BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The meaning of life

Thanks to my opponent and I look forward to a good debate. The meaning of life is always an interesting topic for debate as it seems each individual brings a unique perspective to the table. The main focus of my argument for this round is that my opponent's arguments are comprised largely of unsupported prepositions. "Now matter who created us, we were created for a reason." This presupposes: 1. We were created by a creator (or group of creators) which the word 'who' refers to. 2. Said group or individual had a reason for the act of creation. My opponent has not provided us with a reason to believe either of these statements is true. Considering that, these claims cannot be used as evidence for anything, let alone something as profound as the meaning of life. "There was a meaning to our creation, and obviously it is so much more than continuing a daily repeat of our common schedule..." (she goes on to provide an example of a routine, but obviously I'm not going to dispute that) This presupposes: 1. Again, that there was a reason for our (alleged) creation 2. That it is 'obvious' that there is more to life than repeating a daily schedule This statement also implies that the alternative to my opponent's definition of the meaning of life is that the meaning of life is to repeat a routine schedule. I fail to see how the fact that the meaning of life is not to repeat a routine schedule increases the validity of any other claim as being the meaning of life. I contend neither that the meaning of life is to give life meaning nor that it is to repeat a common schedule. "Any religion's ideas about the meaning of life can easily go back to this simple sentence..." My opponent has not proven that it is true that 'any' religion's ideas support her resolution. In any case, many people (including myself) do not subscribe to any religion so this argument would not apply to them. Seeing as these people are alive, the meaning of life would obviously have to apply to them. But the core problem with the resolution is this: What argument can be provided that will cause one to believe, through evidence and logical reasoning, that the resolution is true? If I simply do not accept that life has any meaning at all, what evidence can be provided that would prove otherwise? In order to argue that something is the meaning of life, it first must be successfully argued that there is a meaning of life at all. Even if such an argument were to be successful, uncertain statements about an alleged creator and condemnation of daily routines hardly serve as adequate evidence for proving with certainly what that meaning of life would be.
The meaning of life

My beginning argument is short and sweet. Many people have debated for centuries over the meaning of life. Every religion has its own unique point of view and ideas about the meaning of life, however I myself have come to a discovery that I have yet to have ever heard before. I heard it in a dream and, to me, it makes perfect sense... "The meaning of life is to give life meaning." No matter who created us, we were created for a reason. there was meaning to our creation, and obviously it is so much more than continuing a daily repeat of our common schedule. Wake up, eat breakfast, have coffee, go to work, work, eat lunch, go back to work, come home, eat dinner, watch tv, take a shower, go to bed. And the next day the same, and the next day the same, and so on. Any religion's ideas about the meaning of life can easily go back to this simple sentence... "The meaning of life is to give life meaning."
The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun

The Thompson submachine gun was reliable and powerful yes, but in order to clean the gun you had to take it apart. The PPSH-41 was built to be cleaned in battle condition, as the Thompson was not. The PPSH-41 is a lighter gun weighing 8 pounds . The average Russian soldier traveled very light and usually chose the PPSH-41 over the Thompson Thompson was very hard to mass produce and was not at all cheap, costing over 400 dollars per gun. The Thompson was very reliable and yet was very heavy, weighing 10.62 Lbs. unloaded. In my opponents third point he states that the PPSH-41 shoots pistol rounds but isn't the .45 a pistol round as well? He also states that the PPSH-41 would take ten rounds to kill a man and that it wouldn't conserve ammo. The 7.62mm pistol round is cheaper than the .45 round. The PPSH-41 is cheaper to produce than the Thompson. The Russians could have a sustainable amount of ammo and a gun for the cost of one Thompson. So vote for the thompson! I ask the readers of this debate to vote PRO because even though the Thompson is more powerful, the PPSH-41 is cheap to fire, build and its lighter. I would rather have a less powerful lighter weapon than a powerful heavy weapon because in battle conditions speed is more important. Ok45. is stronger, one it was cheap and easily manufactured.. The Thompson submachine gun was Saunders' weapon of choice. It is popularly called a Tommy gun. Saunders guarding German Prisoner with Thompson Submachine GuneFully automatic, the Thompson is an all-round field weapon of .45 caliber. It weighs 12.5 pounds when fully loaded with a 30-round magazine and is 33 inches long. The M1928 Thompson fires between 600 and 700 rounds per minute. Saunders carried extra 30-round stick magazines inside his jacket. Some soldiers carried magazine pouches on their belts that held up to three magazines. According to the Army-Navy Guide from 1942, the Thompson "is used by motorcyclists, and is usually one of the weapons on armored vehicles." And, in Combat!, used by blond sergeants. The Thompson was the only submachine gun mass produced in any Allied country during WWII. The French and British ordered them by the tens of thousands during the war. According to The Unofficial Tommy Gun Page: "In 1939, Thompsons cost the government $209 apiece. By Spring of 1942 cost reduction design changes had brought this down to $70.
The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun

The PPSH-41 was the second captured submachine gun in WW11 this proves that the Germans liked this gun over the Thompson submachine gun because ammo was easy to obtain and the PPSH-41 is light and simple. The Germans even tried to make their own variation of the PPSH-41. The Thompson submachine gun was reliable and powerful yes, but in order to clean the gun you had to take it apart. The PPSH-41 was built to be cleaned in battle condition, as the Thompson was not. The PPSH-41 is a lighter gun weighing 8 pounds . The average Russian soldier traveled very light and usually chose the PPSH-41 over the Thompson Thompson was very hard to mass produce and was not at all cheap, costing over 400 dollars per gun. The Thompson was very reliable and yet was very heavy, weighing 10.62 Lbs. unloaded. In my opponents third point he states that the PPSH-41 shoots pistol rounds but isn't the .45 a pistol round as well? He also states that the PPSH-41 would take ten rounds to kill a man and that it wouldn't conserve ammo. The 7.62mm pistol round is cheaper than the .45 round. The PPSH-41 is cheaper to produce than the Thompson. The Russians could have a sustainable amount of ammo and a gun for the cost of one Thompson. I ask the readers of this debate to vote PRO because even though the Thompson is more powerful, the PPSH-41 is cheap to fire, build and its lighter. I would rather have a less powerful lighter weapon than a powerful heavy weapon because in battle conditions speed is more important. http://historyofww2.webs.com...
The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun

First i must say that my opponent did not address my case at all, so he must agree with it but the one main part i would like to point out that he did not refute is (The fact of the matter is which one will kill the target in only a little matter of time, and the higher caliber is the thompson because its a .45 caliber and was mass produce cheaply however the PPSH-41 is 7.620 mm rounds less than a 9 mm hand gun. All in all in an urban combat with short range the thompson will put you down faster PPSH is almost like a BB gun.) He never refuted this, thefore he must agree that the thompson was more effect when it comes to killing your enemy faster and more effectively. Ok i will now address my opponents case, 1.The PPS-41 became the second most captured submachine gun of WW11 perferd by Germans because of the similarity of the 7.63 Mauser pistol round. Fire power isn't everything the PPSH-41 was cheap to produce and had less parts. The PPSH-41 was desighned primarily for urban warfare.--- Besides the grammatical error, this only proves how the Russian gun was more effective than the German Sub-machine gun. 2.The PPSh-41 was light and cheat to produce and short range fire power. The Russians would arm regiments and sometimes whole divisions with the PPSH-41. During the battle of Stalingrad the Russians had more firepower than the Germans who were still using bolt action rifles. The PPSH-41 was cheap rugged in the field and had a hinged receiver which helped during cleaning.--- Ok good you can clean it thats wonderful , also again this proves only it was better than the Germans i would ask my opponent to find points on how its better than the thompson not the germans because its irrelevant. 3.The PPSh-41 was a Russian submachine gun that was mass produced and there were approximately 6,000,000 produced. It fires the 7.62mm Tokarev pistol round. Ok as my point also says this gun shoots pistol rounds, this gun would definitely not conserve ammo if i have to unload 10 shots to kill someone.
The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun

The PPSh-41 was a Russian submachine gun that was mass produced and there were approximately 6,000,000 produced. It fires the 7.62mm Tokarev pistol round. The gun is blowback and bolt action, and it has an effective range of 200m and a max range of 300m. The PPSh-41 shoots 900rps(rounds per minute) and a muzzle velocity of 1,600.6 feet per second. The PPSH-41 weight is about 8 pounds unloaded, length 33.2 in with a barrel length of 10.6 in. The feed system is either a 35 round magazine or a 71 round drum clip. The PPSH-41 was designed for maximum productivity with only 87 components and could be produced in 7.3 machining hours. http://en.wikipedia.org... The PPSh-41 was light and cheat to produce and short range fire power. The Russians would arm regiments and sometimes whole divisions with the PPSH-41. During the battle of Stalingrad the Russians had more firepower than the Germans who were still using bolt action rifles. The PPSH-41 was cheap rugged in the field and had a hinged receiver which helped during cleaning. The PPS-41 became the second most captured submachine gun of WW11 perferd by Germans because of the similarity of the 7.63 Mauser pistol round. Fire power isn't everything the PPSH-41 was cheap to produce and had less parts. The PPSH-41 was desighned primarily for urban warfare.
The Russian PPSH-41 was a more effective weapon than the American Thompson sub machine gun

Fully automatic, the Thompson is an all-round field weapon of .45 caliber. It weighs 12.5 pounds when fully loaded with a 30-round magazine and is 33 inches long. The M1928 Thompson fires between 600 and 700 rounds per minute. Saunders carried extra 30-round stick magazines inside his jacket. Some soldiers carried magazine pouches on their belts that held up to three magazines. According to the Army-Navy Guide from 1942, the Thompson "is used by motorcyclists, and is usually one of the weapons on armored vehicles." And, in Combat!, used by blond sergeants. The Thompson was the only submachine gun mass produced in any Allied country during WWII. The French and British ordered them by the tens of thousands during the war. Though they were less efficient and costlier than the German submachines guns, they had the great advantage of being readily available for Allied use! The fact of the matter is which one will kill the target in only a little matter of time, and the higher caliber is the thompson because its a .45 caliber and was mass produce cheaply however the PPSH-41 is 7.620 mm rounds less than a 9 mm hand gun. All in all in an urban combat with short range the thompson will put you down faster PPSH is almost like a BB gun.
The Modal Ontological argument for God's existence is sound

The Modal Ontological Argument is as follows: 1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists 2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then a maximally great being exists in every possible world 4) If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world 5) Therefore a maximally great being exists in the actual world 6) Therefore a maximally great being exists 7) Therefore God exists In the first round, Con should present their argument. Burden of proof is on Con, to show why the argument is unsound. Good luck!
Soccer is the best sport

Soccer/football is the best sport. The passion of the fans, the excitement of the game and the billions of people that enjoy playing the sport. Playing soccer/football takes no effort to organize, you don't need skates, or roller blades, you don't need a hoop and you don't need anything else except a ball which can be bought or made as they are in Africa. See how much passion people have in this sport. There are thousands of leagues, compared to all them sports in America where there is only 1 league for each sport. I know that a lot of people say it's not a sport because we don't hit each other. Honestly in my opinion this is just a cheap complaint, last time I checked basketball was a no contact sport, and in baseball I don't see them whacking each other with bats. To conclude if someone thinks that soccer/football is not the best sport in the world then please debate.
Nuclear power is a reasonable approach to generating electricity

Firstly rebuttal: Nuclear energy is not environmentally friendly at all in the sense that the waste produced from a nuclear plant is so much more dangerous that waste produced by Fossil fuel plants. The radioactive material stays radioactive for a very long time. And it is very dangerous to life, if people come into close contact with the waste, they can get cancer and other terrible diseases. Plus, radioactive waste can contaminate entire water systems under the ground where people put them. This will lead to the destruction of life forms that use the water. Smithereens also says that it is sustainable. But its just like coal. its non-renewable. Once you dig it out of the ground, its not going to replenish itself in a hurry. He says that nuclear power is economical. But because of the amount of money that needs to be spent on the maintainence of the safety gear that must go along with the plant, it doesnt cost as much as coal or oil or gas. Smithereens failed to take these costs into consideration Now, my arguments are: -Its not safe to people -It poses a risk of nuclear war -nuclear waste is a big problem Its not safe: chernobyl was a great example of a nuclear failure. And whose to say it wont happen again? The disaster at Chernobyl was caused by human error. And human error is something that 21st century technology cant fix. There will always be people making mistakes that kill other people. Risk of nuclear war: What do you expect will happen when you gather enough high-quality nuclear material into one spot. The country that has it will be too tempted to make weapons out of it and exert world domination over those that dont. Its a very real threat and cannot be simply ignored by Smithereens. Nuclear waste: There is no real safe place to put it. if you put it underground, it will contaminate the ground, if you try to launch it into space, it would cost too much money. So we have this dangerous waste with us and nothing at all to do with it. So it is completely inhumane to dump it all into nature and the ecosystem where it will kill things. There are plently of better things we can do, like not use nuclear at all. We can use solar or wind turbines as an alternative. Smithereens has been arguing under the false impression that nuclear is all there is. Well, it isnt. There are many things we can do, just dont use things which are so destructive.
Nuclear power is a reasonable approach to generating electricity

Normal rules apply, no new material in the last round if it can't be refuted. No semantics nor trolling etc. .. Definitions: Nuclear power: The use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity. [1] Reasonable: being in accordance with reason. [2] Approach:to make advances to especially in order to create a desired result [3] [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3]. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Taxation is theft

First of all, it is possible to survive without government services, there are people that do it all of the time. Second of all, the victim in a crime doesn't gain anything, which I didn't explain because I thought it was understandable. Thirdly, if taxation is morally wrong, how is there a way to pay for public services ethically? Lastly, your analogy about the slave and his/her master is a horrible analogy. You are saying that governments that house us, protects us and looks out for our interests are immoral slaveowners. If you really believe that, you are an anarchist. So to recap, 1) You are wrong. 2) You misunderstood me. 3)You have no solution to your problems, so don't complain if you can't think of anything better. 4)You need to work on your analogies about the government. You sound like a anarchist who opposes all forms of government.
Taxation is theft

Con argues that one should not pay taxes if you don't like them and also claims that one can not use government services also. I will address those separately. One could choose non compliance with taxation as a form of civil disobedience in theory however it ignores reality. The reality is that most people in an employment situation will have taxation taken from pay automatically, it also doesn't address all other taxes that are not avoidable such as when purchasing goods. Con also ignores the violent nature of the relationship with the state. That is that if you don't comply with the state demands you will face increasing forceful actions of the state up to and including death in the extreme if you physically resist the actions of the state. Con implies that taxation is a voluntary arraignment when the fact that taxation is compulsory is inherent in the definition. Physical force, fraud, or stealth designed with the intent of depriving one of property is theft. In a modern society, it is impossible to function and avoid all government services. I ask con, if a slave accepts a meal from his master does the situation of slavery become voluntary. I would say that most reasonable people would disagree with that premise. Also there is nothing inherently special about the items that con mentions(roads, police/protection services, water service etc..) that require a state. Most services or functions of the state would be provided for in the general marketplace through voluntary trade if society desired them and the state did not exist. Finally here, con argues that in theft you don't gain anything which is absurd. If I rob your house and take your XBOX, I just gained an XBOX. I think con is trying to argue that you get services in return for taxation however, based on the unsound nature of social contract theory it can be concluded that one's relationship with the state is not consensual or voluntary.
Taxation is theft

www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ This a list of things that taxes go to. If you don't like taxes, don't pay them. Of course, you also can not: Use the roads, Use water, Own a home, Call the police when you get robbed, Etcetera. But maybe, just maybe, if no one is looking, you might be able to cross the street. And, by the way, in cases of theft, you don't gain anything. In paying taxes, you are not a troglodyte.
Taxation is theft

To have a good discussion it is best to start with definitions: Tax: A compulsory contribution to state revenue, levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions. Theft: The action or crime of stealing. Compulsory: Required by law or a rule; obligatory C1: Money earned is the private property of an individual. Money is a tool used in most societies but especially those that are capitalist or capitalist leaning as a substitute for barter or in kind exchange. Money or currency acquired can be used to obtain real or chattel property or to employ services. Therefore, money is tantamount to private property. It is the same as if you acquired goods or services directly though barter or exchange. Legal systems around the world recognize money at private property. Yes, some do not however that does not change the fact that money can be used to obtain property and thus should be treated as property both legally but also and more importantly morally. C2: Government action requires the initiation of force against individuals We in society have generally been taught from an early age not to initiation force against others, in other words don't hit people or take their stuff. Government necessarily to survive and maintain its dominance requires initiation of force. If compliance with a state is voluntary then it would cease to be a state as it would have no wait to maintain dominance over a territory. Max Weber recognized this in his definition of the state that the state is a monopoly on force. George Washington is also said to have recognized the state as force along with several others. Many would argue that government is not force because of social contract theory. That is the idea that inhabitants of a geographical area consent to be governed by democratic or other citizen participation means. This identifies a question of whether or not humans have a natural right to impose force on other humans? How can a person or group delegate rights they never had morally to a state? C3: Argument for compulsory taxation based on the idea of social contract theory means that taxation is theft. Imagine you moved onto my street and I started cutting your grass every week. At the end of the month, I placed a bill on your door for my grass cutting services. I then show up with a baseball bat to collect on my bill. You explain that you never asked for the services or agreed to pay them, and I explain that you consented to pay for the service simply by being in MY neighborhood. If you don't comply with my billing I will lock you in my closet. I ask how is that scenario any different from taxation? You may say that one would be free to leave the neighborhood(or country) however, in the case of states you would be forced to be subject to similar force in another state in a practical sense. If theft morally unacceptable, which is generally accepted then the concept of taking private property from individuals by a state is also morally unacceptable regardless of the purpose.