BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Pinocchio says, "My nose will grow now," then it will grow.

This question is very paradoxical, which is why it should be a fun one to answer. The paradoxical question of Pinocchio saying, "My nose will grow now" is viewed as neither a lie nor the truth, because if his nose did grow, it would have meant he told the truth, and if his nose didn't grow, it would have meant that he told a lie, which breaks the rule "When Pinocchio tells a lie, his nose grows. " Pinocchio says that his nose will grow, but it won't because he cannot make his nose grow by saying that it will. He can only make it grow by lying. After his nose does not grow, it will then grow because his statement was indeed false in saying that it would. This is very tricky to understand, so I will explain it again in simpler terms; he says his nose will grow, but it doesn't because he cannot summon his own nose to grow in any way other than lying. After some fictional time has passed, the fictional elements of his world will see that he lied in saying his nose will grow, so it grows because it didn't grow, not because he said it would. I even confuse myself in this debate, lol.
If Pinocchio says, "My nose will grow now," then it will grow.

This is my first debate on this website, so I decided to start with a troll debate until I gain enough experience to get into some of the bigger stuff (I also need three debates if I want to be able to vote, sigh). Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Rules: 1 - Pinocchio is a fictional character and the main protagonist of the children's novel The Adventures of Pinocchio (1883) 2 - When Pinocchio tells a lie, his nose grows. My position (pro) is that when Pinocchio says his nose will grow, it grows. Your position (con) is that when Pinocchio says his nose will grow, it doesn't.
"Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate..."

My opponent quotes me, and then adds that "whomever" is objective. However, we're looking for the subjective, because the "whoever/whomever" is the subject of the phrase, "whoever accepts this debate." It may also be the object of the verb "thank," but according to Professor Gibson, in such a case, the subjective overrides the objective. http://web.ku.edu... "Remember every verb needs a subject (the implied 'you' is the subject of 'ask'), and subjects of sentences are always in the nominative case. Therefore, in the question about whether it's 'whoever' or 'whomever,' it's gotta be 'he' (or 'she'). So, 'whoever' (nominative case) is correct. "This rule supersedes all other rules as it relates to 'who' and 'whom.'" He doesn't explain how this helps him. He just says that it does. The structure that all three sentences should follow uses "whoever," not "whomever," as he apparently thinks. However, it is "whoever." Professor Gibson is STILL on my side. Finally, my opponent uses a picture from Microsoft Word that supposedly proves him right. Wrong. http://www.debate.org... See my link to my own picture. Microsoft Word is clearly prompting a change from "whomever" to "whomever." Now, you may be confused about how my opponent was able to get his picture, despite the opposition from Microsoft Word. Simple. He ran the Spell Check, but hit "Ignore" every single time he was asked to change something, so that the result would look as if Microsoft Word was perfectly okay with his sentence, even though it is grammatically incorrect. See my second link. There's no way that those two sentences are grammatically correct. http://www.debate.org... "On a side note--- Who whines this much about the difference between whoever and whomever... seriously?" It's not whining. It's debating. "---I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Although, this silly debate should be 1 or 2 rounds, not 3. Thanks for the opportunity to debate anyway." Ah, but if this was only two rounds, I would not have been able to expose your fraud picture or point out the flaws of your logic. Professor Gibson and the Microsoft Word grammar team both negate the resolution. Therefore, vote CON. Thank you for participating.
"Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate..."

-My opponent has proved that I am right, and for that, I thank him. "Two sentences verified to be grammatically correct: "I decided to vote for whoever called me first." "Give it to whoever deserves it." Now compare it to the first sentence fragment: "[I wish] good luck to whomever accepts the debate..." All three sentences follow the following structure: [Subject] [Verb] [Object] [Preposition] whoever [Verb] [Object]." ---Whoever is subjective, while whomever is objective. (See Con's source) ---My opponent has shown that whomever would work in the situation. Professor Gibson would not agree with your grammar in this situation. Therefore, the resolution is affirmed, vote Pro. Also, my opponent said: "Therefore, I have the support of ... Microsoft's grammar team to negate the resolution." This is a blatant lie. The evidence is in the picture below. If the Microsoft grammar team agreed with my opponent, there would be a squiggly green line under "whomever". This is not the case. http://i39.tinypic.com... On a side note--- Who whines this much about the difference between whoever and whomever... seriously? ---I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal. Although, this silly debate should be 1 or 2 rounds, not 3. Thanks for the opportunity to debate anyway.
"Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate..."

All right, then. . http://web.ku.edu... Two sentences verified to be grammatically correct: "I decided to vote for whoever called me first. " "Give it to whoever deserves it. " Now compare it to the first sentence fragment: "[I wish] good luck to whomever accepts the debate. .. " All three sentences follow the following structure: [Subject] [Verb] [Object] [Preposition] whoever [Verb] [Object]. Here is Professor Gibson's explanation: "It's 'whoever' in both cases. Even though you can read the first sentence as 'I decided to vote for him' (which would make it 'whomever'), the entire phrase '(he) called me first' is the object of the preposition 'for. ' So, it's 'whoever. ' It's the same for the second example: '. .. he deserves it' wins out. " . http://web.ku.edu... Finally, just copy and paste the following sentence into Microsoft Word: "Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate, I look forward to your rebuttal. " The green underline will appear beneath "whomever," and you will be prompted to replace it with "whoever. " Therefore, I have the support of both Professor Gibson (. http://web.ku.edu...) and Microsoft's grammar team to negate the resolution.
"Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate..."

http://www.debate.org... "Thank you and good luck to whomever accepts the debate, I look forward to your rebuttal." Resolved: "Whomever" is grammatically appropriately used in the sentence above, and should not be replaced with "whoever." My opponent claims that the usage of "whomever" is correct, but I disagree. The debate will start in Round 2. Thank you and good luck.
Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.

To conclude, I will summarize my arguments. First, I stated that PAS does not disproportionally affect vulnerable groups. As a result, there is little to no difference in the individuals who recieve and ultimately end up taking life-ending medications and the general public. Second, I argued that adequate screening for mental illness prevents the misuse of PAS. Onocologists and physicians dealing with terminally ill patients that request PAS need to be trained in the recognition of mental illness in those with life-threatening illnesses. This not only improves the quality of life for the patient, it also ensures that those recieving life-ending medications are making rational and informed decisions. Finally, I showed that despite the legalization of PAS, the number of people taking life-ending medications recieved under PAS remains very low.
Physician assisted suicide should be legal nationwide.

Physicians are supposed to act in the best interest of the patient. Should a terminally ill patient, which is defined as "an individual who has been certified by a physician as having an illness or physical condition which can reasonably be expected to result in death in 24 months or less", choose to forgoe treatment that would have minimal positive impact on their quality or length of life, the physician is not obligated to force treatment [1]. A patient who requests life-ending medications is expressing their legal right to explore all options. Should the physician decide that the patient is capable of making a rational decision to end their life and is not suffering from impaired judgement, that physician is not and should not be held liable for fufilling the reasonable request of the patient [2]. [1] http://definitions.uslegal.com...;[2] https://depts.washington.edu...;
Mandatory childhood vaccination

First off i am throwing a link at you. https://magic.piktochart.com... It isn't the vaccines that are eradicating diseases, it is quarantine conditions. What did they do when someone infected with E-bola? They immediately closed the person off to society. Vaccines are not necessary. Now for ethics... You know abortion? Killing fetuses? Yeah, they inject you with them. http://www.vaccines.gov... If that isn't enough for the ethics then what is? Is it by chance they put that part at the very bottom? I think not. Then there is freedom of religion. I am not vaccinated because of my faith (religion).
Mandatory childhood vaccination

Vaccinations should be mandatory to eligible children before reaching adolescence not just to protect them, but to protect the health within the community. Vaccines are safe and effective. They are cost-effective compared to medical treatment. Severe reaction from vaccines occurs rarely. Deaths due to vaccine-preventable diseases are undeniably high. Preventing this deaths through vaccinations does not only save lives, but it is also beneficial for the growth of the community. Stories that lacks scientific evidence continues to spread and if this continues to happen, future generations will be unvaccinated and can lead to a big outbreak. Take an action. Parents will do everything to keep their children safe. Protect them. Vaccinate them.
Us foreign policy aims to promote democracy

At the end of World War II, american planners of foreign policy (State department, Council on Foreign Relations) agreed that the dominance of the United States had to be maintained as is explained by Noam Chomsky. As a result, George Kennan who headed the state department planning staff until 1950 writes: "We have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity .To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives ... We should cease to talk about vague and ... unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards and democratisation. "
Us foreign policy aims to promote democracy

http://politics.as.nyu.edu... " Because the United States is the most frequent and most powerful democratic intervener and because it is the intervener that readers of this journal have the best prospect of influencing, we highlight U.S. patterns of action. " http://www.cfr.org... "After World War II, the United States played a significant role in deepening and widening democracy in Western Europe. The United States encouraged European integration to stabilize the West European democracies, and NATO was a bulwark within which Italy, West Germany, Portugal, and Spain democratized. Later, after the Cold War, the twin institutions of NATO and an integrated Europe together created powerful incentives for emerging East European democracies to join Western multilateral institutions." We clearly intervene to promote democracy in the US
Us foreign policy aims to promote democracy

Although we like to to regard ourselves as champions of liberty and leaders of the free world, politicians use such excuses to justify interventionism in foreign countries. Time and time again, the United States government has backed military coups and invaded foreign countries so as to align with US investors interests. Recent examples which have been publicised as opposed to past interventions such as the war in Irak prove that money is what drives us to intervene, to invade and set up institutions that will enable us to enrich ourselves.
Abortion

Correction on my following message I meant to say <25. Yes it's not technically alive before 6 weeks but it does have the potential for life. Humans should not have the right to decide who and who doesn't get the chance to live. Also you denied an answer on my question on how killing a baby is murder. Your argument is abortion is always okay, mine is it never is although I have conceded to a few acceptions. I believe the win comes with compromise for the both of us, as I can't see how you can justify killing something with a beating heart. This is murder, plain and simple. For the facts around 11.8% (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) of abortions happen after 14 weeks in the U. S. Even without the statistics showing weeks 6-13 that's about a staggering 142,000 deaths a year in the U. S. alone. Once again these are deaths after the heart is beating. The current meaning of murder is: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. That is why abortion should be disallowed, or at the very least highly constricted and supervised. I see no reason for the taken of life or the potential of it but I do see how others can disagree. I understand you disagree with me but my main point of this debate and one question you still have to answer is "Why isn't killing a baby with a beating heart murder. " You've made your points on how their are acceptions but until you disprove that point I will never consider you the victor or Pro-life the right way to go. If you can prove that question in your favor then I will have to concede my point but for a long time Pro-life people have tried but could never answer that simple question. To rephrase it, "Why is it okay to kill 142,000 people a year and no one goes on trial for it? "
Abortion

I will have to concede on the first point. Although I am strongly against abortion for any reason if someone is raped they should have a choice then. If the mother is endanger of dying from the birth then it also should be accepted in some situations. I do believe in the concept of the mother should live over the child. The third point however is invalid. The baby's heart starts to beat at about 6 weeks old. However, even if you kill it before then you are destroying the potential for life. I don't believe that anyone has the right to play God and if they do it's not right. You did bring up some good points about abortion but I would like to go to the essence of abortion issue is that a woman kills a baby because the baby is an inconvenience. Most abortions don't come from rape or for the mother having a chance of dying. About 52% of women in the U. S. who have abortions are >25 years old, 20% of those abortions are from teenagers. . http://www.abortionno.org.... Although unfortunate most of those women made a choice and I am a firm believer in dealing with the choices one makes. A baby gets no voice or trial and has no say in his predicament. Why should killing a baby be any different then murder in the majority of cases? I bid you good luck on your following arguments.
Abortion

I believe that abortion is wrong. I belive this for one simple reason: 1) Once a baby is concieved it is alive and killing it should be counted as an act of murder. I recognize that the mother should have a choice as it greatly will affect her life but if you ask me the choice was made when she did the actions that caused her to have a baby. Who in this world should have the right to condemn a living soul when it hasn't do anything and has no say in the decision. I ask whoever my opponent may be to prove that a baby is not alive in the womb. I also ask that they give examples of when abortion would be okay in their mind.
Objective Beauty Exists

I believe that objective beauty exists. I do not refer to attractiveness per se, because that has components of subjectivity connected to it, but rather i speak to beauty as a defined concept. I'm not looking to go into the further meta-physical implications of this subject, but merely the resolution as written. Objective being: undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena; "an objective appraisal"; "objective evidence" Elegance being: Grace, refinement, and beauty in movement, appearance, or manners; Restraint and grace of style; The beauty of an idea characterized by minimalism and intuitiveness while preserving exactness and precision; Beauty being: The quality that gives pleasure to the mind or senses and is associated with such properties as harmony of form or color, excellence of artistry, truthfulness, and originality. http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... http://www.thefreedictionary.com... I look forward to a thoughtful, and provocative debate.
A simulator could make a universe like ours.

So now that you have made your argument clear I would like to ask you an opposite question. Let's say if you have a brother and he eats an apple, and another version of that reality exists in your thought, in which he dies after eating said apple. Which of these truths is the correct one and can we actually know any of this information? I would state that both of these versions of information are but which of them take place is just a matter of your perseption, and that we can not draw any conclusions of this information because we have no way of knowing anything except maths and our own thoughts. So why did you have to read all that (you may ask)? Because if we can't make arrive to a conclusion on that then neither can we arrive into a conclusion on this one. Now let me address the fundamental factor in your argument. When someone asks wheather or not something is possible you must before understand, that given enough time in a changing environment, and no fundamentally woven rules on how anything works, we must assume everything will happen at some point of the timeline. Thus rendering your question useless in itself, because given enough time all things will come to pass (if no ground rules are set).
A simulator could make a universe like ours.

Thank you for accepting my invitation to debate. In this argument, I will address your points. Yes, I'm familiar with Descartes and his thoughts on reality. He dropped all of his beliefs except for those he was certain of, then used the beliefs that were left to justify all his prior beliefs, which he then reacquired. To clear things up, I don't, at present, disagree with the hypothesis that we cannot know if a simulation even exists. However, my argument wasn't about that. My argument (please see the first paragraph of my first argument; the introduction) says that if, and the if is pertinent, there is a simulator, with incredibly more advanced technology than ours, who wanted to simulate a universe that appears like it's ours, then they could do that. In all probability, I think they could. I'm sorry for any confusion. My aim, through this argument, is to let people decide for themselves if they can know they're not in a simulation or even that the proposal they're in a simulation is unlikely. My guess is we can't know our simulator's world exists. Maths may be correct, however a simulator could fake, in theory, correct maths. If it were me, I'd make "42" sometimes be the new pseudo correct answer for "What is 2 + 2?". Maybe our simulator, if they exist, did that with "2 + 2 = 4". Maybe, with "I think, therefore I am", instead of trying to make something true appear to be false, our simulator chose something that's false and made it appear to be true, making it the "I think, therefore I am" that we know. But regardless of whether these things are true or not, they can be used to navigate reality in the same way as they would if they were true, so it's best to act as if they are true. To do otherwise may be irrational. Yes, the entities that run the simulation, if they exist, could be in a simulation, as well. Maybe the simulation they're in contains the illusion of an infinite regress, the same as a simulation I would make would contain the illusion of an infinite regress. I didn't make the assumption we're in a simulation. If I did, I would have been proven to have been in error, but I wasn't assuming that at all. Again, I'm sorry for any confusion. The thing I think you interpreted as an assumption in my argument ("I'm here to argue that a simulator, if they exist[...]") is actually an if statement; it's a philosophy of "what if", not "what is".
A simulator could make a universe like ours.

So, if I understood correctly your premises are as follows: 1. All we experience could be just a simulation. 2. And that all you think you know might be a giant illusion. Well this is a bit basic. Let me elaborate. You might have heard of a philosopher called Rene Descartes. He had been pondering on a similar concept, he wanted to know what exactly can we know about anything. He was sure that anything known through experience could not be known, as you cannot trust your senses. He also came into a conclusion about what you can know and created a statement from that thought. "Cogito ergo sum." which translates into "I think, therefore I am." This statement is always true and all other knowledge (accept for mathematics) is not a given certainty. So to answer your question yes the world could be a simulation, but however how could you know this world even exists? In my opinion there only two truths that are valid and applicable in all versions of perception, maths and Cogito ergo sum. all others are merely just a passing flow of empty knowledge which has no inherent meaning nor valid truth to it. So knowing this let me ask you a question. If all life is only a simulation, could the entities that run the system also be in a simulation? Yes they could. Well if that could be what says that even the people running the people that run us couldn't be inside a simulation. And what's more wicked the fact that you could just be ones and zeros going all 1000101 again and again, or the fact that you truly can't know anything, except your own thoughts and maths? So because this was in philosophy I'm going to give you an answer fit for the category. No because making the assumption that there might be a reality that is simulated can't be proven, because your concept of reality can't be proven to be correct.