BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nihilism Is an Ignorant and Self-defeating Position

My opponent doesn't cite evidence for his false idea of nihilism. We can extend my argument and dictionary source, and look at this as a concession.My opponent seems to retract his first claim that denying existence is proof that existence is real, by saying he didn't make that claim, though it was clearly written by him in his opening round. Maybe this is some irony, based on what appears to be my opponent living in a different reality. Maybe my opponent is hoping his first statement doesn't exist, and this statement from him was a metaphor all along.Next my opponent doesn't try to dispute Solopsism, which directly refutes the theory of existence outside one's own mind. We can count this as another extension, as he instead resorts to insults. Again my opponent denies reality by claiming he didn't make his second claim. I am starting to think he didn't even read his own opening arguments, allow that extension for this debate as well. He doesn't argue against fallibilism, and acts like a kindergartner saying "nuh uh" to everything that opposes what in his mind is a superior view, though he doesn't validate these views with logic or arguments. Ultimately, I cannot argue against chronic narcissism. Anyways, GG, sorry for the waste of time voters. At least this will be an easy read and vote against the instigator.
Nihilism Is an Ignorant and Self-defeating Position

Someone wrote: "Nihilists don't "deny real existence" Sure they do. "Simply denying existence isn't proof that existence doesn't exist." I didn't claim that it did, so that is a straw man logical fallacy on your part. " In fact Metaphysical Solipsism is a philosophy that theorizes "The self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence." (2)" This debate is on Nihilism, not Solipsism: Do you have a learning disability? "Denying objective truth does not posit an objective truth" I didn't claim that either, so that is another straw man on your part. "Objective Truth is fallable." No it isn't. "To have a subjective belief doesn't posit that you believe others also share your subjective belief." I didn't claim that either, so that is yet a third straw man logical fallacy on your part. "Finally I think it is far-fetched to assume skeptics aren't skeptical of their own skepticism." No it isn't. "I for one am a skeptic," No you aren't. " It's ignorant to claim to know a God-like entity doesn't exist" ...because God does exist. You lost the debate: Thanks for your time. =)
Nihilism Is an Ignorant and Self-defeating Position

Hi there, I imagine this will be a quick debate.To start, I believe my opponents understanding of Nihilism is fundamentally flawed. Nihilists don't "deny real existence". I am acutally curious at what source of information fed him this idea. Nihilism at it's definition feels "that existence is senseless and useless"(1), not that it doesn't exist at all. Planes of existence and reality are another ball game entirely, but seeing as my opponent set the parameters up that way, I will argue it anyway. Simply denying existence isn't proof that existence doesn't exist. In fact Metaphysical Solipsism is a philosophy that theorizes "The self is the only existing reality and that all other realities, including the external world and other persons, are representations of that self, and have no independent existence." (2)Both theories that existence exists, and that only we exists, however, are both subject to critiques of Fallibilism. Denying objective truth does not posit an objective truth, and reverts in on itself. Fallibillism suggests that no beliefs can be conclusively justified, knowledge does not require certainty, and that almost no basic beliefs are certain or conclusively justified. (3) Essentially fallibilism is fallible, just as Objective Truth is fallable. To have a subjective belief doesn't posit that you believe others also share your subjective belief.Finally I think it is far-fetched to assume skeptics aren't skeptical of their own skepticism. Maybe some are, sure, but not accross the board. I for one am a skeptic, but don't claim to know all the answers, and most nihilists I know tend to feel the same. It's ignorant to claim to know a God-like entity doesn't exist, but not as much to say one probably doesn't exist. Sources:(1) https://www.merriam-webster.com...(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
Nihilism Is an Ignorant and Self-defeating Position

Nihilism, defined as "an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth," has at least two serious logical problems: 1) The act of denying real existence proves real existence (who is performing the act of denying?) 2) The act of denying objective truth is itself an act of attempting to posit an objective truth. Both 1 and 2 are self-refuting logical fallacies. Also, have you ever noticed that people who claim to be skeptics are never skeptical of their own skepticism? Actually, there are no skeptics anywhere -- just individuals who hate God and make up lame excuses not to worship him.
Venom vs Black Tarantula

Yes but bt's lasers completely sap his physical strength He may have many strategies but venom was only ever known ( http://marvel.wikia.com...) until after he bonded with Spider-Man the first time. Plus venom as Brock could indeed change his size and shape plus he could change into Eddie Brock and bt would be none the wiser. Venom has also beaten Spider-Man on more than one ocasion while also possessing the ability to turn invisible and also having a spider sense.
Venom vs Black Tarantula

Well, seeing your last statement I can see that you obviously havent read any Black Tarantula comics.Black Tarantula beat Spider man without even trying, twice.One time he had him on the ground but his wife stopped him. Another time he spared him and just took his mask.Plus BT always has prep time. His ancestors had the time to plan out everything I mean EVERYTHING for their sonsTheir exact moves and fight styles, thier names, where they live. (Kindof stalkerish right?)But, still Venom is an alien pathogen that has existed before spiderman even existed. (Secret wars comics)So BT's ancestors would have knowledge on the symbiote meaning that BT would be able to beat him because his ancestors know about him. (plus like I said before BT has genius intellect so he would find out eventually)Plus even if Venom got a few good hits on him BT has lasers that can demolish anything. You said that Venom could change to any size but i am talking about Eddie Brock venom not Mac Gargan.Mac Gargan has been shown to change size but not Brock GG and I am anxious for your reply
Venom vs Black Tarantula

Venom as superior strength were bt can lift up to 25 tons and venom in is normal form can lift 75 tons venom also provides spider powers and both these gentlemen have been beaten by the spider. Plus venom can change his body in ways black tarantula could never fathom. Venom can shrink and grow in size as well as providing unlimited holding space to its user. Venom has fought the hulk and tied as well as having been shown to be able to block warrior senses
Venom vs Black Tarantula

Hopefully you understand the full potential of The Black Tarantula(I really dont want make a full lengthy explanation)I would think that Black Tarantula actually has a greater skill than Venoms.Plus he has a genius he should be able to find out Venom's weakness very quickly.I know that Venom actually has a great resistance to all of his weaknesses.He has a large amount of feats that show his strength and resistance to fire and sonic sounds.Yet, Black Tarantula lacks weaknesses.BT has beaten one of the greatest martial artists in the Marvel universe (Dare Devil)BT has a healing factor on par with Wolverine's and Deadpool's. BT>Venom in strength.Venom has feats including lifting Bulldozers, over powering Hulk, Thor, and Ghost Rider, and he has beaten Spiderman in one hit.Lady Bullseye is one of the most acurate shooters next to Bullseye.BT not only beat Lady Bullseye but predicted her every moveI ask you con, how shall Venom beat The Black Tarantula?
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

R1:No, Judaism does not pertain to this debate at all. This debate is about it being delicious, not morally permissible to eat. And no, I am not trying to justify the holocaust. As an atheist, that should be enough evidence that I do not like the holocaust and would never support it. Further more, you have not given enough evidence to completely disprove a correlation between people eating bacon and the taste of it. Furthermore, you posted a picture of Bacon Hitler not being amused. He is making the exact opposite expression he would if I were trying to justify the Holocaust. He would have a happy face if that were true. R2: Liquid bacon is still bacon. I never speciefied solid. The episode of Troll Science you used also does not adress what you failed to adress in round three. R3: :: That does not justify your claim. That is like saying my brother and I are both troublemakers just because the same mother gave birth to us. : No just because she did a lousy job of raising you. That is a positive claim and you thus have the BoP to prove it. Also, inappropriate behavior on this site could be proof that my mom raised me poorly, but I also could have chosen to be so misbehaved. You do not know me in person, and you thus cannot prove this claim. :: Also, eggs wont splatter all over the microwave if you cover them up while they are heating. : Which kind of eggs are you talking about? Because that sounded wrong on several different levels. My apologies. I was talking about the eating kind.
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

R1.We've already established that Judaism is a fundamental aspect of the bacon and eggs debate. Are you trying to justify the Holocaust? Hitler's bacon-driven atrocities shouldn't be brought up so carelessly! R2.Good point, I should back my dismissal up with evidence. R3.: That does not justify your claim. That is like saying my brother and I are both troublemakers just because the same mother gave birth to us.No just because she did a lousy job of raising you.: Also, eggs wont splatter all over the microwave if you cover them up while they are heating. Which kind of eggs are you talking about? Because that sounded wrong on several different levels.
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

R1.1. It's still bacon, and eggs are irrelevant to R1 as it never mentioned eggs in the first place, and2. What does being prepared by a Jew have to do with it?R2:That's not a smart thing to do. Assuming things without evidence is bad conduct. Need I remind you that this is a troll debate?R3:That does not justify your claim. That is like saying my brother and I are both troublemakers just because the same mother gave birth to us. Also, eggs wont splatter all over the microwave if you cover them up while they are heating.
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

R1. Liquid bacon is bacon soup, not bacon and eggs. Your debate specifies that "bacon and eggs are delicious", not "bacon or eggs are delicious". The "or" means that either can be fine on its own, provided it's in a soup and was prepared by a Jew. R2. I don't like the points you raise here, so I'm going to completely ignore them and assume that they're wrong. R3. They come from the same place and both turn into a disaster in the microwave.
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

R1: "That pig is so sickningly cute, that I would put it through a blender while it's still alive."Then you must either be cold-hearted or want liquid bacon.R2: "The reason people eat bacon has nothing to do with how it tastes. People eat bacon because they are anti-Semitic and want to distance themselves from the Jews. Putting bacon in your cheeseburger is the way fellow Holocaust deniers identify each other."WRONG. People eat bacon not to seperate themselves from Jews, but to make them jealous because their ethics say yes and the Torah says no. They also eat it because one does not simply resist bacon. It's so delicious they wish their veggies tasted like bacon. R3: "Eggs are the chicken equivalent of menstruation. Nobody would eat a chick who's on the rag. Therefore, only weirdos eat eggs."The first part of that sentence is true, but the conclusion you draw is a fallacy. Here's why:The eggs I was talking about are the cooking kind of eggs, not the birth kind.
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

That pig is so sickeningly cute, that I would put it through a blender while it's still alive. The reason people eat bacon has nothing to do with how it tastes. People eat bacon because they are anti-Semitic and want to distance themselves from the Jews. Putting bacon in your cheeseburger is the way fellow Holocaust deniers identify each other. http://en.wikipedia.org... Eggs are the chicken equivalent of menstruation. Nobody would eat a chick who's on the rag. Therefore, only weirdos eat eggs.
TROLL DEBATE: bacon and eggs are delicious.

Bacon is deliciousPeople kill pigs for baconIf people kill pigs for bacon, then they must either be very cold-hearted. .. or bacon must be very delicious! Because seriously, what would drive you to kill this litttle guy? People put bacon on their cheeseburgers. Lots of people like cheeseburgers, epecially with bacon. Don't lie. You've eaten a cheeseburger with bacon on it. If somebody is going to put bacon on their cheeseburger, then they must know it will make their cheeseburgers more delicious. If that's the case, then bacon must be delicious. Eggs are deliciousYou can eat them in 25 special and delicious ways.1. Pappardelle with Chantarelle mushrooms and egg 2. Eggs Benedict Burger 3. Egg Pizza 4. Creamy grits with asparagus and poached egg And moar! Images and styles taken from . http://www.buzzfeed.com...If somebody can find a way to make that many fancy meals with eggs, then eggs must be delicious! Eggs are cupcakesP1) You can make the yellow part of an egg stand up like frostingP2) The yellow part tastes good with sprinklesP3) The same is true of regular cupcakesP4) Regular cupcakes are deliciousC1) Therefore eggs are cupcakesC2) Therefore eggs are delicious
Diet and exersise!!!

They need diet and exercise, it's black and white. Both of us have accepted it throughout all of the debate. The current argument you gave is awfully vague, so my response will be short. You didn't make any points involving the Government, society, even just other people trying to help. And the conditions you vaguely mentioned, but haven't said, contradict with your later statement. You are saying they it's in their control to do these two things, but have not said how they can do this, other than eating healthy, nor specifically how the government can affect this. The only thing to do now is make the public further aware of what they can do, and try to help them.
Diet and exersise!!!

You considered nothing I said: Diet is an expensive thing to maintain in some areas. Over 23 million Americans live in a food desert, meaning an area, usually urban, in which it is difficult to by affordable fresh food. And half of those 23 million people are low-income, so they will not have much time for exercise either. When both those intersect in a food desert, obesity is imminent. You may have bananas in your area for pretty cheap, and it's great that it's not expensive to be healthy where you are, but in some areas it is. I don't deny your facts about obesity and preventable disease, and it is a problem, but why are the people suffering from it being much more criticized instead of the local governments for allowing the food deserts to form and stay. Instead of reactive people like you, people have taken a proactive approach to this, building local community gardens with free fresh for for everybody. There are still many people in areas with well-established food security, and to tackle that problem, we once again we don't attack the people affected by unhealthy eating and bad exercise, instead tackling the problem at the source, whatever it may be. By helping these communities and creating a new cultural attitude instead of demeaning them and expecting them to fix themselves on their own, we can finally eradicate the problem. And before making these claims, understand what causes obesity and how it could realistically be fixed. All caps doesn't make you more dominant or correct in this debate. It is showing your adamance towards the second opinion. Sources: https://www.dosomething.org...
Diet and exersise!!!

"processed" its called diet and EXERCISE!!! Also, it isnt super expensive to be healthy! bananas are the most cheap food you can buy! Obese people need pressure... FAT ACCEPTANCE IS DEATH ACCEPTANCE!!! it isnt only obesity but being overweight that kills! "In 2015, nearly four million people died from disease related to their weight, most commonly from heart disease. But only 60% were technically obese, which is defined as a body mass index over 30. The other 40%, or 1.6 million people, were overweight but not obese." (https://www.theguardian.com...) People go crazy on people for smoking when in reality OBESITY KILLS MORE PEOPLE THAN SMOKING (https://www.menshealth.com...)
Diet and exersise!!!

I understand that diet and excercise are both very important, but why should this be enfored? Everything happens for a reason. People who are obese are obese for a reason. There should be pressure on them, but there are so many things that need to be taken into consideration. Do these people live in a food desert? Is this because of cheap, government-subsidized, processed food? People should take their own health issues into their own hands, but they can't do this if they don't have the resources.
Obama for president, not Romney!

Let me begin by telling you that I hold Obama's tenure as a president in utter disdain. To begin with, it is under him that U.S. has suffered its worst financial crisis in the 21 st century. But that's not all. Let me give you a few points against Barack Obama one of the worst presidents in the history of United States: 1)When Democrat Nancy Pelosi questioned the patriotism of Americans who honestly and intelligently opposed the tenets of Obama Care by calling them un-American, Obama was silent. 2)When Democrat Harry Reid insulted all Americans when he asserted that all Americans sightseeing in the nation's capital in the summer physically smell, Obama was silent. 3)When Rep. Steve Cohen likened Republican critics of Obamacare to the Nazis and their propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, Obama was silent. 4)When Americans expressed outrage and concern about the skyrocketing national debt and were called barbarians for having this legitimate opposing opinion, Obama was silent. 5) He inserted the United States armed forces into the Libyan civil war and into danger in violation of the war making powers given to Congress by the Constitution and in violation of the War Powers Act. While his war strategy may have been the right thing to do, his disdain for the rule of law does not make the means justify the ends. If he had been doing his job, he would have had enough time to do the Libyan warfare action in the right, lawful manner. 6)The disastrous "Fast and Furious" DEA gun running operation that allowed thousands of military grade weapons to easily cross the U.S. border into Mexico and into the hands of Mexico's violent drug cartels is a gross violation of domestic laws and international treaties. As President, Obama was sworn to uphold the laws of this country which also includes enforcing the valid treaties we have with other countries. Allowing his Justice Department to haphazardly operate "Fast and Furious" is a clear violation of that responsibility. 7)President Obama signed off on the extensions of the Patriot Act, the worst legislation regarding the destruction of personal liberty and freedom and growing the Orwellian power of the Federal government. He did not even bother to try and staff a panel of people to review and control government abuses that might occur under the Patriot Act, a panel that is mandated by the law. 8) Cash For Clunkers - Failure 9) Cash For Caulkers - Failure 10) Cash For Appliances - Failure 11) Small Business Tax Incentives - Failure 12) HAMP Mortgage Relief Program - Failure 13)$800 Billion Economic Stimulus Program - Failure 14) Unnecessary Auto Company Bailouts Costing the Taxpayers Billions Of Dollars - Failure 15) Unnecessary Bank and Financial Institution Bailouts 16) Persistently high unemployment three years after Bush left office and three years into the Obama administration. None of the above points are mine. These are all facts spread all over the internet. They echo the woes of a financially plagued nation. Thank you
Gays Should Have Separate Quarters

I will be arguing that, in the military and other fields where separation of genders is required for living arrangements, gays should have their own separate living quarters. I am not doing this out of discrimination due to intolerance or any ill such as that but for reasons I will later lay out. Rules:No ad hominemNo posting new arguments in the final roundThis round is for acceptance only.gays = homosexualsseparate = not in conjunction to, apartquarters = living and sleeping areasshould = a basis of opinion, something that I believe should happen This debate is about the resolution only, do not accept if you think you will try to derail it onto the morality or lack there of of homosexuality or anything like that.Thank you.
Punishments over crimes

Of course torturing someone is unconstitutional why the hell would I be having this debate if it was all legal you idiot. Now also to be clear I said sick but not legally insane people, so this means that the people who torture and kill one or more people should have their punishment be very similar. I am a firm believer in the saying "what goes around comes around" so if some babysitter drowns a 5 and 7 year old because she isn't being paid enough, they should get their own punishment if its the brazen bull, iron maiden, or even the guillotine. Now to simplify the definition of a serious murder, it is when someone doesn't just kill another human, but they either brutally tortured one or more people, or they kill a mass amount of people. Unconstitutional arguement- the constitution is designed to grow and change as our nation grows and changes. The constitution has changed and grown many times since it was first developed so adding to it isn't out of the picture like you make it seem to be. Even the Founding Fathers knew it might have to change with the times. Article Five of the Constitution spells it out: "The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses [the House and the Senate] shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution . . ." States were also given a chance to propose changes, or amendments. Three-fourths of the states have to approve the amendment for it to become law. Your main argument is putting myself in their shoes...wow that is so pathetic, it has nothing behind it other than me just imagining, and I'm sorry but I can't imagine myself brutally torture and murder someone. I am also proposing that the torturing of the person will be voted on in court as well on what kind of torturing method. If your example of the complete accident of a kid shooting his dad because he walked in his room (which is retarded I might add) happens, then the kid obviously wouldn't be tortured because we don't have evidence that he meant to do it. Bringing back the crazy torturing methods of the medieval times not only would make the victims families feel better, but they would also make the murderer think twice before carrying out such sick deeds.