BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
men are the weaker sex

First off, with your pregnancy and cramps. We have something in between our legs that most of the time give us the embarassment equal to that of a lifetime, it resembles if 'we are horny or not' which people jump to the conclusion of. We have balls to, scientific evidence says getting hit in the balls actually hurts ALOT more than labor, besides when a women gets a child they typically say " can we get another" a man doesn't say " Can I get hit again". Second stereotypeping all guys to that 1 guy you dislike is ignorant to say the least. Not every guy has their nuts out. Infact we are pushed by society to go to war and be the "man". You probably heard the term "man up". Why not "women up" is it because it's worse to be a women? And why aren't you encouraged to go to war? We aren't encouraged... we are forced, if we dont go to war we are seen as a coward. This is especially high lighted in World War 1. How did women get their rights? By suiciding in a horse event and SEEKING any possible potential attention, they even went on a riot, look them up if you dont already know "suffragettes".
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

I accept. I will contend that the number of conspiracy theories does not change the fact that they should be treated to equal skepticism and enquiry to all other theories. Moreover, the number of false theories trying to explain an issue does not call into question another theory's validations. For example, if there suddenly emerged four thousand different explanations (all wrong) for how the digestive system works, this would not call into question how we actually think the digestive system works. Similarly, the four dozen different false explanations for 9/11 does not call into question the explanation that we know to be true.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

My opponent has repeatedly said the same thing, yet ignored my criticism. Let me take an example: Both Mark and John work in a shop called "seventeen". Meaning Mark works in "seventeen", and John works in "seventeen". Now it turns out that Luke, Dan, Frank, Henry, Steven, Francis, Alice, Martin, Hercules, Anne and Boris you they work in seventeen. The sheer number of these people working there doesn't make Mark working in seventeen any more or less likely. If it turns out that seventeen doesn't exist, then that does make it less likely. However, this is completely independent of the number of people saying they work there. Similarly, let's take my opponent's syllogism. Let's say that Toyota and Vauxhall use completely independent manufacturing techniques. The cars don't break down. There's no reason to investigate either. Let's say the supplier of Toyota (and not Vauxhall) supplies faulty brakes. There is still no reason to investigate Vauxhall. The number of manufacturers makes no difference.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

Once again, you failed to understand my syllogism. When Y is proven false, it brings into question the validity of theory V because they both use the same reasoning. It does not disprove theory V per se. That is obviously not what I am arguing. Your syllogism using syllogisms is sophism and a straw man. You fail to see that your examples are both intrinsically true and then you go and make one false by simply stating that one of the premises is false. This is not an example of my argument. Example of my argument: P1: Two cars of the same model are sold from the same manufacturer P2: Car A's engine explodes randomly not from user error P3: Car B's safety should be looked into regardless if the car has seen problems In conclusion, the amount of conspiracy theories suggests a common fallacy, not a world full of conspiracies -- all of them being true would be very unlikely. Even if you don't believe in a single conspiracy, you admit to that fact that many can be fooled.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

My opponent's argument does not make sense. Just because theory Y is false, that does not mean Logic A is false. To take an example:Theory X is an argument going:P1 - All men are mortalP2 - Socrates is a manC - Socrates is mortalTheory Y is an argument going:P1 - All men atechinese foodP2 - Socrates is a manC - Socrates ate chinese food Premise 1 is false of the second argument is false, but this evidently does not mean that the theory X is false. Moreover, my opponent's syllogism makes no sense. Theory V only comes up once, and there's no major premise (an if...then premise). There is no reason to accept it, and many reasons to deny it, as it does not follow. Finally, I contended that all theories should be investigated, independent on what other ideas say. As such, even if we accept the conclusion, this does not mean the resolution is true. Moreover, my opponent's argument commits the same problem again. There is no reason to think a theory is dubious just because more enter the fray.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

My opponent has completely misconstrued my argument and his syllogism of my argument is a strawman. I do not claim that all conspiracy theories are false if one theory which uses the same logic as the others is proven false. Simply put, conspiracy theories are all quite alike in their reasoning. Also, I do not claim that all conspiracy theories are "exactly the same". They assert that there is a higher power or entity which controls or plans things. All of the conspiracy theories being true is very unlikely, thus, any conspiracy theory which uses the same logic as most conspiracy theories should be looked into. Actual syllogism: Pt1: X, Y, Z theories use logic A for their conclusions Pt2: V theory uses logic A for its conclusion Pt3: Y theory is proven to be false (or overcrowding of theories which means one is overwhelmingly likely to be false) Pt4 : Logic A is not sound C: V theory's validity should be investigated
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

My opponent has simply stated, long story short, that the more theories there are, each time one is discredited it makes the others less likely. Again, unless we assume they are all exactly the same (which would be a false assumption): why? I know what you're affirming, it's clear by the resolution. You just haven't justified it. Let me put it in a syllogism: Our conclusion (C) is that conspiracy theory X is false.A different conspiracy theory, Y, is proven false.P1 - X is either true or false.P2- Y is false.C - Therefore X is false.This makes no sense. Being a conspiracy theory or no, this does not prove nor disprove the resolution. The argument is illogical.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

The debate is on conspiracy theories, not scientific theories. And I am not arguing that the sheer number of theories this makes them all false, merely that it makes each one less credible. The number of conspiracy theories brings each theory into question because it shows that conspiracy theories can spawn out in almost any situation and many will believe them, regardless of the truth. One would have to believe all major conspiracy theories (moon landing, 9/11, JFK, Illuminati) or admit to the fact that many people can believe in something that is inherently false. It is quite clear that with conspiracy theories on nearly every major event and the common thinking process which lead them there that this merits investigating into each conspiracy theory for simply being such. People throughout the course of history have a tendency to feel there is some deeper process than meets the eye, regardless if there is. The large amount of theories suggests a common fallacy, not a complex World.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

My opponent's criticism does not relate to the resolution. If an aspect common to two conspiracy theories is false, then both conspiracy theories are false. That does not make any other theory invalid, or less valid as a result. The similar reasoning among similar conspiracy theories is going to happen as they explain the same event: if they have a common false factor, they are false for that reason. However, ceteris paribus, a large number of independent conspiracy theories does not make all of them false. Even my opponent admits that we have to make assumptions: it is only "if the same reasoning was applied for all of the theories". I agree. If a fact that two theories accept as true, then both are false. However, the number of them means nothing, which is what we are debating.
The sheer amount of conspiracy theories brings each theory's validity into question

All conspiracy theories’ validity should be brought into question because of the sheer amount of them. This is the case because of the similarities of said theories’ reasoning. Conspiracy theorists believe they are right for the same reason as other conspiracy theorists. If one conspiracy is wrong, then this brings into question all of the others because people believe in other conspiracy theories for the same reason as someone else who is found to be wrong. A person would have to believe all conspiracy theories are true or admit to that fact that a large number of people can believe in something which is false. This similar reasoning among conspiracy theories is damaging to each theory because it brings into question the effectiveness of said reasoning as all theories would have to be true to avoid this. And to address your digestive system point, it would bring it into question if the same reasoning was applied for all of the theories.
Turkey is Funding ISIS.Russians should destroy Turkey and ISIS both.

I will be debating why Turkey isn't funding Isis and should not be warred on by Russia. May the best debater win. Now for the arguements. Arguement 1: Turkey is fighting Isis By June of 2015, Turkey had joined the coalition against Isis. It had launched several airstrikes against Isis targets, and arrested several suspected Isis members in raids across the country. Now for Russia Arguement 2: Turkey is a member of NATO Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952. Should Russia launch airstrikes and send military units, such an attack would draw in the other members of Nato, including the U.S. This could cause WW3 and a possible end of the world. A Russia-Turkey war could light the fires for WW3. And the last arguement. Arguement 3: A war wouldn't be in Russia's best interest A war might draw reprocussions from NATO, as I said in the previous arguement. Another possible outcome would be sanctions from other world powers, causing further economic constriction, which could cause Russia to collapse under its own weight. The best way Russia could handle the situation is through negotiations and possible sanctions.
Is Technology Killing Our Friendships

Here's the thing ..people with high anxiety use technology more that's why frequent users have high anxiety rate and not because them using the technology makes them highly anxious.. Socially anxious people are naturally afraid of social situations..hence..technology is an outlet for them to be themselves..to express themselves..hence they frequently use technology ..to help their anxiety :) Hence anxious people choose technology and that's the reason surveys like these are misleading..highly anxious people opt for technology and it's not frequenting on technology that's making them anxious..it's them being anxious the reason behind them frequentingly using technology these 'addictive' virtual world you talk about are the ones you chose..it's the choice you made..not everybody like the people around them and technology can help them bringing them virtually closer to like minded people..and hence resulting in deep meaningful friendships Example- This site can be an 'addictive' virtual platform..but people choose to be on this site because they like being on this site..helps them meet like minded people..take part in debates..talk about things..helps them hone their debating skills etc While the 'actual' people around them may have no interests in things like these which might make the users of this website feel isoltated with people near them in the real world(which ironically people say virtual enviornment does..but in this case the actual enviornment is resulting in feeling of isolation by one individual)..hence ironically a virtual website makes them feel like they belong..helps them to come out of their shell...even results in meaningful friendships Also if the people are spending most of their time in the virtual world ..it's because they like it better..which might be because their is sommuch you can do with your friends(the ones near you or the virtual ones)in the virtual world..or because they don't like people around them..whatever maybe the reason they are choosing the virtual world..which means either their friendships aren't being affected by this virtual world..or they don't care much about their friendships outside this virtual world(which means the friendship sucks not the technology) i would like to reiterate technology is just an outlet..if it's killing your friendship it's because your friendship sucks..not technology.. You can use it in whatever way you want..it depends on who you are..blaming technology for killing friendships is irrational because you are the user ..you are using it according to your will..hence you are killing your friendship not technology.lif it weren't for technology..it would have died some other way..:)
Is Technology Killing Our Friendships

Another reason I feel that tech is being abused is that frequent users, as per Wall Street Journal, have higher anxiety levels. The beeps and alarms that are constantly plaguing us, reminding us to whip out our phones, have increased our anxiety levels. This happens because we are constantly thinking and worrying about these addictive virtual worlds that demand all our attention, all the time. After a while, we don"t even need the annoying beeps and alarms to keep our minds on our virtual worlds and keeping our anxiety levels skyrocketing. It is this which inspires many teens to spend all of their waking moments texting, calling, emailing, posting, and all the other distractions that our "wonderful", "helpful" phones give us.
Is Technology Killing Our Friendships

What kills friendships is being sucky friends...technology doesn't have morals ..it's you who have morals..so it's how you use technology according to your morals that matters And who says that talking with people far away has to be shallow..I'm awfully thankful to technology that I can talk to my best mate everyday although he is at a college in another distant city...technology is keeping our friendship alive and awesome And tbh you can't really have 20 friends who are going to be with you through thick and thin ..because that would mean that you'll have to be there for 20 friends(unless you suck at being a friend) and that you'll have to be in touch with 20 friends..and if you are in touch with 20 friends..it just means you aren't really in that good of touch with anyone I mean how do you even find time to have 'deep' conversations with 20 people.. And technology could improve your friendship too (if you let it) You can have virtual sleepovers ..play video games online..could have deep chats with each other at 3 in the morning..best case scenario you two post some videos online and get end up like smosh ;) And if technology is killing your friendship..it's not because technology is bad..it's because your friendship is bad (reads-terrible) ..if it weren't technology ..it would have found some other way to die.. friendship is bigger than technology..but you can use technology to the betterment of your friendship or to the death of it It depends on you ..not technology...technology is just an outlet..it depends on how you use it that matters..and how you use it ..depends on who you really are...so its you on whom the bond of your friendship depends..not technology :)
Is Technology Killing Our Friendships

One reason that people give for technology helping is that you can connect with distant people or make new friends on social media. The problem with connecting with faraway people is that most of the talking that you do with them is shallow and brief, when you could be forming deep friendships with many people who could help you much more in life. You could have 1000 "friends", out of whom you could depend on about 5 people. You could have 20 "real" friends, and you would probably feel much more secure. After all, when life is going rough, nobody cares if tweets are shared or posts are liked. What you need, when your life is not going picture-perfect, is someone you can lean on without falling, someone who will always help you up when you fall. The unfortunate part of this predicament is that if nobody"s bothering to make any of these deep friendships, too addicted to their device, this kind of bonding will never happen.
As per the Hebrew Bible, the nations are speaking in Isaiah 53:1

No, Isaiah is speaking. for even transliterated from the bible we see this. http://biblehub.com... Isaiah said this according to Paul. Since all scripture is inspired by God we must accept this as the truth and accept that it is in fact Isaiah that speaks. No let us transliterate Isaiah shall we? http://www.qbible.com... Now as you can see we have at the top of the page a description of who is speaking at the time. The prophet, Isaiah. "1 The prophet, complaining of incredulity, excuseth the scandal of the cross, 4 by the benefit of his passion, 10 and the good success thereof." http://www.qbible.com... You know what doesn't make much sense? The first sentence of the last paragraph where your telling me I don't make sense. As I have proved by the Hebrew and Roman Text transliterated we can clearly see who is speaking and how it all ties in. In conclusion... I followed my opponents rules, however there exists an error in his round structure. So this instead is the closing round. I believe it is clear from these texts I have shown who is speaking and the context. It should be clear who your vote should go to. My name is Brian N. Johnson and this debate is now closed.
As per the Hebrew Bible, the nations are speaking in Isaiah 53:1

Paul thinks that it is Isaiah that speaks and not the Jewish Leaders. I would like to remind my opponent that the only book that could be used in this debate is the Hebrew Scriptures. As I mentioned "he Hebrew Bible is in this debate is the only authoritative book". As Paul added "As Isaiah Say "Lord"" which are not in the original Hebrew text specifically to arrive at the conclusion he wants. Thus we should not use Paul as authoritative to prove the authority of the New Testament. That would be circular reasoning. Let us first check the Hebrew of Isaiah 53. מִי הֶאֱמִין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ וּזְרֹועַ יְהוָה עַל־מִי נִגְלָֽתָה the word לִשְׁמֻעָתֵנוּ can be divided in three sections. לִ (to or from, because of) שְׁמֻעָ (HEAR or Obey) . https://www.blueletterbible.org... I am not saying it is necessary wrong (as my Hebrew is really basic) to translate it the other way, but it is also a proper translation to translate it as "Hear". תֵנוּ (to us, or we) Who has believed what we have heard? (Holman Christian Standard Bible) So it makes sense that the nations are speaking if they say "Who has believed what we have heard? " And even some Christian Bible translate it as such. . .. so He will sprinkle many nations. Kings will shut their mouths because of Him (the servant), For they will see what had not been told them, and they will understand what they had not heard. Who has believed what we have heard? And who has the arm of the LORD been revealed to? . .. In context, with the previous verse, Kings will shut their mouths when they see the arm of the L-rd. .. Then the kings are speaking and ask two questions. Who has (or would have) believed what we have heard? Nobody would have believe who is the righteous servant of the L-rd. And who has the arm of the LORD been revealed to? To the nations. Following Paul's (an my opponent) opinion. Let us see if it works. .. Who has believed our report, says Isaiah and G-d? Well. .. The nations, who will come to know Jesus as the servant of the L-rd. And who has the arm of the LORD been revealed to? The nations again! When we previously saw that the "arm of the Lord" is always used for judgement against the nations Well, that does not make much sense isn't it? So to make any sense, it needs to be the nations speaking. And as my opponent and all the Nations (who believe Jesus to be from G-d) will have their mouth shut, when they will discover who the righteous servant it. They will say "Who has believed that Jesus was not the righteous servant of Isaiah 53! " And they will all have their mouth shut to see who is really the servant of the L-rd. .. (but that, of course is another debate)
As per the Hebrew Bible, the nations are speaking in Isaiah 53:1

I personally believe that only one man is speaking in Isaiah 53:1 and this, I believe, should be obvious to anyone reading. For Isaiah is speaking to the Lord and basically asking "Who has accepted our message?" (this is referring to the message that Isaiah prophesied the redemption of Jerusalem in Isaiah 52) https://www.biblegateway.com... Romans 10 supports this by saying, "But not all the Israelite's accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, "Lord, who has believed our message?" https://www.biblegateway.com... Notice that Isaiah says. It is clear that Isaiah is speaking to the Lord at this point since the beginning of the sentence begins with "Lord". Another point we can bring from Romans 10 is the context that Paul says, "But not all the Israelite's accepted the good news. For Isaiah says...". It is obvious from the context that the Kings are not speaking and neither are the nations. Rather Isaiah is speaking to the Lord asking who believes this report? Since the Israelite's were reluctant to believe that they could be redeemed. If this text from Isaiah 53:1 was continued from chapter 52, meaning the kings of the nations spoke we would see some form of connection, like "they say". However since we don't have this and instead we have Paul saying That Isaiah said, (kind of a he said she said ) we have no proof that anybody other than Isaiah is speaking at this point. From all this it should be clear that Isaiah is speaking regarding the message that he prophesied from God. Now I look forward to my opponents response.