn was brought into existence by C and so on. Seeing as entity A is in existence we know that the chain of causes did not go on forever, as if it did then entity A could not have come into existence because entity B could not have caused entity A until it first existed, which would require entity C which could equally not do any causing until it existed and so on. So we have established that within this chain of events there is a start. However we now have a problem as all the parts of the series are dependent on earlier parts. So the only way we could have a series with a start would be an independent cause which does not itself have a cause. If this cause that was not caused did not exist then it would not be possible for the series to begin. If we examine this first cause one of its properties must be existence. If it were not it could not start the series. If we ask ourselves what this thing is we come to the conclusion it is god the creator of the universe as nothing but the creator of the universe is capable of not having a cause. The con asks the question why does God not have a cause and to this I would reply that he is missing the point. If whatever caused the universe to begin has a cause then it is not god but god can still be found by looking at the cause of this thing. If whatever caused the causer of the universe has a cause then it is also not God but as we know there is a universe we know eventually we will come to a causer who has no cause and this must be God. Who has (perhaps not directly but nonetheless) still caused the existence of the universe. I would also point out to the con that it is not impossible that time could exist without a universe although I would not go as far as to say that this is the case I maintain it could be. It is perfectly possible that time is a human construct and simply a way of viewing the world to make greater sense of it and this concept can apply to anything as it is not an entity just an idea. In which cause the causal series could stretch beyond what we understand of the universe's creation in a plain that transcends what we understand of the universe. Luckily for me it is not necessary for me to prove that all that is possible as it is not entirely relevant to the existence of God which as earlier demonstrated be proven through logic and the fact that the universe exists. I would also like to say I have enjoyed this debate a lot and it has offered me some new criticisms to my argument that I had not heard before.
Existence of God

Firstly to address your point about which kind of God I am aiming to prove the existence of I would like to make clear it is not the Judeo-Christian God but rather a creator of the universe . I do not aim to prove any of the characteristics of God other then that he exists. I think proof for the existence of God does exist and it is hailed as the most amazing piece of knowledge that the human race has by the majority of the human race (who do believe in a God). In terms of what that proof is, my opening statement explains. To recap this in short 1. Everything in the universe has a cause 2. These causes have other causes and this causal series stretches back to the creation of the universe 2. Therefore if we follow the chain of causes back to the beginning we must eventually come to something that has not been caused 3. This will be God and the creator of the universe Can the con show me why my argument does not constitute proof? Thank you for accepting my challenge.
Existence of God

I also appreciate that you admit the burden of proof is on you since you made the positive claim. First, let's define God: From . http://dictionary.reference.com... : "God: the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe. " From: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... : "God : the perfect and all-powerful spirit or being that is worshipped especially by Christians, Jews, and Muslims as the one who created and rules the universe" There currently is no evidence for a God existing. If actual proof did exist, this would be hailed as the greatest discovery of all time. The problem is that there is no reason to believe there is a God. I would also like to ask Pro, which God exists? Is it the Christian God? Allah? Odin? Zeus? Or are you taking a more deistic approach? Gods have long been believed in because it's in our human nature to desire answers that we currently do not have. The hypothesis of God gives us those answers. But just because the explanation of God may make sense to some, it does not make it true. Humans have always demanded evidence or proof to label something as fact. Why is God different? I argue that it isn't. That is my opening statement and I very much look forward to the rebuttal.
Existence of God

As I am suggesting God exists the burden of proof is on me. When looking at the universe we can see that all the entities that we know of are contingent in the sense that their existence cannot be explained without reference to another entity. For example my existence cannot be explained without reference to my parents. Therefore if all parts of the universe are contingent then it follow that the universe is contingent. So it follows there must be a cause of the universe. This cause is either itself caused by something or is has necessary existence (meaning exists and could not failed to have existed). If it has necessary existence then we have found God and if not then it has a cause. However if we follow the causes back they cannot go back ad infinitum lest the series could never have begun. So god must exist as the initial cause of the universe.
Negative Atheism is Correct

I will start by defining atheism: Atheism is the rejection of the existence all deities Atheists aren't necessarily scientists or philosophers. Atheists can support science, logic, and philosophy, but atheism is simply the lack of belief in any deity. My position is that atheism fails to provide a solid basis for studying God and religion because of a lack of science and strict methods in history, archaeology, and other fields to back up many atheist claims. For one, who is to say that science is the only path to understanding reality? Who's to say that philosophy gives us all the answers? More importantly, how can you prove the existence of a being beyond the natural senses? You can't, but it doesn't imply that he doesn't exist. How can you disprove him? You can't. Science is only concerned with what is observable, not anything related to the supernatural. Atheism cannot ensure that God doesn't exist, therefore atheism is just a belief without evidence. Atheists can support their views with scientific evidence, but science doesn't necessarily support atheism. In other words, science and reason stand on their own, not necessarily implying that atheism is to be chosen as well.
Allowing the World's Strongest superpowers to control the world will strengthen it.

European InnovationAs I think I already explained last round the reason Europeans were able to innovate was because they had the time to do so because they had agricultural superiority over the rest of the world [1] [2]. European HistoryRemember it wasn't just African slavery (though the reprehensible nature of slavery should by no means by underplayed) that placed Europe and America at the top of the peaking order. The united states needed to expand its borders and to achieve this European colonists murdered countless millions of people [3], the British Raj killed seven million people [4] in the 1940's through controlled starvation (more than Jews killed in the holocaust). What is now the "first world" has carved a bloody path to economic supremacy and still do.Lust for ResourcesThe modern industrial powerhouses have not stopped in their exploitation of smaller, weaker nations. The Iraq war was fought mainly to have a conflict so that the US military industrial complex could have an unstable region in which to sell their weapons [5] (and Britain isn't much better). A country which would invade another so that they could sell guns is not a nation that should be given ultimate control over the world and more its resources. Another Way"If the LEDCs in Africa and other continents had the same intellectual power possesed by the MEDCs they would be able to implement the best possible strategies to utilise their resources and refurbish the current position of international trade."What you seem to be suggesting is sending economic advisers with experience from the worlds superpowers to help the developing economies. This has worked before for instance Taiwan which is now one of the strongest economies in Asia was helped by economic advisers in the years after the war of independence. This is not a reason to grant control of LEDC's to the superpowers.[1] http://upload.wikimedia.org... [2] Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies 1997 by Jared Diamond[3] http://www.nps.gov... [4] https://sites.google.com...[5] http://www.aljazeera.com...
Allowing the World's Strongest superpowers to control the world will strengthen it.

It is true that African slavery played an important role in the advancement of most European countries and the USA. To a larger extent,however, it was the innovation of the Europeans that won the day. For example, the Europeans designed new and better forms of infrastructure and then used African labour to construct the buildings. Never the less, technological advancements brought forward by the industrial revolution would render African labour useless hence the abolition of slavery had a very trivial impact on European economy and industry. If the LEDCs in Africa and other continents had the same intellectual power possesed by the MEDCs they would be able to implement the best possible strategies to utilise their resources and refurbish the current position of international trade. Furthermore, it is an undisputed fact that the post colonial period showed that African countries are unable to cater for themselves. For instance, after the Southern African country Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980 , it had a stronger economy than China; the Zimbabwean dollar was comparable to the British pound. Zimbabwe had become the "bread-basket of Africa" as a result of British leadership. As fate would have it, Zimbabwe became independent and the African leaders who took control sank the ship,so to speak. In 2008, hyper-inflation rendered the Zim dollar void. This is simply an archetype of the atrocities that befall some countries without leadership of some innovative countries. In the face of this overwhelming evidence, one can easily see that the debate has been won in the favour of the affirmative delegation.
Allowing the World's Strongest superpowers to control the world will strengthen it.

The reason why countries like the US and UK are superpowers has very little to do with their effective management of resources and much more to do with the agricultural superiority of Europe [1]. This allowed for the Europeans to invest more time in warfare and also gave warfare higher rewards, with the arrival of gunpowder in the late 13th century Europeans had more time that anyone else to develop weapons, this allowed them to create colonies and funnel the profits back to Europe, eventually the US broke free and was able to advance its interests through genocide [2] and enslaving Africans [3]. Meanwhile Britain captured colonies all around the world and went about destroying their people for profit [4] [5] [6] [7]. The reason why superpowers are superpowers is a combination of agricultural superiority and ruthless slaughter. There was a time when the superpowers did control almost all the resources and that worked well, colonial Europeans ransacked Africa once (or three times [8] [9] [10]) and of course the world powers would do it again. Now a more effective way of doing things would be to assist African (because lets be honest you said it your self "especially in Africa") governments to stamp out corruption through entities like the UN and assist economically developing nations regain control of their territory through precise military action like the French intervention in Mali [11]. [1] http://upload.wikimedia.org... [2] http://www.nps.gov... [3] http://www.humanities.uci.edu... [4] http://projects.ecfs.org... [5] http://www.sdstate.edu... [6] http://www.scottish-history.com... [7] http://www.globalr2p.org... [8] http://www.history.upenn.edu... [9] http://electronicintifada.net... [10] http://afraf.oxfordjournals.org... [11] http://www.peacebuilding.no...