BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
This House Believes That Sense Experience Is The Ultimate Source of Knowledge!

Introduction:This is a debate regarding Epistemology, it seeks to address the age old question which has seperated scientists and philsophers: wether empiricism is significantly the fundamental source of knowledge or whether innate knowledge or rationalistic knowledge forms a significant enough part of human knowledge. The resolution states "rational knowledge" as we do not wish to consider the knowledge that is brought by the exercising of the faculty of imagination. 1.There will be a shared Burden of Proof however whiteflame has a slightly higher Burden of Proof. 2. My opponent will give his argument immediately and will not engage in the last round. The first posts will be a positive case only, while the remaning rounds will have no new arguments and will consist of rebuttals and re-affirming the before case. 3. No semantics will be allowed. 4. Each round has a 10,000 character limit, 24 hour posting period, and the debate has a select winner point system with Elo Restrictions so that only those whose Elo is above 3000 may vote. 5. I request that youtube not be used as it is banned in my country and it will cause me great difficulty in trying to watch a certain video. 6. It is advisable that an easy-to-read font be used and that links are provided to sources cited, it is however not compulsory. 7. The definitions will be taken from the Stanford Encylopedia of Philosophy, when a definition cannot be found there then Oxford Dictionaries will suffice. Other scholarly articles, journals, and wiki's may be used however none are as binding. I have defined some concepts: (In any case the definitions need not be strictly defined as this will not be a semantic debate)a. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. Epistemology is concerned with questions such as: What are the sources of knowledge?. b. Rational Knowledge is that knowledge which has a logical foundation and this also includes any objective knowledge, universal knowledge and/or knowledge which has meaning. c. Empiricism is the theory which asserts that all rational knowledge has its basis in experience insofar as experience is that information gained from the senses. d. Rationalism is the claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience.8. To clarify my opponent has to argue that all knowledge has its roots in the senses while I have to show that there is knowledge which exists absolutely independent of any sense experience. Please do not equate rational knowledge with rationalism.I will define and explain a priori, a posteriori, innate ideas, innate dreams, ontology, and other such terms in my own arguments. I wish my opponent whiteflame the best of luck and hope for this to be an interesting debate. If my opponent wishes anything changed please inform me before accepting. The first round's first line should be acceptance of the preceeding rules by whiteflame. Ajab
Abortion Rights

Before I say any more, I wanted to say that I don't appreciate being treated like a baby because you saw my age on my profile. I may be twelve but I have a genius IQ smart one. Anyways, A child is only a child when it is as developed as a newborn baby. During this time in the pregnancy abortion is hazardous and I do not support this. I support the right to an abortion at an earlier stage of development. The woman should have a say over what happens from then on out.
Abortion Rights

I am not entirely sure that you are new to this site since you had an opinion within hours of joining, but in most debates the person who starts it sets the parameters, since you failed to do so, I will. These definitions are the definitions which will be used during the debate. All are from Merriam-Webster Abortion-the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus Herself- that identical female one —used reflexively, for emphasis, in absolute constructions, and in place of her especially when joined to another object Body-the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead Since you have no resolution I will assume that your statement is indicating that "Because one has control over ones self and body they have to right to an abortion" I am going to base my arguments off this since you did not supply me with anything else that I can work with. Babycenter. com - "The fetus is considered full-term between weeks 35 and 40,which means that the fetus is considered sufficiently developed for life outside the uterus. " As per the definitions used in this round, a baby at this age could be aborted, what does that mean? A baby at this stage in the uterus is -for all intents and purposes- the same as a baby this age outside of the uterus, but yet you still state that it is acceptable to abort a baby at this age? I challenge you to explain the difference between this and infanticide, which is the killing of a child in the earliest stages of life. If it is legal to kill a baby that is the same inside and out of the uterus when in the uterus why not allow the killing of it outside the uterus? If you allow this, you allow infanticide, so where do you draw the line for legal infanticide? Should this make it legal to kill any child that falls under the category infant? These are all things we must consider when deciding the legality and morality of abortion.
Abortion Rights

You have clearly seen my debates so you should know that this is how I always debate, I could care less if you are 12 or 112, if I was babying you I would have said "Oh you forgot to set the parameters, would you like me to skip my turn so you can do that?" Also congratulations on your genius IQ, welcome too the club (OOOOPS WAS THAT POMPOUS?)(Since I'm sure you'll want to compare- 133 in 4th grade, haven't tested since). Although I dont like to make personal attacks please dont challenge me to anymore debates if you are simply going to use them as an opportunity to prove your immaturity and harass me. Sorry to any judges who think that was rude on my part but I don't take eInsults well, something about a person who has never met me judging me just gets on my nerves. Since my opponent has given no factual evidence and has actually contradicted herself by saying "I support the right to an abortion at an earlier stage of development." and "The woman should have a say over what happens from then on out" which is, in fewer words saying she doesn't support abortion after a certain point which she fails to mention but she supports abortion any time after a certain point before the first point I stated.... I stand firm on my evidence and would like the judges to make note that my opponent has neither set nor held to any parameters.
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

As for your first point, I believe you have a fallacy in your logic. If A occurs because of B, it does not mean that A also occurs without B. Bible clearly states that everyone is a sinner, and therefore their ways are dark. Therefore, if some reject Jesus, it is because of their sins and darkness. As for your second point, it is more legitimate. It is a question that arises often. First of all, the only way to be saved is through Jesus Christ. It is written, "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6b). However, the reason we need Jesus is because our ways are dark and we are sinful. Is a man on an island free from sin? Bible is very explicit about this. The answer is no. It is written, "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalms 51:5). Here are some other verses for your reference: Eccl 7:20, Rom 3:23, Jer 17:9, Job 15:14-16. Although one might think that someone who is completely isolated from society is pure from sin, the power of sin reaches beyond any distance and resides in the hearts of everyone. Therefore, one needs Christ to be saved. This debate has been a great chance for me to openly argue for a much debated question. I would like to thank you once again for this opportunity. Sources: New International Version Bible Book of John Book of Romans Book of Psalms Book of Ecclesiastes Book of Jeremiah Book of Job
it is the most reasonable interpretation of the bible to say that some nonchristians can be saved

Can people be saved if they reject Jesus, but not because their ways were dark? Theoretically, yes. But practically, no. It is because there is no one whose ways are not dark. Even the "enlightened" people are considered dark by the standards of God, whose weakness is stronger than human strength. "For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength" (1 Corinthians 1:25). It is written, "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God"s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil" (John 3:18-19). You can see that the reason that the ways of the people are dark is because they are evil. In other words, it is because of their sins. The Scriptures clearly states that no one is free of sin. It is written, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Therefore it can be said that everyone who rejects Jesus is because of their dark ways. It is explicitly written that Jesus is the only way to be saved (go to heaven). For it is written, "Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). I hope this answered the first part of your argument. I am looking forward to the second round. Sources: New International Bible Book of John Book of Romans Book of Corinthians
Flaws are mostly objective

I derived that definition of "flaw" from Bing dictionary. ( http://www.bing.com... ) Both those definitions were conditions of acceptance, and if Pro found fault with them, he should have mentioned it before accepting so that I would gladly change it..but it doesn't matter I suppose. I'll go by his definition since he insists. The definition he gave as "a feature that mars the perfection of something" is an unusable definition since perfection is the absense of flaw, and the subjectivity of flaw is the issue in question. Therefore, I'll go with his second definition. Keep in mind my opponent's definition: A flaw is a defect impairing validity... P1) Flaws are defects impairing validity P2) validity is subjective C) Flaws are subjective P1, This is our commonly accepted definition, as introduced by Con. P2: Validity is subjective How does one determine that something is valid? Well, something is valid if it acts according to our intentions, or fills our intended purposes. You may say a tv is invalid, hence flawed, because it will not turn on...but that presupposes that we INTENDED for the tv to turn on in the first place. Intentions vary from person to person, and while it is the manufacturer’s intention for the tv to turn on and display channels, it may simply be my intention for it to be used as a piece of furniture. Therefore, the tv is not flawed if it meets that purpose. A flaw suggests that an object/person/thing did not meet a standard it was expected to meet. However, I don’t see how one can deny that standards vary. In order for Con to affirm that flaws are mostly objective, or mostly factual, he must affirm that STANDARDS are mostly objective or mostly factual. But there is no such thing as a factual standard – that is an oxymoron! By its very definition of being a standard, it implies that someone somewhere created it, and it does not exist beyond that person’s opinion. P1 is accepted by both Pro and Con, and I have proved P2 correct as well. It logically follows that Flaws are entirely subjective. No matter how you look at it, a flaw depends on individual perceptions, whereas perceptions change.
Flaws are mostly objective

I have found no definition of flaw which uses the word "unfavorable". Someone for example could possibly favor getting alcohol poisining (for some strange reason) so if we use my opponent's false definition of flaw, then of course flaws would be subjective. The point is alchohol poisoning is objectively unhealthy regardless if some insane person "favors" it or not, so it is an objective flaw of the human body/ behavior. Lets use real definitions of "flaw" as guidlines: "flaw1    [flaw] Show IPA noun 1. a feature that mars the perfection of something; defect;fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan. 2. a defect impairing legal soundness or validity. 3. a crack, break, breach, or rent." http://dictionary.reference.com..." flaw 1 n. 1. An imperfection, often concealed, that impairs soundness: a flaw in the crystal that caused it to shatter. See Synonyms at blemish. 2. A defect or shortcoming in something intangible: They share the character flaw of arrogance. 3. A defect in a legal document that can render it invalid." http://www.thefreedictionary.com...There are no definitions which use a bias word such as "unfavorable" (it's bias because what somebody favors is subjective), so if he uses the real definitions of flaw as a guidline then I accept.
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all of the USA.

I'm just going to make this final argument short and sweet and base it on two main points: 1. the 80% of Americans are Christian argument and 2. civil unions vs. gay marriage. As everything said throughout the entire debate focuses on these two main points, I'm just going to focus on these. 1. Ok, since we can't both decide on the Bible as a common ground, I'll give you that, but you have to give me that religion is the basis of everyone's cultural values. By the government allowing everyone to use a religious term, such as "marriage," you would be taking away a part of a person's culture. That's the same if the government said that everyone in America must speak English. Hispanic immigrants would lose part of their culture. Since homosexuals aren't Christian, or most likely aren't, as you said in your last speech, they shouldn't have the ability to inflict upon someone else's culture. I do, however, believe that religious couples should receive the term marriage, when non-religious couples, homo or heterosexual, should receive civil unions. That way, no matter which way one may swing it, it is fair to gays and Christians alike. 2. The previous argument should have been enough of a compromise for you to agree with, as it doesn't shun gays from society by any means, but, as I've said before, if Civil Unions have the same rights as gay marriages, then what is wrong with it? You have yet to really prove that there is anything wrong with Civil Unions, and, now that even heterosexual couples will get Civil Unions, there will be equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples and no hurt is done to anyone's cultural values. As the Con side has provided a workable compromise that still goes against the original argument, I hope you now see that gay marriages are wrong, but the uniting of gay couples can still be workable. As said before, I too hope that you vote for the person that has presented the best argument and I thank you for your time. And thank you for this debate Cindela. It has been really interesting.
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all of the USA.

I'm just going to run down the list of the Pro's arguments: 1. By agreeing with me, you just lost the separation of church and state argument. Since religious views affect our political views, then where else to turn to for political decisions? Religious views are how we determine our morals in just about every aspect of life, including politics, and, since gay marriage is considered morally wrong to about 80% of Americans, those 80% should agree with me. And religious people, for the most part, do accept others views otherwise homosexuality would have been completely shunned from society and there would be no homosexuals. Society accepts gays, just not the defilement of a sacred union such as marriage. 2. The thing about majority rule runs in my favor. If you say that we would be forgetting about 20% of the people and need to focus on those people, I can retort by saying, what about the other 80%? Are we just going to ignore them? No, we need to look at the population as a whole, if 80% find gay marriage morally incorrect, then society finds it morally incorrect. It's not to say, however, that we are going to forget the rest of the population, which I will mention later in my arguments. 3. Your third argument is a little jumpy, so I broke this one down into three sub points: a. You already agreed with me that there was no separation of church and state so this argument is pointless. b. This leads back to my second argument. Although there is no national religion, 80% of America follows the Bible and thus would agree that a marriage is between a man and a woman. c. Because we have established that 80% of Americans are Christian, we can infer that American society is Christian and religion plays a key role in this debate. 4. We agree that no matter the religion of a person, what a person does in the privacy of their own home is their own business, so we can skip this. 5. If you agree that a civil union is basically a marriage, then what is the problem with it. On the other side, if a civil union is called a gay marriage, then the entire principles presented in the Bible would be meaningless and the sacred union of marriage would be defiled. 80% of people's religion would be affected for only 20% of the people, when, as you said it, a civil union would be just as fine and nothing concerning religion would be affected. Furthermore, gays still shouldn't be shunned from society. Once again, as you said it, they will still have the same rights, just under a different name. As a heterosexual, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union if gays outnumbered heterosexual people. "The crux of my argument is that gay people are still people, and they deserve the same rights as all of us." You have made my entire argument. Civil unions give gays the same rights as "gay marriages" would and, thus, civil unions are the solution to the problem. Gays aren't shunned from society through gay marriages, they, if at all, are shunned from society due to ignorant people that aren't accepting of the gay lifestyle.
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all of the USA.

I do agree with you that gay people are still people. It's just the fact that I don't think gay marriage is morally correct. I know that this nation allows for separation of church and state, but it's obvious that everyone's religious views affect their political views. Since this nation is approximately 80% Christian, the Bible should be considered one of the main references in this debate. Now, as marriage in the Bible is defined as a union between a man and a woman, the term "gay marriage" can never exist. Being Catholic, I don't think that being gay is exactly right, but I am a very accepting person and that everyone has a right to do whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes. Since a marriage is public, however, it is affecting others as the most sacred of all unions is defiled. I do feel that a middle ground can be reached. Civil unions do not shun gays from society and allow them to be together. This doesn't defile the union of marriage and creates a compromise that should be acceptable to both parties.
Gay Marraige should be legal and accepted in all of the USA.

Before I begin my argument, I would like to ask everyone who is voting in this debate to vote not based upon your own opinion. Please do not vote for one of us just because your opinions support one of us. Vote for the person who advanced their arguements better and rebutted their opponent's arguments better. Thank you. Now to the actual debate. My first argument is that gay people are still people. Just because one part of them is different, and they prefer people of the same gender, does not mean that we can shun them from society. We don't shun people from marrying people of different religions, or of different races. Then why should we shun people from marrying people of the same gender? Thank you
Plagarism is sexy.

I would like to open my first argument by thanking my opponent for instigating this debate. I would like to iterate one of one necessary points. Major Point #1 "Plagiarism is bad, not sexy" Plagiarism is not considered sexy by anyone, because plagiarism is bad, m'kay? To plagiarize to use someone else's work and claim it as your own, and everyone knows that that is bad and not sexy. (1) I can understand why one may misinterpret plagiarism as sexy, however they would be wrong as the correct statement is that copying is sexy, not plagiarism. Why is copying sexy? Because if you copy the mannerisms and attitude of someone that is sexy, that indeed is sexy. However, were a person to understand that you are copying and attempting to take credit for the original production, that would simply be unethical and pathetic. (2) Checkmate, Pro. Sources: (1) http://cdn.meme.am... (2) http://bsmknighterrant.org...
Plagarism is sexy.

I would like to make a rebuttal in the form of a story: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So there was once this certain son of a deity with a dark complexion and he was walking down the street when he came across his three good friends: Jillian, Marcus and Haylee. When Black Jesus approached his friends they called out to him: "Hey! BJ!" and the three of them asked Black Jesus how he was doing. But here's the thing, Black Jesus has been feeling rather down lately; he has been debating this fellow on the internet over whether or not plagiarism is sexy. "Friends, I have been facing a bit of a problem: what are your thoughts about plagiarism, the act of plagiarism?" Says Black Jesus to his companions. "Oh, plagiarism is bad, m'kay?" replies Jillian. "I concur, plagiarism is very bad," says Marcus. "Yeah," Haylee adds nodding towards Marcus and Jillian. "Well, I know that, it's just- do you also think plagiarism is sexy, you know, like in a naughty way," Black Jesus replies. "Well, obviously, of course plagiarism is sexy in a naughty way," says Marcus. "I have to disagree, plagiarism is bad and genocide is bad, so saying plagiarism is sexy is like saying genocide is sexy," says Haylee. "Shut up, Haylee," says everyone else, and Haylee shuts up. "Well, I don't think plagiarism is sexy," says Jillian, Chief Emperor of all Things Sexy. "Well, I do," says Marcus. "It's just that Jillian's the Chief Emperor of all Things Sexy, Marcus," Black Jesus says. "Well, I don't care what she thinks cause I'm a rebel." Then Jill pulls a dagger from her purse and stabs Marcus in the stomach, twisting the blade deeper in as he gasps for breath. Marcus falls to the ground and chokes out his last words: "Et Tu, Jill? Then fall, Marcus" and then he dies right there on the sidewalk. Black Jesus then takes Jill and Haylee by the hand and they skip off to J.C.Penny's where they are having a back to school sale. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moral of the story: I'm right, vote CON or you may be stabbed with a dagger. I'm not saying I'll do it, but someone might.