BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Self-Ownership Libertarianism

At this time I will rebut Pro's case. P1. SOCIAL FREEDOM Pro describes how much our freedom may increase under a SOL system; yet, he fails to justify how this is a good thing. It seems to me that giving people the freedom to "own a pet tiger and let it maul you" is actually a bad thing--while this may maximize your right freedom, it undermines your right to life. Life seems, on face, like a much more desirable thing to retain than the near-absolute freedom Pro is forced to advocate for. Surely, the type of restrictions we have in our current system still allow us the necessary space and liberty to self-actualize, while ensuring that our own foolhardiness doesn't jeopardize our right to life. P2. ECONOMIC FREEDOM Pro says that taxes would plummet--in fact, under SOL, taxes would be illegal. SOL states that we own the products of our labor, and taking away those products by force is theft. Therefore, all taxation is theft. The government could only be run through voluntary donations; so, it is completely possible that the government might not have the money to run its police, military, and judicial arms due to a lack of voluntary donations by the public it serves. This is definitely going to undermine Pro's first argument about social freedom. It also derails Pro's flat tax plan as being Con, not Pro, ground. In other words, I could implement Pro's plan, but Pro can't. Moreover, since government cannot regulate the markets, America would likely see a repeat of the industrial horrors of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle, where companies put out unsafe products, grossly underpaid their workforce, and accrued monopolies to extort exorbitant fees out of consumers. This would lower quality of life in America. With no one able to check against abuses, companies are free to abuse. For example, if companies in the food industry decide they want to massively underpay their workers to increase profits, they could do it. If they then decided to increase the prices of food, they could also do it because, like OPEC and oil, the cartel has an effective monopoly that prevents competition from driving down prices. There is no reason this wouldn't occur in every single industry, making it virtually impossible to find good paying jobs, or cheap products. The income gap would skyrocket, and upward mobility would freeze (the rich save money for themselves, vice giving back to their workers). Adam Smith himself wrote, "The landlords' role in the economic process is passive. Their ability to reap a revenue solely from ownership of land tends to make them indolent and inept, and so they tend to be unable to even look after their own economic interests." [1] Companies are wholly self-interested, profit-motivated entities. There has to be a separate entity out there balancing the scales in favor of the public welfare. 1 - http://en.wikipedia.org...
True debaters never lie, or qoute liars, as a source of truth.

True debaters are those who debate. False debater would be a person who claims he debates but doesn't. I already talked about this, in my debate http://www.debate.org... This debate is a source of truth because I pushed the boundaries of traditional debating by talking about debates themselves and by examining the criteria to evaluate debates, exposing them to amusing (yet meaningful) comments. Pushing the boundaries (in that case) meant in some sense, escaping debates, thus being able to acquire truth. "True debaters" do lie, or quote liars, maybe not consciously, but they do, i also explain that in my other debate http://www.debate.org...
True debaters never lie, or qoute liars, as a source of truth.

My opponent has not yet given a reason to defend his point. I can prove that even debates can be false themselves: http://www.debate.org... Check this debate. "Pro is not going to win this debate". Now, who won? Pro. 14 points to 0. In this case it wasn't even Pro who lied. The voters turned his words into lies by making him win. So what is important in a debate? Once again, it's not truth. It's credibility: having people believe that you are right. So debaters can still lie if they are believable.
The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

The 1ST VERSE is where the 'magnitude' (I say magnitude because I have not included units for their being unknown) 1581.13883 is introduced---or the sqrt of 2500000. I figured it unnecessary to explain that only Heavens and Earth are present as of yet (as creations by God) and mathematically if any two regions exist there is a third region inbetween them, but for clearness, I will consider some such reference in the future. The magnitude does refer to size and in fact is the tangent (plane, line, etc.) of the sphere or dome. There is actually more than one possible interpretation, so I left it alone. The 2ND VERSE has been unrecognized by my opponent. Claimed is that there is no obviousness to the division sign when clearly in the video it is stated that the numerator is symbolized by the formless wasteland (where the earth is existing, viz. an identity) and the denominator is symbolized by the abyss (where the darkness is existing). Not only may I conclude my opponents claim of petitio principii is inaccurate because we can clearly see the argument begins with the magnitude (one symbol) and proceeds to be broken into parts but his argument is gravely misleading (unethical) in virtue of the psychological association principle. The 3RD VERSE takes what has been presented and incorporates light, but in order to do this a constant is necessary. Defining what epsilon symbolizes in existence is rendered mysterious and unnecessary as the math is consistent without it. But we do know what epsilon is in physics. Since I am the one to apply light in the equation, it makes sense that I cannot interpret what epsilon is, thus leaving light originally uniterpretable. Since my opponent has made the claim that I am begging the question and falsely, I must claim that he is attacking me (the person) and not my argument. Thankyou, come again.
The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

Accurate, let alone interesting, BIBLE MATH! Woot! http://www.youtube.com... Presented is the original Latin Text of the Bible, of which the English translation (NAB) is based, and finally the math. The Preachatician begins with a magnitude, which is equivalent to an expression with the same amount of subjects as the original words. Then, by rewriting the same magnitude incorporates the physical constant of light into the expression together with the verse in which God created the light. The constant which symbolizes darkness is removed from the expression together with the verse in which God separates the darkness from light. The magnitude of evening, so-called, is accurate throughout every evening. That the magnitude becomes the radius of the dome is an accurate interpretation based on the fact that the subjects are accurately symbolized in the corresponding verses. The quantity, pi, symbolizes the earth---originally, and it reappears in the corresponding verse where earth is mentioned. The circle is an accurate interpretation of the vegetation God brought forth, based on its divisibility into equal parts. Two-dimensional coordinates along the circumference of the circle possess qualities which appear in verses. Someone debate me to here more of my ideas.
The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

Contrary to what my opponent stated, the topic of the debate is as follows: "The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation"The number, or stipulative definition, whichever my opponent inevitablly decides is 1581.13883 and was apart of his "Bible Maths". Therefore, if it can be questioned, it is a valid item of my opponents debate to question. There has been no distorting of arguments here. Secondly, no where did I attack my opponent in person. I urge the audience to decide for themselves whether I attacked my opponent, as it is not apparent to myself. To conclude this debate, I would like to reiterate a few points. Throughout this debate, I have raised valid problems with my opponents arguments. These have been in the form of fallacies. Each of these fallacies contribute to a bad argument. An argument with at least one fallacy is a fallacious argument. I have shown inconsistencies in my opponents Bible Maths. The mathematics my opponent has presented is not only inconsistent with itself, but also with the exact words and phrases of Genesis chapter one. As the mathematics did not objectively reflect the text, I conclude that my opponents interpretation is inaccurate. I urge the audience to vote with an open mind. Review what has been presented, review my opponents initial video and each round of the debates. If you believe that I, the Con have presented a more compelling argument, then vote for myself.
The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

As my opponent did not argue against any of the points I made, all points from my previous argument are still valid. I do not have much to say about my opponents round three argument as nothing was said that is relevant to the topic.My opponent requests that I analyse his interpretation. I have done just this, and through reason have come to the justified conclusion that it is an inaccurate interpretation. In order to do this, I reasoned using logic raising fallacies that my opponent had committed in his video and debate regarding the accuracy of his mathematical interpretation of Genesis Chapter One.I would like to remind my opponent that verbal abuse is not a valid component of a debate and hope he will refrain from such verbal abuse in the future.As mentioned previously, all the points from my previous argument are still valid. So I will repeat once again the questions I have raised for my opponent. In order to justify his claims and present a less fallacious argument, he must address the following areas: 1. My opponents separation of light from darkness in Genesis 1:42. Why my opponent is able to use the value of mathematical constants in his interpretation and where in the text did he get these values from?3. Why my opponents mathematical formula do not cover every element of text in each verse4. How is my opponents choice of initial magnitude justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:1)5. How is my opponents choice to divide the earth by the darkness justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:2)6. How is my opponents choice of including an epsilon, which he claims a necessity to introduce the constant of light, justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:3)If my opponent is unable to properly address these areas, either directly or indirectly, the points I made in my round one and two arguments will still stand unless proven that they are fallacious themselves. If this is the case and my points do stand proven, we can conclude that my opponents interpretation of Genesis Chapter One is inaccurate.
Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

Pro questions whether I am in charge of a pilotry company. I am, and it is larger than all of the others. If Pro and the judges accept that statement as true, then I win because the amount of pilots I have outweighs all that Pro brings up. If Pro and the judges don't accept that statement, then they similarily cannot accept Pro's case since it is the same exact claim/impact/argument. Since full BoP is on Pro, my case/argument doesn't have impact, only Pro's does. On Pro's last argument, that mistake was as a result of inadequate description in the pilot training, not the system itself. Thus we cannot conclude from that argument that Airbus systems are a cause, or have correlation. Pro does not fulfill the resolution, I win.
Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

I would be curious to know what pilot corporation you own, with the number of staff present and in operation, the airline companies involved, the airliners in operation, the organisation's purpose and your relationships with the FAA, the BEA, the European Union and the ICAO. And, like you said in your second round, "Just because someone says you're right doesn't mean you are right." So, theoretically, you are contradicting yourself, saying that your pilots are right and their opinion about the system. And, who knows, this information could be biased because your take the information from your own pilots that could support you. Anyways, here is my last and final argument: About the crash of Asiana Airlines that occurred on July 6, 2013, the NTSB concluded that the probable cause of the accident was the unintended cut-off of the 777's automatic airspeed control. According to aviationweek.com publishing the opinion of a group of experts at the NTSB, "An action that investigators linked in part to the pilot's confusion about the operations of the Flight Level Change (FLCH) mode of the automatic flight control system. Mode confusion topped the list of five contributing factors, with investigators finding that "complexities of the auto-throttle and autopilot flight director systems that were inadequately described in Boeing"s documentation and Asiana"s pilot training" increased the likelihood of mode error."
Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

First of all, I, the Pro, didn't plagiarize at all, because all the paragraph was written by myself and the last statement made by an aviation expert was in quotations; it isn't necessary to rewrite a whole sentence meaning the same opinion when you want to have a solid proof of the saying of the expert. On the other hand, you, the Con, should defend your position and counter-argue my statements by simple facts that are logical and precise, instead of moralizing my statements and my sayings. And about the NTSB and the FAA, both represent national American agencies officially accredited by the U.S. government, so when a statement is made, it should be considered true and serious, because extensive research and studies have been made. Upon this, here is another argument: Electrical systems and computer management are becoming more and more complex every discovery and perfection we make. This is so well done, that even the professionals in the subject and every day users of sophisticated avionics and aircraft technology can no longer completely understand the complex mechanisms of actions in the flight computer. This in big part due to the amount of individual parts in our complicated machines that have exponentially increased over the past 200 years. A good example of an airline systems that has become notoriously overwhelming for pilots to use is the elaborated Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TCAS). TCAS warns pilots of inbound airline traffic in the path of the aircraft showing the imminent collision on a screen. While avoiding midair collision is a complex problem in itself, the avionics controlling the anti-colliding system has essentially become too complicated for us to understand, and even experts sometimes react with surprise to its behavior.
Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

Pro's first argument is that the NTSB made recommendations to remove some automation systems. First of all, this does not affirm the resolution. Pro needs to show that pilots to the best of their ability simply cannot use the systems at all. Showing that flying skills would improved if some systems were removed does not show that the pilots cannot use the system at all. Thus this argument has no impact since it is irrelevant. Even if we accept that it is relevant, it is another appeal to authority fallacy. Just because the NTSB says you're right doesn't mean you are right. Pro needs to explain why he is right. Pro also plagarized his entire response, see here http://www.popularmechanics.com... Thus he loses conduct and argument points for breaking the law, and not coming up with any arguments of his own.
Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

During the last years, the NTSB (the national transportation safety board, responsible for investigating air accidents) made report recommendations to several airline companies as well as the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to improve manual pilot flying skills and several automation systems removed, such as the selection of VOR by pilots on certain airports and the reductions of VOR and localizers. Following the crash of Asiana Airlines flight 214, investigators uncovered almost no experience form either pilots on manual flying and landing of the triple 7. This was very alerting, especially for a Boeing crew, because Boeing aircraft are made in such way that pilots have greater control on the aircraft, and it is assumed that pilots have manual flying skills already acquired to fly these airplanes. Airbus, on the other hand, lets the avionics and the autopilot to reject a pilot's request if the request doesn't match the appropriate action to take. According to William Voss, president of the Flight Safety Foundation, pilots may not be trained to transition quickly in a crisis from monitoring an automated flight to piloting a complex aircraft. "We have to get back to automation as a tool to manage the aircraft," he says. "It should be serving us, not the other way around."
Airbus computer systems (avionics) are too sophisticated for pilots to use.

Pro's only argument for the motion is that aviation experts agree with him. This is an appeal to authority. Pro needs to explain why this is true, not that a person of authority agrees with him. Thus Pro's entire side thus far is negated, and has no impact. I'd also like to point out that Pro has the full BoP since he is making a claim, and thus has to affirm it.
Baseball is better than Basketball

Baseball is better than basketball because it takes more intellectual thought. Also, it is Americas past time. So, if you are an American you have to love baseball. Also, all basketball is, is a bunch of thugs running up and down a court. Also, they really don't start playing in tell the last 19 seconds. Another reason baseball is better than basketball is because in baseball both teams get a equal amount of chances no matter what. There is no time limit like there is in basketball.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

Conclusion Con never refuted my argument. He dropped his first objections for one that assumes knowing and not knowing are the same thing. Con makes a case based on the fine tuning of the Earth. I refuted this and Con misquoted Stephen Hawking. Con doesn't properly answer my response to his thermodynamic argument. He only goes after 1 thing that's well supported in physics. To top it all off, he forfeits R4. This violates one of the agreed rules, making me the winner.
The Evidence Points to Atheism

I will post my argument Magic8000's Non-Cognitivism Argument 1. God is outside of our understanding and experience 2. We give meaning to words by our understanding and experience C. “God” is meaningless (From 1 and 2) Con probably agrees with 1. It's logically proven if he doesn't. God is usually defined as “Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent” We have no experience of these things in reality. We have no experience of all power or all knowledge, we have experence of some power and some knowledge but it's far from experiencing all of it. Michael Martin writes [1] In the first place, when terms like “is loving”, “is forgiving”, and “brings about” are applied to God, they seem to mean something very different from what they mean when they are applied to human beings. For example, when we speak of a mother as being loving, we are referring in part to her behavior, and in particular the way she responds to her children. When we say that Jones brought about a fire, we are referring to certain of his bodily actions, such as his carelessly throwing a match onto a pile of paper. But when we say God is loving or God brought about a miracle, we cannot be referring to the behavior or bodily action of God, for He has no body. Finally, George Smith says [2] All of the supposedly positive qualities of God arise in a distinctively human context of finite existence, and when wrenched from this context to apply to a supernatural being, they cease to have meaning. By classic Theistic reasoning, God is perfect, we are not. We can't understand “perfection” because we are imperfect. In fact the Catholic Church actually said God is “incomprehensible” and “ineffable” [3] 2 is simply known a priori and I don't think it will be disputed. If a word is meaningless, any attempt to prove it is useless! This makes atheism the only justified position. As a god can no more exist than any other meaningless thing that doesn't refer to reality such as a “zsgarbub”. Strongatheism. net writes [4] “. .. to say, “A God exists” insofar as it attempts to construct itself as a proposition is false because the term “God” does not refer to an actual concept, and therefore to posit such a statement supposing that it does and that this referent exists in reality as something is an untrue positive declaration. .. .. . One cannot posit the existence of something if that something means nothing. The term itself, without referring to any specific concept or possible instantiation, holds no actual or even potential place in reality. In truth, it is amusing to note that the theistic position is unwittingly equivalent to the atheistic position, as to posit belief in “God” actually means “belief in nothing” – the stance of atheism. ” The resolution is affirmed Now to Con [1] Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, Chapter 1. [2]George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1979), Chapter 3. [3] 1968 National Catholic Almanac, edited by Felician A. Foy, O. F. M. (Paterson: St. Anthony’s Guild, 1968), p. 360 [4] . http://www.strongatheism.net...
The crusades were justified responses to Muslim Aggresion

Thank you :) Well before we dive into this topic lets begin with a few basic definitions Christianity: The Monotheistic religion following the teachings of Christ mainly prevalent in Europe and the Americas Islam: Another monotheistic religion following the teachings of Muhammed prevalent in the Middle East and parts of Asia Jihad: Muslim concept of Holy war preached by Muhammed in the Quran Crusades: a series of wars taken up by the Catholic church to reclaim the Holy land of Israel where Jesus preached Now that weve gotten those out of the way, lets begin, against popular opinion, the crusades were not Christian wars of aggression. In fact, The Muslims were taking over vast swathes of Christian land long before Pope Urban called for the first crusade. The holy land of Jerusalem and Israel, where Jesus preached, was taken over by Muslim armies 400 years before the Christians ever decided to fight back. By the time the Catholic church raised the call to arms, Muslim hordes had overran Egypt (birthplace of Christian monasticism) Israel (Area where Jesus preached) All of Northern Africa, and had even established a foothold in Europe. Nations like Spain and Portugal fell to invading moors who would occupy the country for nearly 100 years. If you are looking for the start and provoker of this war, you need not look farther than the Muslims. Additionally, Christians actually had no concept of holy war before the crusades began. The necessity came after Muslim armies were at the doorstep of Europe and the Vatican. I found a very helpful map illustrating all the battles of the crusades vs all the battles of Muslim Jihad. https://www.google.com.... As you can see, Muslim armies did far more pillaging and conquering than their Christian counterparts. Christians had a clear goal to retake the holy land and stop the Turks from advancing further. The Muslims, however, clearly wanted to take over the entire Christian world and convert all to Islam. The simple fact is that Europe was backed into a corner by a rampant and savage invader and they were forced into defending themselves. I anxiously await my opponents responses to these arguments and hope he will come up with some of his own