BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
New Member Tournament: Libertarianism

I will be arguing for Libertarianism with two main points: a) Libertarianism is the most "right" and b) Libertarianism maximizes the "results" that everyone wants (i.e. prosperity, technological innovation, quality of life). I will present a very short case because I wish to see how my opponent responds before getting in-depth. 1. Libertarianism is the most "right". Libertarianism advocates that the government's only role is to prevent peoples' rights from being violated. Other systems force others to give up their money in order to fund the expeditions of the government or deny people from doing things that they arbitrarily declare as immoral. Stealing and forcing people to live in the way in a certain way are wrong, and all other systems of government advocate these to some degree or extent. Why shouldn't people be free to live their lives as they see fit as long as they don't stop others from living their lives as they see fit? As Libertarianism leads to the most freedom, and because freedom is a good thing, libertarianism must be the most "right". 2. Libertarianism maximizes the "results" that everyone wants (i.e. prosperity, technological innovation, quality of life). The changes that Libertarians seek maximize "results". The minimum wage lowers "results" by taking away jobs that benefit both the employer and the employee. Tariffs hurts domestic consumers and foreign producers while only benefiting domestic producers[1]. Both of these are things are negative. The main reason that Libertarianism maximizes "results" is because of the free market. Free trade maximizes "results" because both sides benefit, and both sides are better off. Government interference in the free market means that less trades take place, and thus there is less of a benefit. Not only that, the free market is also the most efficient allocator of resources because of incentives. If a government is running a school, there is no real reason to minimize costs, maximize quality and maximize customer satisfaction other than wanting to do your best. If you make a mistake, you are not punished. However, if there is private schooling, the more your customers are satisfied, the more money you make. Not only does the free market benefit everyone involved, it also selects the most efficient producers to better benefit everyone. Sources [1] http://www.basiceconomics.info...
New Member Tournament: Libertarianism

Resolved: Libertarianism is a sound theory. Round 1 will be for acceptance and clarification. Rounds 2 and 3 will be arguments and rebuttals, and round 4 will be for closing statements. I will be defending Libertarianism, which I basically define as the government's only role should be to protect people's rights. If my opponent wishes any changes be made to the debate, please post them in the comments before accepting.
The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed.

R: The XXII amendment of the U.S. Constitution should be repealed. Text of XXII Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org... For clarity there is a difference between term limits, which limit the number of terms a person may serve as president and term lengths which are 4 years. This debate is about term limits... not term lengths. Rematch!!!! Blade of truth and I re-doing this debate. http://www.debate.org... Judge voting: Whiteflame Bladerunner060 BSH1 Tejretics DameOn 4Rounds/72hrs/6,000 1st round acceptance No new arguments in last round comment. Good luck my friend.
Democrats are good for nothing people who don't like American Values

Do I think democrats are good for nothing people who don't like American values? Absolutely. I'll one up the resolution and say that democrats are excellent for nothing people who don't like American values. The democrats have built their platform on helping nothing people. Democrats are typically pro welfare, pro food stamps, and pro a vast array of social programs to help elevate nothing people from their burdened socioeconomic class. Straight from the democrats' platform: "We believe in deficit reduction not by placing the burden on the middle class and the poor, but by. .. asking the wealthiest to again contribute their fair share. " . https://www.democrats.org... The party of the democrats "has invested in. .. community development, public and affordable housing, and homelessness prevention to cut red tape and help revitalize American cities. " . https://www.democrats.org... To me, reducing the burden on the poor and investing in affordable housing and homelessness prevention is good for nothing people. .. heck it's great for nothing people, because having nothing restricts the procuring of a shelter; the democrats attempt to provide housing for nothing people. It is true. Some of these nothing people have been discouraged by their plight, and, as such, may not like American values. Well, the democrats are good for nothing people who don't like American values as well. Democrats try to instill American values when enacting legislation that helps these nothing people. The democrats claim that "we are bound by a shared set of ideals and values rooted in the notion that we are greater together; that our collective efforts produce something better than the sum of our individual actions; and that together, rather than divided, we can overcome the greatest challenges that come our way. " . https://www.democrats.org... The democrats sound like a perfect match for nothing people who don't like American values; democrats provide affordable housing, try to reduce homelessness, and do so to support core American values. When these nothing people advance in society, thanks to democratic legislation, they may be less inclined to dislike American values, because the very party that helped advance nothing people is doing so with the core American values in mind. I affirm the resolution that democrats are good for nothing people who don't like American values, because the democrats attempt to help those nothing people by reducing homelessness, and the democrats provide a convincing reason for those nothing people to embrace the otherwise disliked American values. Oh yeah. .. I found no definitions in the 1st round, so I shall supply my own. nothing (adj. ) - having no prospect of progress; of no value . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Example: "He had a series of nothing jobs. " people (n. ) - the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... On to Con.
Humans cannot prove the existence of a God or Deity.

Please note that many people have this bad habit of thinking that everything has to be proven to be true, but that isn't true. Just because something isn't proven doesn't mean it doesn't exist. For example, someone heard God speaking. That person told another person that God spoke to them. The other person said, "Prove it." The person that heard God (or they thought they did) said, "Why? I just heard Him. I don't know how I can prove anything." Then, the other person said, "See? It can't be proven. You did not hear God."Well, that person could have just been hearing things, but it could have been real. Just because things are not proven, doesn't mean it's not real. People just have this bad habit of thinking that. A smart person wouldn't think that.Just because there's more evidence to God not existing, doesn't make it any more true. There might just be 1 real evidence in a situation, but 100 fake evidence in that situation. But even if there's more proof to one thing than the other, doesn't make it more true. Like I said before, just because something isn't proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Yes, you never know a God or deity exists until you die.For God's existence:http://carm.org...;http://carm.org...;http://carm.org...
Humans cannot prove the existence of a God or Deity.

As Con had said, humans cannot prove the existence of a God or deity. And why not? Pro, you have said that the Bible is fictional, right? Where is the proof? How is the Bible fictional? Yes, people have proof to the existence of God, but many people just don't bother believing it is true. I apoligise for not proving anything, but I was saying that humans CAN prove the existence of God or deity. Pro had said that no-one has proven that God exists, and no-one has proven that He doesn't exist. But, he DID say that there was evidence against God. Look at Noctan's opinion on the "no" side. He had clearly written that there was proof against God. http://www.debate.org...Pro challenges me to find proof that God can be proven. Look at my sources, if you want to know.Sources: https://school.carm.org...http://realtruth.org...http://carm.org...http://www.everystudent.com...http://www.peterkreeft.com...
Humans cannot prove the existence of a God or Deity.

First of all I would like to apologize to Con for my slow reply, as I have been busy as of late. As stated previously, I believe that humans cannot prove the existence of a God or deity. I fail to see how Con has in fact given evidence to prove that a God or deity can be proven. Con states that the evidence is there, but people just don't believe that it is true. If you believe a God can be proven, I ask if you could please provide the evidence that it can. Con also brings up something not really a part of the debate when she says I stated that there was proof that proves God doesn't exist. I do not believe in a God or any deity, but I don't see how this is part of the debate. I never stated there was proof God doesn't exist in this debate at all, I said there was no way a God could be proven. I personally do not believe that God can be proven to be real or not real. We can't know for sure that there is or isn't a God. Con is correct that I cannot prove God is not real, but I would like you basically the same question you asked me, how? How do you know God is real and can be proven? Nobody has proven God's existence and nobody has proven God doesn't exist. I challenge Con to find any evidence that God's existence can in fact be proven. Here are some sources: http://philosophy.lander.edu... http://www.austindailyherald.com...
Humans cannot prove the existence of a God or Deity.

Good luck to Pro too. Now, I argue that humans CAN prove the existence of a God or Deity. The Holy Bible was written by 40 men who did not know each other. Anyway, many humans have already proven the existence of God, but people say that the proof is fake. Well, if people don't believe that the evidence is real, then the people haven't really proven anything. But others, on the other hand, were more successful and managed to convince other people that the evidence is real. THEY have proven the existence of God, so why would you say that humans CAN'T prove the existence of God? You just THINK that they haven't proven anything, because you say that the proof is fake. You had said that there was another proof that had proven God doesn't exist, right? But how would you know that it was real and had valid reasons? You never know, THAT proof against God might as well be fake and the proof FOR God might as well be real.Think about it. You haven't seen God with your own eyes, but you don't really know for sure that the proof against Him is real. How do you know for sure that the proof against God is real? When I say "know for sure", I mean, actually seing something with your own eyes and something like that.
Humans cannot prove the existence of a God or Deity.

I had fun with it, and it was one of my first debates on here. What you said in this post I completely agree with. God could very well exist and not exist. If God is real, we can't possibly know until we die. Maybe God could be real, but there is no Heaven. Maybe God isn't real. We just can't know. It is possible that one day God may be proven, but I don't think we'll ever know until dead. I thank you again for a good debate, I had fun.
legalization of cannabis and hemp

My position on this incredibly volatile and subjective topic is pro, the reasons being many and varied but mostly i am for because most arguments i have assessed in regards to this topic have been very well cited by the pro side, as well as having the classic arguments with speculative citations being used against the legalization. The numerous scientific facts simply point out the irrationality of our current state and federal laws concerning cannabis which the supporters of its illegality brush aside as having to little serious scientific proof, and also claiming to have evidence confirming to the contrary. As previously and numerously stated, this topic is constantly a theater and subjective environment and is quite difficult to debate, as compared to religion and other closely held beliefs which when contradicted have built in self defense mechanisms such as, "the devil made it happen that way." This is the way many of the arguments i have analyzed tend to wind up going and i am trying to find a well cited argument against the legalization of something that is constantly being proven to be something that both sides need to take a much closer look at.
Morality

"Depending on who you ask you will get different input on every specific subject concerning what's called ethics." Again, you've shown complete disregard for the logic outlined in my argument. I have already explained "Morality stems from nature, and flourishes in human nature". I have already explained that there is nothing directly immoral or moral, but that any direct subject can be moral or immoral {i.e. kindness can be immoral; suicide can be moral}. Thinking of kindness as only moral is stupidity, making the sophist idea that morality is subjective stupidity. It's not the cause {i.e kindness} that is immoral or moral, it's the effect {the effect of your kindness}. The species comes before the individual where morality is concerned. If an action of yours stupid for the species, it's an evil action. It doesn't matter what each individual thinks is good and evil when coming to the conclusion "what's good and evil for humanity?", but what is evil for our survival. Whether an individual does or does not care about the survival of our species, doesn't matter.
Morality

My apologies, but I think your argument was unsubstantial. Prior to explaining your own idea of morality, you dismissed, or were ignorant of, my Round 1 argument. without scrutiny. The only part of your Round 1 argument, where you tried to contradict me, was with, what I consider to be, a poor against analogy. "We reap what we sew. Sew bad seed and reap poor crops. Sew good seed and reap bountiful, productive, fruitful seed. Sew negativity and reap negativity and vice versa. What can be wrong to one person can be right for another and vice versa. So therefore morality is subjective and relative". I would like to know how you arrived at the conclusion that morality is "subjective and relative", based on the statements that came prior. The idea that morality can be different per individual, is correct, but it doesn't contradict my argument - it agrees with it. Morality is not subjective, humans do not choose the effect of some cause, they choose the cause of some effect. We choose what we sew, but what we reap is dependent on what we had sewn and our efforts toward the growth of that seed. I would like to highlight the statement in my Round 1 argument where I said "Morality stems from nature, and flourishes in human nature" - in other words, we cannot change the seeds, but we have the ability to support them as they flourish. We cannot change morality, but we have a greater understanding of morality than most other species on the planet, we can execute good, and evil, greater than other Earth life. We cannot honestly claim that killing is immoral without an opinionated argument. There are questions that we must ask ourselves before we kill, and humans are conditioned to answer these questions. An immoral act could be to over-kill, or allow evil to prosper. How much killing is too much? Should this person be killed? The questions on a 'moral killers' mind. Morality is not simple to explain, but the human mind comprehends morality wordlessly. This is natural instinct and condition. Morality is relative to life, because any evil act will have maleficent-consequences. If humans cut down all trees on Earth, then anyone who breathes-in oxygen will suffocate to death. Again, killing is not directly immoral, so if I were to kill someone, there would be no natural repercussions other than it's against man-made laws and there would be police intervention. There is nothing directly immoral or moral, but humans may be good or evil in any context; kindness and suicide can be both moral or immoral - dependent on the humans will. To conclude my Round 2 argument, morality is a matter of relativity because we reap what was sewn.
god

Because Pro hasn't specified which God we are discussing, I assume it is the Abrahamic God. C1 - Absence of evidence Pro claims "you can not disprove that only prove that there is no need for a god." This is not true. Absence of evidence for X counts against the existence of X just in case we should expect to find more evidence for X if X actually exists. Suppose that if God exists, it is very likely that we should find a certain kind of evidence. By contrast, if God does not exist, it is very un-likely we should find such evidence. If no evidence is found and all other factors are equal, following Baye's theorem, it is probable that God does not exist.[1] It is rational to assume that we should expect to find some sort of evidence for the existence of God, and Pro has not bothered to provide any. Unless and until he does so, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. C2 - The problem of evil William Rowe's evidential argument from evil is considered the "gold standard" of its kind in contemporary philosophical circles.[2] It is as follows: (1) There probably exist instances of intense suffering which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. (2) An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. .:. Therefore, there probably does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. Examples of gratuitous suffering that support the first premise might include plagues, earthquakes, hurricanes, world wars, and the Holocaust. The second premise is uncontroversial. -- References -- 1. http://blog.sigfpe.com... 2. http://www.iep.utm.edu...
rap battle 3

My flow, oh so ill, it's ridic'lous,GET ME A NAKED NURSE TO CURE THIS SICKNESS!Just kidding, I only need your mom,I only need her to bend over and show me a big bum,And when it shines at me like a golden sun,I'll be seeing the a$$ of a hoe, if I have ever seen one,Enough of this sh*t it's time for a pun,Oops I've run out of ideas... Your mom has a PUNNY cunt.Anyway down to business,What was this bad rap I witnessed?It's like Stephen Hawking attempting fitness,Like a lonely guy f*cking female dogs thinkin' he bangin' hot b!tches,Like a tomboy showing off her non-existent penis,You think men come from Mars and women come from Venus?Well you come from Pluto, dwarf, there's huge mental and physical gap between us.You call that a R..A..P?!It sure was a Retard Attempting Poetry,The only skilled thing about it was all lines were short,the consistency was admirable like a weak nerd playing sport,At least you're bad every time you try,At least there's no mystery as to why,You're retarded, you can't help it disabled and I,Should have had the decency of not rapping against you, it's like a frog and a fly,When I spit and move my tongue, you're already dead,You are incapable, so disabled, like a bull straight form the STABLE seeing red.I'm a pirate, I don't f*ck my abusive dad, instead I f*ck wenches,I'm like a German World war one sniper shooting the nooby British in their trenches,When I walk in a room every bitch's underwear drenches,When you walk in and start talking everyone's fist clenches,You talk such sh*t, you think that you can spit?I'm a captain, steering a ship you're just my deck boy b*tch,All you can do is clean the floor,When you're done I say do more,And you do it and love it because to you it's not a chore,It's at your level, you have no greater ambition,You're well behaved, oh so enslaved to all your competition,Every single line I see form you is repetition,You're like a wannabe ninja on a suicide mission,Now I know pirates hate ninjas but I hate you more,I don't simply hate your exterior, I loathe your core,every single thing about you is epitome,Of irrational, unfashionable stupidity.You just go thrashed,Seems we were mismatched,They put the alpha male rooster against a chick that just hatched,Yeah I'm the rooster, the cockerel, You're mom's a en,Tell her last night was amazing, I wanna do her again.
rap battle 3

Yo... Excuse the profanities, this is rap :PYou say that you're the grim reaper,Oh dear I'm so scared of you creeper,I'm just kidding, now let's look in to the problem you face deeper.I'm undead, yes I've already been taken,If you think you will take me again then you are very mistaken,I don't claim to be immortal,I don't claim to have found a magic portal,I'm just a silly pirate who knows what it means to live life by the bottle,I'm a foolish drunken insane beast,I'm like a monstrous terrorist straight from the Middle East,On your fear it is that I shall feast,I've killed men with a flintlock, with a cutlass, I've seen them fall to their knees,As they beg "PLEASE OH PLEASE" as I cut their head off and see them bleed,As I do you dirty work, grim reaper, and kill men and women like their lactose intolerant and I'm cheese.I'm a monster, perhaps not as grim as you,But I'm a biological time-bomb that will do what it has to,If it means that I have to betray my entire crew,Then I'll murder them one by one, through and through,I have no morality,I don't fear my fatality,I've been there and done that,As a matter of fact I'm back,I have no care for legality,I am a connoisseur,My taste in rap is so pure,I saw your mamma's pu$$y last night,I sure...Made it purr,She OW! MEOW!,YOU SO BIG!YOU SO THICK!YOU A MILKMAN,I'm YOUR COW,F*CK ME NOW<F*CK ME MORE,MAKE ME FEEL,LIKE A WHORE,OPEN ME UP LIKE A DOOR,MAKE ME CHOKE ON IT,UNTIL I GAG AND VOMIT... ON THE FLOOR.She was crazy,I was lazy,She hated that I didn't try,So went hard, Penetrated her like a glass shard,She was so used to being abused that she didn't cry.Your mom might be tough but you...You're just Grim as you say,I don't know if your d!ck size is more than two,But your mom was so tight so your father either has a tiny d!ck or only does foreplay,And you got his genes, so you better remember,You may be the grim reaper but I'm a pirate with a MIGHTY TEMPER,You wanna mess with me? COME AT ME BRO,You the grim little grinch well here's my HO HO HO!One ho for your mother, the other two for the only chicks you'll get to f*ck,The only chicks you get are easy, with guys you would have better luck,Heck you'd fit right in the gay communityShaking round your cute itty bitty,Excuse for a penis, when they see it they'll be like "OH WHAT A CUTEY"And they'll put a condom on, so fruity,F*ck your self-proclaimed bisexual throat for all the other gays to see,You will find the flavour brilliant and the experience to juicy,Then they'll enter you a$$ like they do in the gay porno movies,You'll say "OH FUNKY HUNKY DON'T BE SO GROOVY"Your so HUGE HONEY BUNNY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO ME?But as a matter of fact, when you start your homosexual rap,You'll realise once you go homo, fo sho, there ain't no going back.BYE BI, see what I did?At rap I'm a man, You're just a wannabe kid,You'll never make is big,You'll always rap like sh*t.That rap was so whack as matter of fact,That I'd rather be beaten blue and black,Than have to listen to rhymes that,A little baby girl could come up with you a$$hat.You've been annihilated,You've been obliterated,Goodbye, please go to hell,When I die again I'll see you later.