BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Riddle battle

Water? If this is not the answer, here is some of my reasoning, maybe so that you could make your riddle better than it it (it was allready quite hard): Water is clear, water is easy to manipulate (responsive) and enacts forces upon forces that act upon it (surface tension) (responsive), the molecular geometry of the water molecule is bent. Tempest is a synonym for hurricane. Wellspring is the original source, souls, synonomous with human life, cannot exist without water. Also, the answer to the first riddle is The letter/roman numeral X if anyone else was reading this debate and wanted to know the answer. Your second riddle: (an easier one) Two women were on vacation. They are found dead in a cabin on the side of a mountain. There was obviously a fire, but that's not how they died. What happened?
Riddle battle

Thank you for accepting my challenge! Also, I am sorry to change the rules of the debate, but I forgot one rule: Math cannot be the basis for your riddle. (I am sorry I am adding this after the fact, if it loses me points or whatever, I don't really care.) I hope this does not ruin it for you. Here is your first riddle: Alone I am 24th, with a friend I am 20. Another friend and I am unclean. What am I? Enjoy!
Riddle battle

A competition of wits and divergent thinking! The rules are: Each person will post one riddle and answer the previous riddle from the opposition in each argument section. Riddles do not have to be original, and the answer must be evident in the riddle, i.e. if the person does not get it, after being told the answer, they would go "OH, I get it." No random answers to unrelated questions. Most right answers wins! No google searching for non-original riddle answers. Riddles must be between 5-40 words (short). First round is for acceptance, next three rounds are for riddles, last round pro answers to previous riddle, does not ask new riddle, battle is over. Con posts no argument for final round, so that both sides ask/answer three riddles. Good luck!
Today, the United States is the Greatest Country in the World

There isn't anything to rebut since Pro never specified how the US is strong, nor did Pro prove it in anyway.C1-American Intelligence & Innovation:The Program for International Student Assessment released a study comparing various countries' test scores in math, science, and reading. The United States finished lower than the OECD's average in all categories. (1): The United States also is no longer the most technologically advanced country in the world, but the 3rd. (2) Finally, the United States only ranks 6th on the Global Innovation Index, which measures countries innovation ranks. (3) Accounting for low test scores and the fact the U.S. doesn't lead in technology or innovation, the conclusion can be made that the US is not the smartest or most innovative country in the world.C2-American Freedom:Many Americans pride themselves in their countries' freedom. However, the US is beat my many countries in terms of its freedom. Regarding economic freedom, the United States only ranked 12th in the world. (4) The United States' press is only tied for the 23rd most free. (5) Sixteen other countries were also found to be less corrupt than the United States. (6) Finally, the United States was not even able to crack the top 10 most democratic countries in the world. (7) Gathering these facts together, one can conclude the US is not the freest country in the world.C3-American Health & Safety:The United States is only 47th in the world in infant survival rate. (8) The US is also only 42nd in the world in life expectancy. (9) Finally, the United States in a list of 218 countries, the United States has the 111th highest intentional homicide rate. (10) Overall, we can see that the US is unhealthy and dangerous compared to many other countries.1-http://www.businessinsider.com...2-http://www.insidermonkey.com...;3-https://www.globalinnovationindex.org...;4- http://www.heritage.org...5-https://www.freedomhouse.org...;6-https://www.transparency.org...7-http://www.countryranker.com...;8-https://www.cia.gov...9- https://www.cia.gov...10-http://en.wikipedia.org...;
The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote.

"True, however this is a debate and regardless of what I said before, the entire argument must be considered. " Debate relies moreso on the performance of the debaters and in this debate, you conceded to my case in the second round. To turn around and say "Hmm, well you know what, I don't concede" is very much bad form as I could have been debating you on these points in the previous round rather than be under the impression that you were conceding, hence, the debate was done. Essentially, I've been robbed of a good portion of this debate (in the previous round, all I could do is provide a preemptive strike) due to your behavior. With that being said, I shall respond to what sums up my opponent's entire round 3 rebuttal: "The bottom line is, you can use the bible as a source to explain things that pertain to it, however you cannot consider the Bible reliable, as this would just be foolish. " Translation: The Bible is a reliable source to explain things that pertain to it, however you cannot consider the Bible reliable, as this would just be foolish. In other words, my opponent is simply contradicting himself. If he "OKAYS" using something as a source, then that means he considers the source to be reliable. Thus, he concedes that the Bible possesses reliability, which, as he pointed out in R1, is all that is needed for successfully negating the resolution. As for all these contradictions and whatnot, the fact that my opponent came to the aforementioned conclusion even in light of all of these "contradictions" makes them all irrelevant. Glancing over them, it is abundantly clear what he considers is unreliable as a historical document (think back to the Super Bowl being unreliable as a means of proving that George Washington had existed), however, there are a infinite number of avenues when it comes to where reliability can be placed. Furthermore, if he were really going to uphold "If somethings contradicts itself, it's not reliable, then he would not have STATED that it's okay to use the Bible as a source even to explain itself.
The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote.

For R2, my opponent has conceded to my stance, thus, regardless of what my opponent may say next round, you ought to consider this particular action as reason enough to vote in my favor (oh yeah, and extend all arguments). However, there is the matter of my opponent being confident in the argument which he chose to present in the comment section. Although I could very well in fact take the most efficient course of action and simply stick with what I've said above as well as cite formal proper formal debate conduct (not allowed to introduce new arguments on the last round and such), I'm going to rebut his argument anyway in case you don't buy the above. REBUTTAL: My opponent:" "NOTE: You cannot use the Bible as a sole resource for your argument in this debate." In other words, I cannot say "The Bible says this, ergo, X is true." At no point in this debate have I done this; I have not once based one of my premises on what the Bible has said, thus, I have not violated the request in PRO's note. My opponent: "reï¿½liï¿½aï¿½ble Capable of being relied on; dependable: a reliable assistant . . ." My response: This very definition shows precisely why PRO loses this debate. His position is that the Bible is incapable of being relied on, yet as I show in my examples, it is indeed possible to rely on the Bible's quotes, therefore making the Bible reliable, by PRO's rendering of the term. My opponent: "Every argument you have there is about justifying the bible with the bible, teaching the bible with the bible" My response: Yes, and? Exactly what is so illogical about USING THE BIBLE to say TEACH ABOUT THE BIBLE? So then I would assume that by PRO's logic, it would be illogical to use the disease located in Timonthy Brodwell's body as a source in proving that Timothy Brodwell has a disease? After all, in that case, one would essentially be justifying the existence of Timothy Brodwell's disease with his disease? Another example? Sure thing. Lets say a mother ask her son for proof that he is bleeding. What is so illogical for the son to come up to his mother and show her that he is bleeding in order to prove that he is bleeding? It would seem that PRO has quite a tall order, one that I doubt he will be able to serve. PRO likely did have something else in mind as I doubt he would purposely set himself up for an unwinninble debate. That said, I am not to blame for the fact that he didn't concoct his argument in such a way where it couldn't so easily be defeated by the argument I presented. In a game of chess, should I be condemning my opponent for the fact that he/she didn't make the moves that I wanted him/her to make and that I didn't anticipate his/her strategies? Of course not. It's no different here. And that's all for now.
The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote.

In order to win this debate, I must prove that the Bible is a reliable source to quote, however, with this terms alone, my opponent has placed himself in a debate which he has ABSOLUTELY no chance of winning. First, I would like to point out that absolutely anything can be considered a reliable source, but whether or not it's reliability is applicable changes depending on what one is intending to prove. For instance, if I wanted to prove that George Washington existed, I could not cite the highest Super Bowl Win record as it's reliability in proving that the New England Patriots won the Super bowl three times in a row wouldn't help me in concluding that George Washington existed. With this noted, I have no doubt that my opponent (as well --you--the audience) sees where I am going with this. In short, I submit that the Bible is quite a reliable to quote source when it comes to expounding on something that is written in the Bible (if merely one of the examples I give isn't refuted, I win automatically). 1)For instance, if I am writing an essay on one of the Biblical stories, my professor will no doubt have no problem with me citing the particular scripture that concerns one of the biblical passages. 2) When it comes to demonstrating whether or not there is anything written in the Bible, well, quoting is pretty much essential. 3) We can go about it Ragnar Rhals route as he is of the belief that the Bible disproves the christian God PERCEIVED in the Bible. Surely quoting the Bible would a good way to do this. Or you can go the opposite when it comes to negating his resolution. 4) If a preacher wants to give a Biblical based lesson, then it using the Bible as a source for quotes is pretty reliable. Thus, I have fulfilled the burden given to me by my opponent and have henceforth won this debate. That'll do it for now. I'll actually need to see some arguments from my opponent before I can delve any further.
The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote.

Throughout time people have quoted the bible. Every person and religion has their own interpretation of the Bible. Even athiests believe in the Bible, they simply believe not to believe. The Bible has been quoted to me too many times as proof of the existence of God, and in my opinion as a justification of religion, war, suffering, and ignorance. The Bible should not be considered a reliable source to quote. In order to win this debate, MY OPPONENT MUST PROVE without a doubt that the Bible is reliable, and therefore can logically be used as a source in argument. NOTE: You cannot use the Bible as a sole resource for your argument in this debate.
Overpopulation: The Truth In Numbers.

In 2011, our population reached a record 7 billion (http://www.bbc.co.uk...). This estimate shows that our population is higher now than ever before. However, this does not make it unsustainable. In fact, our agricultural systems produce, "17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago."(http://www.worldhunger.org...) Yet, people remain malnourished and underfed. (http://www.worldhunger.org...) This brings to question whether or not our population is sustainable in a way that will allow us to maintain our current population, while also maintaining our environments and standards of living. There are several points I would like to bring up beyond deforestation, climate change, and food supply. These include but are not limited to the drinkable water supply, land, fossil fuels, renewable energy, impacts on global environments, cities, and population statistics. With 9 billion people projected in 2040 ( http://www.census.gov...) and an increasingly uncertain world, it can be posited that we are reaching a point of overpopulation due to numerous factors.
Overpopulation: The Truth In Numbers.

Resolution: The human population has begun Overpopulation.Keypoints of this Debate:Deforestation.Food Supply.Global Warming. Definition:over"pop"u"la"tion noun :The condition of having a population so dense as to cause environmental deterioration, an impaired quality of life, or a population crash(1):Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.(2):To fill with an excessive number of people, straining available resources and facilities:(3) 1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...2) http://www.thefreedictionary.com...3) http://dictionary.reference.com...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I will take Con, on the basis that I do not feel we have Overpopulated the Earth.Pro has BOP and must prove humans have begun Overpopulation. Rules:-Fallacies will be called out immediately.-All claims must be sourced.-All sources and Images are taken at face-value until proven inaccurate. Round 1 - Introduction. Round 2 - DebateRound 3 - DebateRound 4 - Conclusion. -Fair luck, and Plan well.
Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"Utilitarianism is not a self-consistent moral system because utilitarianism is not moral in the first place. Since utilitarianism is doing the greater good for the greatest amount of people, we are forgetting about the minority. According to probe.org, ""utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of minorities if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. Americans in the eighteenth century could justify slavery on the basis that it provided a good consequence for a majority of Americans. Certainly the majority benefited from cheap slave labor even though the lives of black slaves were much worse." Also, Adolf Hitler justified the Holocaust by using utilitarianism. He thought that in the end, the majority would be much happier once he had "purified" the human race." I specified in my opening that when I said "utilitarianism" I referred to maximizing happiness while also reducing suffering. Neither of the examples given minimizes suffering, rather, they increase it hugely. Also: moral system, n. 1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3. Virtuous conduct. 4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.[1] Here, I am referring to the second definition. As I stated, this debate is not about whether utilitarianism is ideal or even good, but only whether it is consistent. "Utilitarianism cannot be self-consistent because morality is not constant. To be self-consistent, utilitarianism has to be constant. Situations are always changing and something that might have been moral once is not anymore. In different communities and areas of the world, morality is very different. In addition to that, morality varies from person to person." To say something "might" happen is meaningless without any kind of backup or examples, hypothetical or real. And while it may be true that different people follow different rules, this does not make utilitarianism inconsistent. "Another reason why utilitarianism is not self-consistent is because it cannot uphold itself. Utilitarianism goes hand in hand with the quote "the ends justify the means" and crumbles without it. Being self-consistent means to agree or be accordant with oneself but there are different types of utilitarianism, many of which disagree with each other. There is negative, act, rule, preference, and hedonistic utilitarianism. Negative utilitarianism is preventing the most harm from harming the most people while hedonistic util. is producing the most pleasure for the greatest number of people. Preventing harm and providing pleasure are completely separate things." Again, I stated in the opening that when I say "utilitarianism" I refer to the idea that the most moral course of action is one that both reduces suffering and maximizes happiness to the greatest degree. Anyways, two different philosophies that stem for the same idea disagreeing does not make the stem idea inconsistent with itself. [1]http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

Utilitarianism is not a self-consistent moral system because utilitarianism is not moral in the first place. Since utilitarianism is doing the greater good for the greatest amount of people, we are forgetting about the minority. According to probe.org, ""utilitarianism cannot protect the rights of minorities if the goal is the greatest good for the greatest number. Americans in the eighteenth century could justify slavery on the basis that it provided a good consequence for a majority of Americans. Certainly the majority benefited from cheap slave labor even though the lives of black slaves were much worse." Also, Adolf Hitler justified the Holocaust by using utilitarianism. He thought that in the end, the majority would be much happier once he had "purified" the human race. Utilitarianism cannot be self-consistent because morality is not constant. To be self-consistent, utilitarianism has to be constant. Situations are always changing and something that might have been moral once is not anymore. In different communities and areas of the world, morality is very different. In addition to that, morality varies from person to person. Another reason why utilitarianism is not self-consistent is because it cannot uphold itself. Utilitarianism goes hand in hand with the quote "the ends justify the means" and crumbles without it. Being self-consistent means to agree or be accordant with oneself but there are different types of utilitarianism, many of which disagree with each other. There is negative, act, rule, preference, and hedonistic utilitarianism. Negative utilitarianism is preventing the most harm from harming the most people while hedonistic util. is producing the most pleasure for the greatest number of people. Preventing harm and providing pleasure are completely separate things. To go over my case one more time: 1 Util. is immoral 2 If morality is not constant, neither are the moral systems a) When situations change, morality does too b) Morality is different in different communities and areas of the world c) People have different opinions on what morality is 3 Util. is inconsistent a) Can"t stand alone b) Different types disagree with each other
Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

I will not be attacking in this round because it would be unfair to my opponent since he is unable to respond. Instead, I will be presenting my voting issues (reasons you should vote for me). 1 I have proven the topic to be false. I have shown that an immoral concept, such as utilitarianism, cannot be a moral system. And even if utilitarianism was a moral system, it would be inconsistent. 2 He has not supported the topic at all. My opponent does not have any points showing that utilitarianism is a self-consisting moral system. He has failed to explain how utilitarianism can be a system of ideas of right and wrong conduct if there is nothing right about it. He has also failed to show how utilitarianism is consistent. I had four definitions of consistency and utilitarianism did not agree with any of them. 3 My case was much more solid than my opponent's. Because I had the burden of proof, I had evidence, examples, definitions, etc. to backup my case.
Utilitarianism is a self-consistent moral system

"I do not believe they are vermin which is why I put the word vermin in quotation marks because that's what they believed back then. In fact, some people still believe they are."Yes, but that does not make it right."Since the majority was convinced, it was maximizing happiness for them because they had fallen into a pit of believing they were higher than the Jews."Had they not fallen into this pit, would it have made them less happy? Not likely."How?"It would be a system of inaccurate ideas of right or wrong conduct."Exactly. If we attempt to follow an inaccurate system of ideas, we will be messed up. It's like believing two plus two is five for our whole lives."That wouldn't be accurate, but it would not be inconsistent either."My opponent has ignored my entire point where I explain how morality must be constant, not that it needs to make a statement on everything"I have done no such thing. The point is that you are saying that utilitarianism is not a consistent moral system because it doesn't make a statement on a circumstance where neither course of action is inherently more moral. This is no different than saying it must make a statement on absolutely everything."This is not related at all to morality or utilitarianism."I was using it as a comparison, showing your logic applied in a more absurd fashion.""The idea that the most ethical course of action is the one that maximizes happiness and reduces suffering to the greatest extent" is not a root idea because like I said before, that is negative utilitarianism not a root idea of utilitarianism."You said that negative utilitarianism was exclusively reducing suffering without consideration for maximizing happiness, this definition involves both, and it is a root idea. Also, it is the definition established. This means that it is used as the definition for the purposes of this debate. And it is a root idea. If it is not a root idea, then why don't you tell me what it's a mixture of?"A mixture of negative utilitarianism and what? Also, if the definition is a mixture, it is not a pure, root idea."Negative and hedonistic, duh. And if there are more than one philosophies stemming from utilitarianism (as you are arguing), then it is a root idea."As I have stated multiple times, the definition is still not a root idea."Then why can you not tell me what it is a mixture of?"That is true but what I mean is that utilitarianism is not reliable because there is still a high chance that utilitarianism may be used for the wrong reasons."This immorality is not caused by utilitarianism, but by bigotry. Utilitarianism can only cause such things when mixed with bigotry. Utilitarianism is not immoral, bigotry is. One may as well blame the Holocaust on painting, after all Hitler was a painter.