BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: I'm HOT!!!

PRO's CASE. 1) I'm blonde. 2) I have blue eyes. 3) I have a slender athletic build (like a basketball player) 4) I have a six pack 5) I am overall muscular. 6) Ladies love me. 7) Therefore, I'm hot. Now upon noticing this syllogism, I cannot help but notice that there a few leaps in logic. Firstly, PRO never provides any evidence to confirm any of these so-called facts. For all we know, he could be a hideous beast who dwells in his parents' basement. PRO could have EASILY posted a pic to confirm his appearance. Upon doing so, he may very well obtain the admiration and adulation of the "ladies" of this website. Indeed, ladies would love him here as well, yet oddly enough, he refuses to post a simple picture. Second, even if we were to assume that all of that is true, that wouldn't lead us to the conclusion that PRO was "hot." After all, he could have all of that, but if his facial appearance (which he makes no mention or description of were to look something like this: http://i130.photobucket.com..., most would not think of him as hot, despite his body, eye color and hair color. He'd probably have to wear a mask no matter where he went, for I suspect that most believe that the above face is a face that not even a mother could love. Third, don't you think of it as odd that he makes no mention of how his face looks. Very strange indeed. He described everything BUT his face (which, often times, is the most important description). What does my humble (*sarcasm*) opponent have to hide from the world, much less a debating community where we debate things and such? Fourth, the ladies he refers to could very well be pragma lovers, and simply "love" my opponent for his money or possessions rather than his body. Thus, I believe I've shown that his premises are inadequate in proving whether or not he is hot. Furthermore, since I've shown how he has refused to provide even the most basic evidence (such a photo) and information (he left out the matter of his facial structure) to confirm his claim, this would likely mean that he is indeed presenting you with false information (as many do on dating websites when it comes to this) rather than the truth. Conclusion: Thus, it is very much likely (given the evidence) that my opponent is not hot. To add: If we are to take the resolution in any other way, then my opponent has failed to show that he finds his surrounding temperature unbearable. Given that is it currently 80 degrees in Rockville Centre New York, this would suggest that it wasn't hot, thus making it unlikely that my opponent is hot. In fact, a credible scientist concurs with the notion that 80 degree air is warm rather than hot ( http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov... ).
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

in the last post i asked for a quote or citation to the pope who taught or ratified the geocentric world view. i actually asked for it in the first post too, just stressed it more in the second post. you have not done this. you have just cited secondary sources to the pope's teaching. note: i meant to say Galileo was condemned for teaching heliocentism. that's not officially teaching the church about geocentrism, though. in fact, the focus was that he was resisting orders not to teach it as it was still under investigation. doesn't matter if it was right or wrong, teaching against orders can be dangerous to people when not everything scientists say is true, and it's a disrespect to authority. even if a pope condemned him saying something like "we condemn you for disobeying us, and because it violates common teaching of geocentrism" etc, thats not saying what is officially being taught. as i said in the initial post there's a difference between widespread belief and doctriene. the criteria was listed as showing "a pope, intentionall, teaching, the church, on faith and morals". and all requests that you do this were unobliged. if you think you can find the quotes or have other quotes or issues with citations etc, you're more than welcome to start another debate.
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

i can't find the quotes or sources for any official teachings by those popes that they taught geocentrism. i saw a letter from a pope, but this isn't a teaching to the church. i saw a pope put heliocentric books on the forbidden book lists, but that's not a teaching to the church. and in the trial of Galileo he was found guilty of believing and teaching geocentrism, but that's not a teaching to the church. i am looking into this issue and have not foreclosed the idea that there's contradiction. i just dont see it as of now. and yes the limbo issue i asked for you not to provide. if the first point you raised doesn't work, you have nothing left. you'd think you'd be able to find something. (also, limbo or something like it could still be a true teaching of the church, as it's never been officially taught that to be wrong. but i dont want to get into this issue and would rather stick with the criteria mentioned)
from an official capacity, the catholic church has never contradicted itself

FOREWORD: I will try to oppose this position, although it appears strikingly obvious that this statement has been framed in such a way that any challenger must show that the Catholic Church has contradicted itself from an official capacity - excluding many of the ways it has contradicted itself from an official capacity. Nevertheless I accept this challenge. Let me first reverberate the antecedents of this debate from whence I premise: i. I am for: From an official capacity, the catholic church has contradicted itself at least once in its history. ii. My position will focus on official teaching. iii. The Pope's official statements are infallible, and inalienable from the Catholic Church in its official capacity. POINTS: I. Galileo was executed for holding false doctrine ( a heliocentric model opposed to the geocentric model maintained by the official capacity of the Catholic Church during the 17th century). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty. 359 years later, at a ceremony in Rome, before the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope John Paul II officially declared that Galileo was right. II. Babies who die before being baptised no longer be trapped in limbo or go to hell - as they have done for almost 800 years according to the official capacity of the Catholic Church.. The decision was taken after Benedict XVI was presented with Vatican studies.The 41-page report by the Vatican's Theological Commission, which was compiled following a three-year study, said the concept was an "unduly restrictive view of salvation". However, it added that baptism was the only way to remove the stain of original sin. CONCLUSION: I will leave you with these two points, which prove at least two contradictions of the Catholic Church in its official capacity. It should be blaringly obvious that to claim the catholic church has never contradicted itself from an official capacity is a very inauspicious position to try and defend, regardless of the attempt to barricade the position behind conditions of opposition and an argument from 'official capacity'. The catholic church has indeed contradicted itself at least once in the past, from an official capacity NOTE: I realise the second point is against the criteria of 'not including limbo' - but in all decency, that is a valid example of how the catholic church HAS contradicted itself. If, for all intensive purposes, you adhere strictly to your conditions, I submit that the point on the heliocentric / geocentric model discrepancy will easily justify my position on its own (which is not so much an issue of Galileo himself but an issue of the -centricism itself).
Mandatory vaccines.

"How childish. If we have mandatory seatbelt laws, why not with vaccines?" - We shouldn't have seatbelt laws. "I don't have the right to threaten the health and safety of others." - Then remove your self from society or commit suicide. That is the only way. "Toughen up, buttercup, no one is taking your rights away." - Nice, resulting to an ad hominem because you've lost the debate. Here is my sincerer tip for you: Learn how to use logic and reason before trying to spew your sophistry onto someone who can. :D
Mandatory vaccines.

Unicorns love me. See how saying something doesn't make it true? "You don't have the right to infect other people." - There is a bit of vagueness in this proposition, which I think Is intentional. It does not specify how the infection is to be carried out. Is it malicious, or accidental? Malicious infection cannot be justified as it is an aggression, however you agree to the risk of infection by living in society. Also, vaccines are not 100% effective, so even vaccinated individuals would still be at risk of spreading infection. But if your original statement was true, then they would not be justified in that action? The only logical next step to prevent infection would be extermination of anyone possible of carrying a disease. (everyone human being) Moreover to claim the legitimacy to force anything upon another person is to claim that they are your slave.
Mandatory vaccines.

I do agree that is a public health issue, and that everyone should get themselves vaccinated. However, I do not believe in the use of force to achieve this. Though, I believe all private businesses should refuse service to any un-vaccinated individuals, especially in the case of hiring workers, and children in schools. Forced vaccination violates the non-aggression principle, and thereby cannot be justified. You need to find a flaw in the logic of the NAP, (back in round 1) OR make a case for why forced vaccination is not subject to this moral principle.
Mandatory vaccines.

Hello, I support vaccines, and believe that private businesses and schools should refuse service to un-vaccinated individuals. However, your first claim is that you do not have the right to spread infections to other people. This is false, by living in society you, and others agree to the potential risk of infection. However intentional spread of a disease is unjustifiable. Moreover, I do not believe the government can justifiable force people to vaccinate themselves. Lets begin with property rights, and the non-aggression principle. Later I will refer to this as natural law. Here I will explain the logic behind the natural law the first principles of logic. 1.The Principle of Non-contradiction. This is the foundation principle of all logic and reason. If a posit has a contradiction within itself, it must be rejected. In example something cannot be A and not A at the same time. 2.The Consistency Principle. This is just an extension of the principle of non-contradiction, so if the first principle holds, this consistency principle does as well. If a posit is inconsistent it must be rejected. Moreover, if two things are a true dichotomy, and one is falsified the other must be true. Take these two posits : Consistency is preferable - Consistency is not preferable. If consistency is not preferable, then it is not preferable to apply that principle consistently, therefor consistency is preferable. 3. The burden of proof is on the active side. If it is on the passive side, then that side must justify everything they are not doing, this is impossible. Therefor burden of proof is on the active side 4. Force is active, therefor those who wish to use force have the burden of proof. 5. You own yourself. If you do not own yourself, then who does? How do you determine who gets to own who? Moreover, if you posit that you don't own yourself, you can't justify your own existence. That posit is extremely inconsistent, therefor you must own yourself. 6. You own the fruits of your labor, and the results of your actions, again if not, then who does? How do you determine who gets to own who's labor? It is inconsistent and therefor must be rejected. Thereby, you own the fruits of your labor. 7. The NAP. Any aggression by this system cannot be justified, as you have a right to the things listed above, and is immoral to infringe upon them. Voila. Natural law. So by this, it is morally unjustifiable for government to infringe upon a human's right to self-ownership. This would include forced vaccination. Again, please don't get me wrong here, I am all for vaccines, everyone in my opinion should get them.
It takes just as much faith to believe in evolution as it does to believe in God.

Happily accepting this one.First, please provide me all the sources you have that prove any part of evolution is faith-based.In turn, I will broadly argue the following:Nothing about evolution is faith based. Evolution is a scientific theory. A scientific theory "rests upon its ability to explain phenomena. Theories may be supported, rejected, or modified, based on new evidence." (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...)The important word there is "modified." All the evidence gathered supports evolution; no evidence gathered rejects evolution. However, evolution can be modifed because we do not know all the facts, who the common ancestors are, and how significant of a role things like natural selection and random mutation play in the evolutionary process. Hence, it can be modifed and supported, but not rejected. It is absolutely proven by normal standards of science, the same you would apply to the theory of gravity, for example. We can see with fossil records and DNA sequencing that evolution occurs, and there is no doubt we all share a common ancestor based on these findings.
Rap music today is not better than it was in the early 2000's

You're seeming to ignore the fact that I said MOSTLY. I could give you five examples of an incoherent, noncreative rapper for your every one example of a creative rapper nowadays. Please note there is a difference between a rap artist and a rapper. A rap artist is just that - an artist that displays creativity, for example, like a painter. He or she paints pictures, has lyrical content, different motives, etc. A rapper is someone who doesn't care about those things, and just tries to bring in the most revenue possible. Let me try to clarify it further. A rapper can be associated with those who say "swag, molly, thot, etc." repeatedly over instrumentals that sound catchy and rap artists are on a whole different level - story telling, substance, coherency, and creativeness. Rap artists are ALWAYS creative. Rappers can be creative, but usually are not.. which is why I said MOSTLY previously. They are mostly incoherent and noncreative. Conclusion Rap music today is not better than it was in the early 2000's. Rap music nowadays seems to be mostly trash. A lack of coherency and creativeness is present.
Rap music today is not better than it was in the early 2000's

I see you're not questioning if a song is "good" or "bad". You are claiming that some rap artists are not creative anymore. This may be true for older rappers, who have worn out their creativity. But fairly new rappers have started to emerge and their creativity is somewhat new and original. Whether you like him or not, Tyler the Creator (starting in 2007) is gaining fame for his music. His lyrics have meaning and have thought put it for example "Answer" which came out last year, talks about his dad leaving him when he was born. And not just this song by him, "Tamale", "IFHY", and many others have deep meanings. http://rapgenius.com... (lyrics with explanations) With new rappers coming in, you can guarantee that the material will be new. In fact, it could even evolve as we progress in the decades! Although I do see you're point with old rappers just making songs to get money, but there are new rappers that make original material. And soon, the old rappers like Eminem and Chris Brown will fade away. And the cycle repeats over and over. And as for your statement on Eminem, I would say people with problems and who are struggling tend to be more creative and expressive with their music. After Eminem got famous, he had it all and didn't have any problems to rap about so he just created what he could to get money. Here are some rappers I found that show creativity and are fairly "new" In my opinion, rap will always be good, we just have to forget about the older rappers who have no problems since they're basically making music for promotion and fame, and even advertisements and movies.
Rap music today is not better than it was in the early 2000's

Rap music today is not better than it was in the early 2000's. Rap music nowadays seems to be mostly trash. A lack of coherency and creativeness is present. Let us compare: Eminem then to Eminem now. then now In this example, it is obvious which song is better. The older one. Now, want to disagree? Eminem said he was better when he was on drugs (back then). More substance is in his older songs. And not just Eminem, but every rap artist. Lyrical content has majorly dropped for rap music. Now remember, I said MOSTLY. Nowadays the majority of rap artists try to create a catchy hook, and rap about something that is not creative. Let's take Soulja boy for example, even. Now in the video above, sure his songs are catchy in his "old" songs, but they were creative back then. Rap has now progressed (actually no progress has been made, but this is the correct term) into trying to copy this style. Thus, it is not creative. Just read the comments in the Soulja Boy video.
Rap music today is not better than it was in the early 2000's

Short answer: that's a matter of opinion. Many people say that music in previous generations are far more better than what we have today. Michael Stevens from Vsauce asks: "Is that true, or are we only remembering the good stuff?". And I add, are we only showing the "bad" stuff of this generation? Surely there has to be some "bad" rap from the early 2000's but you could be just remembering what was good or what you listened to. Sure; you can say it was better, you can have people vote, and you can compare, but fact is: you can't logically prove that any type of music or song is better than another. If anything, we can find unpleasant noises and call it a song, and then sure, it is bad. But since by definition rap is: "a type of popular music of US black origin in which words are recited rapidly and rhythmically over a prerecorded, typically electronic instrumental backing" (Google) we can't judge what is bad rapidly rhythmic vocal with electronic backing and what isn't. Sure, many people don't like Justin Bieber mainly because of his personal status and his looks, how he acts, etc.... But, if you were to just be given the song to listen to, you wouldn't be so judge-mental. I'll leave it for the next round to "compare" songs from the 2000's to Today's and also discuss the creativity and coherency.
Homeschooling is better than Publicschooling

My argument is based around this statement, "Homeschooling is better than Public Schooling." I do not concede that one is better than the other. If a type of socialization regarding education is fallible, then it must be addressed and attempted to be fixed, rather than dismissed altogether. There are certain beneficial aspects that would be dismissed along with it. The main consequential factor involved with this debate created is the problem indicated towards our public education system used in contrast, that if not expected to improve, the benefits of homeschooling, comparitively, would most likely be made more apparent. I do not see a practical solution, though, in encouraging homeschooling rather than improving the public education system. It's definitely possible in the future for public schooling to supercede homeschooling's supposed academic superiority which could be helped instead of harmed by improved methods for education and society overall. Regardless, the comparisons made between home and public schooling should only be used for acknowledgment of a problem and acknowledgment that the more effective solution would be addressing the faults of the education system that the majority of people are involved in. It's also more practical considering the percentages. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... https://nces.ed.gov...
Homeschooling is better than Publicschooling

I'd like to have a discussion about homeschooling. I, in the position of Pro, will be arguing that homeschooling is better than public schooling, while con will be arguing that it is not.I'd like to splits this debate into 4 parts.1) Acceptance Only2) Primary Arguments, No Rebuttals3) Rebuttals, plus optional additional arguments.4) Rebuttals, and Conclusion. No new arguments.I hope for a good and productive debate with whomever may accept.Thank You
Homeschooling is better than Publicschooling

My point is that there are superior questions, since there are many other indicators of a faulty public education system like, "How can public schooling be improved?" From another angle for displaying faults within education, you could easily find the statistics of how many americans believe in evolution and how many believe the earth is merely 7-10,000 years old. This is embarrassing. A more reasonable and practical method out of the confines of reference between Public and Homescooling, would be to address those flaws and try to fix them; instead of trying to transition millions of students into homeschooling. Your alternatives for socialization pertaining to homeschooling are controversial as well and would lead to other debates like if going to church is a good thing to human progress in general.
Intermediate's Debate Competition R1: Legal/Civil Protection for LGBT Unions

Intermediate Debate Competition R1: The benefits of extending Legal and Civil protection to same-sex unions outweighs the disadvantages"The terms used to designate civil unions are not standardized, and vary widely from country to country. Government-sanctioned relationships that may be similar or equivalent to civil unions include civil partnerships, registered partnerships, domestic partnership, common-law marriage, life partnerships, and so on. The exact level of rights, benefits, obligations, and responsibilities also varies, depending on the laws of a particular country. Some jurisdictions allow same-sex couples to adopt, while others forbid them to do so, or allow adoption only in specified circumstances." [1]Therefore, for the purposes of this debate, we are discussing the general advantages/disadvantages of extending civil protections for same-sex couples, rather than discussing the relative values of marriage vs. civil union, etc.Further, we have not confined this debate to any specific state or region, culture or religion. Although we may cite examples from any legal code or culture, the argument is over the generic benefits of a public policy that protects same-sex couples, rather than benefits/drawbacks in any specific state or cultural context. Per rules of the competition, first round is for acceptance.I have offered 4 rounds, 8,000 characters, voting period 10 days. These variable are negotiable and subject to approval by Con.My thanks to Con for the debate topic. I wish him good luck. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Our Lord And Savior Lucifer

You can not argue a theory that you don't believe existed. You are correct, every creation is in a way a slave to its creator. You are wrong about angels not having free will, angels were created with free will. Without free will Lucifer could not have rebelled and caused 1/3rd of the angels to fall with him. Angels had their wills sealed after they made their choice. Pride is a sin and Lucifer was punished for it. Its important to remember that the creator should be worshiped and not the creation. Since you do not provide sources of evidence for your claims this does not feel like a debate just two people stating their opinions.