BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nothing Exists

I apologize for the brief argument, but I have only five minutes to form an argument. Here goes: The topic of duration has been discussed, and you may decide for yourself which side to take. What is more than can be focused on is the topic of cognition. Going back to Descartes. I think therefore I am. The only reason that something exists is because we think about it. Because we think ourselves, we make ourselves exist. My opponent conceded in several positions that we may just be brains in a jar perceiving the world. The fact that we would be just braing means we exist. But the fact that we think proves our existence. Since we are obviously something, the assertion that nothing exists is proven wrong, and the resolution is negated. Thank you.
Nothing Exists

The matter of time is a much debated one. My opponent's only argument is that nothing can exist if it has no duration. He goes on to say the present is non-existent, with no gap whatsoever between the past and the future. My opponent has a major flaw in his arguments. He says that the past USED to exist, and that its repercussions can be seen today, in the present. We know that the present quickly turns into the past. Since the past USED to exist, it could have only existed in the PRESENT. Therefore, the present does exist, and everything in it. The past cannot be returned to, and the future will never be reached. What are we always in? The present. Time glides past the present. We are always "here" and will never be "there," or in this case, "then." We are always NOW. What my opponent fails to see is that the present is infinite. It is always shifting, but always exists. My opponent admits that the past used to exist. The "past" is simply old, used, "present." The "past" is the "present" of yesterday, last month, and centuries ago. The present is always here and now. My opponent makes the only criterion for something to exist that it must have duration. Since the present is infinite, it has infinite duration. Since there are no limits on duration of time for the time being, (pun intended) there are no limits to the existence of anything. The resolution is negated. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nothing Exists

In order for something to exist it must have duration, it must exist for a certain amount of time. To say that something exists for no time at all, that at the very moment that it comes into existence it also passes out of it, is to say that it doesn't exist at all. Unicorns exist for no time at all; so do square circles. Things that exist for no time at all don't exist. In order for something to exist it must have duration. The past and the future do not exist; they are not there, in the world. Perhaps the past once existed, and perhaps its effects can still be seen in the world today, but the past doesn't exist now; if it exists now, then where is it? And perhaps the future will exist one day, but it doesn't exist yet; again, if it exists now, then where is it? The past and the future clearly do not exist; the universe consists only of the gap between them, the present. How large is the gap between the past and the future? What is the duration of the present? A minute? A second? A nano-second? Clearly the present does not last as long as a minute. A minute consists of different temporal parts. First comes its beginning, then its middle, and then its end. Each of its parts occurs at a different time. If its beginning is present then its middle and end are future. If its middle is present, then its beginning is past and its end is future. If its end is present then its beginning and middle are past. If the present lasted as long as a minute then it would consist of past, present, and future elements, but that would be absurd; the present must be wholly present. The same, though, could be said if the present were of shorter duration, lasting only a second, or even only a nano-second. In either case, the present would have temporal parts: a beginning, a middle, and an end. If its beginning were present then its middle and end would be future. If its middle were present, then its beginning would be past and its end would be future. If its end were present then its beginning and middle would be past. If the present has any duration at all then it consists of past, present, and future elements, but that, as I said before, would be absurd. The present, then, has no duration; there is no gap between the past and the future. It has already been seen, though, that to say that something has no duration is to say that it does not exist. The present, then, like the past and the future, does not exist. If there is neither past, nor present, nor future, though, then what is there? Nothing. Nothing exists at all.
Nothing Exists

Cogito ergo sum. I am very interested in your arguments. I would also like to clarify something. The resolution states that "nothing" exists (positive action). In the debate, you argue that everything DOES NOT EXIST (negative action). The two are different, as one proposes a vacuum (positive action), while the other states that there is no such thing as "something."(negative action) I will go with what you said in round one, as I believe that was just a grammar mishap, and we both know what is really being debated. Thanks again, and good luck.
Soccer is the best sport for kids

Ummm okay, I don't see why you are so mad this is just a debate. You say more kids get injured in football than any other sport, I don't know if you are referring to American football or American Soccer? I assume you mean American Soccer and I will tell you why soccer is not necessarily the best sport for children. A study shows American Soccer has a higher injury rate than many contact/collision sports such as field hockey, rugby, basketball, and football, with players younger than age 15. 186,544 soccer-related injuries in 2006 80% affect players under age 24 44% of injuries to players under age 15 As you can see there are much better choices of sports for kids than soccer. Source of Information http://www.momsteam.com...
Resolved: The U.S. Federal Government should create a Cyber Security Administration

Although my opponent has failed to construct his opening round, I shall continue this debate anyway. I assume that had my opponent posted his thoughts for this round he would have explained to the readers and to myself that cyber security is of utmost importance. It is not just important to our safety and productivity in an increasingly online world, but is paramount to our abilities to conduct business and maintain a functioning society. At the risk of making my opponents arguments for him, I will continue to explain this. The electrical grid, water systems, airport flight control, and other general systems that we use daily, all have components that are tied to cyber space and require functional and substantial cyber security measures. Should any of our basic functions be sabotaged, like water or electricity, the consequences of this would naturally be drastic. My opponents unstated view of this is absolutely correct, and cyber security is integral to any well-developed nations continued success, functionality, and simple day-to-day activities. With all that said, I must reiterate what exactly we are debating here. My opponent contends that the U.S. federal government should create a "Cyber Security Administration", and while he is correct that cyber security is very important, he is wrong that a "Cyber Security Administration" needs to exist. The reason for this is as following: It already exists. The Department of homeland security has a division specifically for this, called the Department of Homeland Security National Cyber Security Division. While this is not an entirely new ‘administration', it functions in much the same way as an entirely new government administrative department would, and perhaps at a discounted price. Lets break it down, The Cyber-sec division includes all of the following: National Cyberspace Response System: Cyber security Preparedness and the national Cyber Alert Team System US-Cert operations National Cyber Response Coordination Group Cyber Cop Patrol Federal Network Security Cyber Risk Management Programs Cyber Exercises: Cyber Storm Software Assurance Program And for anyone who isn't aware, October is national Cyber security Awareness month…[1] This Cyber Security division of the Department of Homeland Security is well funded with ever-increasing funds being distributed to it. 313M for the 09 budget, with 459M asked by the current administration for the 2012 budget.[2][3] Along with the government's cyber security operations are numerous private security firms that will meet any business or individual's cyber security needs, making any new "Cyber Security Administration", completely unnecessary. I would like to thank my opponent for this debate and I look forward to his response. [1] http://www.dhs.gov... [2] http://www.informationweek.com... [3] http://www.nextgov.com... [4] http://www.america.gov... [5] http://www.defense.gov...
Greatest Political Speeches III

My 19th century speech will be President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address speech delivered in 1863. This speech is what ended slavery in the United States. It is the most famous American Civil War speech. President Lincoln by giving this speech made it clear that slavery was going to have to end with the Civil War.Speech Highlight:"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here."[1]http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches III

My choice for the 18th century speech will be one of the most famous speeches in American history. I am referrring to Patrick Henry's speech given to the Virginia Convention in 1775. Also known as the "Give me liberty or Give me death" speech. This is considered to be one of the greatest speeches in American history. Patrick Henry was gave this speech to echoe the sentiments of a significant Americans to the British parliament and the Crown that was the had of the state.Speech highlights:"'Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death![1]"[1]http://www.history.org...http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches III

My second choice will be Pat Buchanan's 1992 "Culture War" speech at the Republican National Convention. Buchanan had ran in the primary against "King" George Bush and lost. But the speech by Buchanan at the RNC was emotional, captivating, and the best speech of any convention that year. Speech Highlights: "When Bill Clinton's time came in Vietnam, he sat up in a dormitory room in Oxford, England, and figured out how to dodge the draft." "For any man to call this a record of failure is the cheap political rhetoric of politicians who know only how to build themselves up by tearing America down" "Bill Clinton"s foreign policy experience is pretty much confined to having had breakfast once at the International House of Pancakes. " "Hillary has compared marriage and the family as institutions to slavery and life on an Indian reservation. Well, speak for yourself, Hillary." http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Note: I don't think Charlie Chaplin is a historical figure giving a speech in that clip. Considering he is playing the role of a fictitious character.
Greatest Political Speeches III

This speach was filmed in 1939 sometime after September. The Film was released in 1940. It's a great speach due to its early warning about the danger of nazis and Hitler. The speach is not in a foreign language. It's a parody of Hitler and in gibberish. Chaplin pretty much sacrificed his career in Hollywood to warn people of HItler. Source http://www.cracked.com... Yes I know this I'm using a comedy site as a source. The point of the source is to highlight the historical context and ramifications of the speach. Highlight of the speech- Chaplin pours a cup of water down his pants. http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches III

In every round, my opponent and I will post a speech made by a historical figure in every round, either by video, text, or both. The voters will decide who posted the best speeches overall. Also to be noted, all foreign speech videos require English subtitles or English text to be fair. Debate Structure Round 1-1930s speeches only Round 2- 1990s speeches only Round 3-18th century speeches only Round 4-19th century speeches only Round 5-1970s-1980s speeches onlyMy first speech will be President Franklin D Roosevelt's Inaugural address in 1933. This speech takes place during the Depression. FDR talks about the United States will endure the problems it faces.Speech Highlight:"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself"http://historymatters.gmu.edu...http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches III

http://www.youtube.com... This is Margaret Thatcher's famous not for turning speech. I'm just going to let this one speek for it's self. When the voters are voting on this debate I ask that you not only look at each speech side by side, but to also zoom out and look at each group of speeches in comparison to each other. If you the voter were going to have your own list of great political speeches which list as a whole would you be more proud of?
Greatest Political Speeches III

My last speech will be Ronald Reagan's impromptu speech to the Republican National Convention in 1976. Reagan gave the speech after he lost the primaries to President Gerald Ford. This speech would help to begin to pave the way for Reagan's election in four years.Speech Highlight:"And suddenly it dawned on me, those who would read this letter a hundred years from now will know whether those missiles were fired. They will know whether we met our challenge. Whether they have the freedoms that we have known up until now will depend on what we do here.Will they look back with appreciation and say, "Thank God for those people in 1976 who headed off that loss of freedom, who kept us now 100 years later free, who kept our world from nuclear destruction"?And if we failed, they probably won't get to read the letter at all because it spoke of individual freedom, and they won't be allowed to talk of that or read of it."[1]http://www.nationalcenter.org...Note: I would like to thank my opponent for participating in this debate. If you believe that I as Pro have presented higher quality speeches, Vote Pro. http://www.youtube.com...
Greatest Political Speeches III

Great speech by Lincoln. It's very moving and poetic. This speech I chose Susan B. Anthony, This is a controversial topic because of all the women at college campuses who seem to be against women's suffrage. I hope people can put personal beliefs aside about the suffrage of women and judge this speech on its quality. Note: the first video isn't a speech. It's a source for the above paragraph skip it if it doesn't interest you. "Susan B. Anthony was fined $100 for casting an illegal ballot in the 1872 presidential election. Seething at the injustice, she embarked on a speaking tour in support of female voting rights, during which she gave this speech. The 19th Amendment enfranchised women in 1920. Anthony never paid the fine." http://content.time.com... Speech highlight: "It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union. And we formed it, not to give the blessings of liberty, but to secure them; not to the half of ourselves and the half of our posterity, but to the whole people " women as well as men." http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com...
Destroying Money

I think we both agree that laziness would conquer if money was abolished. But what would pull them out of that laziness? The desire for luxury? Someone else can make that for me. In a system of endless cooperation, the responsibility shifts hands like hot potato. It's not my job, someone else can do it. That's what we would hear across the world. Envy would still exist. If everyone is not working, who will work for everyone? No one can. You can only make so much from so many workers. All it takes for crime to start is one thing you have that I don't and it all goes downhill from there. You have that. I don't. I want that. I'll take it. That's all we need for crime to begin. How is video gaming a job? It's only a job if someone is willing to pay for it. And who could play for it if there was no money? No one would pay for me because they have the same games I have. Inequality in various areas creates specialization, which leads to a healthy economy. If I have exactly the same things as everyone else, what can I do that everyone else can't? You need to be special to be recognized and for you to be successful. And when everyone is special, no one is. I don't understand your next argument. If we are nothing, why do you care if money gets abolished? Why does ANYONE care? Because we're proud. We're more than just a stitch in the fabric of time and space. We believe that we are different. And we don't care how insignificant we might seem, because we're going to live. We're going to achieve our dreams. We're going to make success, innovation, invention, happiness happen. Humans don't survive on Earth. We live. We dream. We do whatever we can to achieve those dreams, and so in the end, work does have a value. We are important in the universe. Why? Because we're moving our human civilization forward. We may seem insignificant, but we're the most innovative people to ever live. What I'm trying to say is that we work to achieve our dreams, and that everyone has goals they want to reach. Everyone's different, and we are all significant. Sorry for the speech. So, in the end, I think money is one of the things that has let us come so far and be so successful. We may have wars, but are those over money? Not usually. They're over envy and sometimes religion. We may seem like a mess, but humanity is the most innovative, inventive life to ever come to Earth. Money is one of the things that makes us special. Money is one of the things that make us competitive, so we compete for success and improve ourselves doing so. Money fuels our world, which is soaring forward into the future. Thanks for debating with me. I really had a good time. Best of luck in all of your other debating...uh...adventures.
Destroying Money

Well obviously the emediate response would be all out lazzynes but the focus would more be on maintaing the luxury lifestyle and after a while people will have to start working again to maintain that lifestyle , its not like suddenly they will loose the resources like cars, phones and tv's , also the envy wouldnt exist if the products where made to the highest standards possable and each person had them, also on the point it would take a good few generations to pass down the good will and over the years people would loose the bad habbits of envy/ jelousy.it would have to be a system where if you work you get the rewards and with the passion thing, video game playing is an actuall job so you would be able to do that and some kind of regulating body would be put in place to decide what is and what is not a suitable job, the system would be like if you work you get the benefits of everything but if you dont you dont simple as and that deal seems so atractive no one would really decline it if they were working/ doing there passion for a living.im not thinking of a world without work but a world where work dosent have a value , its starnge how people could say one job is more important than another when really nothing is of importance in terms of the universe we are just existing to exist, so why slave ourselves over a ficticious thing? and why complicate the way we interact with barriers of worth and power that dosent exist in the first place?, some people live like (kings/ the devine) and some people starve when reality both are worth the same when there is no end goal. obviously what im saying goes against everything we belive in because money is the thing that gives ourself worth in the world but it blinds us from peace, it creates a reasons to do things that shouldnt be reasoned in the first place. its a void that allows suffering to exist when it could not. its been cool having the debate though ! i just wanted to see what people would think if i propossed the idea :)
Destroying Money

You make some interesting points. You seem to have a lot of trust and confidence in the goodness of people. Unfortunately, things don't work out the way you would hope. You say that, without money, humans would all work and share. This most likely would not happen. As long as "the resources would be available to everyone", everyone could take what they needed, right? Then, I wouldn't need to work. I still would, because I value hard work and earning your money, but I wouldn't need to work. Lots of other people wouldn't work. Why? Because they can have everything they need without earning it. Who would work when no one needs to work? No one, And where would the resources be if no one worked? They wouldn't exist, because no one is working. Why? Because no one needs to work. It just goes round and round, and in the end, all we end up with is a bunch of people not working because they can get everything they need without earning it. When you talk about crime rates going down, I bring you back to previous argument. Let's say everyone wants a TV. But not everyone is working to make TV's, because they can get one without earning one. No one will work to make TV's. So, we have less TV's. And when we have less TV's, that means that some people have them and some people don't. Money is not the root of crime; envy is. There will be crime as long as someone wants something they don't have, and they see someone else who has it. You say, for jobs, that people could follow their passions. My passion is playing video games. If I spend all my time playing video games, I'm not making anything. I'm not contributing anything. All I'm doing is just leeching off of the hardworking people. If everyone did what they loved, very few people would actually be contributing to our resource pool. As I've said before, people wouldn't be working if they got rewarded either way. Who would grow food for starving countries in Africa? No one, unless there are a whole lot of people who want to do hard work on farms for the same reward as doing nothing. In the end, taking away money and giving everyone their fair share of the resource pool wouldn't work. No one would work if they got all they needed without working. It's as simple as that.