BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pick your own debate!

I'm up for a bit of a challenge, so I'm starting my own "pick your own debate" series. In case you don't know what this entails, here's my modification of TheSkeptic's wording of how this debate will run: ROUND 1: Opening introduction and rules. My opponent will post 3 topics s/he wishes to debate, and then post his/her position on each of the topics. Please provide a mix of subjects. Have some deal with religion, others with politics, others with art, others with social issues, etc. Make sure to give some basic definitions for any terms that may prove a sticking point as the debate goes on! Also, please make it a generally controversial/debatable issue. I'm sure we all want a reasonably good debate here :) ROUND 2-4: I will start my case by supporting or attacking one of the three positions my opponent proposed. A normal 3-round debate should thus happen as normal. Good luck!
Whos the best B-Fast Persona? Pro-Brain Con-Basket Case

AIGHT YALL NEEDS TO CHILLaxxxxxxxx because guess what gurlfwand? the basket case HAS GOTS A BRAIN IN HER CRANIUM SONNN that's right you just been served! yall need to reassess. Now the brain iz gonna go far in life and ya darling gal over there is gonna get turnt and arrested, my guy gonna get TURNT IN THE WHITEHOUZZZ NO POPO UP IN THERE JUST SECRET SERVICE HONEYS THAT BE LIKE I GOT YO BACK SONNN.... SWERVE ;)
Whos the best B-Fast Persona? Pro-Brain Con-Basket Case

let meh break Dis SHizzel down for ya!!! the basket case don't need no bulling, or nun of dat social norms, Sh3 Lit3raly don't give, but she can go gets it. yall best be watching out that a basket case don't come to you while yos sleeping and gently place your severed face on her cereal sandwich, YA FEELING IT MR>KRABS
Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.

You are one talented noobsniper indeed. I accepted this knowing very well both sides would say eh why the hell not before the end, but now I see your challenage was to get one hell of a win. I applaud you god sir, I do.I have absolutely no comeback my whole plan was a casual arguement. And as that's gone out the window...........................How 'bout dem bears??
Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.

You essentially have two contentions (I am writing them in a format that allows me to attack them because your format is very vague, this isn't to offend you): Convincing people to vote in the law is a huge challenge and virtually unfeasible, in your opinion. Current society sees it as disgusting and immoral and this is sufficient grounds to keep it illegal I shall attack both at once in a very simple manner.The resolution was not about whether or not Incest should be attempted to be made legal, nor whether it would. It was about whether or not it should be allowed, we are purely discussing incest's ethics, not discussing the feasibility of convincing people of it, ignorance is always there. Homosexuality was once seen as a mental illness, yes it was literally regarded as severe as schizophrenia and sociopathy. If you were caught you were sent to an asylum where they would give you 'medication (it turned out to just be sleeping pills) that would allow you to rest and 'mull over' the true nature of your heterosexuality. This was meant to 'cure' you of what was actually SCIENTIFICALLY seen as an illness at the time. This is to show you how stigma and social convention is a ridiculous manner in which to analyse the ethics or correctness of allowing something.You failed to counter my contention that allowing people to have sex, if we abort in case of impregnation, is very okay as this doesn't have the issue of their DNA being too alike to create sufficient variation in species. I think that if you truly love your cousin or even sibling, or even mother (as long as you and the other are of age... Although I don't even mind teens having sex but my free attitude is separate from this debate) you should e allowed to. This is why I hate religion, why I hate bullying the weird and why I myself will raise my future children to be as original as they wish (within sensible reason, based on logic, not stigma). I want to truly understand why, in the future if I am sexually attracted to my daughter, and she to me and if my wife and I have a huge fallout and if my daughter and I wish to have sex we shouldn't do so (presuming both of us are single consenting adults and I merely would be appeasing her raging hormones, and she my raging... never mind...) but seriously I'm saying it like this to let you see it how I see it... why not? I would NEVER molest my daughter as a girl paedophilia is very wrong indeed. However the adult brain is different, I wouldn't be taking advantage of an innocent child I'd be enjoying the body of another adult and she the body of mine... There is a huge difference between molesting and consensual sex just to make it clear.Thank you.
Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.

The fact that 'normal' things have been made illegal is totally and utterly irrelevant to this debate. You have not explained why they are valid laws, if anything I could say the ridiculousness of them explains exactly why stupid laws and illogical laws should not be made, although I see the logic behind the New York ball throwing one, especially if the ball is a relatively hard material.As for your last paragraph, Inbred families are indeed an issue when we realise variation is essential to evolution. this is why I stated, in the resolution itself, that it should be allowed as long as you abort if pregnant. Abort meaning the act of abortion, in case you understood some other meaning in context.Thanks for not taking a religious standpoint though, that is indeed most irritating in policy/philosophy debates where God is not actually a necessary part of it. I do appreciate that.
Incest with contraception should be allowed, as long as you abort if pregnant.

Okay I agree weirdness isn't ground for illegality but...In Alabama Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.In CaliforniaAnimals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship.It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle, unless the target is a whale.Women may not drive in a house coat.Indiana...It is illegal for a liquor store to sell cold soft drinks.Liquor stores may not sell milk.And New YorkIt is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.The penalty for jumping off a building is death.http://www.lawguru.com...So we can't make it illegal because it's wierd but we can make normal things wierdly illegal?And honestly the whole reason it's illegal is co there won't be inbred families, not all contraception is 100% effective. Exceptions:Not having sex, removal of testicles, Destruction of overies, and female aging.
Snow days and CUNY

Contemplating with your belief, i state my contradiction with you accompanied by no harsh or obnoxious statements. If CUNY had the authority of establishing their own snow day system, it's merely obvious we would have here and there school days in the season of winter. This year, its has snowed more than the past two years. You can see this data by following this link. http://www.liveweatherblogs.com... If Cuny had the jurisdiction of establishing their own snow day system, we would have school days off a few days every week. For the past couple of months, it has snowed every week a couple of times. Of course it is treacherous and dangerous to go to school on a snow day or even after when all the snow has molded to ice. But this is where the mayor is accountable for snow days. The mayor is responsible for injuries in behalf of snow or ice. He should attentively contemplate the weather. He knows everyone is condemning him for the absences of students. But the fact that he still announces schools are open on a snowy day, is as a matter of fact, a wise decision. Missing out on school continuously is a loss to students. Students have merely 9 months of school and don't forget the week- long breaks. Ever wonder why so many students are being held back instead of continuing ahead to the next grade. You may see where i confirmed this information by clicking the link i have provided below. http://www.edweek.org... If we think conventionally or outside the box, we are auspicious of school days. You have probably noticed that one month before regents, students are beseeching for more time and help. Perhaps if school weren't closed continuously due to snow, students would've been more attendant in school and much more exceptionally prepared for the regents.
Snow days and CUNY

I believe that CUNY should have the authority to come up with their own snow day system instead of letting the mayor decide. Not everyone that attend CUNY schools live in that area. Most CUNY schools have students that commute from all over. For example, Jersey, Long Island, Connecticut, Staten Island, or Westchester. These places get more snow than the city most of the time, which can make it very hard for students to get to class safely. Students can slip and get hurt. For students that drive, driving in the snow can lead to a car accident. Also trains could be delayed or not running and that makes it difficult for students to get to school. Students then use up an absent day because not everyone lives in the city and can get to school.
Teachers without IT skills will be like fish without fins

21st Century learners interact with information, including learning content, in a multitude of different ways and being merely competent to deliver learning in one way (i.e. just in the classroom) is just not going to be enough to satisfy the demands of this and future generations. The internet enables learning to extend beyond the 'school day'. They can practice and perfect techniques; research and debate online and with learn from experts on a global scale to deepen knowledge & understanding.
Teachers without IT skills will be like fish without fins

Martial Arts/Sports/Drama: Technology allows teachers to take video recordings and replay them. It enables students to review, reflect upon and improve their performances - in their own time and at their own pace. Art/Drama: Students can visit virtually any gallery or theatre online. They can view the work of artists and evaluate dramatic performance, styles and techniques. Good teachers with solid IT skills will be in demand which, in time, means all of the others will be left by the wayside.
Teachers without IT skills will be like fish without fins

You assert that this applies to all teachers since you never specified any.All con has to do is prove that any particular teacher will not be like a fish without fins (which is very easy since all are humans but I get your metaphor).A fish without fins will be defined as a professional teacher who is unable to do their job sufficiently enough to keep it.I argue that a teacher of the following needs no IT skills at all: Martial Arts Any and all sports (outside of school) Travelling Drama Art
food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

I'm going to keep my conclusion short and simple. Pro does not argue off of a factual standpoint, but she argues off off her emotion. The only "soure" she uses is "I think" whilst I have used many factual statements to prove my claim. Pro also agrees the the welfare system gets taken advantage of, thus agrees with my alternative plan. Again, sorry for keeping this so short, but this pretty much sums it up.
food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

it gets abused and used when not needed, they get abused and sold on the black market. i dont deny it sometimes. but a few bad apples isn't enough to throw out the baby with the bath water. how else will we ensure food for people when it seems to be their right? you dont do much to say it's not a right, you just focus on the abuses. charties are the wrong focus for getting people fed. when it's a "right", the government should be involved. in gneral, there might be room for charity when someone is just down on their luck... but when there's a systemic problem and "rights" involved. your solution is misplaced. also, you say women have more kids to get more welfare. maybe in olden days, but this isn't applicable here. as it sits here, your point is ridiculous. women dont have babies to get more food stamps, or very rarely. even welfare in general in terms of cash assistance where your point might make more sense, there's not much perverse incentive.... that is, in most states you get a set amount of cash regardless of how many kids you have so why have more? plus it's for a limited time, so you will be stuck caring for them the rest of the time. this whole point is ridiculous it wasn't even worth dignifiying with a response but i guess i threw you a bone.
food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us

Thank you for starting this debate. The resolution reads "food stamps are right for those who r not lazy and are the poorest among us". No definitions were bestowed, so I will provide some. Food Stamps: Government benefits provided to eligible low-income people for buying food, issued in the form of an electronic benefit transfer card. Food stamps were formerly issued in the form of paper stamps or coupons. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) I will be arguing that food stamps do more harm, than good. I look foward to your argument. Goodluck.
The Atheists' God of Causation (by default) is Mathematical Probability

Okay first of all, atheists have no god at all... Literally that is as simple as it gets.The issue of causation is not an atheist's concern. If everything that exists requires a cause, hence a causing agent, then the first thing that was caused could never exist to begin with and thus nothing exist hence all that exists requires no creator. On the other hand, if you assert that God is the creator of all that exists then since God is not considered part of that which exists, God does not exist.If you assert that God is a self-generated entity, atheists can easily rebut that this is exactly who they see reality (self-sufficient in origin). Mathematics is a system we use to calculate things and quantify the answer. It has no other significance to atheists.
The Atheists' God of Causation (by default) is Mathematical Probability

Pro argues that atheists need to find the original causation for reality because they do not have God. Theists and deists have never once explained the origin of God and need to find this origin before they even begin to think they are on the same level as atheists when it comes to philosophy.Mathematical probability cannot be an agent of anything. It is not a thing by which something happens, it is a way of calculating the potential likelihood of what is to come. That is all. As I said, there are many situations in reality where the less probable thing ends up happening and atheists fully accept this. The entire gambling industry wouldn't be so successful if this was not the case.If one asked a Christian what is the mechanism of causation of God they'd sit and cry and masturbate their banana because their testicles are in too much pain to do it thanks to the logic that just whacked them.As a panpsychist you can believe whatever your ideology wants to, it still doesn't say a damn thing about those of the atheistic outlook.God has no causative agent, God has no origin and no creator, thus by the very reasoning that you are using Theists have no God since such a creation requires an explain creator causative agent otherwise it's not possible to believe in it. Good luck changing every Theist's mind on that one.I'm not going to even address that nonsensical psychoanalysis because it's literally something you made up right now that is not true according to any qualified individual working with psychological sciences.Yeah, some atheists believe in multi-verses, this really has nothing to do with God at all.
The Atheists' God of Causation (by default) is Mathematical Probability

I'm at a loss as to where on earth Pro has remotely proven that not only can mathematical probability be a god but that this god is the atheist's god.What does the sun even have to do with anything? The creation of reality is not the creation of the sun or even related to it. There is no way that mathematical probability created the sun. You can use mathematical probability and combine it with quantum physics to calculate which possible creation is the most likely one to be true but you can't claim that probability itself is the actual creator of everything, that's simply absurd and if any atheist says that they are not only delusional but they are a deist in denial.Even if events are not 'things' it literally has zero proof of the consciousness of all matter and on top of that energy being continuous whilst the universe is not, whatever that means, has absolutely nothing at all to do with the resolution. What even is the rest of that Round's argumentation? It's nothing to do with the resolution at all.It's as if we are beginning a whole new debate on the nature of reality or something... Atheists have no god and probability is how you measure the likelihood of outcomes it can't have literally created the whole universe...Please can you remotely address the resolution.The only relevant thing to reply to that whole argument is the last paragraph. Pro states that since atheists have no god of nature, they must choose another mechanism to reconcile their physical existence. This is where I shall proceed to wreck both the notion and the link between that and mathematical probability.First of all, according to atheists, time does not exist liner but is rather a very physical aspect of present reality. In other words, to the atheist the only moment that exist is the present. Everything else is pure perception and subjective nonsense. The universe right now is physically identical to the universe billion years ago. It has the same amount of energy and matter and if it doesn't that's because it's a multiverse and some mater and energy may seep in and out of one, into another. Thus, since time is a far more abstract concept there's no need for a 'first creator' or 'original creation' as really nothing ever changed or altered this is just a constant thing that has always been and will always be.Second of all, this entire notion of mathematical probability being god is so stupid. Probability was invented by human mathematicians, meaning it has a human creator. How could we have created the original creator that's the dumbest argument I have ever heard in a long time.This is so futile that Pro should stop trying and I conclude that this resolution is now just pure false.
The Atheists' God of Causation (by default) is Mathematical Probability

Pro states that atheists may think they have no god at all but they are assigned one by default by theanalytical philosopher. This is an unjustified assertion and is an insult to the analytical philosophers who concluded the opposite.I do not understand the question that Pro asks about atheists imagining god. Atheists do not imagine god because god has no physical form to imagine to begin with. Even theists can't imagine god since imagination only works by simulating one, or more, of the five senses[http://philosophy.stackexchange.com....I am not sure what context of 'muse' Pro is referring to but it is either an artist's interpretation of a woman or one of the nine artistic or scientific goddesses in Greek or roman mythology [http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...].Pro argues that it is impossible to hold 2 conflicting ideas at once, yet Theists and deists both believe that God is necessitated by all that exists requiring a creator yet simultaneously assert that God itself requires no creator at all despite existing. This would mean that Pro just told us that all God-believers are in a hypnotic trance, that's some spooky stuff... It's also completely unfounded and has zero evidence to support it.Pro then asserts that the anti-0theists of Western philosophy are what all atheists in the West must be... This is complete nonsense as anti-theism is a political outlook while atheism is a philosophical one that can coincide with it but not require it. You can have deistic anti-Theists and non-secular atheists who support a political framework base don religious values without believing in the existence of the God that the religion thinks is real.Quantum physics /mechanics does not need a god at all. Just because Einstein happened to think so proves nothing; it doesn't necessitate a god whatsoever.The dualistic nature of existence is not atheism vs Theism. Most atheists agree that there is a mental layer to existence which is how consciousness is enabled. This doesn't mean that there needs to be a god, it just means that a God is not impossible and I, myself, am not asserting monism whatsoever.Unless you can prove that quarks, leptons and the like have consciousness your entire concept of Panpsychism is rendered moot. I will disregard it on grounds of you not having met the BoP in regards to it but if you do prove it, I have further arguments as to why it still has no assertion of a god whatsoever.Just because mathematical probability can measure how likely it is for an event to happen is irrelevant. People can go all-in on a specific number and color in a roulette game and win. This is very bad mathematically but is reality nonetheless.There is no god in atheism at all. Pro has yet to meet their burden of proof (BoP).
The Atheists' God of Causation (by default) is Mathematical Probability

Thanks for the uptake and comments. Well everything has a cause. except the uncreated. Beauty is an example of the uncreated, as is the creator(if one exists). Atheists may think they have no god at all but they are assigned one by default by the analytical philosopher. When the atheist in muse thinks of a god (of causation) to reconcile his existence internally do they come upon an empty black shadow = no record of any fact OR opinion about this most pressing subject? No - It is not blank (no God) as atheists would have you think. They are merely not being honest in the translation of their muse to others. For it is impossible to hold 2 conflicting ideas at the same time (unless you have been subject to trance). So you look at creation and think there is no creator, that would require hypnosis or an internal lie would be lived out each day. Much atheism in the west is anti Christian or Muslim sentiment. Many align their belief about a creator based on the default negative methodology of classic science as a mechanism to promote their atheism. But the human mind is not a methodology. But with the leap of knowledge provided by quantum mechanics, The issue of causation (god) is back on the table where previously man did not know subatomic matter exhibits causation. Thus, a third scenario my opponent may not have yet considered... What if (at the ultimate level) there was only one type of thing (monism) and they were all identical and they always existed. Where does that leave the atheist? I'm an advocate of Panpsychism which is where matter is sentient right down to the leptons, quarks and beyond. Quantum mechanics shows us that this is the case. That electrons etc. have no choice - but to have a choice about the subatomic events that unfold causing us to observe our actuality. Causation is generated within at the level where energy and matter dissolve into each other. If this is the God (mechanism of causation) I perceive, how is it different to an atheists (private) reconciliation of causation. Are atheists Pan-psychics or if not what is the difference between our belief sets? If atheists do not believe in causation at this quantum level then all they are left with, it would seem is the increase in complexity we observe is due to the mechanical bumping of one dead molecule into another giving rise to something animate and conscious. Such reactions are determined by mathematical probability.