BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself.

"I am unsatisfied with the responses to questions 5..." By "to an extent," I mean, we don't lack free will completely, but at the same time, we don't have complete free will over everything that happens to us. "...7..." Alright, then. I'll just say, yes. "Pro has failed to answer question 10 at all, resulting in my victory." Wrong. I have an answer. "Within a given range with a different maximum and minimum, there are more real numbers, but technically, there is an infinite number of both." So, it is yes in the first situation, but no in the second situation. "In #9, by answering 'yes', Pro has assumed that P=NP..." What? Could you explain the relationship between #9 and P=NP? Furthermore, it asks if something is possible, and I can write answers in anywhere from ten seconds to a large number of minutes, while finding contradictions could be done within that range of time. So, P could equal NP, technically, so there is no contradiction. "However, in #1, he stated that he does not have any proofs for unproven conjectures, so he could not possibly know if P=NP." But it is possible that P=NP. Plus, one can't have proofs for unproven conjectures, as that is a contradiction in itself. I do know that P could be equal to NP, because I know hardly anything at all about the situation. "However, it is not logically impossible to create a being more powerful than oneself." Not when "oneself" happens to have infinite power. At that point, it is logically impossible to create a being with higher than the highest infinite power. "11. Can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" No. "12. Are you capable of correctly answering the rest of the questions, provided that a correct answer is possible?" Yes. "13. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over safety?" Again, a balance is needed. We shouldn't wall ourselves in our houses all day, but we shouldn't run out in the woods naked. "14. Should the government be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives?" To an extent. Government shouldn't know what you're doing every second of your life, but they should be aware of your residence, your employment, etc. "15. Do you believe that the Bible is truth?" Yes. "16. Do you believe that citizens convicted of murder should be imprisoned in most cases?" That would have to depend on the ratio of cases in which imprisonment is acceptable and cases in which the death penalty is acceptable. "17. Imagine a set that contains all sets that aren't members of themselves. Does it contain itself?" Yes. "18. Is the distribution of prime numbers truly random?" No. "19. Do you agree with all your stands on the BIG issues?" Assuming that we define the BIG issues however I please. "20. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong in the first trimester of pregnancy?" Yes.
I will not contradict myself.

I am unsatisfied with the responses to questions 5 ("to an extent" is vague), 7 (you know what I meant by "instrument", don't avoid the question (though I can understand your reasoning, since I might have been trying to trick you, although I wasn't in this case)), and 10 (I'm talking about all real numbers and all integers; "there are an infinite number of both" does not answer the original question). Pro has failed to answer question 10 at all, resulting in my victory. Nevertheless, I will continue. ======== Contradiction One: #1 and #9 In #9, by answering "yes", Pro has assumed that P=NP (http://en.wikipedia.org...), an unproven conjecture. However, in #1, he stated that he does not have any proofs for unproven conjectures, so he could not possibly know if P=NP. I think that in this context, the meaning of "write" is clear enough. But before Pro tries anything tricky, I wish to define "write". I do not mean "to inscribe in print", but instead I mean "to compose and set down", which entails coming up with an idea for an answer and then writing it down. Contradiction Two: #2 and #4 Pro cleverly avoided some problems by stating that God cannot do the logically impossible. However, it is not logically impossible to create a being more powerful than oneself. I reserve the right to later point out further contradictions from round 2. ======== 11. Can God create a rock so heavy that even He cannot lift it? 12. Are you capable of correctly answering the rest of the questions, provided that a correct answer is possible? 13. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over safety? 14. Should the government be allowed to keep track of citizens' personal lives? 15. Do you believe that the Bible is truth? 16. Do you believe that citizens convicted of murder should be imprisoned in most cases? 17. Imagine a set that contains all sets that aren't members of themselves. Does it contain itself? 18. Is the distribution of prime numbers truly random? 19. Do you agree with all your stands on the BIG issues? 20. Do you believe that abortion is morally wrong in the first trimester of pregnancy?
I will not contradict myself.

"1. Do you have any proofs for relatively well-known unproven conjectures?" No. "2. Does an omnipotent* God exist? (*having unlimited power or ability)" If "unlimited" includes the logically impossible, then no. Otherwise, yes. "3. Does an omniscient* God exist? (*having total knowledge)" If "total" includes that which cannot be known, then no. Otherwise, yes. "4. Can God create a being more powerful than himself?" No. "5. Do humans have free will?" To an extent. "6. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over security?" There should be a balance between liberty and security, so it would have to depend on the situation. People should have their entire lives regulated by government, but at the same time, we should have a justice system. "7. Assuming perfectly accurate instruments, is it possible to, with perfect accuracy, observe both the momentum and position of a fundamental particle at some given time?" It would obviously depend on what instruments you use. A perfectly accurate thermometer and a perfectly accurate scale aren't going to help you much. "8. When in conflict, should human life be valued over liberty?" Yes. "9. Assuming that you and I are equally fast at all fundamental operations: is it possible for you to write answers that follow the rules and have no contradictions in the same amount of time that it takes me to find any rule breaks/contradictions by you, assuming that I am trying to optimize my speed?" Yes. "10. Are there more real numbers (sqrt(2), pi, etc) than there are integers (3, -5, 2, etc)?" Within a given range with a different maximum and minimum, there are more real numbers, but technically, there is an infinite number of both.
I will not contradict myself.

1. Do you have any proofs for relatively well-known unproven conjectures? 2. Does an omnipotent* God exist? (*having unlimited power or ability) 3. Does an omniscient* God exist? (*having total knowledge) 4. Can God create a being more powerful than himself? 5. Do humans have free will? 6. When in conflict, should liberty be valued over security? 7. Assuming perfectly accurate instruments, is it possible to, with perfect accuracy, observe both the momentum and position of a fundamental particle at some given time? 8. When in conflict, should human life be valued over liberty? 9. Assuming that you and I are equally fast at all fundamental operations: is it possible for you to write answers that follow the rules and have no contradictions in the same amount of time that it takes me to find any rule breaks/contradictions by you, assuming that I am trying to optimize my speed? 10. Are there more real numbers (sqrt(2), pi, etc) than there are integers (3, -5, 2, etc)?
I will not contradict myself.

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 11. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com... Good luck.
Raping, Looting, Pillaging, Plundering, Are all basic needs of conquest

Look we can split hairs on this debate about whether majority of conquests require looting, Pillaging, Raping and plundering and I have to agree majority do. Like in a democratic society, Majority wins, You will never have 100% approval/agreement on anything in life, But for me majority might as well mean all or at least most. Just like Trump becoming President, Sure many people didn't vote for him, But bottom line is he IS the President. Well the same can be said for MOST conquests. Conquests will always have the invading army take land by force, Which will include looting, Pillaging, Raping and plundering. Those are basic behaviors of conquest. And I'm sure there are few exceptions but for the most part that is the behavior of conquest. Just like for example if North Korea sent their 1 million soldiers to invade the USA, The first thing they would do in America is loot because they have nothing in North Korea, They would plunder, Pillage and rape all women here as an act of war aggression. Chances are during an invasion that is what would happen. So I say all conquests but you can argue for the 5% that would have peaceful conquests, (maybe by the Vatican) but for the most part those are the basic needs of humans Good debate my friend
Raping, Looting, Pillaging, Plundering, Are all basic needs of conquest

Okay, First of all, Technically aliens could come to earth purely for peaceful and scientific reasons, Aka to connect with a new civilization, And may not even be interested in resources. I will grant that it is a possibility, But are you going to go to mars just for some rock? No, You're going to do some scientific whatnot to the rock, And find alien micro-organisms or whatever. Aside from that, I agree with you. The human race sucks. We are territorial and over-patriotic, And most of us are stubborn and illogical, Myself included. Stating what I hope was obvious, The question was if they were basic needs of conquest, And they are not. You did not ask if it was human conquest, You did not specify lasting conquest, And you made these arguments straying from the general topic. In other words, Your scenarios may be common but are completely up to circumstance. Not all conquest ends in triumph. In fact, Most countries shift and change. You can have a short reign over an area, But the matter-of-fact is that you're not going to be holding onto it indefinitely. There are also some people who may want to join the country so they can get richer, In which case there won't be any problems. You did not say the majority of conquests, Or even half of the conquests, You said ARE ALL BASIC NEEDS OF CONQUEST. Therefore, Your argument is based simply on a grammatical misconception. Conquest can happen without raping, Looting, Pillaging, Or plundering, However commonplace they may be. That is my argument. You did not ask if it was practical, You asked if it was plausible, And those are two different things entirely.
Raping, Looting, Pillaging, Plundering, Are all basic needs of conquest

Raping, Looting, Pillaging, And plundering are not necessary. While I do agree that is human nature, I do not think in any way, Shape, Or form that it is ethically right, And humans have laid the foundation of ethics. Let's say Town A is a large, Well-developed town, Whereas town B is a small, Underdeveloped town. If Town A can conquer town B, Why would they take their new land, Rape everyone, And impoverish the already fragile land? The best solution would be to have new families move in and take unused land to increase the economic status of Country A, Or offer citizens of Country B better lives in exchange for their land. This is a peaceful way to transition back to a peaceful and prosperous state of plenty, And the citizens of country B and A will most likely be happier. There is no reason to burn your newly-acquired farms to the ground and move the contents across the country. How does that make sense? A more fitting solution was achieved with a few simple requests, No pillaging, Plundering, Or looting, And certainly no raping. Why would raping make anything better, Especially in a state of overpopulation? If you're underpopulated, Accept more immigrants or something to that effect. In this modern day and age, There are better, More efficient ways, That make everyone happier, And are just better in general. In other words: Keep your dick in your pants and your hands off my gold, Thank you very much.
Raping, Looting, Pillaging, Plundering, Are all basic needs of conquest

Raping, Looting, Pillaging, Plundering are all basic rules of conquest and I'm ok with them. From the earliest conquests of empires raping, Looting, Pillaging and plundering have always been there. From the Romans conquests, Attila the hun Napoleon's conquests Alexander the Great The Vikings The Ottoman Empire The Nazi's The Soviets in 1945 Berlin Pirates in the 1700's Spanish Conquistador of the Incas Raping, Looting, Plundering and pillaging are basic needs of armies when they conquer foreign lands and nations. As the invading army moves in raping, Looting, Plundering and pillaging are the most basic and common techniques of conquering new territories and taking over the land. Nations and Empires were built on the basic foundations of Raping, Looting, Pillaging, And Plundering. These 4 characteristics will never go away as they are the basis of human nature during expansion and conquest of land on earth. So if the USA was ever invaded people here would be looted, Women would be raped, Cities would be plundered and pillaged. That is human nature
CO2 Emissions are good

First lets go to what my opponent says They say that the arctic is melting. Yeah I agree. I never said they weren't. In fact I never said warming wasn't real. I was very specific to this. My opponent makes a ton of claims but doesn't read any evidence so mine must stand. Its far to late for them to read any now I dont get another round to respond. My argument was with the food shortage that is coming we need more CO2 emissions This goes dropped so I win this Next I said that CO2 creates an agriculture boom. This goes dropped as well so i win CO2 helps with ag. Look this debate is pretty simple. They Con only makes claims without using any evidence and the Pro has proven that given the circumstances CO2 emissions are good. Lets go to an impact calc Probability: There is a 100% risk of a food shortage coming. This is proven when the Con drops everything. There is also a 100% chance of that an increase of CO2 emissions solve for the coming food shortage. Time frame: The time frame is extremely quick to reach the impact of food shortages especially when the con doesn't do any work on time frame debate Magnitude: The magnitude debate is easily one by the pro when there are conceded impacts that end in wars through famine and resource wars because of the coming food shortages. Underview: Look you may not agree with what I am saying but that doesn't matter I am easily winning this debate you may have reasons why you disagree and that fine but dont make those arguments for the Con when you cast your vote hold them to what they have said in last rounds. Dont let them make new arguments I dont get another round to respond for them. Your voting pro because the Con drops everything. That is your easy way out.
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous PrintEmail Details Category: Testimonies and SpeechesPublished: 01 May 2001 Canadian Police Association submissions to the Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs May 2001 The full text is available in English and French from HNN or at the CPA web site at http://www.cpa-acp.ca... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Drugs Are Illegal Because Drugs Are Dangerous Drugs are not dangerous because they are illegal; drugs are illegal because drugs are dangerous. There is no such thing as "soft drugs" and "hard drugs", nor bona fide criteria to differentiate between these terms. People who refer to hard or soft drugs generally do not understand the truth about drugs, or are seeking to soften attitudes towards the use of certain illicit drugs. Generally, Marijuana (Cannabis) and its derivative products are described in this context to distance the drug from the recognized harm associated with other illegal drugs. This has been a successful, yet dangerous approach, and contributes to the misinformation, misunderstanding, and increasing tolerance associated with marijuana use. Marijuana is a powerful drug with a variety of effects. Marijuana users are subject to a variety of adverse health consequences: " Respiratory Damage " Physical Coordination " Pregnancy & Post-Natal development " Memory & Cognition " Psychiatric Effects Marijuana use is associated with poor work and school performance, and learning problems for younger users. Marijuana is internationally recognized as the gateway drug for other drug use. Risk factors for marijuana dependence are similar to those for other forms of drug abuse, and much higher than those of alcohol. Driving while intoxicated by drugs impairs judgment and motor coordination. In one study involving aircraft, ten licensed pilots were given one marijuana joint containing 19 mg of THC, a relatively small amount. Twenty-four hours after smoking the jo
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

You are just changing my words into the opposite, could you please explain why you believe this way? Right now you are not even arguing, you are probably just trolling, but I have a question for you: If drugs are illegal because people are too stupid to be trusted to decide if they want to "ruin their lives" with drugs, why are the same people, through voting, qualified to make good decisions with regards to, war, economics, abortion, the death penalty, international trade, schools, immigration, liberties… and yes ironically, if people should be allowed to do drugs or not?
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion not stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the low marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been higher, cocaine would never have got as popular as it did. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so low? The answer to that question is that it were legal. If marijuana would have been illegal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were legal, it got easier to sell, so the drug dealers could set a lower price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive drug didn't go up. So my point is, the less money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it gets for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason to so called Internet drugs today. If the price would be low, everybody would develop new drugs, because there is a demand for it.
All drugs should be legalised, change my mind.

My main argument would be that drugs is not harmful to anyone but yourself. But you do not seem to believe in that philosophy, so I'm going to argue more objectively.The legalisation of drugs would in my opinion stop the development of new, less expensive and potentially more dangerous drugs. Take cocaine for example. The main reason that cocaine got as popular as it did, was because of the high marijuana prices. If the marijuana price would have been lower, cocaine would never have got as popular as it did. That brings the question, why were the marijuana price so high? The answer to that question is that it were illegal. If marijuana would have been legal, the price would have been low thanks to competition. But since it were illegal, it got harder to sell, so the drug dealers could set a higher price. By then, the demand for a new, less expensive drug also went up.So my point is, the more money we put into the war on drugs, the harder it gets for the drug dealers, forcing the price to go up and forcing a faster development of new, and more powerful drugs. This is the reason to so called Internet drugs today. If the price would be low, nobody would develop new drugs, because there is no demand for it.People usually say: If we legalise heroin, everybody is going to use heroin!Well? how many reading this would start using heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody would start using it just because it would be legal. Nobody thinks like this: oh I cant take care of myself, and I don't want to use drugs, so I need the governments laws to take care of me!Nobody sees the law as an obstacle for drugs, you either want to do drugs, or you don't. Simple as that.This is why the war on drugs is failing, people will still get drugs even if it is illegal. But if it were legal, some of them would actually seek help to cure their addiction. If its illegal, then instead of help, we put them in prisons, where there is a higher rate of drugs and criminality then out in the real world.