BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Existence of Human Freewill

Thanks for taking up this debate. However, it was clearly stated that burden of proof was to be shared. Also the Existence of Freewill is a posivitive assertion, the side that traditional takes burden of proof. Since I don't intend to sleaze my way out of providing evidence, I suggest we leave it up to the voters in the end. I'll go forward with my argument assuming a shared burden of proof.A Chain of Reactions Every action has a related cause. The universe is defined by deterministic reactions on an atomic level and indeterministic reactions on a sub-atomic level. Deterministic Reaction: An occurrence that had a previous cause. Indeterminsitic Reaction: An occurrence that is purely random. On the most rudimentary level every action starts out as a wavefunction. These wavefunctions are entirely random so there existence is defined by probability. Since there are multiple wavefunctions these random actions are limited by the surrounding wavefunctions. Eventually these reactions crossover to the atomic level, from this point every action is determined by a previous reaction. Since thought is merely the advanced chemical reactions of synapses firing, there can be no free-willed thought. Rejection of the Collapse of Wavefunctions by Human Observation One argument for maintaining freewill is that wavefunctions remain in their probabilistic state until exposed to observation. This concept depends on multiple logical fallacies. Every reaction is created equal, so there is no reason to assume a particular reaction has any ability greater than to interact with other reactions. Humans are limited by the Laws of Physics so there is no reason to assume humans have any influence by observation outside the Laws of Physics. Humans’ ability to observe any action is based off their senses. Human senses are based off physical reactions, thus we must treat humans like any other collective of matter. Since matter always follows the Laws of Physics even, if humans did collapse wave functions the wave functions that their existence would collapse would be determined by previous reactions. This again eliminates the possibility of freewill. Paradigms and other Influences As humans we are exposed to many variables throughout our lives. In every instance we are exposed to numerous variables that will alter our behavior. Since exposure alters our actions, it consequently limits our free will. For example, the force of paradigm: A child raised by their parents assumes many of their parent’s values. These values effect the child’s behavior, thus the will to commit behavior is not originating from the child. Humans live multidimensional lives and thus have many outside variables influencing their behavior. Since there are an infinitive number of things that we are exposed to, we are again left with no freewill. Sources Determinism: http://www.wisdomsupreme.com... Indeterminism: http://www.wisdomsupreme.com... Wave Functions: http://www.britannica.com... Collapse of Wave Functions: http://physicstoday.org... Quantum Physics: http://www.britannica.com...
The Chicken Came Before The Egg

Hello All!It's time to tackle one of life's most interesting challenges... The Chicken or The Egg?Before we begin lets lay down The Rules of Engagement--Rules--1. Round one is solely for the purpose of accepting the challenge. DO NOT POST YOUR ARGUMENT HERE YET.2. This debate is going to be purely philosophical thus no outside sources should be cited. What I mean is that you should post in the purest philosophical sense and not try to sight scientific facts.3. Having said that, the judges should base decisions regarding 'Who had more qualified evidence?' on logic meaning who to you sounded more feasible.4. If you don't want to follow the rules don't accept the challenge5. I will treat the breaking of the rules as a forfeit from you and the judges should follow accordingly.Thanks for your time and I look forward to debating you!
Abortion

"abortion is murder and should be illegal" Your claim is that it is a human if it has "superior development, power of articulate speech and upright stance." What about an infant or a child who has not learned to talk, and walk yet. Are they not yet a human being? According to you then when is something a human being? "The human embryo has a separate DNA from the mother. At conception the embryo has genetic code which determines everything from eye color to personality." Cancer is damaged DNA. An embryo is not damaged DNA but separate DNA half from the father and half from the mother. "It is not a mothers right to choose to kill her own child because it is not her body." The embryo is not part of her body. It is separate from her body because it is a living human being. Unlike Cancerous cells which are just damaged cells. "First of all, keeping abortion legal keeps illicit back-alley abortions off the street. These are insanely dangerous for both the mother and the child. Abortion also keeps our rising population rates under control." Why does it matter if its dangerous for the child if the child is going to be killed anyone in the abortion? Secondly here you admit that it is a child? We shouldn't legalize (or keep legal) something that is murder just so it will be safer. Also the United States fertility rate is at 1.9 children per women which is below replacement level. Should we not at least give the child life though. By killing the child before he or she is born does not give the person a chance at a happy life because they are dead. We determine our own happiness. Yes it may be rough for a child in a single mother household or who has been adopted but in the end they are responsible for there happiness but killing them takes away this. " "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." Sources 1.http://www.cancer.org... 2.http://data.worldbank.org...
Abortion

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this topic."Abortion is murder and should be illegal."First of all, saying abortion is murder is somewhat debatable. Murder is defined as, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." The definition of human being is, "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance." (1, 2) By those definitions, abortion is not, strictly speaking, murder at all, as a fetus has none of the characteristics of a quote-unquote human being."The human embryo has a separate DNA from the mother. At conception the embryo has genetic code which determines everything from eye color to personality."Seperate DNA does not equate to anything. A cancerous tumor has separate DNA from its host. Is a woman obligated to leave it to grow and potentially kill her? Of course not. This point in itself does not make a case for the pro-life argument."It is not a mothers [sic] right to choose to kill her own child because it is not her body."But it is a part of her body. This goes back to that whole cancerous tumor thing. Fetuses can and do cause harm to the mother. Should the woman be forced to potentially die due to a a fetus? And what if the child will face some sort of debilitating disease? No human being should be subjected to a life of pain, either.___Whether you're against just abortions that aren't for health reasons or all abortions, there's plenty of reasons why abortions should be legalized.First of all, keeping abortion legal keeps illicit back-alley abortions off the street. These are insanely dangerous for both the mother and the child. Abortion also keeps our rising population rates under control.Another aspect of abortion I think is important is the ability to raise the child in the first place. How many people have babies they can't afford or care for? These babies grow up in a world where they are kept behind by economic, personal, and emotional factors. They are essentially kept to a life of disappointment and frustration, all due to the mother being forced to have a child. Is this fair to the child to be damned to such a lifetime? Of course not.I have many more points to make, but I'll wait for your response so I can guide my responses more easily. I look forward to our next round.1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Abortion

Wow, well it didn't look like you were putting much effort into your arguments so I didn't either. I don't think there's anything wrong with killing someone who is brain-dead. Fetuses are essentially brain-dead. Heart beat doesn't make you human. The ability to think does. I'll leave you with this quote:"Not until twenty-eight weeks, at 77 percent of full-term development, does the fetus acquire sufficient neocortical complexity to exhibit some of the cognitive capacities typically found in newborns. Fetus EEG recordings with the characteristics of an adult EEG appear at approximately thirty weeks, or 83 percent of full-term development. In other words, the capacity for human thought does not exist until just weeks before birth. Of all the characteristics used to define what it means to be human, the capacity to think is provisionally agreed upon by most scientists to be the most important. By this criterion, since virtually no abortions are performed after the second trimester, and before then there is no scientific evidence that the fetus is a thinking human individual, it is reasonable for us to provisionally agree that abortion is not murder and to offer our provisional assent that abortions within the first two trimesters are not immoral because the evidence confirms that during this time the fetus is not a fully functioning human being. Therefore, although one may oppose abortion on a personal level, there is no scientific justification to shift the abortion issue from a personal and moral one to a social and political one." - Michael Shermer, "The Science of Good and Evil"
Proof of God Via Existential Dependence

Contention 1: Purushadasa is an idiot, and by not responding to me, he agrees.Evidence: Look at his f*cking profile.Contention 2: Purushadasa is a f@ggot, and by not responding to me, he agrees.Evidence: Look at his f*cking profile.Contention 3: Purushadasa is now an atheist, and by not responding to me, he agrees.Evidence: Wait and seeContention 4: Purushadasa owes me 150,000 dollars, and by losing this debate, he agrees.Evidence: Wait and seeVote for me and I'll give 30% of his moneY!
The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Contention 1: Innocent executions. The US government has executed innocent people before, and should not be allowed to take this risk. Examples of innocent executions include Cameron Willingham[1], Carlos DeLuna[2], and the Meeks[3]. This system is clearly fallible and yet serves an irreversible purpose - to legally murder people. Should a system which allows for error, allow for the potential (and in some cases fulfilled potential) of mistakes to be made and incorporated when combined with an irreversible outcome? No - not when compared to alternatives. For example, life in prison. In one scenario, someone is killed and, no matter what evidence comes up, s/he will remain killed. In another scenario, s/he is sentenced to life in jail and, if evidence comes up again, s/he can be released if there is sufficient evidence to suggest that s/he wasn't the perpetrator. But there is also potential for death row innocence, too. As of 21st December 2012, 142 inmates on death row have been released[4]. It is clear from this that the possibility is high that some of our criminals weren't really criminals; they would have died alone, in disgrace, and innocent. Contention 2: Cost. The cost of executing people is huge when compared to life without parole[5]. In fact, Californians alone could save $90,000 in tax every year by eliminating the death penalty, because they spend about $90,000 more (per year) on death row prisoners than on prisoners in regular confinement[5]. This money could be spent on things such a police stations, to help reduce the crime in the first place. ". .. Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year. The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year. The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year. The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year. "[6] As you can clearly see, this phenomenal cost is very taxing on the public. Is it worth it? No. This idea that it's somehow "worth it" because they end up in the ground after being injected, gassed, hanged, or shocked appears to be personal opinion and nothing more. If I'm wrong and there is reason behind this, I would ask my opponent to provide counter evidence for this. I think two contentions is ample for now; I will introduce more in round three. I await my opponent's response(s)! I would like to thank my opponent, the audience, and the voters for this! Source(s): [1]. http://www.chicagotribune.com... [2]. http://www.theguardian.com... [3]. http://edition.cnn.com... [4]. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [5]. http://www.deathpenalty.org... [6]. http://www.deathpenalty.org...
The Death Penalty should be made illegal in the USA.

Welcome, welcome, welcome! This debate (should he accept) will be addressing the death penalty (also know as "capital punishment") and its implications. This is my third debate with an opponent about this - because I am very fond of debating! Now, on to the format. Should my opponent, DavidMGold, accept, he will accept the following things: 1) First round is acceptance only 2) Fifth round cannot include new contentions/arguments or refutes. 3) No religious arguments can be used. 4) A forfeit of a round is an automatic forfeit of conduct. 5) Any definitions used must come from http://www.oed.com... . 6) Only logic can be used. 7) The BoP (burden of proof) is shared. 8) My opponent accepts the following position: "The Death Penalty should remain legal in the USA" Also, for the voters: 9) You accept that a forfeit of a round is a violation of conduct, no matter the reason, and nothing more than a violation of conduct. Lastly, this is talking about states that still have the death penalty legal. I believe that's all, if anyone has any questions, please feel free to post a comment. Good luck to all, and allez!
Federal standardization of K-12 education system is more beneficial than privatization/voucher

Pro and I both agree that the educational system is broken. We disagree however on the causes of the breakdown, We therefore will probably disagree on the solutions as well. Pro is calling for federal standardization of education in lieu of privatization and / or vouchers. Pro states this standardization will "yield {a} better educational outcome". Con is stating that equalizing the funding will produce a "race toward mediocrity" and send America back to the pre Sputnik era of Joe McCarthy. Con will show that the idea of "throwing money at a problem" is outdated and outmoded. Con is stating that the educational system is failing not for not lack of "equality" or "funding" but rather from a lack of purpose. Con will show that PISA and TIMSS results are not relevant measures of national academic success. Con will then demonstrate that a system of competition such as privatization or vouchers will "shake the rooftops " of a stagnant system. Some ideas will need to be abandoned and some child may get left behind. GOTO round 3
Federal standardization of K-12 education system is more beneficial than privatization/voucher

The terms of the debate could have been changed prior to this time . However as the debate has been accepted, the terms may no longer be edited. BOP is on Pro to "prove that a federally standardized K-12 school system in terms of learning objective and fundings will yield better education outcome than one that is privatized and/or with a school voucher system in the United States. ( Pro's quote}. BOP is NOT on Con. Com need not disprove Pro unless Pro sets forth a worthy argument. GOTO round 2.
Federal standardization of K-12 education system is more beneficial than privatization/voucher

Debate Structure:Round 1: Acceptance (No arguments)Round 2: Opening statements (No rebuttals)Round 3: Arguments and RebuttalsRound 4: Final Refutations and closing statements (No new arguments)Burden of Proof:BoP is on Pro, who has to prove that a federally standardized K-12 school system in terms of learning objective and fundings will yield better education outcome than one that is privatized and/or with a school voucher system in the United States.All Con has to do is to disprove Pro.Definition:K-12 school system - primary and secondary educationFederally standardized education - centralized and standardized school system in terms of funding and learning objective by the federal government.Privatization- to transfer from public or government control or ownership to private enterprise.School voucher system - a certificate of funding issued by the government, which the parents of a schoolchild have control of and are able to direct towards the public or private school of their own choosing to fully or partially pay for the tuition of their child at that school for that year, term or semester.
Individualism is better than collectivism

Individualism-the habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant Collectivism-the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it Individualism makes sure that your ideas and you are recognized and matters. With individualism, you get a choice and liberty. With collectivism you get conformity and "equality" which is often at the expense of others. It is because humans are naturally social animals that I stand resolved that individualism is not better than collectivism. Before I present my reasons for this belief I would like to present a value or scale with which to weigh this round. The value that I present is Human Life (HL). What this means is that whichever side can prove that they uphold HL the best should win this round. My reason to prefer collectivism over individualism you can tag as: Prioritizing individualism leads to loss of Human Life. When all individuals put their priorities over the collective this leads to death. After all, what the collective needs to function and survive are more important than even the loss of individuals. This has been seen before many times in history. For example, when the Epipen was abusively priced the individuals in that company (Mylan) valued their own interests above the interests of the collective. Selfishly raising the price of their life saving products they prioritized individuals over the collective and harmed lives.
Capital Punishment should be abolished in the United States

1. There may very well be other escapes, but my opponent seeks to exaggerate the scale and scope of such occurrences, which was my original point. Additionally, my opponent does not provide any evidence that protection for any of the people involved is a major problem currently. Certainly not enough evidence to suggest the death penalty is warranted because of it.(here it is)http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.msnbc.msn.com...2 and 3. Whether people 'deserve' something or not probably has the biggest role in answering why capital punishment is still applied. That is, people generally support capital punishment because of this argument.When we see a person who has ended someone's life, why should we be forgiving? Someone who has raped a child, someone who has killed several people- What right does such a person have to live? They destroyed decent people, people who could have made something great of themselves. What right does the man who killed Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi or Jesus Christ have to live?Lets ask them."Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."- Martin Luther King Jr."God alone can take life because he alone gives it."- Mahatma Gandhi"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."- Jesus ChristWhen we are in rage against those who have wronged us, we forget who we are. We forget that when we kill others, we hurt ourselves. We pay for the hangman's noose and the electric chair. We have killed children, the mentally retarded, and we may very well pay for the killing of innocent lives. We must remember what justice is. Justice is not killing people to make ourselves feel at ease. Justice is not an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth until we are all blind and toothless. These 3 men were men of Justice. They showed us how to make peace with our fellow man. They showed us how to live. They showed us how to love."But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" - Jesus ChristI would like to thank my opponent for a great debate! It was plenty of fun! I look forward to some great feedback from the voters.
Capital Punishment should be abolished in the United States

While you clearly cited your source, apparently all of your arguments are copied verbatim from the website. I'm not really sure if that's considered plagiarism here, but that will be up to the voters to decide. A. I tried to reword it, but of course, it was a fail. 1. I believe you, but I will not argue this until you tell me your source. I normally don't do this, but I want to make sure, now that I am starting to get this website, that I help my opponents and myself to get more sources, so please, say your sources. 2 and 3. Why do I always disprove myself? Oh well. What I am trying to make of points two and three is if you do good, you deserve the equal amount of good. If you do a bad crime, you deserve the equal level of punishment. In other words, I am trying to show justice (my definition is the two sentences before).
Capital Punishment should be abolished in the United States

While you clearly cited your source, apparently all of your arguments are copied verbatim from the website. Im not really sure if that's considered plagiarism here, but that will be up to the voters to decide.1. SafetyI notice there are no statistics given for the number of prison guards killed by death row inmates. I cant find a single example in my research where that has happened, but I welcome my opponent, and commenters, to find out. If prison guards were terribly concerned with the safety of other prisoners(in and out of death row) that would only require proper enforcement. In my research I have also found only 2 examples of a death row inmate escaping prison at all, neither of which committed violent acts afterwards. I can provide sources if asked.2 and 3.These are essentially the same argument, an extension of, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."- Code of Hammurabi. In any case, the last sentence of argument 3 states that the argument is invalid, which makes my rebuttal alot shorter. So I'll leave you with one last thought."An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."- Mahatma Gandhi
Capital Punishment should be abolished in the United States

When I looked up capital punishment, I am against it, but oh well. Reasons why we should have capital punishment: I. Safety 1. Criminals that get the death penalty are generally violent people. For the safety of the prison""s guards, other prisoners, and the general public (in case a death row inmate escapes prison), then it dictates that safety is a reason for capital punishment. (1) II. Appropriate punishment 1.It is commonly believed that the punishment of a crime should equal the crime, if possible. Using common knowledge, the appropriate punishment for murder is death. (1) III. Vengeance Some crimes are so horrific that some people think that revenge or retribution is the only option. This reasoning is not based on logic; but rather, it is based on emotions. Therefore, this reason should not be deemed a valid justification. (1) 1.http://www.philforhumanity.com...