BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The pro-life position is not actually pro-LIFE

My opponent defined "pro-life" as "Advocating the legal protection of human embyos and fetuses, especially by favoring the outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is the taking of a human life. " I wish, however to call that "anti-abortion" just for this debate and refer to "pro-life" as "Advocating for actions, including but not limited to the changing of laws, which promote protecting human life. " That way, the resolution would be "the anti-abortion position is not actually pro-life. " Otherwise, we just point out that it is a tautology. My opponent claims that outlawing abortions would not decrease the number of abortions, and only push them into dangerous situations to obtain those abortions. While it is true that many people would look for danerous means of having an abortion, it is not true to assume that everyone that would get an abortion would be willing to subject themselves to that danger. In fact, the statistics show otherwise. Abortion became legal in the US in 1973 (Roe v Wade). In the first year that we have actual numbers (as oppossed to just estimates) the abortion rate was 16.3 per 1,000 women, and it rose 80% over the next 7 years, and to this day is still higher then that first year (although it has been slowly dropping and leveling off at around 20 per 1,000) [1]. The Johnstons Archive takes polling data to esitmate abortions prior to 1973 (1970 being really the only accurate years, as abortion before then was mostly unknown of and so not alot of polling was done about it). It finds that in 1970, the abortion rate was likely only 5 per 1,000, less then 1/3 of what it would be three years later when legalized. And estimates of before then, in the late 50's, put abortions (which would all be the back street dangerous kind) at less then 1 per 50,000. [2] We can see from nearly every study in the US, that the legalization of abortions caused the rate to increase, and so re-illegalizing it, will cause the rate to decrease again. [3] It also makes sense that there would be less abortions, as the more consequences there are to something, the less people will do it (even though it remains more dangerous for those that still do it). Basic principles of Pros and Cons in decision making. [1] . http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] . http://www.johnstonsarchive.net... [3] . http://www.cdc.gov...
Is God real

I shall post in this round so my opponent has a chance to rebut in the next round.Note: I personally believe in a God but I am being devil's advocate for this debate.I will have two main contentions:C1: Problem of EvilC2: Stone ParadoxIf my opponent can negate both of them, he wins.If my opponent cannot negate both of them, I win. C1: Problem of Evil“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?Then he is not omnipotent.Is he able, but not willing?Then he is malevolent.Is he both able and willing?Then whence cometh evil?Is he neither able nor willing?Then why call him God?”-EpicurusThe logic goes as follows:1.If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not.2.There is evil in the world.3.Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.The argument is refined into:1.God exists.2.God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good.3.A perfectly good being would want to prevent all evils.4.An omniscient being knows every way in which evils can come into existence.5.An omnipotent being, who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, has the power to prevent that evil from coming into existence.6.A being who knows every way in which an evil can come into existence, who is able to prevent that evil from coming into existence, and who wants to do so, would prevent the existence of that evil.7.If there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good being, then no evil exists.8.Evil exists (logical contradiction).C2:Stone ParadoxCan God create a stone which is too heavy for him to lift? If he can create a stone which is too heavy to lift, then his is not omnipotent.If he cannot create a stone which is too heavy to lift, then his is not omnipotent.My opponent has to negate both of these arguments.Good luck
new york sports teams have more storied and overall better franchises than other cities/states

the sports teams of new york have far more superior and storied franchises than other cities/states, for example the heavily favored colts lost superbowl three to the jets after joe namoth garunteed a victory the thursday before the game. the win itself is one of the most memorable and iconic moments in sports history. the other two football teams, the giants and bills, have accounted for several other great moments and records, such as buffalo's four strait apperances and losses in the superbowl, and the giants incredible run to defeat the previously unbeaten patriots in superbowl 42. they also set a record twelve strait road game victories before finally losing in week 6 to the cleavland browns after their superbowl season. on to baseball, the yankees alone have won 27 world series championships and are one of the oldest franchises in baseball history. they also have numerous hall of famers such as babe ruth, yogi berra, and joe dimaggio. in hockey, the rangers are one of the most storied and oldest franchies in existance: The New York Rangers are a professional ice hockey team based in New York, New York, United States. They are members of the Atlantic Division of the Eastern Conference of the National Hockey League (NHL). Playing their home games at Madison Square Garden, the Rangers are one of the oldest teams in the NHL, having joined in 1926 as an expansion franchise, and are part of the group of teams referred to as the Original Six. The Rangers were the first NHL franchise in the United States to win the Stanley Cup, which they have done four times (most recently in 1994). [new york rangers - wikipedia] and these are the teams i believe put new york at the top of the charts in american sports, thank you and good luck (you'll need it) to anyone daring enough to challange this debate.
new york sports teams have more storied and overall better franchises than other cities/states

Indeed there is nothing i can do to refute your point of the yankees just as you can do nothing to refute my point of the red wings, seems it's all tied up. As for your other points you have provided no citations to show that what you say is actually true. For all I, and the voters know you could be making all of your points up, so i urge the voters to disregard your points as you have provided no viable proof. -------------- Arguments -------------- I. Michigan Wolverines Football Michigan (U of M) football is known to be the far greatest college football team ever. For many reasons. 1)U of M has the highest winning percentage in all of Division 1-A football, (.737) 2)U of M has the most all time wins in Division 1-A football, (877) 3)U of M has the most winning seasons in Division 1-A football, (110) 4)U of M has the most undefeated seasons in Division 1-A football, (25) 5)In 1901 U of M went undefeated, untied, unscored upon and also won the Rose Bowl unscored upon they are the only college football team to ever do this. 6)U of M has had over 100,000 fan's in attendance for 222 straight games, a record. 7)U of M has the largest crowd to ever attend a college football game (112,118) 8)U of M has amassed 11 national championships the first four of which were in successive years. Six of which were obtained under the coaching of Fielding Yost 9)U of M has had 25 heisman candidates three of which have won. 10)Finally U of M has what is said to be the most fierce rivalry in all of sports. .. U of M vs Ohio State. [1] II. Detroit Pistons Basketball The Detroit Pistons may not be the best basketball team that has ever existed, but they have more history than you could ever imagine. 1)From 54-57 the Pistons won the Western Championship (3 seasons), when the NBA had just been merged a few years before in 1949 2)George Yardley became the first player to score 2,000 points in a season (57-58) 3)The Pistons won the first game they played in the NBA 107-84 over the Boston Celtics 4)Dave DeBusschere started coaching at 24 becoming the youngest coach in league history (1964) 5)Dave Bing won rookie of the year in 1966 with 20 points per game average 6)earl Lloyd became the first African American Assistant coach in 1968 7)Bob Lanier won the All star game MVP in 1974 8)Dick Vitale (Acclaimed college basketball analysts) coached the pistons in 77-78 9)Isiah Thomas won the All Star MVP with 21 points and 15 assist in 1984 10)The Pistons won back to back championships in the late 80's over the lakers and trailblazers 11)Chuck Daly was polled in the top 10 coaches of all time in the NBA 12)In 2000-2001 the Sportsmanship trophy was re-named the Joe Dumars Trophy, the year after Joe Dumars won Executive of the year 13)In 03-04 the Detroit Pistons held opponents under 70 points for 5 straight games a record for the shot clock era. [2] I look forward to my opponents response. [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]Hareas, John. Blue Collar Champions. Solana Beach, CA: Canum, 2004. 14-19. Print.
new york sports teams have more storied and overall better franchises than other cities/states

Well thank you for taking this debate, I've been looking for my second win. .. now onto the problems at hand. .. "My opponent states,"buffalo's four strait appearances and losses in the super bowl", However this point directly shows that buffalo has a poor franchise history. Despite the fact that the bills had made it to four straight super bowl appearances does not bring to light the point that these are the only super bowl appearances they have ever had. " They may have had only four superbowl apperance, but that still tops the number the Detroit Lions have had, which stands at an awe enspiring zero. As for the Afl championships, the Bills have won 2. True, but they have won four strait AFC championships, this is considered the successor to the AFL championship post merger, and can be accounted for. The Lion's four NFL championships were also pre merger, and should be discarded. I will also let the fact that you ignored my mention of the Jets and Giants be a failure on your part to produce a refutaion for them, and will extend the arguments for the Jets and Giants. "But I can bring to point that the Detroit Tigers also have quite the history. Having 23 players inducted into the hall of fame, and one of the most famous announcer of all time (Ernie Harwell), they have quite the cast of famous players/staff. " Indeed, they do. In fact, they have the exact same number of hall of fame players as the New York Yankees do. And you've done nothing (most likely because you cannot) to disprove the dominance of the Yankees throughout the years of Major Leauge Baseball. " Also it is far easier to believe that the Detroit Red Wings are the most storied and one of the most successful franchises in the NHL. " Yeah, it is acctually. I really can't do much to refute this, because the Detroit Red Wings are just that good, so I concede that the Red Wings are better than the Rangers. So, with the exception of hockey, in which I was crushed, I do believe I have made my points short sweet and to the point. Also, I understand that Detroit has only ONE football team, as well as one baseball team as opposed to New York's three football and two baseball teams. However, this only provides more proof that New York's franchises are better and offers me more choice of which teams to pick from for my debate, a fact of which I am willing to take full advantage of. ..
Christian teachings support anarcho capitalism over social anarchism

===Definitions===Christian teachings: the doctrines and historical events claimed by the Bible, among them the crucifixion, the Sermon on the Mount, etc.Anarcho capitalism is the view of anarchy which supports the existence of individual private propery rights rather then collective ownership of the means of production. Social anarchism is the view of anarchy which supports collective ownership of the means of production. This school also generally opposes the wage system and most aspects of capitalism. ===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.5. Primary BoP is on Pro.
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence

It is in fact the case that 1 = 0.999. .. I take issue with the following assertion, however. "So somewhere down the line of 9's in .999 repeating there must be a nonexistent 1 to turn the whole mess into 1. " That is without basis. More generally, the symbols we use to represent mathematical reality are just that: symbols. They are human constructs, a kind of language, invented to allow us to communicate the underlying concepts with one another. One way to solve the problem you propose is to simply point out that "1" and "0.999. .. " are different ways to represent the same underlying mathematical concept, and there's nothing wrong with having multiple representations of the same thing. Indeed, I could also point out that "1" and "(9/9 + 9/9)/2" represent the same thing.
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence

I want to think my opponent for this debate. Because he has presented points, I'm unsure if I can jump right into a rebuttal. So I'll pose a question for the readers amusement and my opponents wit to answer. Premise 1: 1/3 = .333333 repeating Premise 2: 2/3 = .666666 repeating Given the pattern of the results it follows to reason Premise 3: 3/3 = .999999 repeating Premise 4: 3 divided by 3 or 3/3 equals 1 Conclusion .9999 repeating = (not approximate but exactly equals) 1 This has been proven by other, better mathematical proofs [1][2][3], even debated about on Debate.org [4]. So somewhere down the line of 9's in .999 repeating there must be a nonexistent 1 to turn the whole mess into 1. I agree that's absurd how does through no interaction of us does a 1 magically appear during the computation of the equal sign. That would be like saying while I measure this the ruler grows. Or is it Because they are absolutely the same value, what is existing is already existing. Then would it be fair to say 1 person can look at the number 1 and see one kind of reality, but another person can look at 1 and see .9999 repeating. A equal yet distinct reality? [1]https://www.khanacademy.org... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org...... [3]http://www.faqs.org... [4]http://www.debate.org...
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence

The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (proposed by cosmologist Max Tegmark) can be explained as follows: 1) Mathematical reality exists independently of our universe. That is, 2+2 = 4, regardless of our existence or that of our universe. I will posit this is axiomatic. 2) Every mathematical structure exists. For example, there is a digit which is the 1000th digit of the number PI. It exists, regardless of whether I calculate it or not. If I decide to calculate that digit, that's simply for my own benefit, but nothing I do makes that digit magically exist all of the sudden. Similarly, more complex mathematical structures exist, say, all NxN binary matrices. 3) Our universe can be thought of as a mathematical structure, and that's why it exists. You can think of it being a simulation that runs in a computer (or The Matrix), but it doesn't need to be run as a simulation. Running the simulation is only for the benefit of an external entity looking in. A simulation is nothing more than a bunch of calculations that produce an answer.
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence

Numbers are an abstract idea. Being so they don't exist. Being that they don't exist there was never a time they were created. It's important to note that in the previous sentence the term numbers doesn't mean the system we use to denote numbers. We can use the roman numerals to denote them. Or the Arabic. By number we are revering to the quantity and measure of the universe that exists. It is bound in the mechanics of the universe that good evidence shows had a finite universe. This will lead to the same questions of why did 1 pop into existence from 0. My says that this system transcends itself. To accept Mathematical Universe Theory would require the acceptance of the multiverse and more.The computer emulates another computer is a good analogy. How ever this requires saying that all our thoughts are based on the circuitry of our brain. It assumes that conciousness and emotion are the results of physical actions. A look into Idealism and the arguments presented there will show an opposing side to this view of reality.Here is a podcast of Max Tegmark, the author of the Mathematical Universe Theory speaking for himself and his theory [1]. Where he admits that if he predictions of Mathmatical Universe fail it proves idealism.The resolution is MUH solves the problems of existence. I think it is clear to say it does not solve. We can say Newton's formula for gravity solves the problem of escape velocity. We know Newton's equation fails in many situations in our universe. But in relation to escape velocity the predictions made by this formula are consistent with our experience.Solve may be a bit strong of a word considering this theory has not truly been tested.[1]http://rationallyspeakingpodcast.org...Thank you for the debate I appreciate it.
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence

The topic of debate is worded the way it is because I did not intend to prove that the Mathematical Universe is indeed our current reality. That may or may not be provable. However, I posit that it is the best and simplest explanation there is for existence, compared to all competing explanations. It's also an explanation that is plausible, meaning that it doesn't require inventing complicated constructs, such as a super-intelligence that transcends the universe, itself without an explanation. In short, I'm proposing that Math itself is the thing that transcends the universe, an eternal thing that doesn't need to be created and can't be destroyed, The clear advantage that Math has over any other explanatory construct is that we know it exists. My opponent keeps bringing up this idea that "0.999..." and "1" being equal constitutes some kind of problem for the hypothesis. I continue to fail to see why different representations of the same mathematical structure result in any sort of paradox or contradiction. Finally, my opponent offers an argument from incredulity: How can a mathematical construct become self-aware? There are a number of surprising insights that arise from the hypothesis, such as the idea that Math itself becomes self-aware and studies itself. None of these insights preclude the reality of the hypothesis. As to the question of how a mathematical construct can imagine other constructs (in our minds), consider an analogy of something that happens in reality all the time: A computer that simulates (or emulates) another computer.
The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence

I was hoping my opponent would presents some arguments to refute. Being that he is Pro to the resolution, "The Mathematical Universe Hypothesis solves the problem of existence" and instigator I reason the burden of proof is on him. The sentence I wrote, "So somewhere down the line of 9's in .999 repeating there must be a nonexistent 1 to turn the whole mess into 1." Was not an assertion of any truth. I presented 2 possibilities and ridiculed this possibility as implausible. Saying it was like measuring something while the ruler grows. I claimed that was absurd. I then postulated that if 1 = .999... Then this related to 2 realities that are one in the same. So the mathematical universe postulates that all possible existences are equally real, equally present. In fact it postulates that all possibilities of an outcome are equally real and equally present. Must of us understand that numbers and math can be used to describe an event. Hence the formulas we use to predict things. It's important for the reader to understand the theory set forth in the resolution says that everything is a mathematical construct. It's almost like thinking you live inside the matrix, your everyday actions and the objects you see are an illusion to the reality that they are computer code. I am self aware. "I think therefore I am" kind of thing. If the resolution is true then, I am a mathematical construct that has feelings and awareness. I would be a mathematical construct able to imagine and construct in my mind abstract concepts of other mathematical constructs. If I am able to do this in my mind and those things do not exist, then the universe is in a mind and does not exist. Mathematical constructs obey their nature and conform to interactions with other constructs in the same ways. But this theory can not adequately explain how I, as a thinking being, am able to imagine and formulate non existent constructs.
PC v Console

DO YOU PUT YOUR SIDE OF THE DEBATE IN ROUND ONE. DO NOT ACCEPT THIS DEBATE IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RESPOND. Has happened 3 times already and it is so annoying. Three day response time 10,000 character response With the broad topic, I am referring to: cost/performance/graphical power. Not a single particular section but rather the general overall power, ability to have components changed and capability of the machine. Best of luck. -Chaos
PC v Console

Consistency: I have to disagree here, even if your PC's aren't running at the exact same rate, as long as it functions properly and functions well, it would be very even. Game Optimization: This I completely disagree with 100%. PC by far takes the crown for graphics and game optimization. Games can me modded (older GTA games for example) to run even better than it was originally intended. Console you don't have the option to mod and customize the graphics as openly as you do for PC games. Ease of access: Yes consoles are just plug in and play, but building a PC from scratch is probably one of the most satisfying accomplishments someone can do for themselves. Yes, it may be expensive but when you turn it on and everything works, it is an absolutely amazing feeling of joy and satisfaction. A lot of people tend to stay away from pre-built computers for one of two reasons. Price or lack of experience in building their own. I built my own in three hours with a friend and it felt so much better than just plugging in a console that is straight out of the box. Consoles CAN be more budget friendly, it is a matter of how long you choose to wait to purchase it. If you were to buy the xbox one w/ connect, it would run you 500$, you can get your average starter PC for that price. Obviously the longer you wait, the prices will drop for both PC and console, and that's is disregarding sales, PC parts are always going on sale due to overstock or just wanting to push out more merchandise. Consoles are normally on sale on holidays or special events. I agree when you say it's defiantly a matter of which of your friends play on PC or console. But besides the fact, I feel PC would take the crown due to the mass versatility that comes with it. I appreciate you responding in a timely manner and not just forgetting the rounds and going AFK from the site.