BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Existence of Ghosts

My valued opponent has conceded to the existence of electromagnetic emittance which is the basis of my argument for the existence of ghost. CON has not addressed why all ghost phenomenon has not been disproven. Nor has the Super string resonance theory explaining how ghost exists been adequately rebutted. The lack of replenishment of electromagnetic energy once a person dies is not required due to its emittance throughout a lifetime and is always in existence according the Einstein’s theory. Human’s natural intuitiveness from the past has been dulled or dismissed, but still exist which enables man to interact with ghost via similar electromagnetic resonance in the same manner that animals react with to vibratory clues from the Earth. The Shamanic principle of nonordinary reality and ghost/spirit communication was not contested as well. Sentient ghosts is the premise for Shamanistic practice, their assistance is called upon to aid the practitioner. Shamans communicate with ghosts via Super string resonance. It is an ancient belief system in tuned with nature and is still practiced amongst indigenous people to this day. Shamanic belief in the existence of ghosts has yet to be scientifically proven wrong. On the topic of billions upon billions of ghost in existence, this matter was addressed fully, due to the infinite possible frequencies where ghosts can be in sync with elements in nature. New arguments presented by CON in R3 they have been addressed and not rebutted. Since CON and science cannot equivocally disprove the existence of ghost or their sentience. I remain firm on their existence. “Whilst your argument does sound realistic, it has holes;” CON has not adequately plugged any gaps. The BoP is upon the instigator unless agreed upon to the contrary at the start of debate. I can throw a chocolate dragon to initiate flight, ergo flying chocolate dragon. Then I’ll eat it because I love chocolate. Celestial Teapot, I will concede does not exist, it makes no sense. I am a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The metaphysics of faith and belief systems is a debate best left for another time. Thank you Zoodook for a good debate. BTW, I don’t believe in ghost. My only goal was to provide a convincing PRO argument.
The Existence of Ghosts

As agreed at the start, this rond is for conclusions. My conclusion, from everything said so far, is that ghosts simply cannot exist, on a fundamental level. Whilst all atoms do have kinetic energy (Unless they are at absolute 0), this energy is merely transferred to / from other atoms. Whilst our bodies do emit small quantities of electromagnetic energy, this energy is not sentient, and thus cannot communicate with people, and it would have to be replenished to be visible. Science cannot disprove the existence of ghosts, but the Burden of Proof is on you; science cannot disprove the existence of invisible flying chocolate dragons, the Celestial Teapot, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Whilst your argument does sound realistic, it has holes.
The Existence of Ghosts

Excellent. 1. Ghost populations. 2. Laws of Physics. 1. A simple google search will tell you that the grand total of dead people is 107 billion. Assuming that anyone *could* become a ghost, that's a lot of ghosts. This begs the question: Where are they? With 107 billion ghosts, that's just over 15x the population of the world; surely we'd be swamped? However, that's not all. There have been countless reports of spectral dogs and cats, as well as ghostly trains, gunshots, footsteps, and even sofas! Imagine how cramped our world would be if they all became ghosts; it would be horrible. But it's not cramped, and it's not horrible, because they're not here. So where are they? 2. Ghosts are always an interesting topic when it comes to physics. Are they subjected to physics or not? Let's assume they are. They're affected by gravity, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, and the various other laws of physics, should they apply (Strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, etc). But wait -- that means they can't float. Or go through stuff. I could uppercut one if I wanted to, because they're affected by the Pauli Exclusion principle; I could crush one at the bottom of the ocean due to water pressure. This doesn't sound like ghosts at all. So let's assume they're *not* subjected to the laws of physics. They're unaffected by gravity, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, pressure, etc. So, they can go through things, float, and not get crushed. Sounds about right. Unfortunately for the ghosts, the Earth is revolving around the Sun at around 30km a second (67,000 mph). Assuming they're unaffected, they should be torn away from the Earth at extremely high speeds. So which is it? Are they susceptible to being hit, or are they torn away from the Earth? Those are my two arguments for now. I have more, but I'm saving them for round 2. I'm looking forward to the next round.
Compassionate Release from Prison - Lockerbie Bomber

YOU argue first that granting a compassionate release is not a mandatory, but a discretionary act by the government. I agree. Not all the petitions for compassionate release have been granted by the Scottish government.. YOU argue that: "No it is not, as it has established it is within the law to do this. It is a question of whether the government should have utilised the law. Like I have stated before, just because you can does not mean you should. Law could give government authority to murder citizens. The fact that something is within law does not make it moral or desirable. Al-Megrahi was sentenced to a lifetime in jail, and I see no reason why illness should change that" I'm not sure that I understand your argument: Do you argue that Scotland's compassionate release law and policy is not "moral or desirable"? Or, while you concede that the law and policy is "moral and desirable", do you only argue that the particular compassionate release of Al-Megrahi is not "moral or desirable"? I look forward to your answers in the next round. My next argument is based upon the following text: "Mercy is a word used to describe compassion shown by one person to another, or a request from one person to another to be shown such leniency or unwarranted compassion for a crime or wrongdoing." http://en.wikipedia.org... The key phrase is "leniency or unwarranted compassion for a crime or wrongdoing." Al-Megrahi's crime of mass murder is a huge and terrible criminal act. Considered ONLY from the standpoint of law and justice, he belongs in prison and he should serve the sentence that he received from the court. However, Scotland's law and policy allows justice to be tempered by mercy. Scotland NEED NOT temper justice with mercy in its law. But it does. But lets look at the case from the standpoint of law and justice tempered by mercy: In Al-Megrahi's case, there was a change of circumstances. He developed terminal prostate cancer. He met the criteria in the government's compassionate release policy. Therefore, he was eligible for mercy, for "leniency or unwarranted compassion" notwithstanding the gravity of his crime. He has been allowed to return to his home to die in the presence of his family. Considered from the viewpoint of his family, I argue that the "unwarranted compassion" for Al-Megrahi is a justified act of mercy.
Compassionate Release from Prison - Lockerbie Bomber

a government must first act in accordance with its LAW" Scottish law does not imperatively demand the release of terminally ill prisoners, it only allows it. "The question is primarily a question of law." No it is not, as it has established it is within the law to do this. It is a question of whether the government should have utilised the law. Like I have stated before, just because you can does not mean you should. Law could give government authority to murder citizens. The fact that something is within law does not make it moral or desirable. Al-Megrahi was sentenced to a lifetime in jail, and I see no reason why illness should change that
Compassionate Release from Prison - Lockerbie Bomber

"1. A government has the inherent authority to temper justice with mercy" Just because the government has the authority to do so does not mean it should. The government is acting on emotions (compassion as stated) rather than reason. He did now show compassion to his 270 victims: http://www.victimsofpanamflight103.org... Giving freedom to someone responsible for the deaths of 270 is not serving justice. This man was given a punishment in the intention of serving justice. Given a life sentence, his death in jail was definite anyway. Giving freedom to such a criminal was not the only way of showing compassion. Freedom =/= Mercy. He could have been given special conditions while incarcerated, and made his last months comfortable. "2. Releasing a prisoner facing an imminent death from prostate cancer is a justified act of justice tempered by mercy. 1" Why is it justified? What of the families and friends of the 270 victims? Minister McAskill speaks of forgiveness, but it is not up to him to forgive. He has not been affected by Al-Megrahi's crimes. Frankly, it is an insult to those truly harmed.
Compassionate Release from Prison - Lockerbie Bomber

Introduction: By BEN McCONVILLE, Associated Press Writer Ben Mcconville, Associated Press Writer – 18 mins ago EDINBURGH, Scotland – Scotland freed the terminally ill Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds Thursday, letting the Libyan go home to die despite American pleas to show no mercy for the man responsible for the 1988 attack that killed 270 people http://news.yahoo.com... Issue: Should the Lockerbie Bomber have received the compassionate release from prison? I answer YES and take the PRO position. Arguments: 1. A government has the inherent authority to temper justice with mercy. 1 "Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said although al-Megrahi had not shown compassion to his victims — many of whom were American college students flying home to New York for Christmas — MacAskill was motivated by Scottish values to show mercy. "Some hurts can never heal, some scars can never fade," MacAskill said. "Those who have been bereaved cannot be expected to forget, let alone forgive ... However, Mr. al-Megrahi now faces a sentence imposed by a higher power." http://news.yahoo.com... 2. Releasing a prisoner facing an imminent death from prostate cancer is a justified act of justice tempered by mercy. 1 " Al-Megrahi, who had served only eight years of his life sentence, was recently given only months to live after being diagnosed with advanced prostate cancer" http://news.yahoo.com... ________________________ 1. " From Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. PORTIA: The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest; It blesseth him that gives and him that takes: 'Tis mightiest in the mightiest: it becomes The throned monarch better than his crown; His sceptre shows the force of temporal power, The attribute to awe and majesty, Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings; But mercy is above this sceptred sway; It is enthroned in the hearts of kings, It is an attribute to God himself; And earthly power doth then show likest God's When mercy seasons justice. Therefore, Jew, Though justice be thy plea, consider this, That, in the course of justice, none of us Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy; And that same prayer doth teach us all to render The deeds of mercy. I have spoke thus much To mitigate the justice of thy plea; Which if thou follow, this strict court of Venice Must needs give sentence 'gainst the merchant there http://www.phrases.org.uk...
Birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood.

I will present my own now. Change of definitionI don't accept the change of definition. First, what your opponent does in past debates are not relevant to a debate you are doing now. Maybe I changed my mind or now I know I did something wrong. Second, those debates where I proposed definitions after the first round are debates where the instigator didn't propose definitions. Definitions are necessary for debates so I proposed mine. Because there were no acceptance, they are free to challenge my definitions. In this case you are changing the definitions and I have the right to accept or not. And I don't accept the change. I already accepted the definition of the first round and it will stay. Rebuttals1. The bodily rights' argumentPro doesn't understand the bodily rights' argument. He uses an analogy of drinking and driving. But this analogy fails. Abortion is not killing the fetus, abortion is terminating the pregnancy. When a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, it just means that she is deciding to stop being pregnancy. The fact that the fetus dies is a fact of nature. There are cases of abortion like c-section where the child lives. The Pro implies that not donating your body means killing someone. Here is where Pro totally lost the debate. You don't kill someone by not donating your body. Right now everybody is commuting murder then, which is ridiculous. There is a lot of people that need organs and you have the right to say "NO" to that donation. It's your body, you control it. And I never claimed that "abortion is murder" was part of Pro's arguments. I just claimed that the only way abortion and infanticide have no difference in morality with using Pro's argument is if abortion was the killing of one person to another (aka murder), which is not.2. Infanticide definition"Infanticide: The practice of killing a newborn human infant. "It doesn't make sense because infanticide is about killing a "newborn". Someone that is alive after birth. Abortion, by definition is practiced while there is a pregnancy and not after the pregnancy. In that case, Pro already lost the debate in the first round with his own definition. ConclusionPro has not presented a compelling case for his position. Con was able to debut the last 2 points of the main logicPro's definition of infanticide already makes impossible to meet the BoP for Pro.
Birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood.

It is my contention that birth is an arbitrary dividing line between personhood and non-personhood, and thus, there is no moral difference between abortion and infanticide.This is my first DDO debate, and I would like to thank my opponent in advance for accepting this debate. I will be arguing as Pro. The first round is for acceptance, and we shall begin the discussion in round two.Personhood: The quality or condition of being an individual human being.Infanticide: The practice of killing a newborn human infant.Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.
school

while my opponet makes an excelent aguement i have to disagree on this topic. while eductaion is important you don't need a formal education to achieve your goals. some peoples goals entails thenm to work at mcdonalds for the rest of their ike. the didn't need a formal educations to reach their goals. Some people are uneducated andthey achieve their dreams. such as William Kamkwamba. If you haven't heard of him. he is a youing man in africa who with no education built a windmill to supply electricity to his little village. His dream was to go to a collage and with no education he achieved his dream. so you don't have to neccesarly get an education to reach your dreams.
Evolution is not well supported

I have taken this debate challenge to clarify a few points with my opponent and I should surely win this debate after this round. I would gladly accept my opponent conceding the debate in round 2. However, if this is not the case I will try entertain further arguments. However let me point out to potential voters that I have already won the debate.My opponents proposition is that "Evolution is not well supported". However, then my opponent goes on to say "In this debate I will be arguing that the general theory of evolution - molecules to man, is too poorly supported to warrant the amount of faith in it as an explanation for complex life."Here, my opponent has shown that they have no idea what evolution is, as evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life.Here is a far more correct definition of evolution as accepted by scientists "Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life."(1) As you can see from the above definition, there is no mention of the change from molecules (non-living) to man (living). as such my opponents argument is nullified. In fact, I am not aware of any definition of evolution that incorporates abiogenesis.(2)I hand the debate back to my opponent for the concession.(1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...(2) http://rationalwiki.org...
Evolution is not well supported

Good evening,In this debate I will be arguing that the general theory of evolution - molecules to man, is too poorly supported to warrant the amount of faith in it as an explanation for complex life.Con will be arguing the evidence does warrant the faith in evolution.There is equal BOP and whoever makes the best case should win5 Rounds 8000 Char72 Hours to respondForfeiture of any round will be an instant loss.Frivolous sources such as for definitions of words should not be awarded points.I welcome my opponent...
Evolution is not well supported

Again my opponent insults the audience, by implying knowledge on a subject that he knows nothing about and for which he cannot even get the definition right.I will repaste my analogy here from the second round to explain again why everything my opponent has said in this debate is blatantly dishonest.Definitions are extremely important when you are debating scientific concepts. Let me elaborate with an analogy on definitions to drive my point home. Christianity: the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ.(2)However, if I want to make this definition fit an argument for Allah and Buddha. I could redefine the definition to suit my needs as follows.Christianity: the religion that is based on the teachings of Jesus Christ otherwise known as Buddha, who was the son of the almighty Allah.I am sure everyone will agree this does not make sense, however it fits my needs. Should this definition be accepted? The answer is no. You cannot make up definitions to suit your needs.I agree with my opponent he should be more selective in choosing opponents, you need to choose someone who is not read and can get be mislead by your blatant lies.You are dishonest. Concession should have been forthcoming, yet you played games by changing the definition to suit your needs. You changed these definitions to definitions that are not even accredited by any scientific body.(1,2)Your are a liar and a cheat.(1) http://www.nature.com...(2) http://archives.aaas.org...
Evolution is not well supported

Thankyou,I will take the time now to summarise the debate. The debate was about Evolution. I think everybody can agree so far. . No matter what you think evolution is or is not, the title of the debate clearly tells its subject matter - "Evolution is not well supported". Evolution requires the most simple life forms to have developed into complex ones, i summarised this in the term "molecules to man". Which, admitted by my opponent, is the only contention he has decided to argue in this debate. My opponents arguments then, have exclusively pertained to Phraseology. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 1 : a manner of organizing words and phrases into longer elements : style 2 : choice of wordsThus, even if my opponents critique of phraseology were substantiated, he still could never win the debate because he has came debating his own topic. If my opponent had any queries as to the subject of the debate, he should have asked in the comments. By accepting the debate and then only debating the phraseology of "molecules to man", he has insulted everyone who clicked - expecting a debate on evolution. Secondly. .. Every relevant point my opponent has made, has been prefixed with; "All the following information, is for education purposes and not for voting purposes. "So even if the point that followed were compelling, it doesn't matter. I cannot lose because my opponent has specifically asked for his own points to be excluded from the voting process. I am the winner by default. I could have replied "a purple rainbow" to any of the relevant statements my opponent made, and still clearly won. Thus, I am the winner by default because;A: All of his statements about evolution, my opponent has asked to be excluded from the voting process. B: My opponents only contention was on a critique of phraseology, not evolution. By his own admission he has never debated the topic. As the host of the debate, I feel I should apologise on behalf of my opponent. He has wasted all of our time, tried to run in circles, and debate anything but the obvious topic. Thankfully it is over. Next time I will choose my opponents better to make sure such a farce never happens again.
Evolution is not well supported

You are horribly dishonest. You have changed the proposition of this debate multiple times and anyone that reads this debate will know that. Every time, I point out how you are wrong you accuse me of been dishonest. I will, not be replying to your false claims on evolution as we are dealing with molecular evolution which you have disregarded again now that you have been shown to be wrong. In the previous rounds I have attempted to educate, yet you disregard all this information. Please answer this and only this from the previous round.To deny molecular evolution (i.e. mutations in DNA) is absurd. If molecular evolution does not occur, then the idea that my opponent puts forward when he says "We know that natural variation exists, it is reasonable" cannot occur.So by denying molecular evolution my opponent denies not only evolution, but natural selection as well. However, my opponent has said already that natural variation exists as it is reasonable. As such my opponent has in effect conceded the debate again, by agreeing that molecular evolution is possible. I will now illustrate my opponents dishonesty. My opponent has said in the last round *This debate has never been about molecular evolution. It has always, obviously, distinctly and succinctly been about the general theory of evolution which argues that basic molecular forms of life evolved into complex creatures like man, through means of natural selection acting on mutation.*In round 1 my opponent stated "in this debate I will be arguing that the general theory of evolution - molecules to man", however, I showed this is not evolution but abiogenesis. My opponent agrees and conceded as much in the second round. My opponent then changed the definition and said in round 2 "Molecular evolution studies the mutation of basic cellular molecules such as DNA, RNA and proteins. Abiogenesis pertains to how life arose from non-living material. This debate , then, pertains to the idea that basic cellular molecules vertically evolved over billions of years, explaining creatures like man." The second part of this phrase (italics) is a contradiction, as the first two (underlined and bold) show they are incompatible. I demonstrated this to my opponent.Then after getting shown this is not evolution but abiogenesis which is not the debate topic my opponent then changed the definition again. Here is what my opponent said in rounds 3 "Replicating molecules evolved and began to undergo natural selection." So it is obvious my opponent is lying, as is demonstrated above. I ask that my opponent stick true to integrity which has been lacking so far and stick on topic. There is no need to conflate your case with fallacious arguments on subjects which HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEBATE. I await your concession.