BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
My opponent exists.

I would like to point out that knowing and not knowing are two very different things. I simply have to prove that some evidence shows that I exist. Since my opponent can give no evidence that I do not exist, any evidence I can give that I might exist will negate his resolution. I must stress that my opponent has to completely negate all evidence that I give. I assume through the "I think therefore I am" line of reasoning my opponent believes he exists. Is it not such a leap to say that other beings like my opponent would also exist? There must be a other or others otherwise I would not exist or the world around me would not be what it is. If there is an other who has powers over me who is to say that there are not others in the same situation as myself? For the purpose of debate let us assume that we have met and that I have physically touched you and spoken to you. Your senses say that I exist. Have you reason to fault your senses? You have some evidence that I exist right in front of you. You can touch, smell, hear see and although it would probably be unsavoury, taste me. Can you give proof evidence that your senses are incorrect? You may be able to reason that it is possible I may not exist but you have no proof that I do not, rather you have evidence through your senses that I exist. William of Ockham made the observation that the simplest solution is the most probable. To quote the words of Albert Einstein "Of several acceptable explanations for a phenomenon, the simplest is preferable. " I put it to you Octavian that my existence is the simplest explanation of the sensory evidence your brain receives upon seeing, hearing, smelling or touching me. I ask you Octavian, can you prove that I do not exist? Do you have any evidence that I do not? Basically you have no way of proving that I do not exist. Whereas sensory evidence suggests that I do exist. To say I don't exist would be to say that your mother and father do not exist. But do you really believe this? I remind people viewing this debate that I have only to provide any form of evidence, no matter how small, that I exist in order to win this debate. Octavian must refute every point I have made with proof that I am 100% incorrect to uphold his resolution that I cannot provide any evidence that I exist. To simplify, my opponent has no proof that I do not exist, however, there is sensory evidence that I do exist. I realise that sensory evidence by itself is not 100% proof that I exist, however, it is more proof than my opponent can give that I do not exist. I await my opponents response.
Earth is round not flat

Slough it said. I'm pretty sure the M4 whizzes past there somewhere. I would love to join you for that ride into the stratosphere. Couldn't quite afford 75k though. I expect stratospheric pleasure flights will become commonplace and affordable in your lifetime. Better still. Work hard at school and get a job as astronaut on the international space station. Then you could enjoy the Earth in all it's spherical glory. Anyway. I'm off for a ride now, on a nice flat length of earthbound road. Well that's the way I perceive things from down here!
Earth is round not flat

As I stated in reply to your comment. No one actually thinks the Earth is flat or an infinite plane. Some people might say they do just for the sake of needing to appear different or radical. As it stands your debate proposition should be impossible to loose. Notwithstanding the vagaries of the DDO voting system of course. Nonetheless. I am not going to forfeit this debate. I will leave that decision up to you. So here is a bit of flattish rhetoric just for good measure. I recently cycled across the USA. 2700 miles coast to coast. At no time was I aware of the curvature of the Earth. American roads always appeared very long, very straight and flat. Ok. There was the occasional undulation. Similarly, at no time during the 10 hour flight to Los Angeles was I aware of proceeding in an arced trajectory. Apart from take of and landing, all seemed level and flat. 99.99% of the Earth's population Will never be able to view their planet from space. They will always have to accept second hand confirmation of the Earth's spheroid appearance. Apart from astronauts, most peoples day to day perception of their earthbound environment is of flatness, not curviness.
Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

Of course Pro has the BOP here. "There are more benefits then there are harms from citizens possessing" Unestablished and unproven point. And even if this was true, the fact that some people are dying because of it takes precedence over those benefits. If that man who killed those kids at Sandy Hook did not have a gun, they probably would not have been dead and this cannot be denied. Like my opponent said we are not talking about gun control but about blanket gun ban. And any deaths that have resulted with guns would not have happened. And there are plenty: The shooting at the batman movie, the Sandy hook shooting, and many more. From 2000-2009 there have been 298,000 deaths from guns and around 30,000 per year. The only way my opponent can support his claim is if he gives higher numbers than this, otherwise my opponent loses. This goes for my opponent's entire argument. . http://www.forbes.com... Also, I don't know what you are sourcing. What are you trying to prove? My opponent is arguing that there are more benefits then harm. What benefits? You have not provided a single benefit but you have to provide more than 30,000 a year, otherwise you lose.
Citizens Should Be Permitted To Own Guns

For this debate, both parties must assume the following:1. There is NO second amendment.2. There is NO threat of a tyrannical government.3. There are NO rights for a citizen to hunt.4. Guns are not needed for defense against animals. 5. A blanket gun ban would work (criminals would not smuggle guns across the border). Obviously not all of these assumptions are true, but we can assume they are for the sake of an argument. Now the only reasons to have guns would be for self-defense and for recreational shooting. I will still argue for private gun ownership. This is NOT a gun control debate. This is debating a blanket gun ban. The point is to show that either there are more harms or more benefits from citizens having guns. If my opponent wishes to debate specific gun control policies later I will be welcome to the task.This debate refers to gun ownership in America. Citizens possessing guns is defined as the current laws of private gun ownership in America (such as no fully-automatic weapons and no explosive RPG's). RULES:May be done made political, medical, economic, and philosophical arguments. NO PLAGIARISM, plagiarism will be considered forfeiture. This was a particular problem in my last gun debate. Must cite sources for any statistics used. Please stay civilMy Arguments: There are more benefits then there are harms from citizens possessing guns. Guns are used far more often for self-defense than to inflict harm, and guns may reduce crime (this theory has not been 100% proven, but there is strong and circumstantial evidence for this). http://www.saf.org...John Lott- More Guns, Less Crime
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy

-Frieza didn't have an IMPENETRABLE aura of solar energy, did he? -Saying "yoga and pressure points" is completely overgeneralizing. -I did not mean to imply that Goku directly killed Frieza and Cell. -"it was Destructodisc it kills any thing but buu or cell that can regenerate and that is why thay are so hard to kill" (Superman has a regenerative property) -I've talked to some friends of mine, who are hardcore DBZ fans, and not one of them has mentioned that Zenkai makes you stronger after each fight. -Superman's solar absorption is the polar opposite of slow. -In the Death Battle, Goku called forth energy from the sun to form an energy ball. When you put that scene into perspective, it probably would've taken a lot longer, but ScrewAttack wouldn't want to bore their audience. -Lifting itself doesn't have a direct correlation with the fight, that is correct. However, the lifting demonstrated Superman's borderline limitless raw power, and thus allowed to audience to conclude that Superman was physically stronger than Goku. -You say that Supes has never moved a planet as if Goku does it on an episodic basis. -Sure, blowing Superman into the sun was impressive, but it contributed to his victory, did it not? -We are not discussing post-Crisis Superman. The events you described were mostly post-Crisis. -Beat Superman to death? That's Goku's plan? That's highly unfortunate, as it most definitely would not work.
goku vs superman goku stomps mad carzy

Again, I congratulate my opponent for argument. I had a fairly hard time with my rebuttal. -I did not have to show links to Superman's abilities; they are commonly known and accepted. Though, I suppose I will provide a link for all the readers who are deeply confused (http://superherouniverse.com...) -Superman has also trained in alien martial arts, most notably Torquasm-Rao (Internal martial art) and Torquasm-Vo (External) -If you're referring to the Destructodisc, I would like to reiterate that all Kryptonians emit an IMPENETRABLE aura of solar energy. -Keep in mind that Goku can only charge to such incalculable power when he is given time to power up; this led to the death of Frieza, Cell, etc. Superman would never allow such behavior. -Zenkai is a technique that helps to recover from near-fatal injuries (http://dragonball.wikia.com...) -I honestly don't remember seeing Goku traveling faster than the speed of light. I'll look into that, but I think you've taken something completely out of context. -I don't think they meant that Goku could draw from the sun in the same way as Superman. Goku has to stop and devote his effort to absorbing energy. For Superman, it is a passive ability. -In reference to the Death Battle, Superman is shown to have more raw strength than Goku. Therefore, Goku would not be able to move planets, either. They can both destroy them easily, that's for sure--but moving one is an entirely different story. -I said that when in direct contact with vast amount of yellow sunlight, he performs at his near-best. You've taken it out of context. -In this link (http://img171.imageshack.us...) you've forgotten that, when in space, objects only grow faster, as there is nothing wind resistance to stop them. -I can't seem to find the idea behind your links. Of course Superman travels faster than light! He managed to TURN BACK TIME because he was just that fast! -You've provided absolutely no evidence that Goku can travel faster than Superman. You simply said, "goku is easy faster than this." -Doomsday was able to bypass Superman's impenetrable aura by exposing him to Kryptonite. -Here's Supes driving (http://static.comicvine.com...) I would like to conclude by saying that, even if Goku had access to Kryptonite, he would doubtfully use it, as he loves to fight his opponents at their bests; this will end up being his ultimate downfall. In the end, I doubt Supes would return the courtesy.
Batman Can Beat Superman In A Fight

And to back up my previous argument, you can't make "red sun handcuffs". I may not be completely clear about this topic but I'm pretty sure you can't but an entire sun into some handcuffs. That's like making a gun that shoots planets (not possible). And you said that Superman is untrained in combat, that's not true because Superman is trained in kryptonite martial arts (unless we're going off of the Man of Steel explanation). If you need even more evidence for why Superman could beat Batman in a fight then take a look at the comic book Dawn of Justice was based off of. In the end of the comic (SPOILER ALERT) Batman is killed by Superman after using a similar strategy to what you suggested (kryptonite weapons), after Batman uses them it takes its full effect but it isn't enough to stop Superman (takes place indoors).
Batman Can Beat Superman In A Fight

A ray gun may work on superman but how long would it take for the ray to hit superman? Not long enough. Superman could easily fly away from it and than later charge at batman. The end result would be batman dying. And if that doesn't sound reasonable how about this, superman flys all the way into space and absorbs some sunlight, than he flys back down to earth and crashes into him. Even if batman was holding out some kryptonite or wearing a kryptonite suit the kryptonite would barely have an effect on superman since he is flying so fast. After superman has landed the kryptonite will take full effect (a matter of seconds) and than superman can just slowly walk away (it may be hard but it is possible).
Batman Can Beat Superman In A Fight

Superman has two sources for his power the sun's benign radiation (the one that plants use), and his original planet having more powerful gravity than earth. With a power suit batman easily balances the second advantage. The first advantage could be in theory neutralized by maleficent radiation, the one we are used to, that would damage his cells when absorbing it and just spraying high protection sunscreen all over him constantly. Batman is quite literally the best at gathering knowledge and resources so this could be attained easily in the form of a ray gun or the like. Scarecrows scare toxin batman has made antidotes of could be considered to keep him in place in order to administer the radiation. If you prefer kryptonite weapons those could be used to detain him. Once kryptonite or radiation is in place then batman would easily win as he is a trained combatant rather than Sups being untrained. Then give him red sun handcuffs and keep him in a dark room.
Batman Can Beat Superman In A Fight

Would Batman beat Superman if they fought on an empty field with no civilians and no buildings? Weather doesn't really matter but we will just say that it's raining (it always seems to be raining in batman movies). NO!! How would a regular human who is upper rich beat an almighty God who possess almost a limitless set of powers. And you can't just say that Batman can buy a bunch of kryptonite because there isn't any in this empty field. Superman uses the sun to gain his powers (kind of like photosynthesis) and Batman uses his money to gain his "powers". Shouldn't it be obvious? God vs man. Duh.
People should not work after retirement

Unless you're referring to an un-standard definition of 'cost of living', you're incorrect. Hence, the annual cost of living increase in the social security program. I.e., COLA adjustments for 2012 increase payments 3.6%--COLA is adjusted to keep benefits ~constant. COLA doesn't always increase--it didn't in 2010 and 2011, but it has consistently increased over time. Further, the argument you're putting forward, that it *isn't* costing more is actually insufficient to negating the argument I made. Namely, regardless of what we might determine to be a sufficient income for an elderly person, the fact of work indicates that individuals disagree--some people want more than SS pays. SS isn't a retirement program; it's an antipoverty program. One the question of structural employment, if my opponent agrees, and he apparently does, that it's too soon to label unemployment a structural problem, then the solution he proposes is in excess of the harm--i.e. we expect full employment in 3-4 years so there's no reason to fire the elderly. I don't disagree some elderly lack the technical proficiency of some of the young. Perhaps even on balance. My dispute is that this has an impact on actual work product--elderly school bus drivers (a group predominately staffed by the retired) don't need to be Java-coders. Hence, we'd need evidence to conclude there even is a barrier to technology adoption rather than individual assignment into the proper vocations. My opponent alludes to an argument not quite fleshed out during the debate--that the elderly are 'wage slaves'. Even if this were the case, what he ignores is that there is no alternative. He assumes we have the sufficient resources to not only fire all the elderly (many of whom continue to make important contributions in their fields, especially as mentors to their younger replacements) but to increase SS to a full retirement program. We don't have that money. SS already has a $21 trillion unfunded liability and my opponent wants to increase costs of the program. [1] Contrary to my opponent's beliefs, to layoff the elderly would not empower the young--it would triple down the taxation necessary to sustain the SS additions. The young would become wage slaves he imagines the elderly to be. In sum, the current system isn't sustainable. My opponent's system is less sustainable. His system would exacerbate the problems he finds in the status quo. And he ignores the reality of the jobs the elderly tend to assume. Lastly, as nothing was specified for forfeited rounds, and because my opponent agreed to continue the debate, judges should not hold my R2 forfeit against me while voting. [1] http://www.usatoday.com...
People should not work after retirement

The argument against Social Security costing more, is the fact that "cost of living" actually doesn't increase over-time. Assuming you throw out mortgage (which, old people should have their house paid off for by then... if not, I think it's fair to move them to old folks homes/live with their kids) and things like college loans (which also should be paid off), if we're just talking about things like the cost of food, travel, and electricity, all of these things are actually getting cheaper to provide for the elderly (in the fact that they are more abundant). So although the retired population is more and the working population is less, it is still easily possible (in the US) to provide for them. I don't think we are structurally unemployed either, and I absolutely wasn't using that in my argument. I was arguing more on a Keynesian unemployment stance. Except demand hasn't dropped, production per capita has simply increased so large, that the employees required to output the same amount is dramatically less. (I would also argue for Marxian unemployment, but if we are to apply that to America, it would be beneficial if elders made up that unemployment and not young people) As far as giving evidence to old people not keeping up with technology, I must ask my opponent to ask himself. I know of no studies on the subject. But as my opponent is a 26 year old male, likely with more computer skills then his parents, I ask him if he believes me. Assuming too, that you work in an office setting, it is likely that you can notice the elders around you constantly asking the younger people how to use technology properly (and never actually learning it themselves, just asking again every time something goes wrong). In my personal experience... a LMGTFY.com moment happens VERY often. Also, besides tech start-ups, (again, I have no source, I'm merely hoping you will concede)... most businesses (especially large corporations) are run by people who can be considered "elderly". Young people are, in general, the employees and the elders are the employers. If there is technical lag, it comes from the employers who make decisions such as what software to use. And as the employers are generally the elderly, the elderly are causing technical lag. I can't really complete my argument in the allotted space, but contrary to what I said, I'll give an abridged version (as I alluded to it above). I believe we (as a society in the US) have all the necessary resources to provide for the elderly should they stop working. So all other things being equal, they should be relieved (and it should be made systematic) to no longer have to work as wage slaves in a structured environment and can dedicate their time to pursuing their own passions. Maybe we aren't as fruitful as I believe, but without evidence, I do believe that we have enough to provide for everyone. I personally, would appreciate, if they would step aside and let us control our own destiny.
People should not work after retirement

Okay so the first argument has to do with the long term finances of SS. [1] Basically, SS has historically delivered far more to individuals than they paid for. We can either balance it on the elderly working slightly longer (and more productively), or we can balance it on the young. It's plain to see which model better provides for solvency. This is compounded by one of the observations my opponent includes at the beginning of the debate: that it is assumed benefits increase to the point people are 'sufficiently' provided for. The most reasonable interpretation of 'sufficiently' must come to the individual--where individuals choose to work longer, it can be inferred they require more for sufficience. But the larger problem with my opponent's argument is in it's attempt to use a temporary recession to affect a large structural shift: the young aren't structurally unemployed, and so it's unnecessary to conduct national policy as if they were. My opponent would need far more evidence to support the claim that the elderly are 1. the primary barrier to technology adoption and 2. that there is a barrier to technology adoption. Considering the success of blue chips, (or perhaps some of Facebook's market flops) it seems plain we have no pressing technology insuffiencies in the market. (And of course, many older individuals have learned various technologies--they built the internet!) [1]http://www.urban.org...