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

My opponent asks me ten yes or no question in each of the first two rounds. In the third round my opponent can state my alleged contradictions. The last round I will defend my statements or admit defeat. Pro reserves the right to define words according to the online version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary unless Con defines the word in his question. Failure by either Pro or Con to follow the rules results in an automatic loss for the offending party.
I will not contradict myself

I'm sorry it took so long for me to respond, I meant to get this turned yesterday. 1. This seems like a contradiction, however it is not. While it is true the Bible never explicitly condemns slavery, the Bible never explicitly supports it either. Instead the Bible treats slavery like a social and political reality that couldn't be avoided, much like tribal wars or polygamy by Hebrew royalty. My opponent would have to show a Bible verse where God explicitly condones slavery. Also note that indentured servitude is not slavery for the purposes of this debate. If con wants to consider it slavery he will have to explain why it is slavery. 2. This is not a contradiction. My opponent is asking me if he is the greatest singer in the universe is purely a matter of opinion. A definite answer is impossible to find. Not only that but the question asked is implying an opinionated answer. For example, Rollling Stone Magazine named Jimi Hendrix as the best guitarist ever. However LA Times Magazine says it is Duane Allman. Both lists ask the same question and come up with definite answers. However if there was a definite answer, then both Rolling Stones Magazine and LA Times Magazine would have came to the same conclusion. Thus no matter how you ask the question, any answer is an opinion because a definite answer is impossible, nor is it reasonable for me to scan through billions of people to make a definitive answer. I contend that I have not contradicted myself and I urge a Pro vote. . http://www.rollingstone.com... . http://www.latimesmagazine.com...
Mixed economies work better then fully socialist or fully capitalist economies.

I will argue that while both capitalism and socialism have good qualities about them, neither system can fully work properly without parts of the other system put in place. capitalism's inherent purpose is to produce capital. This means that there are some situations in which the quest for profit trumps human needs. I have used the example of a healthcare monopoly before. A company finds a cure for cancer and copyrights it so it is the only one able to produce the cure. Since demand will always be high and the company can keep the supply low, the company can now profit from the needless suffering of others. Socialism's inherent purpose is to satisfy human needs. Most socialist economies employ a cetralized or de-centralized planned economy. This method is not as effective a method for the allocation of resources and distribution of goods as the free market system. The amount of information needed to plan the economy is simply too great. I contend that putting the free market system along with government regulation and government ownership of certain industries will provide a more stable basis of economics. Regulation and government ownership of certain industries like police and education(which keeps them relatively stable as the market fluctuates,you don't have to shut down the police in a down economy) along with the free market to allocate resources works better than an unrestricted capitalist economy or a completely socialist economy.
Mixed economies work better then fully socialist or fully capitalist economies.

I will argue the pro that mixed economies function better then fully socialist or fully capitalist economies. Mixed economy: an economic system that combines private and state enterprises wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn socialist economy: an economic system based on state ownership of capital wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn Capitalist economy: an economic system based on private ownership of capital wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Should Marijuana be legalized

C.1 Marijuana does not cause that much harm Marijuana does not impair lung function"at least not in the doses inhaled by the majority of users, according to the largest and longest study ever to consider the issue, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. (1) It is a common misconception that marihuana is linked to serious health issues and problem, when in reality it does not cause as much harm that most people thought. C.2 Tax Colorado, the first state to allow the sale of recreational marijuana, is expected to take in $60 million to $70 million this year in taxes from legal pot sales, according to the Denver Business Journal. (2) That is one state alone, and the entire federal government benefiting from marijuana taxes can make a huge impact. C.3 Choice It"s the person"s choice to "harm" the body. However, heavy evidence does suggest that marijuana does not harm the body. I will do rebuttals in the following round 1.http://healthland.time.com... 2.http://www.nerdwallet.com...
Should Marijuana be legalized

I will be arguing the societal loss of legalizing marijuana, and how legitimizing marijuana will create a free market that will get our people addicted. 1. THC- THC is the chemical that you put in drugs. The more you THC you put in the drug, the more likely you are to get addicted. It doesn't take a genius to know that drug cartels would abuse this system and put more THC in the system. If you are for legalizing drugs, what would happen is that businesses would compete on which marijuana is the best. Businesses therefore would abuse the THC and drug our population. 2. Abusing marijuana causes depression- According to National Institute of Drug Abuse, people that abuse drugs are 5 times more likely to get depressed than people that don't. The reason why this happens is because marijuana abuses the part of your brain that activates the happiness. If you keep using the drug, your brains happiness will stop working. What will happen is that your happiness would be dependent on drugs. 3. According to Dr. Raza, a practicing physician that has treated over 100 cases of drug abuse. One case is astounding. A straight A student was given a scholarship at a college. Anybody in there right mind would have accepted it. She started doing drugs, and got addicted. She refused the scholarship and started working as a waitress. She says she was happy.
Evolution vs creationism

I will start by defining terms: Evolution: The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation. Creationism: a belief that life was created by the God of the bible according to Genesis. Let's take a look at evolution. When an antibiotic is applied to bacteria, most bacteria in the group will die. However, a few will be resistant to some types of antibiotics. After this, the remaining few will reproduce a new Generation, and all succeeding generations will be immune to the antibiotic. This is the same principle when it comes to viruses and vaccines, and insects and pesticides. There is also The fact that we share about 96% of our genes with chimpanzees, 60% with fruitflies, 75% with mice, And about 80% with cows. This points to a common ancestor. Also, it should be noted that the percentage of difference between us and these animals corresponds PERFECTLY To how long ago our genetic lines separated. Fossils. Oh, fossils. The simplest fossils are found in the oldest rocks, and in general older fossils are found Yo be buried deeper than the younger ones. For example we find fossils of non flowering plants buried deeper than flowering plants. There is also the universal genetic code. Every cell on the planet Are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form. This is a huge indicator for a Common ancestor.
Public Education is Better for Society than Private Education

Public education has four important benefits. It can increase a nation"s output of skilled workers. It makes education accessible to everyone. The cost of private schools are enormous, with the cost on par with the cost of universities. The average private school tuition in US for a non-sectarian elementary school is $15 945, and $27 302 a year for secondary school. America"s median income is $51 017. Even in wealthier countries, there would be many people who cannot afford education without widespread public schools. The presence of public education also empowers the government to make education mandatory. Public schools generally offer a better quality of education. Public institutions generally have more funding than private schools. Most private schools must invite retired/rejected teachers to teach at their schools because the pay/benefits they receive are much less than teachers of public schools. The average pay for private school teachers is $36 000, while the average pay for public schools is $50 000 (not including various kinds of welfare). It is difficult for investors to invest in private education, as it isn"t a very profitable business. Most prestigious universities, who invest large amounts of resources in their students, rely mostly on donations. Jim Rogers, in one of his books, noted that many universities are now in debt. Public education increase equality. It brings together students from all social classes. America"s top private schools can cost 1 million dollars per family (for all four years), while some cost $16 000 (again for all four years). Private education has the potential to promote different social classes. Public schools also provide a common standard of education, which provides a more level playing field for all students. For this reason, universities make adjustments to the raw score if the applicant is from a private school. Private schools generally give students higher grades than public schools, and their marking schemes are generally not consistent with each other. I look forward to hearing your arguments. . http://money.cnn.com... . http://theweek.com... . http://www.theatlantic.com... . http://www.marketwatch.com...
Is War necessary for World Peace

I believe that World Peace probably will never be attained until some catastrophic event can bring Humanity together. World Domination is a win-win situation, because only 2 outcomes are possible. 1. All the other countries will be conquered and Peace shall follow. 2. The rest of the counties will band together and destroy that country and will continue to work together. This is my opinion only so it's kind of shaky with no evidence, but it is what has to happen for us to come together as a species. The only other alternative is for us to all die of Starvation and dehydration. Thanks for the fun I hope we can clash minds again. Farewell
Is War necessary for World Peace

Thank you I still believe that only when you are alone Peace can be had. When 2 forces come into contact with each other they can very rarely be in peace together. It is possible to tolerate the other person, but that only works to a degree. Sooner or later those forces will come into conflict until one is eliminated and the other one can now retain that peacefulness that they once had. World Dominance is not the only way to achieve peace I agree but to me it seems like the one that would guarantee future peacefulness and happiness
Is War necessary for World Peace

Hello, Warworld! Nice debate topic, I think it pertains to everybody. I certainly think that through enough war, world peace could be attained. However, I do not think this is the only way it may be done. War is not necessary for world peace. In your examples, you mention world peace through world dominance. While war could make a country dominant, there are other ways. Through the UN, peacekeeping missions, or presence in other countries, one could say that the US is taking over the world through diplomatic means. Similarly, through extreme productivity, the fastest growing economy, and a world-wide market, one could also say that China is taking over the world through economic means. It's all a matter of blending other nations in with your world views, until they want to become a part of your nation. Otherwise though, I don't necessarily hold that dominance is the key to world peace. I think it's all about strong treaties, and happy economies. I also think that key differences, such as oppressive religions, would need to be seen past. On the whole though, the ends should never be used to justify the means. Going to war with the idea of creating world peace is something I wouldn't condone. It is our job as a unified world to come up with better solutions.
Is War necessary for World Peace

I believe that war will lead to World Peace because if one country can destroy all the rest of them would that not lead to Peace. If 1 country can rise up and destroy the rest that makes that country the sole inhabitant of the world which leads to no one to fight against. If that is succeeded than we can focus all of our efforts on things more worthwhile than the constant manufacture of weapons and violence. we can focus on curing Diseases, increasing our knowledge of the Universe, and eventually leaving Earth and terraforming other planets. Which leads to the prosperity and well-being of the Human race. It is necessary for even Innocent people to die for the Greater good of our continuation of our species. If millions and even billions of people have to die to achieve World Peace then I say it is a small price to pay. You can always make more people replace the one that we have lost. Sooner or late the Earth I going to run out of fresh water or space or us all getting blown up by nuclear weapons. Which will lead to War over these things and these things will be used up in our petty struggles for Dominance. Thanks
Explicit degrees in logic should be required for Psychotherapists

Rules for debate: 1. Cite all research sources at the bottom of page. My position requires Psychotherapists to have explicit degrees in logic in order to work with patients. This must be the case because all too often Psychotherapists don't make progress with their clients due to lack of skill and the patient ends up continuing payments without success. Logic can decrease this trend by enabling therapists to critically evaluate not only their client's worldview but also Psychotherapeutic techniques marketed to the therapist. The ability to discern whether a given training program is logically consistent and valid protects therapists from investing in scams and fraudulent change techniques. This protection extends to the client as only viable techniques will be considered by the therapist thus avoiding endless therapy. Additionally, an explicit degree in logic will standardize a specific and essential aspect to thinking and can be required by employers. This decreases employers having to invest time and energy into having the HR rep trying to figure out what skills a person with a specific degree actually has. If logic is an explicit degree, employers can make more accurate and profitable business decisions to enhance performance. Finally, there is a possibility that making a degree in logic explicit will encourage students to study critical thinking specifically instead of watered down trivia in their major courses. With a mastery in logic, all other fields open themselves up to the student and wisdom can be cultivated in a most advantageous way. Thanks.
SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

"If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question." THIS MATTERS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INVEST AS YOU CHOOSE AND NOT BE TOLD BY THE GOVERNMENT WHAT IS A SAFE OPTION, THIS IS CALLED LIBERITY. There is no reason to shut down the stock market, listed above is my opponents best argument against the stock market and as you can see it is an argument against personal liberty.
SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

I fully agree with what you say. But I am questioning the need to have stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors and traders. Eating your favorite snack is one thing and losing money is some other thing I think. The demand supply dynamics in the markets are often manipulated and even some big listed companies manipulate accounts to boost the demand for their shares. What I say is that there are methods by which the companies can sell shares and offer better guaranteed returns for the investors without getting listed and traded in the markets. I only say that the stock markets, the trading places for stocks are often driven by unknown factors and make a few rich at the cost of vast majority of investors. If you say that the investors are knowingly taking the risk, that is right but when safe options exist, why allow people to risk their savings and investments is my question. Eating junk food and losing your savings are different things according to me. What I want is that the greed for quick money is making investments in stocks an attractive option. There is no harm if we replace the stock markets with a system where companies mobilize funds and offer guaranteed and risk free returns, higher to other types of investments to their investors. That way both gain. The companies as well as investors.
SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

I agree with you that the stock market can cause people to lose large sums of money, I believe that the stock market can be unsafe to invest in, however, that is no reason to shut it down. People have the option of investing in alternatives; no one is forcing them to invest in the stock market. Therefore there is no reason to shut the markets down. Your argument can be best summarized with this example. Someone is going out to lunch and they need to find a restaurant to eat at. They choose to eat at McDonalds even through they know that the food McDonalds serves is not that healthy and can lead to cardiovascular disease. You are saying we should shut down McDonalds because it might cause someone to develop cardiovascular disease even though they could have gone to Subway or some other healthy choice for lunch. As long as you have the option to choose something wise there is no reason to outlaw the unwise.
SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

My argument is that the stock markets are unreliable, unpredictable source for keeping the savings or surplus funds. Stock markets need people who think differently from the crowds to succeed. Stock markets are sentiment driven many times which is unknown factor x. I do not contest the need for companies to invest or mobilize funds for their expansion, growth etc. If they need funds, why not they resort to offering shares at fixed guaranteed minimum fixed returns so that their needs are met and the investors interests are protected. Even the Investment companies, Public funds prefer a more risk free atmosphere for making investments. The mutual funds, the investing companies,the Public funds often lose heavily due to stock market fluctuations risking the investors/contributors. The companies to can offer better guaranteed return to their shareholders even if the companies are not listed or traded in the stock markets. When you can remove the risk, why persist with unpredictable stock markets that make a few rich at the cost of millions is my argument.
SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

No one is forced to invest in the Stock Market. You know the risks when entering the market; you should have the freedom to make your own decisions even if they are unwise. Shutting down the stock market would also reduce the amount of capital companies have to invest in the market. In turn reducing how well companies can produce products. It would be stupid to shut down the market. You have the choice to enter the market; if you fail it is your fault. You have the freedom to decide if you want to make risky investments.
SHUT DOWN THE STOCK MARKETS

I am not an expert in stocks. I am a commoner seeing many people investing their life savings in stocks and stock markets through one route or other, directly or indirectly with the hope of higher returns on their savings. The amount they save for the rainy day is not safe is my argument. The sentiment that drives the demand and prices for stocks or the sentiment that leads to market crashes is too risky as a channel for common man. There must be better way for the companies to mobilise funds for their activities and offer guarnateed returns without the bouts of volatility. I am for disbanding the stock markets and evolving a mechanism for the saftey of investors and also for the smooth growth of the companies. I shudder to think of the fate of the millions of investors who lost billions and billions across the globe due to weak sentiment. Sentiment is a thing that changes day to day on news and too dangerous for the investors. Better invest the savings safe in bonds or just keep the savings in current or savings accounts and relax is my advice to the common man.
crossfit is better than bodybuilding health wise.

Unfortunately PRO has simply repeated his argument from round 2. PRO also seems to be missing a key point in this debate which is that crossfit is a form of exercise, bodybuilding is a form of exercise. Pro has wasted most of this debate talking about diets. As I already pointed out in round 2 there is no difference between people who do crossfit and those who do traditional bodybuilding exercises when it comes to diet. There is no crossfit diet, there is no bodybuilding diet. There is only eating healthily and unhealthily. People from both practices do both. Now let's talk about CF.Crossfit gyms often have a "workout of the day" which involves doing a number of exercises as fast as possible. These exercises tend to be high energy, complex moves for high reps. These exercises are also done in bodybuilding with one key difference...Rest periods. Crossfit doesn't have rest periods, so when doing complex lifting moves when your body is highly fatigued then your lifting form gets very sloppy, making you prone to injury. [1]Crossfit has a huge injury rate because of this, and the coaches encourage you to do it. That voice inside your head that says "stop, you're done" is ignored over the voice of the coach saying "KEEP GOING!". You are taught a habit of ignoring your own instinct because a certified trainer is telling you otherwise. So what does it take to become a crossfit coach and teach people how to safely lift weights numerous times? Attend a two day course.[2] That's it. Kind of explains this video then [3].The idea in traditional bodybuilding type exercises is that you lift the weights in good form, use up the energy inside the muscle and then stop to rest whilst the muscle gets some energy back before you repeat. This method is safe and gets you good results which is why you see boxers, marathon runners, football/soccer players doing this type of exercise on top of their cardio routine. It strengthens their joints instead of breaking them down like in CF. Can you imagine and elderly person doing crossfit? Someone with spinal problems? No. It is simply too dangerous especially when the coaches don't know anything about physiology. All they know are the stereotypes and myths about other training disciplines which they take pleasure in collectively ridiculing. If only they had a clue. You get an idea of these myths from PRO's arguments. "lifting heavy causes heart failure". It's just nonsense. Source [1] is a good example of how crossfit caused kidney failure which is not nonsense. PRO talks about how great crossfit is for your metabolism...well your metabolism is based on the amount of lean tissue you have in your body. The more lean tissue you have the more calories you need to maintain it. But wait? Bodybuilding builds lean tissue. Bodybuilding is way better for increasing your metabolism.[1]http://www.livestrong.com...[2]http://www.crossfit.com...[3];