BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Validity of Philosophical Skepticism

Thanks to my opponent for this debate, I hope we all learned something. 1. Because Descartes doesn't come to a conclusion is my whole point. He can't come to a conclusion as to which of the 3 possibilities is happening, since skepticism has only led him to believe in nothing. That is why I argue that this is not a valid point of skepticism, since we don't get a conclusion. 2. So if you don't argue for a complete adoption of skepticism, you imply that there are somethings that should not be adopted in skepticism. Thanks for proving my point. Wrong. If you were a true skeptic, which you argue is fine, you could lead yourself to believe that you are convincing yourself that gravity exists. Because you can't prove it. Why should I believe something that I can't prove? You try to prove it by saying it is constant. But how do we know what we experience is true? The only way to test our experiences is to experiences, which in itself is a logical fallacy. Therefore, this is not a true skeptic point. In closing, the only attempts my opponent has made to prove that there are valid points to skepticism is to use our experiences. However, that is a logical fallacy. He makes no argument to my 5 examples and arguments other than, we know it not to be. We know gravity exists. But do we? We can't prove it, nor can we disprove it. On the same line, anything we try to prove might not be, since our way of proving it makes the assumption what we experience is right, but how do we know? Because this never gets us to a conclusion like an argument should, my opponent has not shown that skepticism does indeed have valid points, I win.
The Validity of Philosophical Skepticism

Thanks for being a good sport burningpuppie101! (1) Firstly Descartes does come to a conclusion- which is that his sensory experience can be doubted- therefore he must accept one of several disturbing consequences (that he is dreaming, he is being deceived, or that he is a brain in a vat). There is no reason to accept the idea that Descartes goes around and around as was described by CON. Secondly Skepticism is not circular- in fact it is everyday statements that are circular; which then lead us to skepticism (Agrippan modes - circularity: http://en.wikipedia.org...). For example: -statement: "God exists" -justification for statement: "The bible says God exists" -Justification for bible's statement: "The bible is the word of God" --> circularity = false statement. Agrippan modes show that a majority of everyday statements are actually assumptions or are circular- which shows that many of our claims to knowledge are actually false. (2) The claim that skepticism is impractical is meaningless because it does not influence the truth value of it. Perhaps complete adoption of skepticism would lead us into indecisiveness but that still does not make it any less true. Secondly it is doubtful that adoption of skepticism would even lead to indecision because skepticism is a methodology, rather than an ideology. skepticism, as pointed out by philosopher Michael Williams is opposed to dogmatism (dogmatism being a chief factor in ideology). If I am a skeptic I doubt statements that lack consistency, truth value- or are of a dubious nature. One does not stand atop a cliff and doubt the existence of gravity- gravity is constant and non-contradictory, there is no reason to doubt it. However if you tell me that you are in both Hong-Kong and Egypt simultaneously, it is only rational to apply skepticism and doubt your claim as knowledge. In closing, thanx for reading & commenting!
The Validity of Philosophical Skepticism

I'm incredibly sorry about the blunder I made. Just to see if I can, I'll argue the Con side, just to see if I can. So basically, the CON must provide arguments as to why Skepticism has no valid points. Because my opponent hasn't provided any examples, I'll use the ones that I presented myself. But first, contentions. 1. Self Refuting. Arguments for skepticism are largely circular. For instance, look to my first example, Descartes dreaming doubt. Descartes just goes around and around and around, and Descartes is never able to come to a conclusion. Because of the in-ability to come to an objective answer other than, I don't know, this is not a valid argument. 2. It is impractical. If we were to apply skepticism to real life, we would never be able to come to a decision, since any logic we try to use defeats itself. We would constantly question ourselves. We can use my second example. Here is sample situation. You are on a cliff. Someone asks you to jump. You ask why. The person replies, why not? You cannot answer this because you are a skeptic. So the logic would go like this: I should not jump because I will die. But i can't show that I will die. But I can't show that I won't. But I can't even show the cliff exists. Then again, I can't show I exist. So if I don't exist, I can jump off an imaginary cliff, and since I can't show nothing will happen, I can't show I'll be hurt. That argument can be used in converse, and because skepticism is circular, it is useless. I'll refute my examples here: 1. Look to my first contention. 2. Look to my second contention. 3. It is circular. Look to my first contention. or my second. They both apply. 4. Look to my first contention and my second contention. 5. Same. So if you look at the debate, all the examples can be refuted with a combo of my 2 contentions. Since my opponent hasn't provided any other points to refute, I'll end here. Thank you
The Validity of Philosophical Skepticism

Here are 4 examples why I win. 1.Descartes' famous dreaming doubt: What if I am asleep in bed right now, and only dreaming that I am awake, and writing? Isn't that at least possible? Then he said, well surely, I can tell when I am awake and when I am asleep. I can tell the difference between wakefulness and a dream. All sorts of strange things happen in dreams; I pass unaccountably from scene to scene when I'm dreaming; I don't have any long memory of what happened in a day, when I'm dreaming; and so forth. Then Descartes said: Haven't I had those very thoughts in some of my dreams? Sometimes, when I was dreaming, I was convinced that I was awake! I even tried to test that I was awake, when I was dreaming, and the tests convinced me that I was awake! But I was wrong; I was dreaming. Isn't it quite possible that the same thing is happening to me right now? Isn't it possible that I am dreaming that I can test whether I'm awake or asleep -- and of course, in my dream, I pass the test? So it seems really vivid to me right now that I'm awake -- but in fact, I'm asleep? Well, Descartes said to himself, I guess there aren't any definite signs, or tests, that I could use to tell whether I'm asleep or dreaming. I could, after all, be dreaming those very tests. I have experience of doing that, thinking that I passed the test for being awake, when really I was only dreaming. So there isn't any way to tell that I am awake now. I cannot possibly prove that I am awake. So, Descartes said to himself, I don't really know that I am awake now and writing in the evening. For all I really know, I could be asleep. 2. You can't prove that perception is reliable without assuming that your senses are reliable and thereby begging the question at issue. 3. Hume argued that people can only know about the external world through perceptions of it, and the accuracy of these perceptions cannot be proven. 4. Descartes Evil Demon 5. Brain in a vat. I'll save the rest for the next round.
Mandatory Voting

Many thanks to missbailey8 for agreeing to debate this topic with me. Full resolution: In a democracy, voting should be compulsory DEFINITIONSDemocracy: A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives. (1)Compulsory voting: A system in which voters are obliged to vote in elections or attend a polling place on voting day. (2)DEBATE STRUCTURE1. Acceptance2. Opening statements (no rebuttals)3. Rebuttal to opening arguments only (no defense)4. Defense of opening statements (no rebuttals)RULES1. The burden of proof is shared2. Forfeiting will results in a full 7-point loss3. Images are permitted, but videos are not4. The character limit is 10,0005. All arguments must be made in the debate and so any arguments that are mentioned in the comments or outside (i.e. google docs) should be ignored. Con agrees to these terms upon accepting this debate. If she has any issues with the terms/definitions, con should contact me prior to accepting. The voting period shall last for two (2) weeks.__________________SOURCES1. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...2. https://en.wikipedia.org...;
Mandatory Voting

1. Voting is a moral and civic dutyMy opponent begins by defining a duty as a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. She repeats that the right to vote must include a right to not vote. Here is the syllogism that she uses:P1: We have the right to vote. P2: This means we also have the right to not vote. C: Therefore, our right to vote shouldn't become our obligation. The syllogism fails because the second premise is wrong. The idea that there is a right to not vote is based on a flawed interpretation of the idea of the right to vote, an interpretation which mistakes the sort of liberty which the right to vote represents and which overlooks the centrality to that right of the value of the active electoral participation (1). Furthermore, as I pointed out in the previous round, numerous rights cannot be waived. Another example of such a right that cannot be waived is the employment rights that are granted under the FLSA (2). Voting rights cannot be waived because that is the primary way in which the government functions. The syllogism that I brought up in my opening arguments still stands. To reiterate:P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions. P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly. C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory. 2. Increase representationMy opponent misunderstands what the consent of the governed means. Everyone has differing political beliefs whether by party, other ideologies, religion, etc. It's almost guaranteed that no candidate will ever get 100% of the votes. And that is true. However, the consent of the governed does not mean that a said candidate will receieve 100% of the vote from 100% of the population. It means that our government’s legitimacy and moral right to exercise power is only justified and legal when derived from the people over whom that political power is exercised (3). "It is only when the people come together and make decisions as a whole, with the decision of the majority taking precedence, that the "consent of the governed," has been obtained. And this process of decision making by the majority is the basic principle that is indispensable to the establishment of a nation based on equal rights. "(4)3. Reduce polarizationMy opponent has conceded this point and so I extend it below. 4. Increase participation and knowledge I will drop this point as I do not have the adequate time to properly respond. I agree that it is my weakest point. Once again, thanks for a fun debate. May the best man (or woman) win! Sources1. Lardy, Heather. "Is There a Right Not to Vote? " Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 24.2 (2004): 303-21. Web. 2. . http://www.lexology.com...;3. . https://www.boundless.com...;4. . http://www.dailykos.com...;
Most Abortion is Murder

*****ONLY ACCEPT IF YOU WILL ACTUALLY DEBATE THIS. My last two opponents in this debate forfeited. My position is that abortion should be considered murder in most cases. The qualifier "most" is used because I wish to exclude abortion in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother. I believe these are unique situations and they make up a very small percentage of total abortions performed annually. Terms are defined as follows: Abortion - Intentionally terminating a pregnancy before giving birth Murder - Intentionally ending another human life Life - I anticipate much of this debate will focus on when human life begins. I am open to debating the best definition of this. I would ask voters to accept the strongest definition that is presented. Organization is as follows: Round 1 - acceptance only, no arguments Round 2 - opening arguments from each side, no rebuttals Round 3 - rebuttals Round 4 - response/additional rebuttals, conclusion I realize this is a very emotional topic. I am looking for someone who is willing to debate in a calm, respectful, and logical manner. Burden of proof is shared. No trolling. Use of sources is encouraged. If you agree to these terms, please accept. Please do not accept if you plan on forfeiting.
Eminem is the best rapper of all time

I accept. The burden of proof lies *entirely* on Pro to prove the resolution as absolutely true. For this, Pro has to do the following:(1) establish an objective criterion for what is "best"(2) prove that Eminem fulfills that objective criterionI would like to observe that a large part of Pro's case has been plagiarized from this article [1]. Everything from "Eminem is considered one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time" is plagiarized from the same article [1], and while the article is sourced, it is not in quotes, thus is considered plagiarism.Additionally, Pro cites >20 sources, and these sources are not seen under references. As such, I request voters to discredit Pro's argument.References [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Eminem is the best rapper of all time

i know it's controversial, because eminem's not black, and rap is a predominately black music genre, but i think eminem has proven himself to be the greatest rapper of all time. a lot of you guys will claim shakur is the best, but i feel like shakur doesn't nearly match eminem's lyrical capabilities and flows when you compare their music side by side. eminem has demonstrated a strong understanding of the english language, and when you listen to his songs, you don't just see astonishing lyrical capabilities, but the emotion that he's able to describe in the way he sings his raps. for example, just listen to the song renegade, and compare the verses and emotion that flows in the raps from eminem's to jay-z's. it's clear eminem was superior in that song. also, listen to eminem's verse in the song forever, compared to drake, lil wayne, and kanye's verse. eminem always comes out on top. lastly, listen to eminem's verse in open mic, which showed his lyrical capabilities and how he was able to kill mics even before he was signed, back in 1996. Eminem is considered one of the greatest hip-hop artists of all time. He was 83rd on Rolling StoneR05;R02;'R03;s 100 Greatest Artists of All Time[240][241] and 79th on the VH1 100 Greatest Artists of All Time lists.[242] In 2010, MTV Portugal ranked Eminem the seventh-biggest icon in pop-music history. In August 2011 Eminem was called the King of Hip-Hop by Rolling Stone, which analyzed album sales, R&B, hip-hop and rap chart positions, YouTube views, social media, concert grosses, industry awards and critical ratings of solo rappers who released music from 2009 to the first half of 2011.[5] His second major-label album, The Marshall Mathers LP, was the fastest-selling solo album in US history[35] and was ranked one of the greatest hip-hop albums of all time by Rolling Stone, Time and XXL.[255] Rolling Stone ranked it the seventh-best album of the first decade of the 21st century.[256] The album's third single ("Stan") is one of Eminem's most critically acclaimed songs, with Pitchfork Media calling it "a cultural milestone".[257] A number of hip-hop and pop artists have cited Eminem as an influence, including 50 Cent,[258] Usher,[259] Kendrick Lamar,[260] Ed Sheeran,[261][262] Lana Del Rey,[263] Big Sean,[264] J. Cole,[265] Skylar Grey,[266] Bubba Sparxxx,[267] Asher Roth,[268] Machine Gun Kelly,[269] Yelawolf,[270] Hopsin,[271] Tyler, The Creator,[272] Hollywood Undead,[273] Chris Webby,[274] Chance the Rapper[275] Stalley.[276] and Denace. Rap pioneers David Banner,[277] Talib Kweli,[278] Kool G. Rap,[279] Redman[280] and Jay Z have called Eminem one of the greatest rappers of all time. https://en.wikipedia.org...
Eminem is the best rapper of all time

Negation Case Premise: An objective ‘best’ is impossible For me to negate, I hold that it is impossible to consider anything as “best” objectively. This is, essentially, a Kritik of the resolution. The term “best” is inherently subjective – different people consider different things “best”, and it is not objectively certain. In Pro’s own case, Pro uses terms like “in my opinion” and “I believe,” which, inherently, show that the term “best” is subjective, and cannot be held to an objective standard. The links: the resolution uses the term “best,” holding that Eminem is objectively the *best* rapper to ever exist. The impacts: the term “best” is inherently subjective, so there is no objective “best” for anything. Counter-Case A1: Objective criterion for what is ‘best’ Pro *fails* to establish a criterion that is objective to consider what is “best”. Pro establishes a criterion for what qualifies as the best rapper, but it is *entirely subjective*. Pro begins with “I believe”, which in itself implies the criteria is influenced by Pro’s own perception, thus is *subjective*, not objective. The Oxford Dictionary defines “subjective” as “based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions” [1]. Since it is implied by Pro’s belief and opinion, the criterion that Pro establishes is an entirely subjective criterion, while the resolution and Pro’s burden require Pro to prove that Eminem is *objectively* the best rapper, which Pro fails to do. As such, Pro misrepresents what is an “objective criterion”, committing two fallacies: red herring [2] and straw-man [3]. Thus, Pro’s criterion is unsound, and should be discredited by voters. A2: Eminem fulfills that “objective criterion” “Eminem is the greatest because he can make you feel all different kinds of emotions in his songs.” The entirety of the A2 impacts are based on this assumption, which commits a logical fallacy known as bare assertion, since this is asserted without any evidence [4]. All Pro succeeds in showing is that Eminem is a good rapper – but this is insufficient to show Pro’s burden, which is to demonstrate that Eminem is objectively the *best* rapper. As such, presume Con in voting. Thus, I have shown that Pro’s arguments are logically fallacious and fail to fulfill their burden. As such, the resolution remains negated by default, due to the burden of proof. References [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2] http://www.nizkor.org... [3] http://rationalwiki.org... [4] http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
Eminem is the best rapper of all time

The burden of proof lies *entirely* on Pro to prove the resolution as absolutely true. For this, Pro has to do the following: (1) establish an objective criterion for what is "best" (2) prove that Eminem fulfills that objective criterion (1) i believe the criteria for best rapper would have to be best lyricism, ability to make you feel emotions in his songs, and flow (how good it sounds). good lyricism would include using a lot of poetic devices such as metaphors, rhymes etc. good flow would include smooth sounding rhymes along with tongue twisters etc. (2) a. eminem is the greatest because he can make you feel all different kinds of emotions in his songs. he's known to be able to make you cry, with songs like "like toy soldiers," inspire you, like with songs such as "lose yourself," "8 mile" and many more, make you laugh with his slim shady character with songs such as "cum on everybody," "the real slim shady," and many many more. b. eminem demonstrates his great lyrical capabilities strongly through songs such as "right for me," where he keeps the same rhyme scheme through the entire song, the song "quitter," where he's able to rap over tupacs beat, and create a better lyrical rap than tupac did on his own song, and many more. not to mention, in the song it's an attack on a rapper he was beafing with at the time, which he slays. also, my next piece of evidence for eminem being the best rapper of all time is when eminem performs live the song "forever," at drakes own concert, and when he comes out the crowd goes crazy for him over the main artist, drake. he beat them all lyrically and with flow, and drake even admits it, calling him the greatest of all time.
Euthanasia

===Refutations=== 1. "Case in point for example if someone were pregnant and gotten an abortion don't you think that the fetus, has the right to live. But that would be a different debate on why a baby should live, so how is this much different. " Euthanasia is different from abortion. Abortion is ending an unborn fetus's life because the parent(s) do not want the baby. Euthanasia is ending one's own life to end your own suffering. 2. "Kevorkian" Jack Kevorkian assisted ending the lives of people who had no hope of coming out of their disease, and were in extreme pain. Ending the lives of those in extreme pain who are going to die anyway, painlessly is a very humane act. Please refute this. 3. "European declaration of human rights not to be forced to suffer. so if I wanted to hang myself would that be right it still means the same thing ,just that the person who is suffering actually is doing the wrongful crime of killing them self. But in the bible it clearly states in exodus 20:13 you shall not murder" I clearly defined Euthanasia as ONLY TO BE USED WITH INCURABLE ILLNESSES. (In all caps). If you wanted to hang yourself that is not euthanasia for two reasons. ONE: it is not medically facilitated. TWO: You don't have an incurable illness. Yes, the bible states you shall not murder, but Euthanasia is not murder. It is the humane ending of someone who is suffering. And realistically, should we base the whole world's policies on the writings on some book of myths? 4. "And also my opponent mentioned a women named Chantal sebire a 52 year old women who wanted to die around her family, friends and doctors you cant judge one person decision and pin it on the rest of the society. " Euthanasia won't be mandatory, I thought that was understood. If one person requests it, give it to them, if one person refuses it, don't. Its that simple. 5. "like if one person eats fried chicken doesn't mean we all do. " Terrible analogy. 6. But don't you think doctors had a little bit to do with her decision. That lady had kids who need her as a provider ,a role model and if you were to put your self in there shoes this debate would be relevant. 7. "And also Terri shiavo's death was to remove her feeding tubes she was starved to death is that dying with dignity? " EXACTLY! This is how people are "put out of their misery" today. WITHOUT euthanasia. (No new contentions). ===CONCLUSION=== 1. My opponent has left many of my points unrefuted. 2. The points she did refute were poorly refuted and have been refuted by me. 3. My opponent stated NO SOURCES. 4. I have stated five reliable sources. 5. My points still stand.