BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
your mom goes to college

As the definition states, by asserting as I did that your mom goes to college, I PWN your arguments automatically. Pro should also win because I have to tell Con what to debate, and something so fundamental too... eg, to officially deny that your mother goes to college. Also, given the assertion is defined as an insult from the beginning... you are merely being insulted, and have yet to properly talk smack back. again, something too fundamental, and again me telling you how to debate most optimal.
your mom goes to college

You are incorrect in the argument because you have not beat me. You still have not affirmed the resolution. You are the instigator and the affirming arty, therefore, you must accept the BOP. Prove that my mom currently goes to college. If you can not, then you lose on the basis of an unfulfilled BOP. I offically deny that my mom goes to college and ask that you provide physical evidence that my mom goes to college. I hand it over to my opponent and hope that my opponent fulfills the necessary proof needed to affirm the resolution.
Why Medicare/Medicaid is unhealthy for America

First off, I'd like to start this debate off by defining both Medicare and Medicaid. They are actually two different things. According to Medicareinteractive.org, Medicare and Medicaid are defined below. - "Medicare: A federal program that provides health coverage if you are 65 or older or have a severe disability, no matter your income." - "Medicaid: A state and federal program that provides health coverage if you have a very low income. If you are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid (dual eligible), you can have both. Medicare and Medicaid will work together to provide you with very good health coverage." If you would, could you elaborate on why you believe this is unhealthy for American? Medicare and Medicaid help provide health care for America's citizens. Medicaid allows you to receive health care if you have a low income, and cannot afford it. Medicare provides health care for anybody 65 or older. However, it doesn't state you can't receive it if your under 65 WITH A DISABILITY.
Is Satan Nice To Satanists

LaVeyan Satanists (the type of Satanists who actually exist) don't believe in Satan as a supernatural being. I'm not sure there are any theistic Satanists who accept the Biblical version of Satan. That said, Hell (in the Bible) is alleged to be a place of suffering for both Satan and anyone who rejects Christ. Hell is not some "underworld" where Satan is the ruler.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.

P1 - Everything that begins to exist has a cause. William Lane Craig calls this premise 'philosophically unobjectionable'. But this premise isn't true, as virtual particles are an exception [1]. In his book 'On Guard', William Lane Craig gives three reasons to think that Premise 1 of the Kalam Cosmological argument is true:1. Something cannot come from nothing.2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing.3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. But even if I didn't have Virtual particles as an example to prove this wrong, that still wouldn't make the statement 'Something cannot come from nothing' correct. As it's famously been pointed out before, nobody has observed nothing and therefore the statement 'Something cannot come from nothing' is pure assertion. His third point commits the same fallacy. ConclusionConsidering the fact that in order for the Kalam Cosmological argument needs all premises to be correct and a conclusion logically following those premises in order to be sound, I conclude that the Kalam Cosmological argument is unsound. Sources[1] . http://en.wikipedia.org...I look forward to Con's response.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.

The Kalam Cosmological argument is not flawed primarily based on the definition of cause. Cause is defined as a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition not to be misconstrued or defined as purpose. Therefore, there was a cause to why the universe was created. If anything was done there has to be a driving force, thus being it's cause. If I am driving a car and crash the car there was not necessarily a purpose to the cause, but I would undoubtedly be the reason or CAUSE to why that event occurred. Newton's third law of physics states that to every action there always exists an equal and opposite reaction. The action would be the motion that gave rise to the reaction therefore being it's cause. Whether the universe had come in to existence by a metaphysical entity like the idea of god, or a metaphysical presupposition such as the big bang, there was something that drove the action to occur therefore, there was a cause. This is the reason the pro wins today's debate.
The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.

Resolution: The Kalam Cosmological argument is flawed.Me and my opponent will be arguing over the validity of the Kalam Cosmological argument, the one popularized by William Lane Craig which can be summarized as follows:(P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause(P2) The universe began to exist;(C) Therefore, the universe has a cause.Burden of proof: SharedStructure: Round 1 - AcceptanceRound 2 - ArgumentsRound 3 - Rebuttals Settings: Rounds: 3Voting Period: 2 weeksTime to argue: 72 hoursArgument Max: 8,000 CharactersOnly members with less than 3 completed debates.
Oil fields

Hey guys. PowerPikachu21 here, drinking some "Texas Tea". It's delicious! Oh wait... "Texas Tea" is actually oil. Ah well! It still tastes good! Anyways, How are you guys? Ya planning something this Halloween, 2015? I'm going Trick-or-Treating with my sister's friend Kayla. I'm dressing up as a Pikachu! Okey, see you later! (After my opponent times out once again)
Oil fields

Oil fields are great for drilling oil. (There was no clear Resolution Pro and Con would be debating over, so I'll assume that this is what Con meant) An oil field is: "an area of land or seabed underlain by strata yielding petroleum (oil), especially in amounts that justify commercial exploitation." - Google definition Con must prove that drilling for oil is bad, either to nature or society. His pick. If he decides the resolution is instead "Con proves the oil fields in the world are shrinking", this will be bad sportsmanship, as the resolution is "Oil Fields are great for drilling". I'm assuming Round 1 will be for acceptance only. Here's my proposal: I have a feeling Con may have abandoned this debate already (because it seems like one of those things, in my opinion). If Con doesn't make a statement, or even forfeits, Round 2, victory will go to me. Round 2 will be for arguments on why oil drilling is good/bad, as well as Con refuting my 1 statement I'll make, to give him a slight advantage. My statement is: "Drilling for oil is good because you can sell it for many dollars".
NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards

First, I will start by rebutting my opponent's contentions in their first speech. So, they first argue that it has been settled before in the court of law that student athletes are not employees and therefore should not be payed as such. But yet that is exactly what we are debating here, to say a student who is playing their sport for 40 hours a week, risking their own health to represent their school is not an employee of the school is just ridiculous. An employee is anyone who provides a physical service to someone, and in return they should receive some sort of compensation. Then in their second speech they say okay students could get hurt, but it is the students choice to play; however, this is just not true to a point, as many athletes as I said can't work and can't earn money so they have to play to retain their scholarship so it limits their other expenses. Also, a very high percentage of student athletes come from poor backgrounds and cannot afford college without athletic scholarships, so they need to play if they want to stay in college. Next my opponent argues against the harmful amount of time by saying once again it is a choice, which I already rebutted, and that if they go overtime past NCAA standards it is their own fault, but this doesn't work as going over the NCAA standards is against their limits and rules, and even if they stayed within the NCAA standards of 40 hours that is still way too high for no compensation return as they still with this "low" hours they still have schoolwork in their schedule. Also, the con's injury insurance plan paying treatment bills for athletes who got hurt in their sport are invalid because after they suffer a career ending injury they are often taking off of scholarship so just paying for their treatment would not solve anything. Overall, the con provides no clear explanation to why paying college athletes would be a bad thing, they just try to provide bare descriptions of why they shouldn't be payed because it is their choice to play and they are not being considered employees now.
NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards

My appoints main points were students are getting hurt for the schools, But you have to rember students choose to play there not forced to. I can do good in Law school but I am not going to get paid to keep debating in a court just because I am good at it. The next point was the amount of time is harmful ok once again its a choose. and the NCAA only allows them to work no more then 40 hours a week if they go over time that's on them. and we feel for them so if they're playing for you and have a career ending injury the school or NCAA should help out with bill and make a plan with them but not recognize them as employees under the fair labor standards Act.
NCAA student athletes ought to be recognized as employees under the Fair Labor Standards

NCAA should not be considers workers. Everyone should be familiar with Berger v. NCAA, 843 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2016), a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. There, the appellate panel held that student-athletes were not FLSA employees, so Pro is arguing that Berger was wrongly decided (either as a matter of law or policy). The opinion and concurrence are quick reads and provide quite a few citations to other works that both sides would do well to read. In your research, you might also come across O'Bannon v. NCAA, 802 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2015). This was a case by a former student-athlete claiming that the NCAA's treatment violated antitrust law. So this wasn't an FLSA case and isn't directly on-point for this resolution, but it does go into NCAA's history and touches on the employee/non-employee question when deciding the antitrust claim, so it's also worth a read. Approximately three percent of male and female high school basketball players go on to play college basketball, and only about one percent of those players turn pro. those who are likely to be early draft picks for the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB, or WNBA " are permitted to purchase NCAA-sponsored disability insurance to protect against future loss of earnings as a professional athlete if they are approved by a program administrator. Loans are available to cover the cost of the insurance, which means that like the required basic coverage before the catastrophic insurance kicks in, student-athletes must foot the bill. Not saying not to help them out if they're playing for you and have a career ending injury the school or NCAA should help out with bill and make a plan with them but not recognize them as employees under the fair labor standards Act.
Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

Misrepresentation of my Arguments My opponent states that my use of ‘condition’ in the determination of superiority/inferiority implies superiority as a being, as opposed to superiority regarding the act. This derives from a misunderstanding. Act is the means of comparison and condition is the comparison itself. This means that the condition is based on the act. Act – Running a race Condition – Whoever is faster is superior Condition implies superiority at running a race, since condition is based on the act as stated in the definitions I provided last round. This being said, I am certainly not arguing that just because a cheetah can run faster than a human, the cheetah is superior as a whole over the human. The implication of the condition is that the cheetah is superior to the human at running fast. “Skipping the Step” There is no ‘step’ I am skipping, for the determination of superiority/inferiority by object, act, and condition determines objective superiority/inferiority. My opponent’s whole argument on how humans value different traits subjectively is based on subjective superiority/inferiority, but since the determination I am using is objective, my opponent’s argument has no grounds as a proper rebuttal. Pro’s argument was based on the misunderstanding that my use of object, act, and condition determined superiority as a whole. I made it quite clear that the condition is based on the act. Object and Actions Actions are simply the traits of objects. Me being able to run fast is a part of me, because I, the object, am committing the act. When action is separated from its object it is only an idea that has no grounds in reality. Objects ground acts into reality. This is why if we are to make an objective determination of superiority/inferiority based on reality, it is necessary that acts have objects. Objects are also necessarily made up of acts. Objects are made up of passive acts and active acts. Active acts must be consciously committed (such as running a race), whereas passive acts are acts that serve as actual traits of objects that need not be consciously committed, such as having blue eyes or even existing. Now as shown last round, acts are necessary for the determination of superiority/inferiority since objects in of themselves cannot be objectively compared. My opponent does compare objects in of themselves to each other, and all he proves is that such comparisons are completely subjective. The reason I am not comparing objects alone is because a) it is impossible to do so objectively b) it goes against the implications of the resolution (see my argument last round which my opponent conceded). Conclusion There really isn’t much here that I had not already covered last round. The resolution implies the use of object, act, and condition when determining superiority/inferiority and my opponent conceded this. This concession in addition to his concession that my syllogism was indeed an objective assessment of superiority/inferiority is enough to win me this debate.
Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

My opponent reaches a conclusion that is incorrect, and appears to come from a position that misunderstood the requirements of this debate's resolution."Humans are better than cats at building skyscrapers.""Therefore humans are more superior than cats at building skyscrapers."Remember, the resolution states:"Humans cannot be proven to be objectively superior or inferior to anything in existence."If it said: "Humans cannot be proven to be objectively superior or inferior at anything than anything in existence", my opponent would have something, however it doesn't, and so he doesn't. He would've had something because the 'at something' would refer to an activity, like running a mile, and the 'than something' would refer to the ability to perform an activity in comparison to another being. However, only 'to something' is in there, which means we can only compare the worth of beings as a whole to one another.The word 'anything' can be substituted with anything that exists; for instance, bikes, cats, birds, insects, whales, or soccer. These are actual objects. (Of course, one could say that 'anything' could include the ability of a cat to build a skyscraper. That is a thing that exists, at least as an idea. However, if one were to insert that into the resolution, they'd find that a comparison could not even be sought after, because how is one supposed to draw an objective evaluation of the superiority/inferiority of a specific trait of one species to another species, with all their traits being included? For instance, all traits of humans vs cheetahs ability to run 60 mph. You can't cross compare because they're not even the same kind of values. One could argue that all of our traits beats the cheetah's speed, but if you're doing that, you're into subjective territory.)What my opponent talks about in his conclusion is a trait of objects, with the traits being the ability to build a skyscraper, and the objects being a human and a cat. Even if we accept that humans are better at building skyscrapers, all we have proven is that humans have one trait that cats do not. We have not proven what is necessary for my opponent to prove, which is that the objects themselves are objectively different in value because of their differing traits.Simply put, our ability to build a skyscraper does not prove us to be objectively superior to cats, which is what my opponent needs to do when talking about these particular traits and objects. While it is true that we're objectively better than cats at building skyscrapers, there is no objective worth to this trait, and thus, we have no objective superiority to cats (or anything else, which you can see by applying this logic).
Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

Thank you for accepting Crypto, and thanks for reading readers.SUBJECTIVE VALUESWe place value on everything. Be it good, bad, or something else, everything we hold as a fact, we give a value. For instance, I can run a mile in under 5 minutes. We find the level of effort that would involve to be impressive, so we label that as a good thing. Some people might not like that I am bragging about how fast I can run, probably because they are jealous, aware of it or not. Since they're jealous, they say that bragging is a bad thing. The thing these two examples have in common is that we, coming from a completely subjective viewpoint, place a value judgement upon them. It is important to differentiate between a subjective viewpoint and an objective viewpoint. An objective viewpoint is a fact-only kind of thing. It is a fact that I can run a mile in under 5 minutes. It is an opinion that this is impressive; an opinion that comes to be due to human biases influencing how we view that objective fact.This idea can be extrapolated upon. Take for instance, the ability to build a skyscraper. It is an objective fact that humans are capable of building skyscrapers. We think about all the complex calculations, time, danger, and effort that might go into building a skyscraper that stands tall, and we are impressed. Thus, we deem building a skyscraper to be an awesome thing to do. Since we can do that, and other species can't, we might reason (incorrectly) that we are better than them.But the reasoning behind that goes back to our subjective view of the ability to build a skyscraper. We have a bias towards the idea. The ideas that we value (intelligence, bravery, effort, etc) cause us to positively view the fact that we can build a skyscraper. However, the only objective truth is that we can build the skyscraper. The idea that building a skyscraper is great, or that we are better than other species because of our ability to do so, is an opinion; one influenced by the biases we have toward the action.Our feelings on a matter do not equal objective truths. They equal subjective thoughts. Therefore, when we say humans are better than something because we can do X or Y, we are making a subjective statement, because we are being 'influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering or representing facts'. This fact that all values placed upon facts are subjective can be applied to literally all value judgements of a fact. Our subjective thoughts on objective thoughts form subjective criterion by which we judge ourselves relative to other things. Since these criterion are subjective however, they are just opinion, and therefore don't show that we are objectively inferior or superior to anything. Thanks for reading.
Objectively, Humans Aren't Superior/Inferior to Anything

Resolution: Humans cannot be proven to be objectively superior or inferior to anything in existence. Objective is anything 'not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts'.The first round will be for acceptance, and my opponent may not add any new arguments in his final round that are not a part of a rebuttal to one of my previously made points.If there are any questions, I would ask that any potential opponents please ask them before joining. If any confusion arises during the debate that could've been averted with a question, the blame for that will fall upon my opponent.
Defend your favorite band/artist... With songs.

"Where is Everybody?"Did you happen to catch or did it happen so fastWhat you thought would always last has passed you by?Is everything speeding up or am I slowing down?I'm just spinnin' around and I don't know why All the pieces don't fit thought I really didn't give a sh*tI never wanted to be like youBut for all I aspire, I am really a liarAnd I'm running out of things I can do I'd like to stay but every dayEverything pushes me further awayIf you could show, help me to knowHow it's supposed to beWhere did it go? Pleadin' and needin' and bleeding'And breedin' and feedin', exceedin'Where is everybody?Trying and lying, defyingDenying, crying and dyingWhere is everybody? Well, okay, enough, you've had your funBut come on, there has got to be someoneHasn't yet become so numb and succumbAnd God d*mn, I am so tired of pretendin' Of wishing I was endin'When all I'm really doing is trying to hideAnd keep it inside, fill it with liesOpen my eyes, maybe I wish I could try Pleadin' and needin' and bleeding'And breedin' and feedin', exceedin'Where is everybody?Trying and lying, defyingDenying, crying and dyingWhere is everybody? Pleadin' and needin' and bleeding'And breedin' and feedin', exceedin'Where is everybody?Trying and lying, defyingDenying, crying and dyingWhere is everybody?"All the Love in the World"Watching all the insects march along Seem to know right where they belong Smears of face reflecting in the chrome Hiding in the crowd I'm all alone No one's heard a single word I've said They don't sound as good outside my head It looks as though the past is here to stay I've become a million miles a-- Why do you get all the love in the world? [x2] All the jagged edges disappear Colors all look brighter when you're near The stars are all a fire in the sky Sometimes I get so lonely I could-- Why do you get all the love in the world?http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...