BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

You are changing the argument; the argument was very clear. Gay marriage SHOULD be legal. That doesn't mean that marriage is in the constitution, nor does it mean that the supreme court should have the right to decide whether or not it is legal. It means exactly what it says: gay marriage SHOULD be legal. What you are doing is creating a strawman and then arguing against that, rather than arguing against the argument. The argument stated very clearly that I believed that gay marriage should be legal. It did NOT say that I believed that the supreme court has the right to decide this.
Gay Marriage

"by the power vested in me by God and the State of _________, I know pronounce you man and wife." It doesn't say US or Federal government making this subject a clear power of the states as defined in the 10th Amendment. Giving the SCOTUS no authority to make the ruling, which means that Obergefell v. Hodges decision is unconstitutional. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The ontological argument

Someone had to take this. I make the following argument with the utmost respect for Pro and his beliefs: 1) Santa Clause’s existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary.2) Santa Clause’s existence is not logically impossible.3) Therefore, Santa Clause necessarily exists. Premise 1 is true because I will define Santa Clause in a way that does not allow for any contingencies. Premise 2 is true because it is possible to define Santa Clause using only negative properties; such properties that I will simply make up are necessarily logically compatible. Conclusion Pro claims that this argument can not be used to show that something which isn't godlike exists. Pro is confusing his argument with his definition. His definition is of a godlike being, so of course it would not fit anything other then a godlike being. However the logic of the argument is not dependant on the definition he chose. There is no dispute over premise 2 that God is logically possible. However Premise 1 basically states that because he is possible he is necessary. Such an argument can be used to assume the existence of anything, that does not prove that that which is being argued for does in fact exist. One can easily say that God is logically possible but may not exist. Pro offered nothing to dispute this obvious truth. Therefore the argument laid out above does not in fact prove the existence of God as Pro claims, it simply assumes it. The resolution is negated.
The ontological argument

This is Christopher McHugh's version of the Ontological arugment, and it goes like this: 1) God's existence is either logically impossible or logically necessary. 2) God's existence is not logically impossible. 3) Therefore, God necessarily exists. Premise 1 is true because the definition of God does not allow for contingency; it either necessarily exists or it necessarily doesn't exist. Premise 2 is true because it is possible to define God using only negative properties; such properties are necessarily logically compatible. For example: 1) God is not contingent. 2) God is not reliant on anything else. 3) God is not subject to contingent law, such as laws of physics that don't apply in every possible world. 4) God is not natural. 5) God is not any sort of abstract entity. 6) God is not spatiotemporal. 7) God is not finite. 8) God is not deficient in any sense. These characteristics not only show that God's existence is logically possible, but also that this argument cannot be parodied, which is how atheists usually deal with ontological arguments. This logic can be used to show that an evil godlike being exists, and so we would need additional arguments, such as the argument from the Resurrection, to show that God is the Christian God. But this argument cannot show that something that isn't godlike exists. It is foolproof, and it proves the existence of God. Source: http://www.infidels.org...
Most Things Are Preferable to a Sharp Stick in the Eye

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. I've given airmax all the factors of this debate- and quite succinct. I don't think eyesight itself's a detriment but the world's goodness is still a rarity. For example, in pro's second argument, he ignores the principle of charity. A punctured eye is truly amendable with an eyetooth and some scientists, or surgeries- technologies lendable to the powerful and the wealthiest. This is another evil, dear readers. The world is full of unjust, indifferent places. It's apathetic to justice achievers, laughing "who cares?" in their faces. The world's honestly more ungodly than, all the Christians would have us believe. It's more wicked and more tawdry than, "Girls! Girls! Girls!" on Christmas eve. The world is so blatantly and so utterly of disgustingly poor quality. I'd sooner poke my physiognomy with a sharp stick than keep dawdling, through this world of meddling, conspiring, firing, and belittling, dying... It's tiring, unsettling- all the horrors that I'm tallying. Though eyesight remains not an evil in itself, without it many evils would fade with no attention. Eating disorders, racism, pedophilia, and t.v. as well, are some evils which require our visual perception. All of these things are pervasive and common. The bad and the ugly aren't just acts of violence, they're thriving in society and also the government. Optometry keeps on with the Sight-Vice acquiescence. A sharpened stick in the eye is preferable, I'll say it once again, to the things which make an immeasurable, majority of existence. I'd rather have the stick than the tendency to beat and belittle our children, than the propensity for dependency, in our population on drug prescriptions, than the health and mental obstacles, which are detrimental to our contentment, despite our access to the best possible, scenario for self-fulfillment. The laziness and the apathy, the self-centeredness and the greed: It's extensive and its legacy is not worse than an eye bloodied. But that is the world that we live in, it is mostly worse than a hole in one's eye. While a stick to the eye can be forgiven, apologies for the worlds condition- denied. To say that eye injuries are worse than most things is to insult the majority of people, I think, who work til they die, in a life that's a lie. It is bleak but it's true, that when you cry, "WHY 'I'?!" at the sky, all you get is bird poop. Where's that stick for my eye?
Most Things Are Preferable to a Sharp Stick in the Eye

My opponent opens rather strangely, Even accuses me of being senile, Well sit down and listen, And I'll try to teach you for a little while. (But in a way that's less rude sounding) :) I have reviewed all your words, Read every point you did state, If you plan on making an argument against the resolution, It appears you are forcing us to wait. (C1) Let us focus on the resolution, "Most things" are "preferable", Yes, there are things that are worse, But a punctured eye is not curable. My opponent downplays the ability to see, Even saying evil is caused by sight, Yes, everything can be "bad", But it is not quite so black and white. The blind can certainly be happy, But most would still prefer to have vision, If anyone had to choose one or the other, It would be an obvious and easy decision. So let's move passed this, And segue into a new line of thinking, Because most are grateful to be able to see, And have the ability to keep on blinking. Sure there are worse things, But most things are preferable to being blind, So don't poke a sharp stick in my eye, If you would happen to be so kind. (C2) Your data is lacking focus, While you point to the world's brutality, Why add a sharp stick in the eye, On top of what you say is already reality? You can point to anything you like, The world's problems, suffering and strife, Your case is then that "everything", Is preferable to the realities of life? Yes these things are terrible, But we can all list as many good things instead, Sunshine and rainbows, good health and wonder, The feeling of waking rested in a comfy warm bed. Flowers and forests, And the thousands of other typically used things people say, Are all preferable to this subject, Every single time and every single day. Yeah, there are the extremely bad things, But I'd like to think they wont happen to most, So here's to not getting a sharp stick in the eye, Let's all make a toast. (C3) Without extreme examples, Your case lacks anything preferable, I'll concede to some, but there are more that are better, Than a stick in a place, that isn't so durable. And if you continue to argue, These are realities, impossible to miss, Then it's a constant state of being, while living, Not worth adding eye gouging, to what is just this. So everything is preferable, Because you say life just is so, Adding a sharp stick to the eye, Will only make such "realities" grow. (Closing) I have reasserted my arguments, Making the case in favor of the debate's resolution, I have rebutted my opponent's arguments, That are implying only preference for global execution. I'd like to thank my opponent, For her excellent previous round, And I look forward to her next ones, Before I am inevitably crowned. (Just kidding) :)
Most Things Are Preferable to a Sharp Stick in the Eye

Many thanks to my opponent for instigating this debate. I intend to be a proponent of the sharp-stick-in-the-eye fate. The world holds infinite possibilities. Data: the good, the bad, the ugly. Pro, in his senility, made a slanted view so smugly. From the data I have shown you, it's easy for you to recognize that the least close-minded view downplays the threat of sticks to eyes. (C1) What my opponent doesn't realize, yes, what my opponent fails to see, is that he already doesn't need his eyes, or he would see his fallacy. Eyesight's not so important as a lack of genocide nor is a stick to eyes more sordid than a gouging out of eyes. If we measured all the kindness and the evil on this orb we would indeed find blindness is the least of the horror. Blind people can be happier than folks in vegetative states. They can live fuller lives and they can still masturbate. The blind can get ahead. They can have jobs and fun. The same cannot be said of the many starving children. I hope I've put it in perspective that blindness is not the worst thing- no matter if it comes from sticks eye-ward bound and swiftly flying. (C2) From my data you can see, the world is 2/3 atrocity. It is more bad and more ugly than any of us need it to be. There is war and there is torture. There is hunger and there is strife. There are more horrors in the world for causing pain than sticks to eyes. Like sex slavery, baby bombing, blood baths, rape, and gangs, cannibalism, live embalming of the not quite fully hanged. My opponent, with blind optimism, fails to see the ugly truth of this terrible, violent world we live in. Most of it is quite uncouth. It's better to have a sharp stick in the eye than most things which could occur, for the world is a horrible place of lies, deceit, exploitation, and murder. (C3) No extreme examples are obligatory to show the natural inclination for eye-loving projectiles oh so pointy. It's common sense in application. If a scale were to be made, of all the things in existence a sharp stick pointed at your face becomes the path of least resistance. (Final words) Now I have made my case, and you can see that Pro's mistaken, because there are so few fates, not most, preferable to eye impalement.
Most Things Are Preferable to a Sharp Stick in the Eye

Most Things Are Preferable To A Sharp Stick In The Eye, Opening Round A Poem by AirMax1227 (Intro) Resolved: Most things are preferable, To a sharp stick to the eye, By the end of the debate you'll know it's true, And you will also know why. I'd like to thank my opponent, For participating in this very important debate, One likely filled with violent allusions, Like blunt head injuries or being flattened by freight. My opponent will contend, That my resolution on this matter is not true, But she will soon be defeated, So when voting, you'll know what to do. (But provide a good RFD please) (C1) Let us now start with argument one, This contention emphasizes importance of vision, One should not potentially lose it, With an eye to sharp stick collision. Some may think it's fun, Dodging sharp sticks may actually be great, But not nearly at the risk, Of not being able to aim when you urinate. It's also important to note, That it's effect may not only be urinary precision, You may also drop a pair of scissors, a knife, or a fork, Possibly leading to an extreme circumcision. While this may seem unlikely, It is a risk one shouldn't take, Almost everything is preferable to this, So avoid it for goodness sake. (C2) Contention two is a very fine contention, Filled with merriment, dancing, and fun, A sharp stick to the eye aint cool brah, So just don't do it son. So many things are better than this, Like drugs of so many different varieties, Ethnic cleansing, random acts of violence, And the exploitation of 3rd world societies. There are some things you may consider worse, Some things you may even have tried, Babies in wood chippers, nuking the dolphins, Perhaps, even the occasional genocide. So why waste your time on a stick to the eye, When you could instead be getting bricked to the face, It's at least slightly better also, To have a skull caved with a mace. (Well, maybe not) (C3) Now for my final contention of this round, I will point to things better to happen instead, Everything and anything is preferable yo, Well then, I win this round, time for me to go to bed. (Closing) Perhaps in some extreme comparisons, It is something one actually might prefer, But when the debate concludes and all arguments have been made, I am confident that with regards to the resolution, most will concur.
The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

I. Job Creation My opponent cites Wikipedia and says that the Chamber of Commerce is biased through lobbying, but it does not say anything about the Keystone Pipeline. There is simply nothing in the source that links it to the Pipeline. This argument fails. My opponent talks about pouring water into a river, but that does not talk about the economic effects of the pipeline. With more jobs, the economy will grow much better because unemployment will be down and more people will purchase stuff. My opponent ignored many of the other sources I had on jobs. In fact, I even have another one. [1] II. GDP My opponent claims that my sources have no evidence, but does not bring any sources to back him up. I have further information here: "The study further concluded that once the pipeline is operational, the states along the pipeline route are expected to receive an additional $5.2 billion in property taxes during the estimated operating life of the pipeline. The $7 billion pipeline project is expected to directly create more than 15,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the US."[6] This is within one year of construction." The fourth link worked for me. III. Gas Prices "Recently, for example, oil that is imported and sold on the U.S. Gulf Coast is trading around $90U.S. per barrel. Western Canadian oil is currently trading for $70 U.S. per barrel."[2] In addition, "Currently, over 20 percent of our imported oil comes from Canada... Once the pipeline is completed, over 33 percent of our imported oil will come from Canada."[3] Again, my opponent has not contested that higher supply means lower prices. IV. Midwest Economy Other matters. V. Long-term Contributions My opponent does not need a link or a title. All he had to do was refute the source and that he failed to do. My opponent has failed to explaine how the Middle East refinery (which is only partly Middle East) is bad. C1. My opponent argues that delaying the pipeline is better so new resources can develop and become more avalible. However, he fails to show any sources. C2. My opponent has not properly refuted me. Conclusion I have successfully argued the great economic benefits of then pipeline that my opponent has failed to refute. My opponent has failed to support his arguments. I strongly urge the voters to vote Pro. Sources 1. http://news.investors.com... 2. http://www.transcanada.com... 3. http://www.nam.org...
The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

I. Job CreationYes, the Chamber of Commerce says that. But they are hardly independent--remember, they are an industry lobbying group[1]. Meanwhile, the Cron article doesn't actually cite any sources and just makes bald assertions. Hardly convincing. For that matter, I can't find their actual document where they say that.Pro then goes on to say that he wins because I agree that it would add jobs. That's ridiculous. Hiring people to pour oil into rivers would create jobs. It would also be freaking stupid. 'It creates jobs' isn't a blanket justification for things. Again: We must look at the risk as well as the benefit, or we run a high chance of doing something really stupid.II. GDPPro's sources make a bunch of assertions not backed up by much evidence; since they have a vested interest in making the project look good I think I'll be rather suspicious of it.Oh, and the fourth source link doesn't work.III. Midwest Oil PricesAgain, the problem is that the oil is actually being diverted away from the Midwest as the pipeline is built.IV. Midwest EconomyThis part has been integrated into our matters.V. Long Term ContributionsYou quote something that is itself unsupported, then. It just says 'an independent study'. What independent study? I see no link and I see no title.And honestly, I fail to see how bringing up the fact that the refinery is owned by the people we're trying to not rely on is irrelevant. You say that the pipe will help us be independent, regarding energy, from the Middle East. Yet a key Middle East power owns the refinery.C1. Environmental CostsThe Keystone XL still shouldn't be built. Neither should a pipeline to China. Leaving aside the fact that we don't know for sure the pipeline will be built (environmental groups based in the United States could work with ones based in Canada to block the pipe), if we're particularly concerned with the United States, wouldn't it be best not to have the pollution affect our aquifers?Furthermore, we can reasonably conclude that blocking the pipe here will at least delay it. And buying time could be very useful, if in the interim renewable sources of energy and such continue to develop and become more economical than things like the tar sands.And I fail to see how my opponent manages to argue that tar sands aren't all that bad from what he's said.C2. Improper OversightAnd we'll fight it in China too.1. https://en.wikipedia.org...
The Keystone XL Pipeline Should Be Built

I. Job CreationWell, I'd like to say that I could go and look at their donors, but they keep their donor identities secret, so that would be pretty damn difficult, wouldn't it[1]?II. GDPI do have sources to back up that your sources have no sources--your sources. I suggest that those reading this debate read them.TransCanada is making a sales pitch. They aren't paid to give unattractive estimates of the results of building the pipeline, they won't want to believe that the pipeline would do harm, and they're fighting a PR battle to get it built so they can make money off it. That's their interest: money.So they aren't going to give out facts that make people less willing to support it, and they're probably going to give the most optimistic value possible for the benefits, rather than the most realistic one. Conflicts of interest like these are why we independent surveyors and evaluators. And the only independent study that has been cited here (as opposed to simply stated as existing without so much as a title or group) doesn't give the pipe much ammunition.III. Midwest Oil PipelinesThe problem is that supply will decrease in the Midwest. That is what I have been arguing all along, and my opponent seems to have missed this.V. Long-Term ContributionsWell, then, I refuted the source! I prevented an independent study that disagreed with it, and we actually know what that study is, as opposed to your link, which just claims that an independent study said it without any back-up at all!And I'm not saying it's bad, just that it isn't energy independence.C1. Environmental DamagesHere are some instances of renewable energy sectors growing: Texas oilman Pickens came up with a plan to supply 20% of the nation's power through wind[2] Wind power grew by 45% in a single year[3] Wind power in general is pretty much growing along an exponential curve[4] Despite setbacks, solar power has continued to grow, and is providing more and more power[5] C2. Improper Oversight Pro is basically arguing that we should resign ourselves to corruption, that we should simply say 'Oh, well, at least we get a few jobs out of it'. I say that we should fight it wherever it manifests. 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... 2. www.pickensplan.com/wind/3. http://www.worldwatch.org...4. http://www.gwec.net...5. http://www.cleanedge.com...
There is no mechanism that permits free will to exist.

I thought the argument I presented was a strong argument. Despite this, I didn't realize it would cause the Con position to tap out. I will take Con's silence as a concession. I'll leave the audience with a quote, "I have a condition. People like me are prone to violent fantasy and jealous rage; we are over 10 times more likely to commit murder and over 40 times more likely to commit sexual assault. Most prisoners suffer from my condition, and almost everyone on death row has it. Relative to other people, we have an abundance of testosterone, which is associated with dominance and aggression, and a deficit in oxytocin, associated with compassion. My sons share my condition, and so does my father." http://chronicle.com... What is the condition this writer speaks of? The condition of being a male. The act of being a male, the physical characteristics that encompass being a male, drastically increases the likelihood of incarceration. Free will doesn't exist. You are your genes. There is no mechanism that grants us free will, while mapping to observed behavior.
There is no mechanism that permits free will to exist.

The point of this debate will be to think about if there is a way/mechanism in which free will can exist. Pro will argue that there is no mechanism that permits free will to exist. Con will argue that there is a mechanism that offers us free will. Since Pro cannot argue against all imaginable paths to free will, Pro shouldn't be held to an unreasonable standard of proof. Grade Pro on the strength of the argument. In order for Con to win the debate, Con must offer some type of mechanism that can grant us free will. Since Con is in the defensive position, having to argue for a positive claim (there is a mechanism), I will grant Con a few exceptions. One, Con doesn't have to demonstrate the mechanism exist. Con only has to offer a mechanism that could grant us free will. Two, Con is free to use magic or any other means to create his mechanism. Once again, it isn't important for Con to prove the mechanism exists, only that if it did, we could have free will. One last stipulation, the realities of human behavior will be factored in with the mechanism. When these two are paired, and then we compare that to the world we see, in order for the mechanism to be valid, it must fit with what we know from human behavior. It must be able to explain the diverse behavior patterns we see in the world. Definition of free will. Free=untethered, Will=ability to make any choice. Free will=untethered choices Round 1, acceptance Round 2, Pro argues no mechanism can work Con presents his mechanism for free will Round 3, Further arguments and rebuttals Round 4, no new points, further support for previous arguments, rebuttals and conclusions A lit p.s., I had posted this debate already. However the Con positions seemed to be debating another topic. If you accept the debate, please accept the definition of free will and be prepared to argue for the key point, the mechanism. Thank you