BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
you should do something you don't want.

Ok so simply you wanna try something you won't willingly do The reason is that if you do something uncomfortable or something like that , you will see awesome results from it For example, I hate dieting. I just wanna east whatever I want but by doing so the reward such as health improvement,the way people look at you etc would greatly change I of course don't like saying this stuff but everything has pros and cons so why not choose the different path ? I have been on a diet for 2weeks by now but I feel great because when I wake up I feel good and people say I look better I hate studying and researching. However, I came to the realization recently that it is helpful later on in my life
you should do something you don't want.

FrameworkToday's topic is that you should do something that you don't want. I will be Con on this side, and my opponent is Pro. BoP is on Pro. My opponent's arguments will be rebutted in the next round. Argument1. Why should someone force you to do something you don't want? Why would someone do what you won't want? People don't do things that you should not want to do because you don't want to do it.2. ForceWhy should you force someone to do something you don't want? There is no reason you should do stuff you don't want to do. Thank you.
Gay marriage should be legalized In the United States

Since my opponent only presented his arguments during this last round I'll extend my arguments across the board. Now on to his contentions Contention 1: Gay Couples should have same rights as heterosexuals.Well my opponent is incorrect when he brought up how horrible Civil Unions have it compared to straights, but here is what he did not tell you is that Gay couples do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Take a look at a state that has legalized gay marriage, Massachusets for example. They have all the same defects as Pro had listed. (http://www.lambdalegal.org...) So if they are the same in that term then what makes legalizing gay marriage any better than a Civil Union. My opponent is incorrect on the disolving of Civil Unions as you can disolve a Civil Union in other states. (http://www.wikihow.com...) and (http://civilunions.aclu-il.org...) President Obama has also come up with equal Civil Unions. Here is his quote. "We've got to make sure that everybody is equal under the law. And the civil unions that I proposed would be equivalent in terms of making sure that all the rights that are conferred by the state are equal for same-sex couples as well as for heterosexual couples. Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal." (http://reason.com...) Contention 2: Financial gain from gay MarriageCivil Union produce tons of money as well. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
Gay marriage should be legalized In the United States

In this round I only make contentions, then in the next round I present rebuttals as well, due to the debate structure agreed upon. I'll go right into showing my contentions now:Gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexualsWhen gay marriage is not legalized, gays lose a considerable amount of rights. These include hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. [1] This is something that married heterosexual couples would have, yet homosexual couples who are not able to get married do not receive. In fact, a New York Times article notes that this results in an increase of roughly $41,196 to $467,562 in expenses over the course of a lifetime when compared to married heterosexual couples. [2] It clearly isn't fair to do this to homosexuals. An alternative to marriage could be civil unions, but that fails as it still does not give gays the rights that married couples have. For example, "Legal match" shows several rights that are given to married couples yet not people in civil unions: "Legal recognition of the relationship in other states The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married Tax benefits available to married couples only Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance" [3] We can conclude from this point that only offering civil unions to gays and/or not giving gays the right to marry is an unfair rule that prevents equality and makes life harder on homosexuals.Financial gain from gay marriageGay marriage certainly has an economic benefit to it as well. For example, it the first year gay marriage was legalized in New York City, a gain of $259 million resulted from the legalization. [4] The money comes from wedding related purchases made by people. Furthermore, as economist Adam Stevenson tells, legalizing gay marriage would bring in a 20-40 million dollar increase in taxes received. [5] This is obviously beneficial to the USA, as the money can be used for a variety of good things. By not legalizing gay marriage, the United States loses this money. With these things in mind, we can conclude that gay marriage is economically beneficial to the USA.We can conclude from the evidence shown above that gays deserve marriage, denying them it to them is unfair, and that it would be in the interest of the United States to legalize it due to economic reasons. Until these points are negated, I suggest that we all have good reason to think that gay marriage should be legalized in the United States. In the next round, I'll rebut my opponents arguments. Have a nice day.Sources: [1] http://www.freedomtomarry.org... (How does marriage strengthen families?)[2] http://www.nytimes.com...[3] http://www.legalmatch.com...[4] http://money.cnn.com...[5] http://www-personal.umich.edu...
Gay marriage should be legalized In the United States

This is for the DDO Tier Tournament take two. Lannan and I have been paired up to debate. Rounds:Pro(1) Rules(2) Contentions(3) Contentions/rebuttals(4) Rebuttals/Closing StatementsCon(1) Contentions(2) Contentions/Rebuttals(3) Rebuttals/Closing statements(4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing elseRules(1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he will FF the entire debate with a 7 point loss.(2) 10k character limits.(3) No semantics or trolling. This will result in a ff.(4) Plagiarizing results in a FF.(5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started.Thanks to Lannan for agreeing to debate this.
Debate.org Presidential Election 2013

I have realized that my opponent has forfeited, so I will post my beliefs for the next topic, which I have decided: Abortion. Also, this will be the first and last debate. The voters, if any, will vote for the president on this debate. I believe that abortion is incorrect; although I do not think that a woman should be forced by the government to keep her baby. I believe that putting the baby up for adoption should be highly suggested and offered, and the woman will be allowed to choose which option she prefers. I do believe that abortion is completely unnecessary, though I do and will not go to such extremes as calling it murder; even though I am pro-life. Though I will warn that if, when the time comes and it seems like the right idea and the best way to go, I will try to make abortion illegal.
Debate.org Presidential Election 2013

Thank you for your response. I am aware that my fellow republicans may struggle with the welfare concept, but I have my own plans in mind. The definition of welfare is the wellness of a person or a group. The second definition, however, is a statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need. How I intend to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need is buy equalizing tax payment and balance a slightly heavier needed taxing payment on the wealthy citizens. I understand that that is not directly a Republican belief, but I will not make party a direct commander of this election. My focus on the economy is almost about the same as Reaganomics, but I will make sure that whatever happens with our people's money, how the government spends it, and how all things in the money world will end up good if I am elected. You recently stated that the citizen could file a lawsuit against the federal government for fraud, deception, and conspiracy. That is not even close to my vision of government. I see a government that is limited and a people that live well and can afford to live their lives without the government tossing roadblocks into their path, so to speak. I will not be using fancy or large vocabulary words to show my skill. I do not intend to intimidate my fellow Americans by doing that. I will be showing them a man they can relate to, a man that they know is there to help and will not stop helping them. And hopefully that man will have the honor to be their president.
Debate.org Presidential Election 2013

This is a fake Presidential debate. Whoeever wins will NOT be considered the actual president of Debate.org. It's just for fun. I will be the Republican candidate, my opponent will be the Democratic candidate. I will release what topic we debate each round, and we just campaign. After the debate, the people of Debate.org will vote for who they want as their president (Just like in real elections!) Good luck.
Abortion should be illegal

COUNTER REBUTTAL: Instances of rape: The the child of a rape victim doesn't have to know that his/her mother was raped. If a baby is adopted, the parents raising the child of a rape victim don't have to know that this is the case. If the adoptive parents don't know this was how the baby was brought into the world, than it it unlikely that the child will ever find out. However, even if the child does somehow find out that he/she was born as the result of a rape, this knowledge won't necessarily damage the child's future. Where a person has been doesn't have to dictate where they go in life. The same thing applies to rape victims. Education on contraceptives: There actually isn't enough education on contraceptive use, and this is partially why there is a high rate of teen pregnancies. Con goes on to say that, "Knowledge is not always a good thing." I have absolutely no clue of what they mean by this. Adoption: If a woman is strong enough to kill her child, she should be strong enough to give it away if she can't afford to raise it. Importance of the baby's life: I went over this in my first contention, but I will restate my argument again: It isn't fair to give the mother of a baby a chance to live and to kill the fetus before it can fully appreciate life. Back to Con.
Abortion should be illegal

In the instance of rape, I see no reason why the women should have the baby knowing how that baby came to be. I understand that it is not the babies fault, but the mother will be constantly reminded of what happened and I do not think that she wants to carry that around with her for the next nine months or so. There is plenty of education contraceptives and yet women are still getting pregnant anyway. Knowledge is not always a good thing. Adoption is not for everyone, some people are simply not strong enough to go through with it. Yes a baby has not yet had the chance to live, but I fail to see how that means that their life is more important than that of the mother.
Abortion should be illegal

You didn't organize any of your contentions. Nevertheless, I will refute your arguments Abortion in cases of rape: I already explained this in my second contention, but I will restate that a mother does not have to raise a child she doesn't want to raise. If your statement is simply about making a woman having the baby of a man who raped her, this argument is also flawed because the baby is not responsible for the rape. Contraceptive failure: Yes, contraceptives do sometimes fail. However, instead of killing an innocent baby, we can educate people on how to use contraceptives properly. An example of this would be telling people to check condoms to make sure they aren't broken. I'm not sure what Con's third argument is. They just quoted a statement with no sources and explained that women don't want to have abortions. I have already provided an alternative: Adoption. Regarding your fourth argument, I explained in my first contention why the life of a baby is more important than the life of the mother. Back to Con.
Abortion should be illegal

If a women gets taken advantage of then why should we make her have a baby that clearly was not supposed to be brought into the world that way? Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. If they are using a contraceptive then they are not planning on having a baby at that time. They might not be able to take care of a child at that time, or they just don"t want to have kids at all. "For some that believe that abortion is the easy way out, women who have actually had an abortion say that the opposite is, in fact, the case. Believing that it is not fair or right to bring a child into their lives knowing that they were not financially or emotionally ready to be a parent was the right thing to do by the child " even though it was a painful and difficult decision for the woman... one that will be with her for the rest of her life." Not all women make this decision easily as is stated above. This is probably hardest thing that will ever happen to a woman in her life. She will have to live with that decision all the time and wonder what would have happened if she had given birth to the child and what their life would have been like. If the pregnancy is going to threaten the mother"s life then they should absolutely try and keep the mother alive first and foremost. For example: ectopic pregnancies are very life threatening for the mother and the baby is not going to live for more than a few weeks in the womb anyway. In this instance I think that having an abortion is the right choice. You can still have a baby after you have an abortion, but in this instance if you had not had one the mother would not live long enough to have another baby. They are extremely dangerous pregnancies that should not go on.
Abortion should be illegal

Abortion should be illegal for the following reasons: C1: The mother has lived her life. A fetus hasn't experienced life yet, and the mother of a fetus has. Picture life as a toy. It isn't fair to give a toy to one child and nothing to another child. Thus, killing a fetus, even if carrying a fetus to term could potentially could kill the mother, is not fair to the fetus because the fetus hasn't had a chance to live. C2: Adoption centers. A common argument for people who are pro choice is that people who get abortions are sometimes very poor. Preventing a mother from killing a baby would supposedly lead to a baby having a horrible quality of life. However, this is obviously false because statistics show that there is a high demand for adoption in the USA, and throughout the world. Killing the fetus would prevent a couple from having the joy of raising a child and it would murder an innocent organism. Statistics for adoption: http://liveactionnews.org... C3: The fetus is, in fact, a conscious organism. You don't have to go to Harvard to know that cells are the basic unit of life. A fetus is made up of cells, so it is alive. It has been proven, in fact, that a fetus can feel pain before the third trimester, and a fetus has brain activity long before then. Statistics for fetus consciousness: http://www.mccl.org... Back to Con. Good luck.
0.99999999999... does not equal 1.

The deeper question is what does "equals" mean. As an example, take a derivative: dy/dx. dy and dx are both infinitesimals. The question is, does an infinitesimal equal 0. If it does, then calculus collapses because that is what it is entirely based off of. If, however, an infinitesimal does not equal 0, then 0.999... (which can be written as 1 - dx, where dx is some infinitesimal) is not the same as 1 because dx does not equal 0.
0.99999999999... does not equal 1.

yes, you can say they are equal infinity is NOT A NUMBER therefore 1/infinity is also not a number, its so small that its practically zero... its whats called: "reaching for zero" the same way we say that 0.33333...=1/3 we say that 0.99999...=1 take for example the following problem: x=1/2+x/2=1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...=1 however its also true that: 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...=(infinity-1) / infinity=0.99999... therefore it is beyond a shadow of a doubt true that 0.99999...=1
0.99999999999... does not equal 1.

0.999... and 1 are certainly infinitely close, but is that really good enough? 0.999... is really 1 - 1 / infinity. 0.999... * 10 = 10 - 10 / infinity. 9.999... - 0.999... = 0.999... * 9 (10 - 10 / infinity) - (1 - 1 / infinity) = 0.999... * 9 0.999... * 9 = 9 - 9 / infinity 0.999... = 1 - 1 / infinity = 1. This works in the surreal numbers, because, as the video says, 1 does not equal 1 - 1/infinity. Take the function 1 - (0.1)^x. At x = 1, you get 0.9. At x = 2, you get 0.99, and so on and so on. The question is: What is the value at infinity? Can you really say that 1 and 0.999... are equal?
There are absolute truths about existence.

My position in this debate, if I didn't make it clear enough in the primary round, is that there are no truly meaningful truths in the universe. It is much like if someone told you there are girls at a bar, but when you arrive you find an 800-pound female crack addict, a 90-year-old with Alziehmers missing fingers, and an anorexic goth with a wildly worrying fascination with blood and guts. It was, in fact, true that there were girls in said bar, but for most people, it's irrelevant to the original statement. However, it does not mean that anything meaningful whatsoever comes out of it. It is ordinarily assumed when someone says that there are girls at a bar, they more likely than not mean girls with more of a flirtatious streak with a bit of minx in them. The same applies to the statement about absolute truth. Truths do exist, such as existence existing. This is obvious. By extension, if we are judging purely by merits, you have one. But truly no good debate really goes like that, does it? Surprisingly we both agree substantially on the points about epistemology, disagreeing only on logic and mathematics. I personally don't think that unless logic and mathematics have some connection to reality, they really aren't very useful(as a digression, I once had to teach a bikini-clad teen geometry while her father was drunk at a pool party). My position is that there are truths, that they aren't helpful or useful. I don't know how knowing existence exists really helps.My position is not self-refuting, merely paradoxical. I personally think that the foundation of epistemology is much like trying to find the uncaused cause of the universe, or if there are just turtles all the way down. At some point, all the rules break down.I do not think that I know what I do not know. -SocratesAs an aside, I believe you would enjoy Monty Python's Philosophy Song. Here's my favorite part Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottleHobbes was fond of his dramAnd Rene Descartes was a drunken fart"I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missedA lovely little thinkerBut a bugger when he's pissed
There are absolute truths about existence.

Thanks you for responding so quickly, and providing the basis of my argument. First lets start with the BIV argument. You kindly proved that we cannot deduce anything from our experiences and senses, which is fine with me. I'm going to assume your reasoning on reasoning is based on the principles of Socratic wisdom and if it was then I will also agree with that but some things are still demonstrable, such as the truths I will list next. Second of all you start specifying a truth which everyone excepts. The fundamental truth of existence and this will be the truth I will be fighting for. Because I believe that existence is a fundamental truth, that was proved by Ren" Descartes, and because I presume you've heard the quote from him I shan't write it here. Also I am one of those people who do believe logic and mathematics are also absolutely true because they can be modified to work in any set of scenarios. For example if there is a part of logic which doesn't work in a given scenario we can just discard it, or if logic doesn't work at all in a scenario then we just discard it and thus it still works. And yes we will for the sake of the argument assume that reason can be used in an argument. Let's stay away from Socratic wisdom in that regard. Because it would only impede the reasoning, thereby ending the whole debate.
There are absolute truths about existence.

What is truth? It should likely be appropriated to that which conforms to reality. That what is. But here we get to the difficult part, how do we find out what is true? Are we just brains in a vat? Are we in the matrix? Are our senses reliable, and if so, how? To find out what is true, it is required to go to the bedrock of epistemology, How do we know our reasoning is correct? Sadly, no matter what the answer is, this is a circular argument. If one supplies reason as the foundation of their own reasoning, you're using your reasoning to support your own reasoning. But then if our reasoning isn't supportable, then one can't reasonably say that it isn't supportable since one is using their reasoning to say their reasoning is unsupportable. One can not say that it is impossible to know anything since you must know that it possible to know that is impossible to know anything. Therefore one must say that one can not know anything, not even this. But some disagree, there may be some superficial truths we could find. First, there is existence. Existence exists. Second, there is at least one mind, the one that is conscious. It may be possible that there are no other minds, and everyone is just philosophical zombies. Or we just are crazy and imagine everyone else exists. I don't think anyone would disagree that those are right, even though they are still using reasoning. Some add mathematical proofs into this category, but I don't think they have good evidence that they should. Mathematics must be done under certain logical rules, like the Law of Noncontradiction and such. But what evidence do is supplied that those laws of logic are correct. So in conclusion, besides some very superficial truths, I don't think that there are any absolute truths, due to our lack of a method to find absolute truth. Unless we find some new epistemologically sound way to find truth, we're stuck. And the sad thing is, we are both presumingly using reason to argue our positions, and as said before, reason is likely unreasonable.