BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

1- "Fear is a Component of Bravery" "You stated in your definition that Courage means without fear, correct?" Based on your OWN definitions of things it is taken into context that courageous means without fear so therefore if you say that Courage was courageous after he DID had fear, you are dissaproving your own definitions; even after you just took it into context as i have just explained. My opponent failed to answer the yes or no question considering he went into the topic of "certain cases" when the real question was just if he had stated in his definition of Courage meant being without fear; which should be pointed out because of his not answering what I asked for him to answer which was in a simple yes or no answer and going off into a different topic to make the audience think he has reason, when really he is just beating around the bush. "We are not trying to prove this over "simple analogy" we are using definitions and by those definitions i say to the audience to pick who has the better arguements." My whole paragraph above was using into context, and I hope the audience does realize your just beating around the bush and not really answering my questions I have asked. "Courage the Dog" My opponent seems to keep wanting to go into context which I will with pleasure do, Courage has fear in EVERY episode which makes him NOT courageous because courages means WITHOUT fear; which means he is NOT brave because he does NOT have courage. Is that simple enough, or do I need to go into "context" with this question too? My opponent also failed to answer my question that was "Do you agree with your definitions?" Which is another sign that he is just trying to talk about other things, when really it is pretty simple and obvious that he does not even agree with his own definitions therefore being does not deserve to win this debate. That is why I urge you to vote Con. Thank You.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

"Fear is a Component of Bravery" "You stated in your definition that Courage means without fear, correct?" In certain cases being without fear is indeed courageous, but we have to take things into context. If I type on my keyboard without fear, does that make me courageous or even the act itself courageous? If courage equates to being without fear, then acts of recklessness (Jumping off the building for fun), apathy (Not caring about life or death and committing suicide), ignorance (Unknowingly jumping off the building), and arrogance (Overconfident belief that one can survive falling off the building) must be respectively considered courageous. "We are not trying to prove this over "simple analogy" we are using definitions and by those definitions i say to the audience to pick who has the better arguements." And those definitions must be taken into context. I agree that we let the audience decide. "Courage the Dog" My opponent continues his arguments with semantics, but I have already explained my points above.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

1- "Fear is a Component of Bravery" You stated in your definition that Courage means without fear, correct? And does Courage show fear in every episode? Yes, he does. So therefore, courage is not courageous. Brave means to have the act of being courageous so then, courage is not brave. If you say yes to the first two questions, you have by proven that Courage is in fact, not brave; and I await for your yes or no answer towards those questions. We are not trying to prove this over "simple analogy" we are using definitions and by those definitions i say to the audience to pick who has the better arguements. 2- "Courage the Dog" We are taking this debate over the definitions you gave, not over your personal beleif of the definition. Fear in fact negates the definition of Courage because it says WITHOUT fear and Courage the Dog experiances fear. If you do not agree with your own definitions you are proving you are wrong; if you do agree with your definitions you agree with my arguements because they are all facts that link to your definitions. Tell me do you agree with your definitions or not?
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

Courage can mean many things, and though I also appeal to the dictionary's definition, let's take the definition into context and closely analyze what counts as bravery. ~Fear is a Component of Bravery~ Fear is generally taken to be the opposite of bravery, but today I ask the audience to take a minute to think about what bravery truly means. There are very definite lines that separate bravery, recklessness, confidence, and arrogance. Bravery is an act of overcoming your fears and challenging them. Let's take a look at a simple analogy. If a person with Acrophobia (the fear of heights) climbed a tree to overcome his fears, is the person brave or is he a coward? And if a person who has no Acrophobia is leisurely climbing a tree, does this mean that the person is brave? As you can see, fear is what allows there to be Bravery. ~Courage the Dog~ Courage the Cowardly Dog have saved his owner from aliens, ghosts, and crazy individuals numerous times, in fact, he does something of the like, EVERY episode. It is true that Courage has fears, but fear does not negate bravery. As I said above, fighting your fears is what one can view as true bravery. Courage does not run and leave his owners left for dead; instead even though he is scared, he strives to save them. That is bravery.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

Thank you for making this debate, whatledge; and I will gladly accept it. Good luck. Now let's start, I totally agree with my opponent's definition of courage and brave although, Courage the Cowardly Dog is not brave. My first arguement is that in the actuall show where Courage faces many different situations he experiances fear, as shown with his facial expressions and having courage means you have no fear as shown in your definition ; Brave means to have courage which Courage by my proof doesn't so therefore Pro's side of the debate is false. My second and last arguement is that without the COMPLETE values of a definition, it is not correct. And because of this, your case should lose. Thank you.
Courage the Cowardly Dog is, in fact, Brave

~intro~ I contend that Courage the Cowardly Dog [1] is brave, despite the title of the show labeling him as a cowardly dog. My opponent can feel free to start his argument in round 1. My arguments will start in round 2. Brave- possessing or exhibiting courage or courageous endurance. [2] Courage- the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery. [3] I look forward to a good debate. http://en.wikipedia.org... [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3]
China will collapse

China will not collapse. While your information is for the most part true, looking at the past instead of the present can give a better indication of the future. But first some facts- 1. China has survived many major changes, including the tenures of 22 dynasties and 2 republics since antiquity. 2. Throughout the world, the end of powerful civilizations has been preceded by a period of decline. For example, when Rome finally fell in 476 AD, it had been weakening for nearly 400 years, even though several strong leaders emerged during this time. When the Han Dynasty of China fell, it had been weakening was well. 3. China has been rising, both economically, growing consistently since 1976, and technologically, due to the highly trained, highly skilled workforce. 4. Logically, since China is not in as state of decline, rather in a state of incline, it is not in any danger of collapsing. Even if it does happen to go through a brief decline, competition from countries such as the United States and Russia, as well as income generated from foreign companies residing in china, will shortly put China back on top.
China will collapse

Gordon Chang and many alike have been predicting China's 'collapse' for decades. We hear about the housing bubble, corruption, the slow down, increasing debt, a 'hard landing' or even demographic problems. Despite all of these claims, recent reports of China's economy from the 2017 FY report very positive results, and that's coming from the IMF. China's economy grew by 6.9% in 2017 which is the first increase in 17 years, China's government has also been working diligently to prevent a housing bubble as well as prevent runaway debt levels. The difference between China's economic structure and that of most other countries like America in 2008, is that China's central government guides and contains it's economy whereas most other countries governments only have marginal control. China's state capitalist structure is unlike anything in modern history. That said, China is weaning off debt-driven growth into a more stable consumer and innovation-driven economy, such economies are less prone to the catastrophic economic fault because the power is put into the domestic consumer rather than just the producer. In terms of the housing bubble that affects China's coastal regions, this is completely normal for a growing and developing country. Sure the housing and costs of living costs are drastically increasing in apartheid to central regions, but look at San Francisco, look at new york. Costs of living are decided by what living in the said area is worth. If you're living in central Shenzhen, that is the same as living in central San Francisco or new york, simply because there is a lot going on and there is more money to be made, this adds literal value to even the worst housing quality. The MIC25 initiative, or 'Made in China 2025' is an initiative by the CCP to turn China into an innovation economy of the highest order.
Piano Battle #2

. http://www.youtube.com... The framework is simple. You can submit any music of your choice regardless of genre, provided that it is only on piano with no edits and no other instruments (including vocals and percussion). There is a time limit of five minutes for the videos of the first four rounds and no time limit for the final round. The voting criteria is as follows: Arguments: General performance. Sources: Difficulty of the song. S&G: Expression. Conduct: Interpretation. The voting criteria will be set at 2.5k for the more intelligent and musically gifted members of DDO to vote and prevent the possibility of ignorant voters. To confirm (or somewhat) that the person who is playing in the video is you, you must show yourself or some of your body parts (i. e. your hands or arms if you want privacy like me) to offer some evidence that you're the one who's playing. Remember, you *must* post your first song right from your first round. Thanks to the challenger, and if you wish to enter, tell me how many years you have been playing and one of the pieces/songs you can play. Good luck! NOTE: The first Piano Battle is here: . http://www.debate.org... I just started this one because Defro said it might take him a while to practice/upload his first piece. :P UPDATE: Beginner has agreed to take this Piano Battle.
Piano Battle #2

My opponent is apparently unable to continue this debate.Whatever problems he's having, I hope they are resolved soon.With that said, I have a couple videos sitting at the bay that I had prepared for this round. I might as well share them.Here are the pieces (or parts anyway) that I told Rev I'd upload.I make mistakes, as promised. ;PHere's to you Rev. Cheers!http://www.youtube.com...http://www.youtube.com...
Che Guevarra should have led Cuba instead of Fidel Castro

I sincerly appologise for my tartiness I was grounded for the past five days and I didn't have access to my computer. R1: My opponent says that Castro was the mastermind behind the entire revolution. This is untrue since their were a number of other comanders such as Castro's brother and Che who Castro talked with and made his plans from there. Che was Castro's bestfriend and he talked the plans over almost everytime. Also, the MLKJ thing is true however, it is not relevent because Castro was the leader but had a lot of influence on his judgements from Che. R2: Che did not just simplely leave Cuba he stayed and was given charge of the Cuban Military, and other public positions. This does not say in anyway why Castro was better. Also, the killing of those politicians was the act of a tyrrant. Che from his military record would have just simply exile the defeated foes. Two wrongs don't make a right! R3: My opponent says gives a premise that is not warranted. I ask for evidence of Castro's 'collage education'. Also, the Dominican revelutionary that my opponent referes too was a unedcucated person leading and uneducated people. Very few people from that country were educated. Cuba is different because it was controlled by America for many years and was developed, and quite a large amount of its people were educated. Cuba required a leader who was educated. C1: It does not matter where they were born. They were communists. Communist believe in total equalit and internationalism. By the end of the Cuban Revelution most of the population of Cuba were Communists. Therefore, my opponent's case is invalid. Furthermore, The people loved Che just as much as Castro and so did the international community, To this very day Che remains one of the best known and loved people by tons of people world wide. Also, right after their victory Che became a Cuban citizen, so all the Cubans thought of Che as another Cuban.[1] in Conclusion, Che was a better leader. Che was a more merciful leader. He was better educated then Castro. It does not matter where he was born. Vote Pro. [1] http://www.timetoast.com...
Che Guevarra should have led Cuba instead of Fidel Castro

Che Guevara and Fidel Castro are the most widely known figures in the Cuban Revoltution both had commanding positions in the war and both faught for the same side. They were both friends, but after the war Castro was the one who became leader of Cuba. Che went on to other countries to start more revolutions.[1][2][3] I say Che should have been leader of the country of Cuba and it shall be the duty of Con to prove me wrong. Contention 1: Che was a better leader then Castro. During the Cuban revolution, Che led his men to more victories, and was the one responsible for the taking of the cities near Havanna before waiting for Casro to come and lead the men into a victory perade into the capital city. Contention 2: Che was nicer then Castro. Che never executed political prisoners, but when the revolution was over Castro executed all of the political prisoners. Che would have been more merciful. Contention 3: Che was smarter. While Che was a doctor, Castro never went to collage. This means Che was smarter then Castro, and therefore Che would have been a better leader. In Conclusion, Che was more fit to lead Cuba then Castro and should have been the leader of Cuba. Vote Pro [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
How much wood a woodchuck can chuck remains unresolved.

I concur with your assessment that the aforementioned answer is the most specific answer possible given the available information about the hypothetical woodchuck and the wood he would be chucking. However I disagree that the answer given by the tongue twister is satisfactory. The answer given was inherently known before the question was even asked. Obviously the maximum amount of wood the woodchuck could chuck would be the maximum amount the woodchuck could chuck. The answer given is an axiomatic truth. It doesn't better define the woodchuck's chucking ability any more than the question being asked did. For this reason I maintain that the answer given is unsatisfactory.
Everything that anybody does is selfish.

=== DEFINITIONS === My opponent has seemingly rejected my definitions, instead opting for the definition: "Directly providing a gain for oneself." Of course, he has pulled this definition ex rectum. In fact, if we look at ANY reputable dictionary source, we will find that the definition includes a disregard for others. Why? I'll tell you. If the definition did not include disregard for others, then my opponent would almost be right*. We each have a set of values. This set of values is what we make decisions based off of. For instance, if I hold the door open for an old lady, it is because I valued making her life a bit easier at the expense of a short amount of my time - while I am 'giving up' that time, I'm not really - like it is with all actions, I'm simply spending that time to fulfill my own values. This is why the definition my opponent uses does not suffice for what selfishness really means, and that is why all reputable dictionary sources specify disregard for others as a requirement for selfishness. *see "Argument using incorrect definition" for examples where even my opponent's incorrect definition does not work. === ARGUMENT USING CORRECT DEFINITION === I've already stated one example of a non-selfish action: myself holding a door open for an old lady. It is precisely _because_ I value making her life easier that I am holding that door open. There is no disregard for others - it is in fact a regard for others which drives me to do it. Other examples include donating money to charities that help people, etc. I think we all get the point - any time a person acts with helping someone else in mind, that act is not selfish. This directly follows from the correct definition of selfish. === ARGUMENT USING INCORRECT DEFINITION === Even using my opponent's definition, not all things people do are selfish; only actions WILLFULLY done are. For example, if I bound your limbs, etc., to the point where you could not resist me, and I forced you to eat a ham sandwich, you would not be eating the ham sandwich out of selfishness. If I shoot you in the torso, you are not going to bleed out of selfishness, you are going to bleed out of physical necessity. After jumping, a person may not want to fall to the ground - yet they will do it anyway. Falling into a coma, passing out, visiting sites with gross content as a result of fake links from 'friends,' running over a deer with a car, or other things that a person does not decide to do but does by chance or necessity anyway are all examples of acts that, even by my opponent's definition of selfish, are not done selfishly. And thus, the resolution is negated for both the real and fake definitions of selfish.
Everything that anybody does is selfish.

I'll start off by saying that I wish this to not be a semantics debate and just go with the overall meaning of selfishness in that it is to directly gain to oneself, whether mental or physical. In order for pro to win this debate, I will have to prove that in every case, the person doing an action is doing it for the direct benefit of themselves, whether mentally or physically. The neg will have to prove that there is in fact some cases where a person is doing an act that doesn't benefit themselves. I'm now going to go over my logic for this debate. The logic is that no matter what the action is, as I have stated, it is to directly benefit the person themselves. For this, I will be using real-life examples. Think about why people do nice things for one another. It doesn't physically benefit the person giving, but it is mentally gratifying to give them a gift. In other words, they are doing the action so that they themselves have given the gift, not necessarily that the person now has the item. Another example would be of physical or direct selfishness. This would be an action such as stealing, knowing that you gain the item you stole, with disregard for whoever has lost it. Simply put, it is impossible to do an action that is not for ones personal gain, because if we didn't think it was, we wouldn't do the action. With nothing else to say, I wish to expand and clarify my arguments in the further rounds.
Everything that anybody does is selfish.

Greetings. I can see where this is going, and I'm glad to say my opponent is mistaken. I'll go ahead and define selfish - the three definitions from the two best dictionary sources. Selfish: 1. concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure at the expense of consideration for others. [1] 2. concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others [2] 3. arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others [2] Sources: [1] . http://www.askoxford.com... [2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com... Webster and Oxford are two of the most well-respected English dictionaries. Dictionary. com gives similar definitions. And in the spirit of fairness, I'll not go against what my opponent suggested in his opening round; I'll not make any arguments this round. And of course, as always, my opponent is free to argue against my definition - though I'm not sure what sources will provide a definition closer to what he likely means.
God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction

You state: "God exist outside of the laws of logic because he created it." but you also do not define whether God must follow rules of logic or not and a God cannot be independent of either. Essentially, this is an infinite loop of logical contradictions and you cannot defend God is either with what you define. This is because you cannot prove that there are illogical things which create logical things, this does not follow logic.
God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction

What you are saying is exactly my point: It isn't a logical contradiction because omnipotence grants the ability to do logically impossible things (Since God exist outside of logic, he is not bound by it). While we can't conceive how an unliftable rock can be lifted, God can still do it, because he is omnipotent. Omnipotence is "the ability to do anything", not "the ability to do anything logically possible". I.e., Jesus raised from the dead, which is logically impossible. He is not bound by the laws of logic.
God Being Omnipotent Is Not A Logical Contradiction

I accept and look forward to this debate. We must keep your term of omnipotence exactly as you stated: The ability to do anything, this may not change at all as you have it defined. You must also hold true that God can do anything he wants to and has no limits whatsoever as you have defined with no limits. With these statements clearly defined let me make my first point: Through your defined terms one can conclude that if God can perform any action (absolutely omnipotent(as defined)) , then he would be able to create a task it is unable to perform, and hence, it cannot perform all actions. For example: Can an omnipotent being create a stone so heavy that it cannot lift it? If yes: the being's power is limited, because it cannot lift the stone. If no: the being's power is limited, because it cannot create the stone. Either way, the allegedly omnipotent being has proven not to be omnipotent due to the logical contradiction present in both possible answers. One crude example that might help: Can God create a Hotdog so large that he would be unable to consume it? Refer to the above yes and no and you are provided a clear logical contradiction using your laid out terms for the debate.