BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Liar Paradox and Curry's Paradox are solvable

Solvable in this case means a logically valid true or false answer to each paradox without denying either the Law of Non-Contradiction (like paraconsistent logic) or the Law of the Excluded Middle (like intuitionistic logic). I argue that Arthur Prior's solution (Inspired by Buridan and Pierce) to the Liar's Paradox is sufficient to call it a non-paradox. Using the similar logic, we can also solve Curry's Paradox. The paradoxes are as follows: Liar's Paradox This sentence is false. Curry's Paradox If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists. Rules: Round 1: Intro/Acceptance Round 2: Arguments Round 3: Rebuttals/Conclusions
Feminism is still necessary today

I am very sorry about not replying I was not able to get to a computer during the weekend and I should be able to continue with this without any further interruptions. You immediately address the fact that you are indeed a feminist and argue that there a lot of "feminists" that use the term as a weapon against men but that is not what you are supposedly about. However, over the years the term of a feminist has evolved to the point to describe a someone who stands against men and wants more rights than men or, as it as known as to most people, a "feminazi" which leads everyone to believe that this new and evolved form of feminism wants to take the rights of men and eradicate them. This new form actually went to the point to spark the international saying, I am not a feminist because, in which girls and women would speak out against feminism as it had progressed to the point of, as I said, taking the rights of men and eradicating them from all existence.
Feminism is still necessary today

"the belief that women should be allowed the same rights, power, and opportunities as men and be treated in the same way, or the set of activities intended to achieve this state" http://dictionary.cambridge.org... "The advocacy of women"s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes" http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... I am telling you again, what you're saying is NOT feminism. You're talking about a misandrist not a feminist. Therefore feminism is still necessary today because women and men do not have the same right, power or opportunities as men.
Socialism

So what happened during this debate? In round 1, my opponent made the three following arguments: 1. Socialism endangers the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. 2. Under Socialism, there will be no rewards for hard work. 3. Socialism kills innovation. In round 1, I made the following rebuttals: 1. Socialism is achieved through worker cooperatives, not big government, therefore the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are not in danger. 2. a. Not all worker cooperatives have equal wages. b. Worker cooperatives with equal wages will still pay by the hour. Therefore those who work longer will get better paid. 3. a. Workers, including inventors, will own the profits and democratically determine their wages. b. Discovery and innovation are both part of human nature. Scientists enjoy their work. After I made these rebuttals, I only barely had enough space to begin making my argument, so I posted a stat about the pay - productivity gap. Round 2 (My opponent): 1. Redefines socialism a. "public or COLLECTIVE ownership of the means of production". b. Complete dependence on government. c. Models include U.S.S.R., East Germany, etc. 2. Concedes that socialism has its benefits. 3. Rambles about Common Core Standards 4. Drops point about Innovation. My response: 1. a. My definition is better, but even if we accept your definition, "collective" ownership allows for a Socialist Market economy of worker cooperatives. b. Opposition's definition contradicts itself because if there is collective (worker cooperative) ownership rather than public ownership than people won't depend on the government for everything. c. U.S.S.R, East Germany, China etc. are/were not socialist. 2. Capitalism is exploitative, Socialism is fair. a. In order to make a profit, you need to spend less money than you make. b. Statistic. 3. Capitalism undermines democracy, Socialism (the type I've described) strengthens democracy. Round 3: My opponent forfeited. By not speaking, my opponent didn't defend his two remaining points against my (if I may say) strong rebuttals. All of his arguments were dropped. No attempt was made to rebut my contentions, and therefore, regardless of who you agree with, you'll have to admit that this is the final score: Pro: 2 contentions Con: 0 contentions. In other words, you must vote pro. I didn't have enough space to post my sources in my previous rounds, but now I do have enough space, and so I will. 1. Pay went up 113%; productivity went up 254%. http://www.epi.org... 2. Princeton study shows that when 4/5ths of our elite wants a policy, they get that policy 45% of the time. When only 1/5th of our elite wants a policy, the policy is only enacted 18% of the time. http://www.bbc.com...
Socialism

It appears socialism has been defined wrong in my opponent's rebuttal. "An economic and political system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. Socialism emphasizes equality rather than achievement, and values workers by the amount of time they put in rather than by the amount of value they produce. It also makes individuals dependent on the state for everything from food to health care. China, Vietnam and Cuba are examples of modern-day socialist societies. Twentieth-century socialist governments were overthrown in Czechoslovakia, East Germany and the U.S.S.R." I must agree there are many benefits. but the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. Undermining achievement needs to be the last thing we do, an example of undermining achievement is Common Core State Standards. These new standards that have been implemented are destroying achievement. When students can explain what they are trying to say and we shove it down their throats saying, "There are no wrong answers." They are going to have a rude awakening when they go into the workforce. This leads a straight line back to socialism, the destructive society. "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money."
Russia has become a threat to US interests

Russia being a threat is a very current topic. I dont make the resolutions, i just debate them, and if we agree that Russia is a proliferation threat, i win this one too. Dont tell me how to debate PF, ive broken at emory and gone to nats, stick to the topic, pal. i said if they do this to other nations than georgia or estonia, we have a major problem. theyve done it before and Europe relies on this oil to a relatively large extent. If oil were retracted, prices would hit the roof. i dont know how many times i must explain this. you dont seem to understand anything about anything. russia isnt a threat to all interests, but they are a threat to some. glad to see you agree with that though. I refuse to explain this about the BMDS again. The argument has been made and repeated in every round now. thats not true. stop lying for your purpose. If the seller knows what the buyer is doing with thhose guns, theyre both at fault im not saying its the same as the soviet era, that doesnt mean they arent a threat. and i dont care what you think to that regards, ive provided evidence to support myself. "Russian President Vladimir Putin said last weekend that Russia would resume its Cold War stance of targeting its missiles at Europe if Washington goes ahead with basing parts of the planned shield in the Czech Republic and Poland." So theyre threating us, but they arent a threat? Make some sense, pal. Instead of just copying and pasting evidence from West Coast Debate, you should consider reading before you respond to me and making actually logical rebuttals. And to your extrenuous comment, you have no right or ability to say that a jewish source isnt reliable because it is anti-russia. Your racism is not only offensive, but comes to a misguided conclusion. Either way, thanks for your time. good luck
Russia has become a threat to US interests

1) So you agree they are a threat? The resolution doesnt say when they became a threat, jsut that they became one. If we agree they are a threat to our interest of countering proliferation, than they "became a threat". 2) Theyve already cut oil to Kosovo, Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine. Theyre fully capapble of this and reamin a threat in this sense. Russia is not an OPEC member so Saudi arabia has no effect over them (not that they would anyway) 3) You can say that as often as youd like, but they simply have displayed aggresive political tendencies to counter our hegemoic force in the UN. And yes, there is a deal is place in which russia has to sell oil stock to the US in exchange for Russias vote, but the point is that this shows russia isnt afraid to go against the US for personal gain. That makes them a threat to that interest 4) They are CONSIDERING a shield in israel as to not provoke the russian arsenal, but that keeps us from defending turkey so its not adequate. 5) You just said they were selling uranium to iran... Russia has a crap hole economy and even crappier military basis. They cant afford a revamped system, thats why it hasnt been changed in over 30 yeas. If russia is selling arms to a threat, they are a threat.
Russia has become a threat to US interests

"1) How does this prove that russia isnt proliferating arms? You gave a quote from an American, i have given you cited evidence that says Russia is still proliferating weapons. ", Right I was going to get to that, the Resolution says they have become, Russia has had Nukes and has been proliferating nukes since the 1950's, so have we, but we work together to prevent weaker countries from producing weapons, Read the NPT. So this threat should be disregarded because of the wording. I forgot this sorry, you need to prove that they have become, meaning they wern't a threat, now they are. How did they become a threat, they have always had Nukes, so why do I care about that, we pratically sign treaties and comply to them as such are the start treaties, which we follow as does Russia, in lowering are arsenals, but they have always been a nuclear threat, as have we to them, so this arguement should be disregarded. Not just a American a individuals who works diplomatically with Russia with our government, not just some American. No, we always have Arctic oil, and besides as I already stated, they cannot cut oil, without feeling the hurt themselves, even, if they cut a little like you said, it will have a negative impact on their economy. They would not do so. They do not intend to harm our interests, you still have not proven they intend to harm us. Plus, according to the D.O.E., we are going to have no more oil by 2100, so we are preparing already for less oil, so maybe it will help are interests. This theory falls flat, why because O.P.E.C. has 40% of Oil in the world. Saudi Arabia is a great ally, they would not let them do this, if it even were considered. They can only affect small countries, not bigger ones, so you say we will rely on them more, when we are cutting are dependence at the same time, does not make sense. No, they are going to put sanctions on Iran, they are not impending anything, really, they are, our friends They have agreed in doing the shield, look on the moscow times, it came out Feb.4, We were negotiating, now we agree to have them, Russia is made, because they want a part of it, Russia would be a threat if the Missile defense system was not being built, but it is going to be built or it is scheluded to be built. First, off their is no evidence, about it. Their could be scientists, could, but that is not a threat. As I mentioned in my own arguement, Russia is working on this probelm, so if it is working with it, then it is not a threat, all my arguement stand. It is a crappy system and the U.S. and Russia are talking about installing a new Missile defense system in Russia. Also OMG, Missiles are being sold, the U.S. does arms deals in the middle east as well, in fact we have done deals with Israel and Saudi Arabia with missiles, but Iran having weapons, makes Iran a threat, not Russia.
Russia has become a threat to US interests

1) How does this prove that russia isnt proliferating arms? You gave a quote from an American, i have given you cited evidence that says Russia is still proliferating weapons. 2) My point is that they have a past of extorition in oil with small countries and as these larger countries depend more and more on russia, it becomes a looming threat that a similar situation would destroy the world oil markey. I agree other countries have done it before, but seeing how Russia has become such a big supplier, their extortion would kill american oil prices. Im not insinuating that they would cut their entire oil supply, but they could, by all means, coner some markets that have no other option (like france and germany as i said) but to turn to saudi and canadian oil after such a situation. 3) i dont understand your argument. of course were allies with Czech and poland, but their inability to control their ballistics supplies due to faulty equipment impedes our ability to build the BMDS 4)Even so, the sancitons come under terms that we have to provide funding to Russian oil cos. This shows that theyre willing to impede on our interests at the UN for personal gain 5)??? Sheild wasnt built. If it were, theres a chance that the russian ballistics arsenal would involuntarily go off. After that, i cant understand a word you said. def) im sure were all quite aware of the definition of "russia" 1) Russia is only opposed to islam because of thier own Chechnian issues. They could care less about Iran and have been huge suppliers of their arsenal. The BMDS threat is not that Putin will nuke our friends in Europe but that his crappy missile reaction system will go off involuntarily. its not necesarily up to the government, russian scientists in siberia could be the salesmen of nuclear goods. Whether or not you believe we should take action, i think its safe to assumeIran is a threat in a number of ways. The sale of plutonium is somewhat disturbing, but the sale of ballistics material is the real worry.
The minimum wage ought to be abolished in the U.S.

Contention- Having a minimum wage causes unemployment and/or outsourcing.When a government institutes a minimum wage, it is necessarily going to overvalue some workers. Let's say the federally mandated minimum wage is $4.00 per hour. As long as not every single employee in said government's jurisdiction is worth more(More, not the same because an employee who is paid the exact same wage that they make their employer defeats the purpose of hiring to a lesser degree of losing the employer money.) than $4.00 per hour, the minimum wage law will create unneeded unemployment. Some workers are simply not as valuable as the minimum wage would dictate and thus implementation of a minimum wage gives employers an incentive not to hire as many employees so as to not lose money.Besides unemployment, a minimum wage can also give business' incentive to outsource jobs to workers in countries where there is either not a minimum wage or the minimum wage is lower. The reasoning is the same. When workers are valued by either the market or the employer at a lower value than the mandated minimum wage, it creates a disincentive to employ in that area. The more cost-effective option other than simply not hiring as many employees is to hire employees from somewhere else. To force employers into over valuing their employees simply means that less people living in the territory in which the mandate takes place will be employed.I feel as though this is enough of a brief outline of the basic case against a federally mandated minimum wage. I will wait to see my opponent's own case and specific objections to decide which points to further explain. But for now I pass the debate back to my opponent.
The minimum wage ought to be abolished in the U.S.

Rules/ Clarifications1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. Burden of proof will be shared.4. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.5. R1 is for acceptance and clarifications. Argumentation begins in R2.DefinitionsMinimum wage- The smallest hourly wage that an employee may be paid as mandated by federal law.Abolished- Ended, stopped.Ought- In this case, 'ought' will mean what would generally cause the more favorable economic results to the general population.
Bryan Mullins: Wasabi Peas Are Hotter Than The Carolina Reaper

Here are my first and final rebuttals. 1. "the Carolina reaper is hotter because its the hottest pepper ever and wasabi is not that hot" You have no evidence for that claim. Also, it is merely an argument at all. 2. "no a Carolina reaper is spicier because its the top of the peeper spicy names" Present me your demonstration or else you will lose this debate and the Carolina Reaper will lose all reputation. 3. "ya i dare you to eat a Caroline reaper and then drink water. that will hurt a lot because i have done that. " Have you? Where is the evidence to prove that the Carolina Reaper is in any way hotter than Wasabi Peas? You have none. Here are my conclusions. 1. Wasabi Peas are much hotter than the Carolina Reaper because though Wasabi doesn't necessarily get to the mouth as much as the Carolina Reaper, but it clears your sinuses much faster than the Carolina Reaper. Let's define The Scoville Scale: "The Scoville scale is a measurement of the pungency (spicy heat) of chili peppers, or other spicy foods, as reported in Scoville heat units (SHU), a function of capsaicin concentration. " [1] Though the Carolina Reaper has about 2.2 million scoville units, it doesn't necessarily make it as hot or as "pungent" as Wasabi Peas. Wasabi Peas are far more subtle with heat than the Carolina Reaper because if you eat multiple Wasabi Peas, you will get the heat a lot faster and much more heat than the Carolina Reaper. 2. The con is just using mere denial of my arguments, not demonstrating his position. His position was that the Carolina Reaper is hotter than Wasabi Peas. He did not demonstrate his position, just merely denied my arguments. Source (s) used in this debate: [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... Wasabi Peas are hotter than the Carolina Reaper.
Bryan Mullins: Wasabi Peas Are Hotter Than The Carolina Reaper

Now, before I defend my argument, I will explain why the Con is not demonstrating his position. The con is just using mere denial of my arguments, not demonstrating his position. His position was that the Carolina Reaper is hotter than Wasabi Peas. He did not demonstrate his position, just merely denied my arguments. Now, I will defend my argument, As I stated before, Wasabi Peas are hotter than the Carolina Reaper. Because they have bore subtlety and impact, and is much faster heat that goes away quicker than the Carolina Reaper, though it does not go to your mouth as much as the Carolina Reaper. While the con merely argues at all, I have defended my claims. Next round!
Bryan Mullins: Wasabi Peas Are Hotter Than The Carolina Reaper

First, let me demonstrate my position. Wasabi Peas are much hotter than the Carolina Reaper because though Wasabi doesn't necessarily get to the mouth as much as the Carolina Reaper, but it clears your sinuses much faster than the Carolina Reaper. Let's define The Scoville Scale: "The Scoville scale is a measurement of the pungency (spicy heat) of chili peppers, or other spicy foods, as reported in Scoville heat units (SHU), a function of capsaicin concentration." [1] Though the Carolina Reaper has about 2.2 million scoville units, it doesn't necessarily make it as hot or as "pungent" as Wasabi Peas. Wasabi Peas are far more subtle with heat than the Carolina Reaper because if you eat multiple Wasabi Peas, you will get the heat a lot faster and much more heat than the Carolina Reaper. Source (s): [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
seriusly important politics

Hello once again, I shall proceed with the conclusion. Voters please vote fairly and give advices. Rebuttal 1: Like I said in Contention 1, you are correct in your statement. It is true that ugly people do not have a choice about being ugly, however they have the choice on whether they want to work hard or just slack off. Inner beauty- Substance, is more important than outer beauty-image. Without a good substance one cannot sustain a good image, the substance of a person always is the most important. Therefore, ugliness is hardly an excuse for free money. In conclusion, it is a very straight forward fact that free money should not be given to ugly people. With deeper analysis, one would find this claim to have a lot of flaws. Therefore, it can be concluded that the harm of this claim outweighs the benefits of this claim.
seriusly important politics

I hope this debate will be interesting. Now, let's get the ball rolling! Contention 1: Everyone should uphold equality. No matter how ugly a person is, he still have to work and earn money. While you might say that they are born ugly and cannot help being ugly, it must be noted that ugly people have a choice to work unlike some disable people who wants to work but do not have a chance to do so. Besides, what about the less ugly people, isn't it unfair for them to work and earn lesser money than a ugly man who does not work at all? There is a saying that goes " You reap what you sow " We should credit a person based on his achievements, working attitudes and his hard work, not on his appearance. If what you have said was implemented, it would cause a lot of chaos and disagreement. This might even cause riots. Contention 2: If what you said was true, there would be a economic depression. As we all know, a person need to have some money for him or her to be elected as a government. If a ugly person who earns a lot of money without doing anything, was to be elected due to his wealth, it would cause a country to literally collapse! We should all earn money based on our qualification, thus, it is ridiculous to give money or important jobs to lazy and incapable ugly people who earns money by sitting all day. Contention 3: You are supposed to elaborate on who determines the ugliness of a person, however, you asked me the exact same question. Voters, this shows that my opponent is not sure about his claim. In conclusion, I find this claim rather ridiculous has this claim promotes inequality, laziness, and prejudice. Thus, with greater understanding of this topic, one would agree with me and find that this claim has more cons than pros and is ridiculous.
income tax

"The government already receives enough income from other taxes, and income tax seems unfair to those who already make little money." That is a personal opinion. Obviously, given the massive deficit, the government is not making enough money even with the income tax, let alone without it. And since the income tax is prorated, those that don't make much money at all, don't even pay an income tax. Thanks to deductions for children and the EITC, a family of four making $30,000 a year is likely not going to pay any income taxes to the feds. [1] I feel the need to correct my opponent. Our first federal income tax was signed into law in 1861, and modified (into a progressive income tax) in 1862. This tax expired in 1866. [2] "And be it further enacted, that the duties on incomes herein imposed shall be due and payable on or before the thirtieth day of June, in the year eighteen hundred and sixty-three, and in each year thereafter until and including the year eighteen hundred and sixty-six and no longer." It wasn't until 1894 that the income tax was revisited and applied as a peacetime tax via the revenue act. [3] So your claim that they lied to us is false. They correctly said that the income tax would end after the war (which it did) and it was a different government over 30 years later that brought it back on new terms. That refutes all arguments posted so far. Thank you, [1] http://www.irs.gov... [2] http://memory.loc.gov... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...