BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Did WW1 Start Because of Gavrilo Princip

I'd like to start by initiating some of the social and political attitudes towards the much reputed Franz Ferdinand, before following with a systemic breakdown of the assassination per se. Throughout Franz Ferdinand's upbringing, he never received the respect and admiration of the public. After the reign of his nephew Franz Joseph came to an end, Franz Ferdinand, the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, came to power. The Austro-Hungarians did not acknowledge the state of power of Franz Ferdinand and did not show humility in his presence. One dominant reason for this was Franz Ferdinand's predilection to help the Slavs. He proposed a system of trialism that implicated Tripartite Monarchy to replace the existing Dual Monarchy. In addition to promote public apathy, he married a commonwealth woman by the name of Sophie. The emperor of the Austro-Hungarian empire even remarked posthumously to the death of Franz Ferdinand and his spouse Sophie, 'It is God's judgement and punishment of marrying a commonwealth girl'. The social and political atmosphere did not work in favor of Franz Ferdinand, and when an assassination plan was set into motion, the public did not see it as an immediate threat to their wellbeing. Thus, much tactfulness on behalf of Franz Ferdinand's protectors spring boarded the death of he and his wife. The 'Unification or Death' terrorist organization, better known as the Black Hand employed a small party of members to assassinate the man and his wife. The only successful assassination was made by Gavrillo Princip, who was sentenced to life in prison and then furthermore died of sickness. The logical breakdown of the atmosphere in which the killing occurred is intended to convey the strong political and social apathy of the killing of the crowned prince. Even after the death of Franz Ferdinand, the public did not show any remorse, nor did it make any public impact; the newspapers did not put into print, their were few if no broadcasts about the death and life continued as if nothing out of the ordinary had transpired. The only effect it had in political and diplomatic terms was an excuse for the Austro-Hungarian empire to effectively put and end to Slavic nationalism and an excuse to invade Serbia. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand by Gavrillo Princip was a minor factor in the grand scheme of socio-political rouses and contributed in a subtle manner to the Austro-Hungarian declaration of war on Serbia.
Planets Are Islands

Resembling an IslandFirst, my opponent shows us four pictures of bona fide islands but then draws no connections between them to show how those four are similiar. How does a gas station island resemble a Caribbean island? Because the definition tells us it does? When I look at these islands I see a very distinct similarity in that it shows something surrounded by space. The gas island is something that holds a pump in the middle of a parking lot, the Caribbean island is surrounded by water, the kitchen island is alone in the middle of the kitchen and the parking island is the in the middle of the street and the planet is in the middle of space.They "eye test" as you put it is not the sole determining factor in whether something qualifies as an island or not. However, the planet would pass the "eye test" because each of your pictures depicts something in the middle of something else. The island in the ocean, the kitchen island in the kitchen and the planet in space. It fits. a) Size is relative, while planets are "HUGE" compared to us they are actually quite tiny when compared to galaxies, stars and the universe as a whole. Since size is relative and the definition of island gives us no size qualifications this can easily be disregarded.b) In the old days islands were also "EXTREME:Y hard to get to" and transportation is a matter of technology. Also, this status of extremely hard to get to would actually work in the favor of the definition of island which says that islands must be isolated. Since planets are hard to get to we can consider them to be isolated and fits in the definition. c) Again, orbits do not pertain to the definition of an island. The status of an island is not hingent upon whether it orbits or not. d) Rotating is not in the definition of island. This is like saying, "the moon rotates therefore it is a planet". Wrong, you can't just take differences between two things and try to apply them to definitions. If one island is sand and the other is rock is one not an island? This gerrymandering of definitions to try and fit your description is just flat wrong. Rotation has nothing to do with status as an island. "especially in being isolated or having little or no direct communication with others"We have already determined that planets are isolated. However, you are trying to say that since we can technically communicate with a planet that it is not an island. Then, by your definition there are no islands on Earth because we can communicate with all of them. It says having "little" direct communication. How often have we "communicated" with Mars? Once in our whole history and it wasn't direct communication it was communication via an unmanned rover. This was in no way direct, easy or frequent communication so it fits the bill for "little direct communication".1. Planets do resemble islands2 Planets and islands are similar on many levels3. Communication with Mars is few and far between i.e "little"
Planets Are Islands

Island - something resembling an island, especially in being isolated or having little or no direct communication with others1st part of definition - something resembling an islandresembling - to exhibit a similarity or likeness to(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)Take a look at the following pictures.Traditional land islandlllv Gas station islandlllv Kitchen islandlllv Safety islandlllv Now does this photo of a planet LOOK like it exhibits any similarity or likeness to the various pictures above??lllv The answer is no. The first part of the definition of an island requires the island in question to resemble an actual island. Resembling basically means showing similarities. A planet does not fulfill this for ANY type of island. A planet does not pass the eye test for resembling an island.Now my opponent tries to draw similarities between an island and a planet by saying that both planets and islands are pieces of mass seperated by something, in this case, space and water. Therefore, planets are islands. However, there are key things that set planets and islands aparta) Planets are HUGE, islands are relatively small compared to planetsb) Planets are EXTREMELY hard to get to, whereas most islands are relatively easy to travel toc) Planets move in a continuous orbit, whereas islandsd) Planets rotate individually at different speeds, whereas islands only "rotate" as the Earth rotates (or wherever the island may be)These differences really set planets and islands apart, even if you draw a connection saying they are both pieces of mass separated by something.2nd part of definition - especially in being isolated or having little or no direct communication with othersWell this guy swears he's had communication with aliens on from other planets so there could be an argument that planets have been communicated with. (http://www.angelfire.com...)But even I admit that the guy's a crackpot.My opponent says that we have had no communication with planets other than Earth. This is not true. We have sent exploration rovers to Mars. (http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov...) We haven't had any communication with Mars because frankly nobody is on Mars. But if there were beings that inhabited Mars, we WOULD have been able to communicate with them. So therefore Mars is not an island. And because one planet has been proven not to be an island you must not vote for Pro because he can no longer say that all planets are islands, which is the stance he has taken.You must vote Con because1. Planets do not resemble any type of island2. Even if you try to draw faint differences between planets and islands, there are many key differences that outweigh those3. We could have had communicated with Mars if beings existed on Mars, therefore all planets are not islands (my opponent did not specify that all he had to do was prove a FEW planets were islands he must prove all of them), and the resolution must be negatedVote Con!!!
Planets Are Islands

Island - something resembling an island, especially in being isolated or having little or no direct communication with others--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This definition has two parts that constitute something as an island and a planet fits both of these parts correctly. The first part of the definition is something that resembles an island. An island in the traditional sense is a piece of land completely surrounded by water. Planets resemble islands because they are bodies of mass surrounded by space or emptiness. Therefore, planets resemble islands. They are isolated pieces of mass (gas clusters or rock clusters) surroudned by something that keeps them isolated space. So planets fit the first piece of this definition.The second part of the definition says especially in being isolated or having little or no direct communication with others. Since we have been isolated by space we have had no communication with "others", meaning others outside of our "island" which would be Earth or the planet in question. We have had no direct communication with anyone outside of Earth because of the isolation created by space in the fact that we are surrounded. As we can see, a planet fits this definition of island perfectly and therefore can be considered one. Also, as a side note space has been referred to as a gulf, an ocean and the great divide. If we consider space as an ocean or gulf or divide and we are an isolated body within said area are we not on an island?
Planets Are Islands

Accepted. I will argue that planets are NOT islands.planet - any of the eight large heavenly bodies revolving about the sun and shining by reflected light(http://dictionary.reference.com...)island - 1. a tract of land completely surrounded by water, and not large enough to be called a continent 2. something resembling an island, especially in being isolated or having little or no direct communication with others 3. a raised platform with a counter or other work surface on top situated in the middle area of a room, especially a kitchen, so as to permit access from all sides 4. safety island 5. a low concrete platform for gasoline pumps at an automotive service station (http://dictionary.reference.com...)I'm guessing my opponent will argue that planets are islands by using the second definition of island I provided, but I just put all of the definitions there for the heck of it.State your case.
Limiting economic inequality should be a more important social goal than maximizing (cont.)

I am sorry, but count this as a forfieted round. I currently do not have the time, nor the mental resources to continue this debate as I have a World History AP test tommorrow. To my opponent, congratulations on getting a free win and good luck. To everyone else in the tournament, I am sorry for giving an unfair win. However, I was probably going to lose this debate anyway. I assure you though, I will come with full force the rest of the tournament as I do not have more AP tests. Hey, at least this will diprove Nitpelk as I doubt Yraelz, L-M, or bemm0r would forfiet a debate. :) I end with a George Carlin quip: "The most unfair thing about life is the way it ends. I mean, life is tough. It takes up a lot of your time. What do you get at the end of it? A Death! What's that, a bonus? I think the life cycle is all backwards. You should die first, get it out of the way. Then you live in an old age home. You get kicked out when you're too young, you get a gold watch, you go to work. You work forty years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You do drugs, alcohol, you party, you get ready for high school. You go to grade school, you become a kid, you play, you have no responsibilities, you become a little baby, you go back into the womb, you spend your last nine months floating...and you finish off as an orgasm. "
God Is Fake

I accept this challenge and will be arguing against the following resolution:Resolution: God is fakeI'd like to point out from the onset, though, that this is an impossible debate for Pro to win. In order to do so, he must be able to prove a negative. He must be able to prove conclusively that there is no God, and that "God" is simply a word that we use. This is where my observation comes into play: he has attempted to evade that the burden of proof falls on noone other than him in this debate, for he is the one who has made a positive statement, "God is fake. " I however bear no such burden. All I must do is neutralize his arguments and demonstrate that, in spite of Pro's arguments, that God is a possibility. I don't need to prove his existence, or even demonstrate to you that his existence is probable. But, before I pass this back to Pro, I'd like to bring forth a few definitions that I find pertinent:"Agnostic" -- "a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable" [1. . http://www.merriam-webster.com...] "Gnostic" -- "possessing knowledge, especially esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters. " [2. . http://dictionary.reference.com...]My o"Truth value" -- "The attribute assigned to a proposition in respect of its truth or falsehood, which in classical logic has only two possible values (true or false). " [3. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...]So, to be brief, agnosticism vs gnosticism is merely a statement of knowledge versus lack thereof, respectively. You could be an agnostic theist, whereby you believe in a God or Gods, but do not claim to know whether there is one, and thus the existence of God doesn't possess truth value. Or an gnostic theist, whereby in your judgment, the statement does have truth value and you affirm that there must be a God or Gods. The same logic applies to atheism; you could either be agnostic and not claim to know, or gnostic, and claim to know that there simply is not a God. Given ths resolution, and the fact that it does not say "God probably is fake" or "More likely than not, God is fake" my opponent is attempting to affirm a positive statement, and is thus falling into the category of gnosticism. So not only is his burden to demonstrate that the statement has truth value, but also that his remarks are in fact true. As I said earlier, the statement has no truth value because you cannot prove a negative. He can't disprove God in much the same way that I can't disprove the flying spaghetti monster, or Bhudda, or that the world was created 30 seconds ago and we all were born with our memories. The obvious disclaimer is that I am not stating that God isn't fake. I don't claim to know. However, my burden in this debate is not to prove that he isn't fake. Conclusion My opponent has assigned himself an impossible burden of proof, and therefore it is impossible for him to win this debate.
God Is Fake

With the God debate, it's not obvious who should have the BoP, and it isn't even obvious what the definition of God is. The structure of this debate should anyone wish to challenge me, is simple: Refute the resolution. I don't care how you do it or what you use to do it, be creative.---My argument is simply this: "God" is just a word and nothing more. Words are signposts, and without a destination a signpost is fake. That's why God is fake. He has plenty of "signposts" but none of them lead anywhere. However, a good word like "bumblebee" is a signpost that points to a clear destination. You say to me "bumblebee", and I'll go find one out in my backyard and bring it back to you. Give me a signpost like "Arizona Crater" and I'll know exactly where to go.But the signpost that says "God" leads nowhere. It's as if someone made up a city, painted a sign with the name on it and stuck it in the ground. There's no city, which is a metaphor for "There's no God either".GLHF
God Is Fake

I can't disprove the existence of something that doesn't exist in the first place. In other words, I can't "un-prove" that God exists, because no one did any "proving" for me to reverse. I'm trying to explain what "God" itself is: fake. What I mean by "God is fake" is that he is fictitious, made up, imaginary, not real, non-existent, never observed, fabricated by man, akin to every fictional character, and made up.I didn't drop your gnosticism vs agnostisticm argument. I said that gnosticism is impossible in the practical world, and the existence of god is a practical question. Ergo the best that anyone can do with any scientific claim is an agnostic conclusion of any level of probability. I never shifted the goalpoasts, they were always in the practical world because god's existence is a practical question. You tried to shift the goalposts into the theoretical world.Even though we can never be certain, we can be very nearly certain about conclusions in the real world. I don't have to like that we always have to be agnostic on practical matters, and neither do you. It's just a fact of reality; nothing is certain. Things are only certain in theory.I don't think that you have personally "concluded comprehesibly that there is a god". I'm trying to show that god is fake, so it wouldn't make sense that I think someone else proved that god exsits. I don't think that anyone ever has.---I think that the dichotomy of practical and theoretical is vital to this debate. God is a theoretical model. In the real world, that model doesn't fit. The model doesn't explain or predict anything.On a side note I actually find it hilariously ironic that you say in theory, it "does not hold that God is real -- only that he could be real". Seems like the debate has been turned upside down; here you are arguing against the notion that god must exist in theory, while I'm arguing that there are in fact theoretical reasonings as to why god has to exist.---Induction vs DeductionI can't think of a single scientific discovery or fact or theory that was discovered deductively. Some of the particles in the standard model were predicted deductively before they were discovered, but they were proven to exist through induction. You have to give me an example of a scientific fact that was discovered deductively in this debate. The reason is if the only way we can learn about reality is inductively, then my theoretical/practical world dichotomy has to be valid. It has to be valid because nothing can be proved through induction; induction is the process of making generalizations from observations. If you have to base conclusions off observations, and you have no control over what you observe (meaning any imaginable observation would be fair game, even one you could never imagine), then you can't prove anything.Here's a video clip relevant to what I'm discussing (by someone much smarter than me). http://youtu.be...(up until 29:30)So you say that something unsubstantiated isn't fake. My question for you would then be, do you think that bigfoot is real or fake?
Resolved: Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable

Welcome everyone. Today I would like to debate the Nationals LD resolution for this year. I find this topic very interesting and fun. I will be negating the resolution.The rounds will go as follows:R1 Con: IntroductionR1 Pro: Constructive Arguments (8,000 characcters)R2 Con: Constructive arguments and Rebuttals (10,000 characters)R2 Pro: Rebuttals(6,000 characters)R3 Con: More rebuttals and conclusion (10,000 characters)R3 Pro: More rebuttals and conclusion (6,000 characters)If you would rather see the amount of characters distrubuted another way, feel free to comment.**NOTE: You MUST follow the rules for how many characters you can write in each round or you will automatically lose!**
Resolved: Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable

The first thing that needs to be done is to establish some definitions: Injustice - An act which violates the spirit of fairness and/or which violates the rights of an individual. Most crimes can be considered an injustice. Inaction - The state of consciously making the decision not to act i.e. to remain a bystander to an event. Culpable - To be guilty of. The question therefore can be written - If you choose not to act against the violation of a person's rights are you guilty of moral wrong? And my answer to this question is yes. Consider this: there are two children standing on a rail about to give away - you can save one, but the act of doing so will lead to the other dying. However, if you do not act then both will die. So what do you choose? What is the moral action here? According to the Utilitarian doctrine or the law of the "Greater Good" saving the one child is moral whereas saving neither is immoral. And most people would agree that saving at least one child is better then standing by and watching both die. Why? Because the ability to prevent a negative event is generally regarded as a moral imperative. The Golden Rule backs this up - If one must treat others as they would be treated, then it is wrong to leave someone to harm because no one would want to be left to harm. Even more then that as a society it is a given that each individual is compelled to yield aid because all individuals in a society depend on each other. In other words whether one approaches this subject from the position of self-interest (Golden Rule), of greatest net good (Utilitarian), or from the view of social obligations (the Social Contract) to do nothing when faced with the violation of another's rights is to fail in one's moral obligations. But why? What if something prevents one from doing the right thing? What if there could be possible injury to one's own loved ones or steep personal risk of injury? None of these are good reasons as they propose doing nothing. There is always something that can be done, and further it would be up to other individuals in this situation to decide what risk they wish to take. To say that the situation is complicated is simply an attempt to divert responsibly and that is generally considered a moral failing in it's self. The name for it is cowardice. And yes the line between cowardice and pragmatism is very thin and rather blurry. However, part of being pragmatic is admitting that one's actions may well be considered morally wrong or even evil - and accepting that as part of one's actions. But I'm rambling now so let me simplify this: 1.) It is morally wrong to consciously choose not to act against injustice. 2.) As an individual with social obligations who understands the concept of the Greater Good one can not shrug off the moral obligation of acting against injustices. 3.) Pragmatic practices do not excuse one from moral concerns, they merely accept that morally gray or black actions are at times necessary for a certain result to occur. I think that's it - and I appreciate this debate's scope. The ball is in your court KingD.
Yo Mama

I am completely against the use of the yo mama jokes. I think that this "joke" is rude and can potentially be hurtful. If the person the joke is being told to takes it personally the "joke teller" could be beat up or could get in a bunch of trouble. The next point in my argument is the person who the "joke" is being told to. I mean, how would you like it if someone was calling your mom fat or dumb? If that person were to take it the wrong way, it may result in violence. This will harm both of them. The person being beat up will get hurt, and the person beating him up could get in trouble, affecting his whole life. That is why yo mama is harmful for everyone.