BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolution: Scientists should debate young earth creationists in live formats

Scientists and creationists are not even remotely on the same page. They have been debating for centuries to no avail. http://en.wikipedia.org... The views of YEC are taken from the Bible. The Bible is not about how old the Earth is. So the first question is: Who cares? So what? Where are you going with this? Both the religious people and the scientific people are scratching their heads wondering exactly that. That's why it is puzzling how YEC can be doing well in debates when they are not even allowed into the debating hall, where the first requirement is value. In debating terms, YEC simply has no value. This is not even addressing its lack of scientific merit. Quoting now from http://www.farragut.cps.k12.il.us... Value: The value is usually given in the wording of the resolution. Its purpose is to establish context (what the resolution is about, the topic of debate), and to establish ground (what part of the resolution each side must defend). The value should not be confused with something that most might think of as a value, i.e., something that is necessarily intrinsically good (such as freedom or liberty). Rather, a value should be thought of as a position or a stance of belief within the presence of other positions or stances— it is relational. In this sense, a resolution may have a value of "increased environmental regulation" or "civil disobedience." In short, the value (sometimes referred to as a value premise) is the position that the resolution is asking you to defend. Thus, in the resolution "violence is a justified response to political oppression," the affirmative value is violence and the negative value is political oppression. The debate should then focus on the contexts in which the choice between the two value positions must be made. Many coaches and debaters think that the value is rarely presented in the resolution. This position holds that a value must be something of intrinsic worth, i.e., something that might be commonly believed to be a value. The result is that debaters very frequently argue values, such as liberty, freedom, or justice, which may sound wonderful but do not necessarily apply to the resolution. In these instances, the debate rarely, if ever, deals with issues of concern to the resolution. Value objection: An argument used primarily in nonpolicy debate which argues that there exists a competing value to the affirmative value. The argument has to be proven to be more important than the affirmative value. So the primary objection to debating YEC is the lack of a value premise. Its complete lack of scientific merit doesn't help though. http://www.venganza.org...
what is a debate

Put simply, A debate is two or more people positing opposing ideas. Beyond that, They come in many shapes and sizes. There are formal debates where people get to make statements at length and have an interrogation and Q&A. Sometimes a debate is two people shooting down each others arguments. Sometimes a debate just ends up being an agreeable discussion where there are few points of contention. Sometimes a debate involves one of the parties having a lack of knowledge on the subject and learning in the process. My main point here is that people debate for different reasons. The nature of the debate itself depends heavily on the dynamic between the debaters and is influenced by the nature of the topic and the respective conducts of the debaters. You did say a couple things that I disagree with. You said: "I feel that if you don't know and understanding the topic of the debate, " So this is your opinion, Which is cool, But why is this so? I would think that as long as the debater has a strong position on the topic, That they will have something to say. Even if their argument isn't that good, The only way for them to get better is trial by fire. There is no reason for this arbitrary standard and debating the less educated on a topic is how we spread good ideas. You said: "People like myself dis regard your comments as you make us angry. " This is just plain bad conduct. If you're just ignoring what your opponents and critics say, How can you ever know if your arguments have any mettle? I personally think that if my arguments are strong and true, That I can answer any question, Now matter how vacuous. Your floor
what is a debate

What is a Debate? 1. Is a debate when we all still around and discussed the topic at hand? 2. Is a debate for arguments? 3. Is a debate not to find out what is true? 4. Is a debate to just shut people down and argue your point of view, That you have no knowledge about 5. Is a debate to upset the person that wants to find knowledge and understanding, Or is it just so that the con and say they are the hero's? I feel that if you don't know and understanding the topic of the debate, Don't enter the debate, Their are people out there trying to find out information. And due to unreasonable and un-knowledgeable people, People like myself dis regard your comments as you make us angry. okay now lets see if there are other people agree with me. as i have put another debate on, And you got me so cross, I have also read other debates and see the con's comments, With no relation to the debate.
Taxation is Theft

Pro defines theft as both 1) immoral and 2) the non-consensual taking of another's "justly owned property" He then says that because taxation is "the non-consensual taking of justly owned property", it must be theft. See the problem? While the definition of theft includes the definition of taxation, it also involves an additional the qualifier of "immoral." This means Pro can't say taxation is theft just because it involves taking people's "justly owned property." He must show that it is an immoral taking of such properties. Until Pro can show that, his case is incoherent; after all, he can't equate "taxation" with "theft" when "theft", by his own admission, has a quality that "taxation" does not necessarily have, too. Summarized: 1. Pro defines "theft" as x and y 2. Pro defines "taxation" as y 3. Pro then says that "taxation" is "theft" because both are y C: Pro's case is wrong, because he hasn't shown "taxation" is also x. And if he can't do that, his conclusion is contrary to his premises.
Taxation is Theft

Before beginning terms must be defined. Theft - The immoral non-consensual taking of another's justly owned property, via force or fraud. Justly owned property - Property acquired without force or fraud. Taxation - compulsory taking of money and assets by a government usually to provide services to the citizens. My arguments: P1. Theft is the immoral non-consensual taking of another's justly owned property, via force or fraud. P2. Taxation is the non-consensual taking of justly owned property via force C . Therefor, taxation is theft P1. Theft is immoral P2. Taxation is theft C . Therefor, taxation is immoral If you dispute the concept of theft, and justly owned property, then we can debate over that as well. I'd prefer if you'd put your arguments into a syllogistic form as I've done for my arguments, if not I will do it for you.
Taxation is Theft

You should've mentioned you were a moral relativist before beginning the debate. If the terms moral/neutral and immoral are valid, then premise one is valid. However, by rejected premise one, and accepting the terms moral/neutral and immoral you've contradicted yourself. If it is not always wrong/good, then nothing can be wrong or good, because it becomes entirely relative upon subjective value. Since I've established that taxation is theft, and that theft is immoral, I do not have the burden to prove that taxation is not exempt from this principle. Now you claim that slavery is not forced...At this point, I don't know if you should be taken seriously. What happens when a slave wants to leave??? Force! Also owning slaves violates self-ownership, and as a consequent the idea of property anyway, so you've contradicted yourself again. Now to your defense of previous arguments. First your argument either commits an equivocation fallacy, or an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Now to defense of argument (B) I didn't explain why it is a non-sequitur, because I didn't want to undermine your intelligence. "The point is to give us a concrete reason to separate both concepts." - Your argument was intended to deduce the difference between theft/taxation, but on the other hand you claim your argument wasn't meant to deduce anything, so again you've contradicted yourself. You keep contradicting yourself. At one point you accept the concept of justly owned property, and then claim that slaves fall into the category of justly owned property even though slavery is antithetical to property rights. You also tried to shift the burden of proof by calling upon me to prove taxation is not exempt from theft. You also contradicted yourself by claiming that you accept the terms moral/immoral/neutral, but then show yourself to be a relativist.
Taxation is Theft

"Like Pro's earlier case, this is bullsh!t. The bullsh!t comes in Pro's attempt to act like because taxation is like theft in one way (that it involves taking someone's "justly-owned property"), it must be like theft in another way (it must be immoral)." - That's not an argument. I laid out very clearly, that immorality is a consequent of theft. "After all, who wouldn't agree that theft is wrong? At the same time, most people don't really think of taxation as inherently evil. So, by their insisting on involving morality, as Pro has done, we can see what someone saying this (like Pro) is trying to do: to make people think of taxation, and by extension, the government, as inherently immoral." - Not an argument either! Of course I'm trying to make people see the immorality behind the state. "Of course, this isn't obvious, so Pro has to try to convince us by using special definitions. Not only do his definitions not reflect what most people try to communicate by these words, they also have 0 serious legal precedents. Why then should we use Pro's definitions, when they only exist to make us think taxation = theft? Why should we beg Pro's case for him?" - Of course they have no legal precedent, they are moral/colloquial terms, not legal terms. If your argument were to be put into a syllogism it would be: P1. Theft is illegal P2. Taxation is not illegal C . Therefor, taxation is not theft You've committed an equivocation fallacy, by conflating the moral/colloquial term for theft with a legal term. Also, what is wrong with the definitions I've provided? They're just the normal moral/colloquial definitions of the words/phrases? "I can rephrase this challenge with Pro's special definitions: Prove that taking justly-owned property is immoral." - Be more specific within your language. What do you mean? Do you want me to explain the definitions? "Pro's definitions in round 1 made more sense, because most people do think theft is wrong. But because they don't think taxation is evil, Pro must demonstrate that taxation is also evil. Pro has not done that, and he's only trying to make his ultimate point (that taxation is bad) by demanding special definitions no one has any reason to use. If Pro wants us to use his definitions, he should give an honest reason to think of taxation as badly as we generally think of theft." - I'm still using those definitions, like I said in round 2...If it is theft, it is immoral (If A then B). If I can prove (which I have) that taxation is theft, it then follows that taxation is immoral, because immorality is a consequence of theft Again... P1. If something is theft, then it is immoral (If A, then B) P2. Taxation is theft C . Therefor taxation is immoral. Also, I see you complaining about the definitions, but you've yet to posit your own...Wonder why...
Taxation is Theft

Like Pro's earlier case, this is bullsh!t. The bullsh!t comes in Pro's attempt to act like because taxation is like theft in one way (that it involves taking someone's "justly-owned property"), it must be like theft in another way (it must be immoral). After all, who wouldn't agree that theft is wrong? At the same time, most people don't really think of taxation as inherently evil. So, by their insisting on involving morality, as Pro has done, we can see what someone saying this (like Pro) is trying to do: to make people think of taxation, and by extension, the government, as inherently immoral. Of course, this isn't obvious, so Pro has to try to convince us by using special definitions. Not only do his definitions not reflect what most people try to communicate by these words, they also have 0 serious legal precedents. Why then should we use Pro's definitions, when they only exist to make us think taxation = theft? Why should we beg Pro's case for him? I can rephrase this challenge with Pro's special definitions: Prove that taking justly-owned property is immoral. Notice how this doesn't "sound right," which is exactly the point of Pro's system: he wants to make disagreement "sound wrong," instead of giving us a direct reason to oppose or condemn taxation. Pro's definitions in round 1 made more sense, because most people do think theft is wrong. But because they don't think taxation is evil, Pro must demonstrate that taxation is also evil. Pro has not done that, and he's only trying to make his ultimate point (that taxation is bad) by demanding special definitions no one has any reason to use. If Pro wants us to use his definitions, he should give an honest reason to think of taxation as badly as we generally think of theft.
God is not all good, but is all powerful.

(Ah, an agnostic. This will be interesting.) The existence of evil and suffering is illogical if God is omnipotent, omniscience and omnibenevolent. If God has all the traits just said, God should know where evil comes from, the origin of evil and how to stop it. Being omnipotent, God created the universe, everything in it and all known laws of physics, biology and many, many more sciences, should also be to rid of all of evil and suffering. Yet... here we are in a world where the USA and North Korea are a couple steps to close for comfort near that big, red button and that murder, theft and terrorism is still a problem to this day. Why would God want this if he is omnibenevolent? Because he isn't.
God is not all good, but is all powerful.

In my honest opinion, I must just say that as humans with human limitations, we cannot speak for an existence that is beyond us. We cannot truly measure the feats or intentions of god, because he like so many other wonders, are too vast and large to measure. We are incapable of truly understanding God and his purposes of whether he is good or all-powerful. It is possible he is both, or neither. We will never actually know. However, I accept the challenge and mistakably already typed up an argument, not seeing the 4-round warning. I am eager to argue this contrary to my personal beliefs. It is wonderful to be able to question such a mysterious and infinite entity. And in my religion we encourage the question of our God, and by trusting that he is all good and all powerful. I will be arguing three main things: intentions, logic, goodness and evil, and, power. I am definitely looking foward to this debate and encourage everyone to share their opinions.
God is not all good, but is all powerful.

We have all heard of the quote of, "If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful. If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good. " This quote comes from the Greek philosopher Epicurus. That's some context, I'm pretty flexible when debating but here are my rules: Obviously, no hate speech, ad hominem and personal attacks to a certain extent. If you really want, you can post your agruement in the first round. I won't like it, but you can. That's why I have 4 rounds and not 3.
does 0. 9999999. . . . . . . . . . Equal 1

There are a few proofs I would like to present that 0. 999. . . . . Equals 1. Algebraic proof 1: Let's give 0. 99999. . . A name, It may or may not be one but for this argument let's give it the quantity name X x=0. 9999. . . . Let's multiply both sides by 10 10x=9. 999. . . . . So far so good Let us re-write 9. 9999. . . . As 9+ 0. 9999. . . . 10x=9+ 0. 9999. . . . We know from the top that 0. 99999. . . . . =x so we can substitute 10x=9+x Subtract x from both sides 9x=9 divide both sides by 9 x=1 If we replace the x at the very top with 1 because we now know that x=1 we get 1=0. 9999. . . . . Algebraic argument 2: 1/3=0. 3333. . . . . Multiply both sides by 3 3/3=0. 999999. . . . . . . 3/3=1 so we substitute 1=0. 99999. . . . . . . Argument 3: If 0. 99999. . . Does not equal 1, We should find a number between them. If not, If they are equal, Then 1-0. 9999. . . . Should equal 0, Let's subtract 0. 99999. . . . . From 1. 1. 000. . . 0. 9999. . . . . . ========== 0. 00000. . . . . There is no end to the 0's. 0. 0000000. . . . =0 1-0. 999. . . . =0 This happens because 0. 99999. . . . =1. They are equal which is why when you subtract them you get 0.
Chocolate is good.

Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it. To begin with, I will refute my opponent's points, then go on to state my counterexample. He says that, "Chocolates have some health benefits." This is true, however there are also major downsides that he has failed to notice. Chocolate can also contribute to lower bone density, cause headaches with migraine sufferers, and it's high in fat, sugar, and calories. Therefore, you should not eat chocolate just because it will improve your health, there are also huge consequences that come with any type of junk food or candy, like chocolate. My opponent also says that "There are many different types of chocolate, if you don't like one too!" This shows that he believes all types of chocolates have the same health benefits, however I disagree because not all chocolates are created equally. The class of ingredients that makes chocolate are called flavanoids. Milk chocolate does not have any many flavanoids as dark chocolate, and white chocolate doesn't have any at all! Therefore, not all chocolates have the same health benefits. Now, I will present my counter example, vanilla. Vanilla has numerous antioxidants, has anti-inflammation abilities, and can lower cholesterol. In addition, it can also calm stomach pains, reduce hunger pangs, and relieve stress. On top of that, vanilla is also not as fattening and doesn't have as many unhealthy additions as chocolate. Eating vanilla would give you the same health benefits that chocolate also brings, but it also doesn't have the downsides that chocolate has. In conclusion, chocolate should not be praised for its numerous health benefits, because it also has major unhealthy characteristics, and because vanilla is another better alternative to chocolate.
Chocolate is good.

First of all, chocolate tastes good. But not only that, chocolates have some health benefits. According to http://www.huffingtonpost.com..., it reduces stroke risks, it boosts heart health, it may fight diabetes, it protects your skin, it can quiet coughs, it improves blood flow, and it improves vision. In addition to it giving health benefits, it can give a delicious, savory flavor into your mouth. There are many different types of chocolate, if you don't like one too! Overall, chocolates are great!
Chocolate is good.

First off, my opponent looks at a possibly biased source to defend his argument, instead of looking and comparing the benefits and unhealthy consequences of chocolate. This shows that his rebuttal is invalid because he did not focus on the real evidence on hand, which is the pros and cons of chocolate. I don't understand your second rebuttal. You mention that you've stated, "milk does give benefits," but I cannot find where you have said this throughout our debate. In response to your third rebuttal, I am saying that there are other better alternatives to chocolate, so therefore chocolate is not good because it is not the best option of food to choose from. For example. vanilla is a healthier and more beneficial food so chocolate is not a good option in comparison. As you can see, I have clearly won this debate because I have rebutted many of my opponent's points, and I have come up with a counterexample to refute his points. Please vote the the Opposition (Con).
Chocolate is good.

My opponent says that chocolates has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits. I disagree, because according to http://cocoasymposium.com..., the website says that chocolate is not bad for your health. Because this is clearly stated, this means that they do more good that harm. Chocolate is good and gives benefits. After, my opponent says that I didn't refute her milk chocolate point. This is false, because I said that milk does give benefits- but so does the two chocolates! This means that she just gave another thing that gave some same health benefits. The two chocolates are still.. good! Lastly, my opponent says that there are better and healthier options to chocolate. This may be true, but it DOESN'T PROVE THAT CHOCOLATE IS BAD! Water is good for you, and apples are good for you. If I was talking about how water is good, and you put in a counterexample that apples are good, this doesn't mean that water is bad! This is what you are saying right now about chocolate. You are saying that milk is also good for you, but that doesn't mean that chocolate is bad. Your arguments are useless, and I have rebutted all of them. Overall, chocolate is great. Vote for the proposition side.
Chocolate is good.

To start off with, I will refute my opponent's first argument. When I said chocolate should not be considered a healthy food, I meant this as chocolate has too many major unhealthy conditions that outweigh the healthy benefits, so it should not be called a healthy food. I believe that there are healthy parts of chocolate, do not misinterpret my words, but there are still too many downsides. Although the milk chocolate does have a benefit, it is still not the best option. You also did not refute my milk chocolate point, so your statement, "the two chocolates still give benefits," is false. As I have stated before, the opposition's (Con's) job is to refute everything that proposition says. Obviously, my counter example proves that chocolate is not good because there are other, healthier, and better options to chocolate.
Chocolate is good.

First and foremost, my opponent says that my rebuttal is false. This is an unnecessary argument because I just shortened what my opponent said. She begins with "Chocolate is not a healthy food no matter how my opponent says it," in round 2. I then said in my rebuttal that she said that chocolate is not a healthy food no matter what. This is literally the same meaning. In addition, this has nothing to do with the topic! Overall, this rebuttal is clearly useless. My opponent then says that milk or other dairy products could just as easily give calcium without other downsides chocolate brings. This may be true, however this does not bring down the fact that the two chocolates still give benefits! Lastly, my opponent says that her counterexample is valid and acceptable. As I said before, her vanilla example does not bring down the fact that chocolate is still good! Both are good and both give benefits. This is debate is not about one is better than the other.