BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Global Alarmists (aka liberals) are causing the global food crisis.

First, I'd like to say that in order for your argument to be truly valid, you must disprove the merits of fighting global warming. As has already been stated in the comments section, 95% of scientists believe in global warming. i think they know more about the issue than you do. Second, ethanol is more than just being used to reduce pollution. It's also an alternative fuel source, cutting dependency on oil. Keep this in mind throughout the debate, it's very important. Third, this problem doesn't stem from people trying to fight global warming, it stems from overpopulation and scarcity of resources. My first piece of evidence for this is this time line: http://news.google.com... Those are news articles about a food crisis. As you can see, they've been happening since the mid-1940s, decades before anyone started talking about global warming. This problem has been around for decades. You can argue that global alarmists are making the problem worse, but you can't argue that they CAUSED it. Since this resolution argues that they caused the problem, you must negate. But, continuing, what is causing this problem? Like I said, it's simply scarcity of resources versus overpopulation. Look at resources such as oil and food. Now, we have a scarcity of both. However, if we try to fix one of the problems (scarcity of oil), it winds up making another problem worse (scarcity of food). This is basic economics. It's not the fault of anyone in particular, it's simply trying to find a balance, which should be our goal. And yes, this could result in starvation if it continues down the track (NOTE: the track that is NOT being caused by global alarmists), but what will that result in? Less overpopulation. This is simply natural progress when a society becomes to overextended or overpopulated, natural forces (such as scarcity of resources) "act" to fix the problem. What you're seeing is not the fault of global alarmists. It is simply natural rise and decline. It simply man's natural tendency to find a balance between population and resources.
should people with aids be killed to stop the spread of the disease

I apologize it took me a little, I had other things that needed to get done; but anys I shall argue on why people with AIDS shouldn't be killed.There is a Cure Being FoundFirst thing I like to point out is that there is a cure being found to heal AIDS. According to the article "Searchig for an HIV and AIDS Cure" (1), it states: "There is no cure for HIV and AIDS yet. However, treatment can control HIV and enable people to live a long and healthy life". There may not be a cure yet for HIV, but there is a method to help the person live healthily. So why should this result in death? Secondly, my opponent states the following "Sir. but i feel that way because if we just get rid of them than it will stop the spread of aids and if it was that controllable than there would be almost nobody left with it". However, quoted by "HIV and AIDS in Children" (2) they are born with it. "An estimated 3.2 million children age 15 and under were living with AIDS at the end of 2013, according to the World Health Organization". That is a lot, and do we truly want to kill these children just because they have a disease that cannot be controlled? No, we shouldn't because these children are the future generation within society.No One Has to Have Sex Besides a cure that helps protect the parent and child, I also like to point out that one with AIDS does not necessarily need to have sex. How are AIDS distributed? By the use of sex typically, and they necessarily do not have to do this action. For all we know, they can grow up not having any sex for the rest of their life. Should we still kill them? No, we shouldn't because it is unjust for something they have naturally. Sources:1. http://www.avert.org...2. http://www.webmd.com...
The shape of our world is not what we're told

The first 90% of your argument was from a source that is a blog. This blog cannot be counted as a credible source. Please show me a more credible source and then I will refute your claims. You said that "95% of internet traffic is directed via submarine optic cable." But you failed to mention that "in 2006, submarine cables carried just one per cent of traffic." And if what you are trying to say is true (No satellites) Then how would the internet have worked in 2006? And wouldn't this also mean that phone, internet, and tv companies are also in on the conspiracy? That seems like too many people to be realistic. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The shape of our world is not what we're told

The link for your first paragraph supported my side of the debate and had absolutely nothing to do with what point you were making. Nope, no red flags were thrown up. I'm pretty sure that Oprah is a decent human being and would definitely care if NASA was lying to us. People are not as shallow as you hollowly presume. You left absolutely no evidence for why the moon landing was fake. We do not "worship" the sun. We orbit around it. If telling the truth is 'materialistic', then saying the sun orbits around us is 'narcissistic.' If you think the earth is flat and the sun orbits around us, then you must not believe in gravity or depth perception. Because the mass of the sun is so great that it pulls us into it's gravitational orbit. It simply cannot be the other way around. Also, the rise and set of the sun wouldn't make sense because then there would be a time when the sun sets and the entire world is in darkness. Obviously not true. You. Are. Delusional. Sorry for the Ad Hominem, but you have invented a crazy conspiracy in your head with absolutely no clerical evidence behind it. Every expert in the world (that undoubtedly knows a lot more than you about this subject, having studied it their entire lives) will tell you that you are wrong, and provide proof. What you are basically saying is that everyone wants to fool you for no apparent reason. You sound like a paranoid schizophrenic. Might want to get that checked out. We are not living a lie!! Please. Please, I'm begging you, go talk to an astronomer. They can explain it better than I can. If after a good long debate with them you still refuse to accept the truth, whatever. But don't keep yourself in the dark. You're right, you haven't altered my views in the slightest. Well, I mean, now I'm concerned for your safety. I really don't mean that in an offensive way or anything. I just think you are extremely paranoid. You are entitled to your own opinion, but this is getting to a point where you have tricked yourself into believing in a dangerous conspiracy. I'm not ridiculing you. I understand where you are coming from, and what you are saying. It just isn't a realistic argument. And the thing about science, is that it's real whether you believe it or not. Please, visit NASA headquarters or something. Or direct message me so we can continue the debate. I really hate for it to end like this. Thank you.
The Metaphysics of Star Trek: Dr. Ira Graves failed to Cheat Death

Thanks Wylted. Con’s argument goes like this. 1: We are either the continuation of mental events, mental events themselves, or our bodies. 2: We are not are bodies or our mental events. C: We are the continuation of our mental events. The problem is that premise one is a false trichotomy. There are many theories of personal identity which Con didn't touch upon. The Physical View Con only presents one version of the physical view (and a very hard to defend one). There are much better versions out there such as Peter Unger’s view. ….person Y is identical to person X—in other words, X will survive into the future—if and only if three things are true: Person Y has to have mental capacities, the brain that realizes person Y’s mental capacities has to be physically continuous with the brain that realized person X’s mental capacities, and there has to have been no moment in time between the existence of person X and person Y where that physically continuous object -the brain- did not have mental capacities. [1] Although this view has aspects of the psychological view it’s different and doesn’t entail Dr. Graves survived. As Data’s positronic brain fails to be physically continues with Graves’ brain. Perdurantism Another view is David Lewis’ Perdurantism. A person is a temporal being with various temporal parts. What makes us identical over time is the complete temporal “worm” or the sum of temporal parts [2]. Data and Graves may form a new time worm, but it’s not the same time worm as Graves’. Further-Fact View The final one I will bring up is the further fact view. This states identity exist beyond physical or psychological facts. It exists within an Aristotelian essence or Cartesian soul. Although I believe this one is the weakest of the three, I bring it up to show Con’s false trichotomy. Conclusion Con’s argument fails because it commits the fallacy of false choice. There exists more than the three views of personal identity that Con presented. Sources ___________________________________________________________________ [1] Unger, Peter. “The Physical View.” In Self and Identity, edited by D. Kolak and R. Martin, 192–213. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1991. [2] https://books.google.com...
The Metaphysics of Star Trek: Dr. Ira Graves failed to Cheat Death

I've chosen WyltedThis debate was inspired by Bsh1's series on the ethics of Star Trekhttp://www.debate.org... This debate will focus on the metaphysics of the 6th episode of season 2 of Star Trek: The Next Generation called "The Schizoid Man". This episode features the dying Dr. Ira Graves who attempts to cheat death by uploading his consciousness into Data's positironic brain [1]. I will be arguing that Dr. Graves failed to survive death. Data was changed to act like Graves, but Graves isn't actually in there. Con will be arguing Graves really did survive via Data.Debate format is the typical Lincoln-Douglas format.R1: AcceptanceR2: My opening arguments followed by Con's opening arguments (No rebuttals by Con)R3: Rebuttals to opening argumentsR4: Defense of your original arguments.Rules and Other Debate Information:BOP is shared. No forfeits. No insults. No semantics. Follow the format. 72 Hours to Post Argument. 8,000 Characters Max.10 day voting period. 7 point voting system. Open VotingPosting sources in the comments is allowed.http://www.youtube.com...[1] http://en.memory-alpha.org...
I think therefore I am

It will be fun to be the guinea pig in your thought experiment :)Hmm. So, if I understand your terms correctly, both you and the thought are both existing, correct? If I am correct in this observation then there really is only one logical answer to this debate due to the lexical setup of your terms:I think - this is the premise set up by the phrase. In it, we denote that there is an "I" and a "think. " Now, according to your terms, "I" is something that is in existence. Further, according to your terms, a thought is something that is existing. This means that you need both OR either to postulate existence. Therefore, "I am" is the logical conclusion regardless of whether you think or not. Therefore, since, no matter how you slice it, you "are," then you think, therefore you are. You, therefore you are. Therefore, this entire statement cannot be disproven because, either way, you are.
I think therefore I am

I have an argument I have not seen someone use on this topic and would like to see how it holds up in debate. I am against the statement "I think therefore I am" I would only like to set up some definitions in the first round: I: any form of existence that creates and perceives thoughts. (So even if I'm not a meat-bag I seem to be, "I" am whatever is dreaming of that meat-bag, because that is where the thoughts are coming from.) thought: I'm willing to take thought as a premise, something that simply is, I know thought is happening Since you are pro, I will defer the opening statement to you. (Yes I realize the absurdity of going on an online debate site when I'm not even sure I exist, but f** it, nothing matters.)
Quantum particles are alive.

Quantum particles are very random, unpredictable by any definition of the word, so their actions simply cannot be determined beforehand, which is, very, very loosely, the definition of free will. I think about it this way. Suppose you land on an alien planet. The aliens there act exactly like humans, but they are missing one criterion for life. For instance, suppose that they look exactly like humans, but their bodies are made of metal, not a single cell on their entire bodies. I would still consider them alive. What if, instead, they cannot reproduce, meaning their alien race is going to go extinct soon. I would still consider them alive. I am using alive rather loosely, but that is helpful in the identification of alien life. For instance, in Star Trek: The Next Generation, there is an episode about a "Tin Man", which is considered alive despite being a vehicle. I will draw a line and say that in order to be alive, it must be proven to physically exist in the real world, so numbers are not alive. However, I would say that if the actions of an object cannot be predicted in any sense, it is alive. Even things that might appear unpredictable, like weather, can be predicted, unlike quantum particles. However, a rock falling down a hill is not alive because we can predict how the rock will fall. Philosophers question whether even humans have free will. Quantum particles have, in a very loose way, free will, so they are alive, in a loose sense.
Quantum particles are alive.

Let's start with a definition of life? Cells? No, that only works for Earth life. What if there is an alien race not made up of cells but act like humans. Reproduction? Nope. What if there is an alien race that cannot reproduce but acts just like humans. Growth? Not really. What if there is an alien race that acts like humans, but fully grown humans and they never grow. What makes something alive? Quantum particles have the ability, to, in a sense, make their own choices about their spin that cannot be determined beforehand with the laws of physics without actually measuring it. Does that make it alive?
Best Fantine, Best Eponine.

I love Les Miserables, so I totally accept. There are so many Fantine's and Eponine's around the world. There might even be two or three production going on right now in other countries. Thus, it is impossible to decide which Fantine and Eponine actresses did the best at their roles. Just because Ruthie Henshall and Lea Salonga are well known doesn't mean they did the best at their roles. I've seen it three times, four if you count the movie. Okay, Samantha Barks and Anne Hathaway weren't the best Fantines and Eponines (though Anne Hathaway was pretty good), but I've seen three different, quite unknown actresses for each role, that I can't even recall their names. But their performances were just as powerful as Ruthie Henshall's and Lea Salogna's. And I'm judging three out of the thousands that have played this role. Sure, the Eponine I saw the first time was better than the one I saw the third time, but that doesn't make her the best Eponine. Same goes for Fantine. Just because Ruthie Henshall and Lea Salonga are the best Fantines and Eponines you've seen, doesn't make them the "best".
This House believes that abortion is morally permissible.

Given the number of false starts we’ve had, I should thank them both for their patience as well and I hope it is worth the wait. I also want to thank Stephen Hawkins as well for agreeing to this debate last minute. It’s great to debate a fellow Brit, especially such a well-established member on such an important topic. As this round is primarily for acceptance, I’ll quickly introduce some brief definitions and then allow Pro to make his opening case. DefinitionsAbortion - the medical process of ending a pregnancy so it does not result in the birth of a baby. . http://www.nhs.uk...Morally permissible - ethically acceptable. Obviously, these definitions are somewhat minimal, largely because I don't foresee or expect any issue over semantics. I’ve tried to be as broad and unassuming as possible, particularly with regards to morality. AbbreviationsPC - Pro-ChoicePL - Pro-LifeTo avoid equivocation over stages of development in pregnancy, I'll also use the term "unborn" as an all-encompassing label. ConclusionWith this, I'll invite Pro to make his case and wish him the best of luck. Cheers
Homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples.

This debate is based on my opponent's assertion that homosexual couples cannot raise children as well as heterosexual couples. He's agreed to debate me on this topic before; however, due to my work schedule I was unable to participate and had to forfeit. Apparently he has a lot of credible sources to back up his point of view. While I don't care about the automatic loss, I'd like the opportunity for my opponent to defend his beliefs. I'm planning on taking Thursday off, so hopefully that plus the weekend will give me enough time to come on DDO for a few minutes and post my rounds. There should be no semantics used in this discussion. I think it's obvious which position each of us will be defending. ..
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

CREATIONISM: The belief a divine being created the universe and life.INTELLIGENT DESIGN: Some features of the universe and life are best explained by an intelligent cause.CAUSE: synonymous with creator in this usage.So intelligent design suggests certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. One of those features is "the fine-tuned universe."The fine tuned universe argues that the univeres physical constants seem to be fine tuned for life. So we have two criteria for the intelligent cause:1. Must transcend space-time(if the intelligent cause was subject to physical laws then it wouldn't have been able to fine tune the physical constants because it would never have a chance to form.)2. Must be able to "fine tune the physical constants of the universe.Now the question is what fulfills those criteria; the answer is very clear. A god is the intelligent cause. Only a god would transcend the universe and be able to manipulate the physica constants.So I've established that God is the intelligent cause.INTELLIGENT CAUSE-------GODCREATIONISM CREATOR---GOD(S)Both ID and creationism claim that God created the universe. Therefore intelligent design is creationism under a new name.
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

The snow glows white on the mountain tonightNot a footprint to be seenA kingdom of isolation, and it looks like I'm the QueenThe wind is howling like this swirling storm insideCouldn't keep it in; Heaven knows I've tried Don't let them in, don't let them seeBe the good girl you always have to beConceal, don't feel, don't let them knowWell now they know Let it go, let it goCan't hold it back anymore Let it go, let it goTurn away and slam the doorI don't care what they're going to sayLet the storm rage onThe cold never bothered me anyway It's funny how some distanceMakes everything seem smallAnd the fears that once controlled meCan't get to me at all It's time to see what I can doTo test the limits and break throughNo right, no wrong, no rules for me,I'm free! Let it go, let it goI am one with the wind and skyLet it go, let it goYou'll never see me cryHere I standAnd here I'll stayLet the storm rage on My power flurries through the air into the groundMy soul is spiraling in frozen fractals all aroundAnd one thought crystallizes like an icy blastI'm never going back, the past is in the past Let it go, let it goAnd I'll rise like the break of dawnLet it go, let it goThat perfect girl is goneHere I standIn the light of dayLet the storm rage onThe cold never bothered me anyway!
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

Hmmmm. .. .. .. .So I asked my Biology professor and this is what he said about your arguments:_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ID is a creationist paradigm, because it does invoke God. Please remember that ID is fine with microev, speciation, natural selection, and an earth that is 4 billion or so years old. However, it is not Creationism - because most people tend to use that term to refer to the Young Earth Creation paradigm. And ID is definitely NOT YEC. I note that in the first line of his quote, he has defined creationism as a belief that a divine being created the universe and life. If that's all he means, then fine, ID is a from of creationism. Keep asking questions - that's how we learn! --Mr. E_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I guess I lose this debate because I misunderstood Pro's position on the subject. Pro's definition of creationism is different than the norm and since the beginning of the debate I was thoughtlessly under the impression that his definition was no different from the others. I am sorry that I did not put up much of a fight. I just felt bad for you because your last debate was ruined and sabatoged by legodude123 (who is back as legodude1234). I will say this though: there is no point in instigating this debate because you would always win. If your definition for creationism is the one you stated, then the intelligent design definately is creationism. It's like starting a debate saying "A dog is a dog because it is a dog. " The poor lad who accepts your challenge will obviously lose. Of course it is his/my fault for accepting the debate in the first place. Nevertheless, Pro won.
intelligent design is creationism under a new label

CREATIONISM: The belief a divine being created the universe and life. "Intelligent Design is a form of Creationism, but NOT Creationism itself."Creationism is the general belief a deity created life and the universe. To prove my case I had to prove that it was creationism. While I concede that there are different forms of creationism; all I had to do was show that it WAS a form of creationism which con concedes to. "that is not to say that Intelligent Design is a religion."Creationism itself isn't a religion so this doesn't affect my case."Most creationist beliefs base their ideas off of religious/sacred texts and must defend what are in these texts. Intelligent Design is based off of scientific and logical observations, and is not obligated to defend any part of the Bible, Quran, Torah, etc."While it is true that most creationists base their belifes off of sacred texts that is not a requirement of creationism so my argument that intelligent design is creationism still stands.CONCLUSIONMy argument has not been successfuly refuted and con (technically) conceded in the first quote.