BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Anonimity should be a fundamental right

I close my arguement with this. Would anyone debating what we debate on this site, ask in public for someone to come argue with them? No, you hide behind the facade of an avatar and a name online. This is not bad, nor is it good. but it does alienate you, you will never be able to have an interesting conversation with anyone in the real world out of fear of being called weird. This is anonyminity's fault, if it were not for it, being "weird" would be called being eccentric.
Anonimity should be a fundamental right

Responsibility is Key to any new medium, but the Rule of 20 60 20 comes into play. 20 percent of people will use anonymity correctly and it will be good. 60 percent of people will not use, or realise its existence. 20 percent of people will abuse the power and be generally bad. now the 60 percent in the middle can go either way, either becoming a force for good, or for bad over time. the question is how much do you trust your fellow man? As I said before power corrupts and no matter how much you think you can trust people with it, the inevitability is people will abuse it.
Anonimity should be a fundamental right

Good argument, contender. Of course, you could argue that the gift of anonymity could be used for crime and mischief. It's a fair point. But then again, what is thought of as evil to one person can be seen as good to another, and vice versa. Anonymity goes hand in hand with responsibility. We could use the gift of having no name for good as well. Reporting illegal activities without fear of retribution, for instance. Crime could in fact just as easily be prevented by anonymity. It allows you to be as rude and brutal as you want, without physically hurting people. That has a sort of cathartic, purgative effect. Anonymity matters for a variety of reasons. A very big reason being that anonymity encourages honesty. And honesty is important. Some people tend to take to online anonymous image boards, chatrooms or sites like this one to speak their minds, to let it all out. Certain things can weigh heavily on someone's mind, and there are some things you just can't say with your reputation at stake. Hell, why do you think the Alcoholics Anonymous were invented? We're all hiding behind our own facades. If it wasn't for anonymity, especially in the modern age we live in today, we'd probably go insane. To back up my argument, take for example this study done by the Florida State University. [1] It states that anonymity encourages honest reporting in mental health screening tests after combat deployment by US Soldiers. We all break internet copyright laws, and it'd surprise me if there's someone out there who's never ever broken a single law. Still, anonymity on the internet must be protected, Hell would break loose if on-line namelessness was eliminated. At times, society can be very conservative, and it's often dangerous to make certain statements. The progressive internet allows for absolute freedom of speech. Interesting debate, your turn. [1]https://msrc.fsu.edu...
Anonimity should be a fundamental right

I start my response with this: "Anonymity is a part of freedom, it should be a basic human right" I ask Pro this, if everybody had the option to wear a mask that was just blank with no distinct features in public, no one knowing what they looked like or seeing their emotions how many would choose that? I know the Majority of criminals would choose to do so, if it became common. I know a good percentage of people who would not commit a crime would choose to do so, and join the criminals. An example being: Web anonyminity. You are by all accounts anonymous online, you don't have to disclose anything about you apart from your IP and even then that can be hidden. That image you found on Google and set as your background? Theft That song from your favorite band your friend sent the download link for. Likely Theft again. I could name several common practices you do online that are in fact illegal in most countries, but I digress. My Main point is when people become anonymous they stop being people, they become beasts driven by raw instincts and pleasure, they forget about their common man and instead focus solely on themselves. A point I expect you to bring up is the Group Anonymous. Their Exploits are nothing to be laughed at, but as good as their intentions may have been, in the end they did it for "the lulz" i.e Pleasure. This Debate comes down to one factor. Are people Innately good? Or Innately Evil? Because Anonymity is a Power Power Corrupts. We have known this for a long time. Your Move Pro.
The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

My opponent is a great debater. However, at least for this round, he seems a bit confused. He has failed to prove the topic because of his confusion: he conceeds and openly accepts points that destroy any possibility of the topics validity. First of all, let me reiterate the burdens. My opponent has to prove that both creationism and seeded life are plausible. Thus, if I prove that at least creationism is not plausible, then the topic is false. My opponent's confusion is not readily evident, however the following quote makes it clear. He mixes up the Con burden with the Pro burden and. .. it goes downhill from there. He says: "Since [the Con] has conceded that God cannot be a logically verifiable entity, [the Con] can make no further arguments trying to verify God's existence one way or the other via logic. " He seems to think that it is MY burden to prove that God is verifiable. Sorry, but that is light years away from the truth. Remember that I argued that "creationism is illogical if God is illogical". Disproof of God is disproof of the topic because Creationism stems from God (and my opponent must prove Creationism to win). By accepting that God is illogical, he accepts that Creationism (since it stems from God), is also illogical. This confusion is all I need to win the round. He has openly accepted a disproof of Creationism which means it is not plausible. However, regardless, he is also nonresponsive to my 3rd argument. It said that "Logic is based on proofs. Faith is based on the lack of proof. Hence, if the existence of God could be proven, faith would be eliminated. Logic and faith are thus opposing. It would be a contradiction to believe God is logical. " My opponent says this argument is false "because I insist [elsewhere] on applying logic to God". That's not true, I never did that anywhere. He seems to be referring to my fourth argument, however that was a reason why logic CANNOT be applied to the alleged acts God. There is no contradiction. Thus, Creationism is faith. Faith is opposed to logic. Faith is not logical and thus not plausible. Thus, the decision is clear: my opponent must prove Creationisms plausibility to win the round. However, he openly accepts and concedes the biggest disproofs of its plausibility.
The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

Bah - my worthy opponent opens with a semantic argument that I had forseen, but dismissed on the assumption that nobody would attempt to prove degrees of equality. By "equally plausible" I simply mean that they are possible, and not logically incoherent. This is not a debate concerning the specifics of which is a better theory - just to demonstrate that they are each viable alternatives. Unfortunately, it seems I will have to shoot down some of my own argument to reduce it to Biblical proportions (HA!). Since the resolution states "plausible," it is clear that there is a component of subjective consideration. Thus, neither of us CAN or should be attempting to prove that one or the other of these options is the correct one, just that neither is logically incoherent. Thus, the winner of the debate is not determined by logic, but by the eloquence of the arguments. My opponent states that I have used circular reasoning to prove the resolution. Once again, I remind the reader that I am not trying to PROVE the resolution, merely asserting that I believe these theories to merit equal consideration with creationism. A few responses: >> "he trends towards disproof of his own topic by saying seeded life is "equally (if not more) logically coherent than Biblical creation…." This is a concession that there is a greater probability that seeded life has a slightly greater chance of being true." False - Much of the Bible is logically incoherent, yet it is still considered to be an acceptable source by many. Simply because something is more logically coherent does not indicate that it has a greater probability of occurring. >> "The best we can do is say "seeded life is… kinda implausible and creationism is… uh... kinda implausible too… hey they're equally plausible!"." Glad you agree. While he calls this disingenuous, my opponent has demonstrated a way to consider the resolution satisfied. While he may think it sarcastic, it is indeed equal by his own admission, and if he is willing to play these semantic games, so am I. Furthermore, this gives evidence that the notions merit equal consideration. >> "At best, one would thing you could perhaps establish the two equally "probably true"." Yet another way to satisfy the resolution! My wonderful semantic opponent.... >>"Probability theory says you rarely say "two events are equally probable" if you know very little about the two events." But we're not talking about PROBABILITY - we're talking about PLAUSIBILITY. The rest of this argument is a red herring. >> "In absence of proof of the topic, the topic is false since all statements are presumed false until proven true." Innocent till proven guilty? I am asserting that I consider these to be equally plausible - the burden is on CON to show implausibility in them, not on PRO to prove equal probability... ************************** Ladies and gentlemen, we are seeking to establish plausibility, not probability. My opponent has based his argument against improbability. All I ask is this: Are these theories equally PLAUSIBLE with Creationism?
The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

He failed to prove that the plausibility of creationism's truth is EQUAL to that of extraterrestially seeded life's truth. His proof was: "[he] find[s] [seeded life] to be equally plausible as the notion that some deity snapped his majestic fingers and created life in a poof of purple haze…" This is circular reasoning which is not a form of logical proof. The plausibility are equal… because the plausibilities are equal is not valid. He has nothing to prove the topic. Even worse, he trends towards disproof of his own topic by saying seeded life is "equally (if not more) logically coherent than Biblical creation…. " This is a concession that there is a greater probability that seeded life has a slightly greater chance of being true. If seeded life is more likely true than creationism, then they are not EQUALLY plausible. This means he loses. Additionally, I am not sure how you can definitively establish the degrees of plausibility of something in the first place. The best we can do is say "seeded life is… kinda implausible and creationism is… uh. .. kinda implausible too… hey they're equally plausible! ". However, that's is disingenuous at best. At best, one would thing you could perhaps establish the two equally "probably true". However, even that is impossible. Probability theory says you rarely say "two events are equally probable" if you know very little about the two events. Given enough information, the probability of any event can be reduced to a certainty. For example, we know a lot about the properties of coins, that is why we can guess that flipping heads has 50% probability. However, in the absence of information, probability is a subjective guess. It is very difficult, for example, to establish the probability of weather predictions, especially far in advance. There is way to much data for us to establish such a calculation. We have to place a probability on how well we know the probability. In the same way, it would be almost impossible to establish the "probability of creationism" or the "probability of seeded life". There are too many variables in the universe to establish such a probability, let alone say two probabilities are precisely equal. Without any chance of proving two theories definitely equally plausible or any chance of proving them "probably" equally possible, it is absolutely impossible to prove the topic true. In absence of proof of the topic, the topic is false since all statements are presumed false until proven true.
The Theory of Extraterrestrially Seeded Life is Equally Plausible With Creationism.

The proposition on offer is that the theories of extraterrestrially seeded life are equally plausible with theories of creationism. A caveat - by creationism theories, I mean the more strict creation theories - not theistic evolution, Deism, or Intelligent Design and their derivatives. In fact... a definition of creationism (Dictionary.com): 1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed. 2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis. 3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born. Next, I suppose it would be instrumental to describe what I mean by the theories of extraterrestrially seeded life. There are several of these theories: 1. That microbes from somewhere else traveled to Earth on asteroids or comets and crashed in the primordial soup where they thrived. This isn't actually THAT far fetched, as we've discovered meteorites with microbes on them. 2. Alien explorers visiting Earth for its stunning vistas of terrible weather and volcanic activity left some bacteria behind, or one peed on a rock and left some genetic material that eventually grew into human life. I find a perverse satisfaction in thinking that we arrogant humans are simply Xorgblag urine. 3. Alien visitors purposely seeded the planet with life as an experiment. I find this one to be personally amusing, as a race this advanced could be watching us at this very moment. Scary and enthralling. ****************************** I find each of these theories to be equally plausible as the notion that some deity snapped his majestic fingers and created life in a poof of purple haze (Jimi Hendricks anyone?). In any event, I also believe that these events are equally (if not more) logically coherent than Biblical creation, and equally provable. ****************************** Why do I say no to theistic evolution, deism, and ID? 1. Theistic evolution is simply tacking "God did that" onto a scientific theory. This is an untestable hypothesis, and isn't compelling at all. 2. Deism is a "hands off" approach - a way of saying "God made this and let it run." This is not significantly different from theistic evolution. 2. Intelligent design fails at the same place regardless of how you approach it. Was the designer God? Why not some very advanced Aliens? Both are equally plausible and/or provable, so the argument is a moot point.
White males who are against affirmative action betray doubt in their own true merit.

Thank you for this debate. I accept your definitions and your use of British syntax. I will be arguing that able-bodied white males have a different reason for opposing Affirmative Action. I will also show that Affirmative Action requires a higher standard of merit for white males than it does for black males. Thus making it able-bodied black males that betray doubt in their own merit by accepting employment under Affirmative Action preference. For brevity, I will henceforth refer to Affirmative Action as AA. Thank you, and good luck on the next round.
White males who are against affirmative action betray doubt in their own true merit.

Resolution: Able-bodied white males who are against affirmative action betray doubt in their own true merit. I will present an argument in an attempt to prove the above mentioned resolution. It will be my opponent's task to refute my evidence and therefore my conclusion. I will therefore carry the BOP. Definitions: Betray: To reveal something Able-bodied: Without physical or mental handicap Doubt: A state of uncertainty or insecurity True: Actual, as opposed to perceived. Merit: The quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward By accepting this debate the contender agrees that these definitions are valid. To the best of my knowledge these are acceptable definitions; however, I am open to other interpretation of these definitions and will consider any that are posed by my opponent. Please note that I am South African and so will be following British syntax accordingly. I trust that this is acceptable.
Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

When I meant an Atheist turning into a Christian is that he is a Journalist and he posted a book debunking Atheism. Read it, it's pretty good, send me a text debunking it all if you want too. It's "The Case For Faith by Lee Strobel, he get's info from both sides of the fence. Anyways it's much bigger than our debate since it has 398 pages. Good Debate! much better than a debate I had with another Atheist; he just stated that 'why would you believe in a book made by some crazy guy in the Sahara Desert?' and of course I could've just told him about Genesis 16 and he would think the bible is even more crazy but yeah, I had fun, Thank you!
Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

"Earth is only 4.5 Billion years old, and the first life appeared in the form of Cyanobacteria, roughly 4 Billion years ago. The Cyanobacteria produced enough Oxygen in 2 Billion years for life to exist breathing air, without those Cyanobacteria, we would not exist, so it was not God that allowed humans to live and breath, but Cyanobacteria. We should all be thankful for the existence of Cyanobacteria, not God." Let me show some text made by a Athiest that turned into a Creationist. You just proved how I am correct by stating that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the first bactriums were made to produce life around four billion years ago. But you failed to rebuttal the moon since most believe a massive object hit the Earth 4.6 or 4.5 billion years ago so the earth is actually around under 5.0 billion years of age. Even the chance of producing one protien on the earth in 1 billion years if you had all the carbon in the universe put on the earth (which we never have) is still 10 with 60 zeros after it. Yes there is 1 with 80 zeros after it which counts for all the atoms in the universe and you stated that "The Chance of anybody living being born is less likely than 1 in all the atoms in the known universe---" Though I want to give you some stats: Every year 137 million babies are born and 59 billion people die. The world's population is growing at a rate of 9,100 people every hour.* Also the from one ejaculation from a male could double the population of the U.S.A. and Canada combined. (stats from copyright 1986.) *Talk Nerdy To Me Copyright 2013 ^been^ "Meteors have bee found to contain around 70 amino acids, which are very basic building blocks of life, and it has been shown by experiments colliding these as if hitting the Earth will produce more complex molecules and thus proteins can be formed this way." The biggest flaw in this theory is you just place the origin-of-life to someplace else. Even if where it cam from had the resources to produce basic organic structures you still have. . . 1. Atmoshere and temperature could kill life on the meteor or completely burn up the meteor. 2. Even if the amino acids got to earth, you still have the assembly issues like how did the amino acids and protiens yurn into matter? 3. Resources taken out of a quote from Stanley Miller, A Chemist looking for the origins of life, he sent the quote to Discover magazine: " 'Organics from outer space- - -that's garbage, it really is.' " I agree with him! I mean the only way it could happen is with Aliens; but wait, how were they made then?
Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

Of course I.D. is scientific that's common knowledge. Do you want me to explain it to you? Really? Fine. Not only is Evolution obsolete but it makes no since if you take away the whole adapting to one's environment and god. Banning Pastafarianism would make since, since it should be taught in social studies on how people have rebelled against governments or just acted stupid. Okay my reasoning on how Evolution is wrong left and right (without religion) is that 1. The earth took a long time to cool down so the time span between the earth's right temperature and the first life forms is about 400 billion years so not a lot of time for life forms to be made? Right? Since it should take like a billion years 2. Even with all of the carbon in the universe put on the earth the chance of a single protien being made is still about 10 with 60 zeroes after it. Making the Lottery a sure thing. 3. "A comet put life on earth!" Please look at number 2. 4. "Aliens put us on earth!" Please look at number 2. and you'll realize that would be a problem for them too. And you also said there is no god and never will be, but. . . aren't the aliens palying god? I can keep on going buddy, on how evolution is wrong. To me: every religion is right and every religion is wrong, so maybe Pastafarieanism is correct. My reasoning is: 1. Have you ever read any religios stories, myths, or legends and realize some of the stories are correct? If you want me to send an example just ask. 2. To me Religions are just like different versions o each other like back in history in Ancient Greece the Greek Mythology was different in every port and city since they were divided by tough seas and mountains. An example is who the real Queen of the gods? Maia or Hera? Was how the religion was divided, etc.
Fairness In Science Classes: No Intelligent Design. = No Pastafarianism

My Assertion and Thus My BOP is Concerning the current assertion made by Intelligent Design (Creationist) groups that the British move to ban teaching I. D. /Creation alongside Evolution is Unfair. This same argument is also being applied to U. S. states that are also moving to ban Creationism/I. D. from their state funded science classes. My Contention and thus this debate statement Concludes:That Banning Creation (I. D. ) From Being Taught Alongside Evolution In Science Classes Is :EQUAL_TO: Banning Pastafarianism (Worshiping The Flying Spaghetti Monster) From Science Classes. Essentially stating that both Creation (I. D. ) and Pastafarianism have nothing to do with Science. My opponent's Objective would be to argue that Creation/ I. D. is Scientific and thus have a place alongside Evolution in Science Classes, where Pastafarianism should not be taught as Science. Essentially the Contender will be calling my Debate Title a False Analogy/Comparison Fallacy. Format: No Acceptance Round, Con starts their Argument in their first round. Second and Third Rounds will be For Rebuttals and Extended Arguments.
So, what is better, Marvel or Capcom? I pick Capcom btw

with the help of the site http://www.eventhubs.com... i found that the on a list of the 38 most used characters in capcom vs marvel 3, the average placement of marvel characters is 16th, while for capcom it is 22nd. This shows people genuinely prefer marvel characters over capcom characters, may it be that they are regarded as more powerful, or just seen as more likely to win. And any fancy capcom character you have, marvel has an answer, just with better character development. so, maybe wolverine with your magical zombies wasn't the smartest statement on my behalf, but with storm, she could fly out of the range of the zombies and fry them to bits. This is what I'm talking about. For every capcom character you can name, i can name a marvel character even better. And now, we wait for the voters.