BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

Why are you getting off track and onto religion. The topic is Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke. The government should not be regulating or desires or habits as long as it doesn't hurt others. Instead of banning smoking in restaurants so people smoke outside and pollute the air, why not demand if you are going to have a smoking facility you must provide separate rooms and an air scrubber system that would remove the harmful chemicals from the air? Businesses should have a certain amount of regulation, my position is don't trample on the individual rights. You claim 73% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. That is great but if we didn't have the right of freedom of religion how do you think the other 27% would feel? That is why I state and affirm Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

The majority of Americans (73%) identify themselves as Christians and about 20% have no religious affiliation. According to the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), those who identify themselves as Catholics make up about 25% of the adult population, while "other Christians" account for another 51%. The same survey says that other religions (including, for example, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism) collectively make up about 4% of the adult population, another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation, and 5.2% said they did not know, or they refused to reply. According to another survey, 36 percent of Americans state that they attend services nearly every week or more.
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

America was settled by people professing to believe in protestant Christianity. There were some Catholics and Jews. Most of our forefathers were masons who are rooted in Jewish illuminati, they saw the evils of Europe and how the Catholic church ran the Holy Roman Empire and how Henry VIII made his own church (the church of England) because he wanted to be able to divorce and remarry. The forefathers wanted to grant everyone freedom; men, women, blacks, Indians... everyone. They had a lot of resistance from others and although Washington, Franklin and Jefferson were way more merciful towards their slaves they still owned some. They knew that there had to be a separation of church and state but they compromised on more than they wanted. It is not our government's or religion's right to decide what to do with our bodies. Smoking IS bad for you but the chemicals that our government has allowed to be put in cigarettes is hundreds of times worse. If the government wants to regulate something let they say only tobacco and natural flavors can be used in smoking materials (pipe tobacco, cigars, cigarettes and chewing tobacco). They forced way too many other unhealthy things on the American people including; pasteurized milk, pasteurized eggs, NPK fertilizer for farms, allowing cows and pigs to be fed corn and allowing genetically altered food to be grown, just to name a few. If a woman can decide to kill a fetus body inside her, why can we not choose to slowly kill ourselves?
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

The government should allow the American people the right to decide what they eat, drink, smoke and wear. American people should have the right to put a cross in their yard, the star of David, crescent moon, statue of Buddha, statue of Darwin or whatever they want as long as it is not pornography or violent. The statue of Venus or statue of Apollo is not porn it is nudity and art. Violent would be something depicting murder, rape or torture. Too many of our freedoms have been trampled by the past 2 administrations and it is time the American people had a voice again. I don't believe people should lose insurance for pre-existing conditions but if you are over 100 pounds overweight and are extremely unhealthy then health care should not be available. But if If I want to drink 100 0z of coke at a time and stuff my face with greasy bacon burgers and fries, I should have that right and realize that I would not have insurance and die. If I decide to live longer and have insurance than I will limit my intake of things bad for my health. It should be MY choice!
Americans deserve freedom to choose religion, food, drink and smoke

According to Wikipedia, freedom may refer to Freewill, Political freedom and Economical freedom. But my core of discussion is about freedom, which covers free will to make choices with accountability of action. Our young generations talk about freedom frequently, where they discuss about their rights of raising issues, expressing feelings, rights of performing things and last but not the least freedom to have privacy. But we should never forget that we are also accountable for the things we perform. Each action we do give impact on life's of others associated with us. After all we cannot live alone in this society where we have to meet people daily in order to meet our daily need of life's. We must admit that freedom and abusing freedom is two different terminology where giving people right to talk about any person's life is not actually a right to talk any vulgarity about him. Similarly it doesn't even mean that if we have got a chance to comment on some one's nature, we shall highlight his negative aspect of his nature. We have also observe people claiming to have privacy in their life's, which is on my part is justifying if we are really having privacy for things which is for the development of our soul, health and wisdom. Every person should have his private time to give himself for his inner satisfaction, but that doesn't mean that that time is utilized to gain satisfaction from immorality, such act, count as "Abusing Freedom". A child must have a freedom to get education, to choose his friends and play with them. but it does not mean that he becomes ignorant for his secular needs he has to fulfill in this age which can bring him up to become good civilized citizen for his community and country. A teenage should also have freedom to choose his career and should have freedom to choose his friend circle with whom he can go out but that does not mean that he also starts neglecting his parents advice, suggestions which can help him to choose right career path with good company of friend circles that also groom his personality.
People of Asian ethnicity are better than people of European ethnicity.

Before I present my first argument to my opponent, I would like to rebut the argument that my opponent has introduced: Yes, as you can see in the picture, we are all gorgeous. No freckles, no yellow teeth, no sweaty armpits. Now I would like to present my first argument: Europe is in a GFC. Asia has the money. If Europe really is that good, why are they in such a mess now?
People of Asian ethnicity are better than people of European ethnicity.

I would like to argue that people of the Asian ethnicity are better, not necessarily superior to people of the European ethnicity. Some definitions to take note of before the start with: Asian: Of or relating to Asia or its people, customs, or languages. E.g. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Indonesian etc. European: Of, relating to, or characteristic of Europe or its inhabitants. Better: Of a more excellent or effective type or quality First round acceptance only. No trolling or semantics, and please do not be racist within the debate. A forfeit equals an automatic loss of all 7 points in the voting process. Good Luck!
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be a matter of public health, not criminal justice: Rematch

I'm being picky because you were the one that failed to complete my debate that had 10,000 characters. You said to simply copy and past my argument but I can't since it is 2,000 characters over limit. I have already made another challenge for you to simply accept. Expecting me to shave 20% of my round because you failed to complete the debate as was outlined in the rules before you accepted is unreasonable. You honestly expect me to completely restructure my entire round when I completed it in the allotted time and you took at least double? It may not be your fault but to put that burden on me is just illogical.
The abuse of illegal drugs ought to be a matter of public health, not criminal justice: Rematch

Greetings! I challenge Skysky16 to a rematch on his own debate that I unduly responded to. My opponent would simply paste his former argument here in R1. No acceptance. The standard procedure will initiate once this debate has commenced. My opponent's 5th round would signify the end. Hence, he must say 'I waive this round' I await your response.
Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted.

Rebuttal 1 : "1) Failure of my opponent to define "should" in the title---------------------------------------------------------------To clarify my position: I personally believe using debates as a promotional device for private websites is highly distasteful, but that"s not important; my argument is that such a practice does not breach DDO"s T&C"s. "I never said that your opinion constitutes what people should and shouldn't do, I merely used it as an example of people not in agreement with the rules or lack of them. Just because there is no rule regarding advertising one's website in their terms of service does not mean that these kind of posts shouldn't be deleted. You have already argued against yourself in that these types of posts ought to be deleted by saying that you think they should. You would have to prove that rules trump morality and you have failed to do so. Rebuttal 2:2) "Debate. org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal------------------------------------------------------------------------------The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. "My opponent is using a false dichotomy here by stating that users can either not send spam emailsor they can spam posts which aren't emails but are still spam. This is not the case at all as seen in the terms of service:"Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. To protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation. "As you can see, DDO does not even make the distinctions between email spam and other kinds of spam. Posting one's own website on a debate WITHOUT a request WOULD qualify as advertisng, promotion, and "other forms of soliciation". Even if users could post their own websites on DDO, my opponent still has not fulfilled his BOD by not arguing why rules trump morality, BUT THEY CAN'T!
Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted.

org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The clause my opponent refers to relates to spam e-mails (such as the love spam messages most members receive on a regular basis) as the sanction for such an activity is as follows: "Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. " So, we can see that, as the T&C"s stand, morally-bankrupt members of DDO who wish to use debates to advertise their personal websites are not currently prohibited from doing so. Vote Pro. Thank you.
Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted.

I have two main points. They are as follows: 1) Failure of my opponent to define “should” in the title My opponent has made it clear that he opposes users advertising their own websites on this website. My opponent’s title, “Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted,” does not clearly define what he means by should. This is not an arbitrary distinction because 'should' could refer to two things: morality and rules. He would agree that users ought not to advertise their personal websites and thus they “should” be deleted. If debate. org suddenly claimed that no user with black skin could join the website, would he claim that they “should not be allowed to join” in the sense of rules AND morality? I sure hope not. 2) Debate. org clearly states that any unauthorized soliciting is illegal In the terms of service agreement under "Content Posted and Code of Conduct" in section D: "Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use unsolicited or unauthorized advertising or promotional material, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation. To protect our Members from such advertising or solicitation, Juggle reserves the right to restrict the number of emails that a Member may send to other Members in any 24-hour period, to a number that Debate. org deems appropriate in its sole discretion. " Debate. org clearly states that unauthorized soliciting, spam, or any form of advertising is not allowed. This includes all forms: personal and business. If users posted their own website without a direct request from a user, this would qualify as promotional material and soliciting and 'should' be deleted in every sense of the word 'should' i. e. rules and morality.
Debates on this site that are used to publicize Members own websites should not be deleted.

The thought that any member of this site would shamelessly use a debate to plug their own personal website makes me feel sick to the pit of my stomach, but to do so would not contravene Debate.org's terms of service which states that Members will: "not use the Service to artificially generate traffic or page links to a Website or for any other purpose not intended for personal, noncommercial use of the Service." (1) This means that while I, as a Member of this site, couldn't post a link for my company's website, which is a commercial enterprise, there is no reason why I couldn't post a link to my personal website: http://www.break-in-news.com... - the hilarious "burglars bulletin board" which features spoof news stories that have only the most tenuous connection to the house-breaking profession but which will make you chuckle, if not laugh out loud - because I don't make any money out of that site. Obviously, if any case of cynically using a debate on this site to plug a personal website ever came to light I'd be the first to condemn it but, currently, members who do so are not in breach of Debate.org terms of service and, therefore, any such debate should not be deleted. Thank you. (1) http://www.debate.org...
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is True Metaphysics

While I could go much deeper on the topic of discussion, the CTMU, my opponent seems more interested in its author than his ideas. Through a combination of ad hominem, red herrings, and guilt by association, my opponent has sought to prove that the CTMU is absolutely worthless. However I consider it as the most condensed summary currently available of a wide range of ideas that an independent investigator of truth can find on the internet. While this debate is only a battle, the war has only just begun. "Since one could go on for pages, it seems a little premature to be calling Tegmark's theory a TOE (or even a reasonable TOE precursor). And although I 'm not saying that his theory contains nothing of value, I'm a bit puzzled by the absence of any mention of certain obvious mathematical ingredients. For example, topos theory deals with topoi, or so-called "mathematical universes" consisting of mathematical categories (mapping algebras) equipped not only with the objects and morphisms possessed by categories in general, but special logics permitting the assignment of truth values to various superficially nonalgebraic (e.g. "physical") expressions involving the objects. Why would any "TOE" purporting to equate physical universes to mathematical structures omit at least cursory mention of an existing theory that seems to be tailor-made for just such a hypothesis? This in itself suggests a certain amount of oversight. Tegmark may have a few good ideas knocking around upstairs, but on the basis of what his theory omits, one can't avoid the impression that he's merely skirting the boundary of a real TOE. In contrast, the CTMU deals directly with the outstanding paradoxes and fundamental interrelationship of mathematics and physics. Unlike other TOEs, the CTMU does not purport to be a "complete" theory; there are too many physical details and undecidable mathematical theorems to be accounted for (enough to occupy whole future generations of mathematicians and scientists), and merely stating a hypothetical relationship among families of subatomic particles is only a small part of the explanatory task before us. Instead, the CTMU is merely designed to be consistent and comprehensive at a high level of generality, a level above that at which most other TOEs are prematurely aimed. The good news is that a new model of physical spacetime, and thus a whole new context for addressing the usual round of quantum cosmological problems, has emerged from the CTMU's direct attack on deeper philosophical issues." http://www.megafoundation.org...
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is True Metaphysics

My opponent inappropriately describes Wheeler's suggested "clues" in his paper, "Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links" as a "doctrine", he is apparently unfamiliar with how cybernetics has given a scientific formulation of teleology, or how "models" have "intended interpretations", or that "God" is a reference to the "Ultimate Truth and Reality". Apparently my opponent believes there is no such thing as truth or reality, which makes any effort to elucidate these concepts for him quite futile. While I don't care who wins this debate, I do care if people actually want to understand. While I am eager to share my ideas with others, and how the CTMU has inspired many of them, I do not think my opponent would appreciate them so I will refrain from sharing more for the time being. However I can refer my opponent to the following paragraph: "The CTMU says that by its self-generative, self-selective nature, which follows directly from the analytic requirement of self-containment, reality is its own "designer". Other features of the generative grammar of reality imply that reality possesses certain logical properties traditionally regarded as theological or spiritual, and that to this extent, the self-designing aspect of reality is open to a theological or spiritual interpretation. The CTMU, being a logical theory, does not attempt to force such an interpretation down anyone"s throat; not all semantic permutations need affect theoretical structure." - Langan, PCID 2002, pg. 12
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is True Metaphysics

My opponent goes on to cite an article from the Mega Society written by Kevin Langdon, who after various personal differences with the man, interprets Langan's style of "charismatic authority" as the founder of a new high-IQ "social network" to that of a cult leader. Having visited the Ultranet forums in the past, I did not see any evidence cult-like behavior, actually it's more like a supportive group for gifted individuals who don't necessarily have an outlet to share and collaborate on various ideas. What the Mega Society-Mega Foundation split shows me is that smart people are prone to developing big egos. However Langan has acknowledged in an interview that it's not healthy to allow oneself to have a "big head". I am willing to admit that Chris Langan may be prone to lacking certain social skills, however I attribute this to the harsh experiences of his upbringing as a severely gifted individual who was not able to acquire even the most basic provisions at the lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs growing up, resulting in him becoming inured to the rejection and alienation. Personally I interested the message of the Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU). I think it's fascinating how the medium for this message has overcome various life challenges and I hope that his case is studied by sociologists seeking to better understand this phenomenon of our society in which people like Langan have slipped through the cracks of the system and have been summarily swept under the rug. He is an autodidact, so to some extent that requires one to try to understand him in his terms. Fortunately his writings are quite coherent and mutually consistent. There are many interesting parallels with on-going developments in academia which I've noted above. Even though some may find his style of presentation distasteful, this still does not address the substance of his ideas. --- My opponent claims that the CTMU is intentionally obfuscative, difficult to read, does not conform to the criteria of mathematics, and is not worth attempting to understand. In particular, he jumps to a quote without mentioning the definitions for the terms described earlier in the paper on what is meant by the principle of "hology" (or self-composition). This indicates to me that my opponent is not actually interested in understanding the CTMU for what it is, and instead seek to show how it is impossible to understand after jumping ahead without a proper introduction to the subject. Rather than using my style of explanation on what is meant by "hology", I think my opponent would find these papers more interesting: http://goertzel.org... http://www.goertzel.org...
The Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe (CTMU) is True Metaphysics

A true theory of metaphysics?I do not dispute that CTMU is metaphysics. When I described CTMU as "metaphysical diarrhea", I meant that it does not have much value. But some of my criticism will apply to metaphysics in general. If physics is a painting, then metaphysics is its frame. The frame enhances the painting, but its value is very small compared to the value of the painting.However, the title of the debate claims that CTMU is TRUE metaphysics. PRO (citing Langan): "Say that there are two true but different theories of metaphysics M and M", one or each of which contains information inferentially excluded by the other. Call all such info "d". Since M, M" are both true, and the distinction between two truths is itself a truth, d is true. Since metaphysics is comprehensive over reality by definition, it can exclude no real truth. But at least one of the pair M, M" excludes at least a part of d. So at least one of the pair is not a theory of metaphysics, and the assumption that two such theories exist is self-contradictory. This implies that there is at most one true theory of metaphysics."From this, I understand that a "true theory of metaphysics" is a theory from which one can derive all true statements, and nothing more. It is questionable whether such true theory of metaphysics exists. At least I doubt if there exist such a theory that has only a small number of principle from which one can derive everything that is true. My opponent claims that CTMU is such a true theory of metaphysics. I will show that it is not, at that some parts of CTMU do not make much sense.Unfortunately I have run out of time for round 1. Fortunately, there are 4 more rounds, in which I will discuss in more depth the shortcomings of CTMU.