BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

.. .. .. .. .. again :) Pro says "P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist" But what exactly does this premise show ? does it show that something perfect ACTUALLY exists ? of course not, the truth of this premise only shows that IF something is actually perfect then it would actually exist, and that's a pretty big IF. Maybe Pro can explain to us why he thinks that the possibility of perfection existing means that perfection ACTUALLY exists. As Pro concludes "C: Therefore such a being must exist". Surely Pro isn't suggesting that possibility = actuality ? 1) If it is possible for X to exist, then its possible for X not to exist 2) It is possible for perfection to exist 3) Therefore it is possible for perfection not to exist I look forward to Pros reply.
That the Descartes Ontological argument is sound

For some reason my opponent feels the need to argue the ontological argument with me - again! Here is his second chance. "God" is a perfect entity. My burden of proof is to show that this perfect entity really exists, using the Descartes ontological argument. My opponent needs to show that the Descartes ontological argument does not prove this. The argument itself is as follows. P1: It is impossible to be perfect and not exist C: Therefore such a being must exist This is taken from Descartes' fifth meditation: "Because I cannot conceive God unless as existing, it follows that existence is inseparable from him, and therefore that he really exists: not that this is brought about by my thought, or that it imposes any necessity on things, but, on the contrary, the necessity which lies in the thing itself, that is, the necessity of the existence of God, determines me to think in this way: for it is not in my power to conceive a God without existence, that is, a being supremely perfect, and yet devoid of an absolute perfection, as I am free to imagine a horse with or without wings." I look forward to hearing what objections my opponent has this time around.
Capital Punishment

My opponents definitions are correct. "The death penalty violates our constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantee of due process of law and the equal protection of laws. The enactment of the death penalty serves to be inconsistent with fundamental values of our democratic system. Capital punishment does not deter crime, and it is uncivilized in theory and unfair in practice." The death penalty is not cruel and unusual. It is clearly straightforward and not painful. The first step takes away any feeling you could possibly have.http://www.newscientist.com... My opponent is lead to believe that the death penalty is involved in racism. The fact that more blacks are executed than whites is due to the fact that there are more blacks than whites in NC.http://www.ncruralcenter.org... And that Cali study is incorrect, if they let a black run this country, they certainly wouldn't discriminate (racially) who gets executed. Financial Factors: The d.p. does not cost more in necessarily all states, in TN it costs more to be thrown in jail for life rather than to be executed so therefore; your statement is exaggerated. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Public Opinion: NOTE: This is in MAY of 2006! 80% down to 65%, this is still over half, not everyone voted. PLEASE NOTE THIS LINK AND LOOK AT PICTURES ON THE SITE. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Now to rebuttal his contentions... He says its cruel, again, it is not cruel and I stated how earlier in my argument. Second, Everyone does have a right to live but you are a religious person, correct? Methodist! Well, http://www.gotquestions.org... http://www.twopaths.com... Innocence: 135 ppl since 1973, and some were found guilty later on and the majority of the ones found innocent were, black. Hmmmmm. Actual punishment: It is actual, it's real and it's death. Which scares others to commit murders and is also doing what God would want us to do. Just open the my links.
f.s military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated.

*Clarification, the resolution was actually supposed to be "f.s military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated by the US." My mistake. 1)It is the morally right action It would be immoral to allow a person to die of dehydration if one had water to save that person. One would help another in cardiac arrest, if one could perform CPR. However, why would it be considered moral to allow genocide to occur? We have the resources to prevent these genocides from occurring. Thousands of lives could be saved from tragedy by a full scale military intervention. It would be selfish and wrong to allow it to occur. 2) International law The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide signed by the United states states that countries are to prevent and punish actions of genocide[1]. 3)Genocide is a threat to U.S. interests Genocide causes destabilization of a country which results in drug, arms, youth radicalization, infectious disease pandemics and human trafficking [2]. This poses a national security threat to America.This destabilization also causes massive economic problems which weakens benefits from foreign trade. 4)Military operations benefit the economy Military personnel learn trade skills that make them more employable in the job market [3] [4] [5] [6]. In addition, military personnel can receive addition job training through the G.I. Bill. In times where it is difficult to find a job, joining the military is a good alternative. US citizens would be more willing to join the military knowing he or she will be fighting a just war. Military personnel also learn skills that transfer to make good employees including punctuality, trustworthiness, discipline, teamwork, duty, and leadership [7]. This also increases the amount of jobs for civilians that work to create military products. In times of economic recessions, the increase in jobs due to the the production of military goods, is sufficient to offset the undersconsumption caused through business cycles.This is all explained through Keynesian economics[8] This was the case of how world war II got the United States out of the Great Depression.[9] 5) Punishing initiators of genocide would prevent future genocides Those that commit these crimes against humanities would be very unlikely to commit these actions if a full scale military operation would be used against them. If the US were to create one full scale military operation against a genocide initiator, this would effect others drastically. Others would think twice about committing genocide, in fear of a US military operation. Thus a more peaceful world of prosperity could exist in the future. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.foreignpolicy.com... [3]http://www.goarmy.com... [4]http://www.navy.com... [5]http://www.airforce.com... [6]http://www.airforce.com... [7]http://www.bestsampleresume.com... [8]http://en.wikipedia.org... [9]http://www.amatecon.com...
f.s military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated.

This is Tournament Debate III. Unless you are a judge, please do not vote in this debate. Thanks to Johnicle for creating and organizing this tournament. The resolution is a full scale military operation to prevent the negative effects of genocide should be initiated. Thanks to my opponent for entering the debate. Definitions: genocide - the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group. full scale military operation - Military action in response to a situation that uses significant resources. If there are no disputes for the above definitions, then we shall proceed arguments in the second round. No semantics or changing agreed upon definitions. Good luck!
DDO raps should be lyrically complex

Pro's only response to my opening argument is that the resolution isn't meant to assert an objective claim, but that it is simply an expression of his opinion. That is just absurd. If that were the case, all I'd need to do in order to match his level of argumentation is assert my own opinion, which is enough to win the debate given that BOP is on Pro. But besides that, he contradicts himself later on by insisting that I present "sources and sound reasoning" in order to negate the resolution, implying that I should support my side of the resolution as an objective claim (i. e. a factual claim that can be empirically demonstrated). Unless Pro is using some sort of blatant double standard, he is implicitly conceding that he, too, with his sources and reasoning, is attempting to objectively affirm the resolution. Hence, his rebuttal is simply an attempt at dodging my point, and my argument regarding the subjectivity of art forms still applies-- it is logically impossible to make the claim that lyrical complexity is an objectively desirable characteristic in raps. The resolution is negated.
DDO raps should be lyrically complex

I will be using this round to rebut Pro's aff case. Pro's primary argument is that because rap battles on DDO are supposedly won using 'lyrically complex' techniques, all DDO raps should be conducted in the same style. The only evidence he provides for this is an example of one of his own rap battles which was supposedly well-received by the voters. There are two major flaws with this case... 1. It is a clear non-sequitur. The fact that rap battles are supposedly won with lyrical complexity doesn't show that rap battles should be lyrically complex. This logic assumes that winning is the only meaningful purpose of rapping on DDO. So what if lacking lyrical complexity loses you the rap battle? What is wrong with rapping for self-expression, for conveying a message, or just for the fun of it? Simple raps can serve those purposes just as well, even if we accept Pro's premise about winning rap battles. Without warranting this assumption, his whole argument is rendered logically invalid. Moreover, this argument is also an is/ought fallacy-- observing that things *are* done a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that things *should* be done that way. The same logic could have been used to justify slavery (i.e. "slavery has always been a part of human society, and therefore should be allowed to continue"). Pro's argument is thoroughly fallacious. 2. Pro's evidence is not enough to actually prove the assertion that DDO rap battles are generally won using lyrically complex techniques. He only presents a single debate and expects us to accept that as evidence for all his claims. But this is a clear-cut example of small sample size fallacy-- there are currently hundreds of rap battles on DDO, so it is incredibly fallacious inductive logic to make a rule based on that one debate and apply that rule to all the raps on the site. Without properly demonstrating that lyrically complex raps generally lead to wins, his already-invalid argument is even further defeated. And as for Pro's mention of his sample rap battle's 'positive reviews', I would like to point out that there were a grand total of 2 voters who said the rap battle was 'good' in their RFDs. Pro also briefly makes the claim that "rapping lyrically complex demonstrates how creative you are and how much effort you put into your raps", but this succumbs to the same flaw exposed in objection 1-- Pro never warrants the assumption that the purpose of a rap battle is to demonstrate your creativity and effort. In conclusion, Pro's case is filled to the brim with logical fallacies. The resolution is negated.
DDO raps should be lyrically complex

Con argues that there is no objectivity in rap however this debate was never intended to be objective or otherwise i would not have phrased it as "DDO raps should be lyrically complex" let alone debate in the arts at all. I realize that the word "should" implies that an opinion is held, therefore Con cannot win the debate so easily. I never intended this debate to be as objective as a scientific one for example, however i do expect Con to argue using rap sources and sound reasoning to support his position that DDO raps should not be lyrically complex.
DDO raps should be lyrically complex

Thanks, TS. My opening argument is very simple: the value of rap is completely subjective, and as such, we cannot rationally state that it objectively "should" have a certain characteristic-- there is no real 'right vs. wrong' or 'should vs. should not', when it comes to art forms such as rap. We are unable to objectively label a piece of art as 'good' or 'bad' because, ultimately, art has no objective meaning-- its value is based solely in the subjective preferences of the artist and audience. A painting is just lines and color placed on a canvas to form various shapes and patterns. A music piece is simply a series of varying pitches played from one or more instrument. Rap is nothing more than a bunch of words strung together in a rhythmic fashion. In each case, some find the arrangement of artistic elements to be pleasing, while others might find it to be abhorrent. In affirming the resolution, Pro asserts that it is objectively desirable for raps to be 'lyrically complex', but that is impossible-- when it comes to art, what is 'desirable' and what is not is completely up to the individual's subjective preferences. Pro must somehow show that his interpretation of what makes a string of words 'better' is superior to everyone else's interpretations. The resolution is negated.
DDO raps should be lyrically complex

I've noticed some rap battles on DDO aren't as noticed than those with more substance in them. Generally rap battles are won using the following: 1) Humor and jokes 2) Aggression 3) Lyrics 4) Personals http://www.askmen.com... An example of a rap battle which incorporates these techniques is one i had with the user "RevL8ion" http://www.debate.org... I start with two words that rhyme then use alot of complex rhyme schemes such as multis, slant rhymes, internal rhymes, alliteration, personals, dissed his religion, looks, as well as brag about myself. He responds with personals and internal rhymes as well. He raps "I laugh at your rhythm and fire a shotgun shell, your bars are as infertile as all of your sperm cells" in which i counter with: "You said my bars are as infertile as my sperm cells Well yours are as fragile as your biological egg shells Your bars are as jacked up as a woman's own ovaries It's cuz you been forcing em' when you make deliveries" This battle had good reviews in the vote section. My point is that it takes dedication to make personals and write multis, internal rhymes, slant rhymes, etc. He obviously did some research on my user history. Multis is considered advanced rapping (1). Rapping lyrically complex demonstrates how creative you are and how much effort you put into your raps. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rap battle

I"m tough like Im from the mighty jungle Mind states strong, but thoughts are humble Enter your mind like envasive fungal Enjoy the ride, I hope you're buckled I let you leave me, you start to stumble Try to escape but your mind's a jumble Reach out to god but your hands are crumbled Holding the gun cus your brain's been juggled Reality's senses are a broken puzzle The afterlife just down the tunnel Ill dig your grave Now pass the shovel Voices in your head yell like married couple You gasp for breath, no time for rest As the hands of death dissect your chest My bars are like the devils food Toasted, burnt, then fed to you Seven pot, barbecued Scoville scale The peppered jew I bend, you break, Im like bamboo You can't escape, its like a zoo Jumpin round you, kangaroo One kick you're out like jujitsu Your opinions are just the opinions of minions Like a blind sheep, the opinion of billions Gettin mad at me because I know what I'm thinkin I know that Im right when you dont want to listen Buyin dumb things like you don't make decisions Followin people like a spy is your mission Act like a victim A slave to the system Items are listed Buy without wisdom You're led by tradition Statistic existence Think that your custom, but listen you're twisted I am a crystal A crystal that glistens A brain made of pistons Immune to ballistics A wisdom that"s instant Bars artistic Like cynic linguistics I"m cataclysmic I can't be predicted Ill own my own business Where sickness is lifted And fitness aint gifted Im Viscious Saint Wicked With bars smooth like liquid Im youth but still vivid The truth is restricted But I'm still committed Too drill till you've quitted The clock is done ticking In your heart I know you"re freaking That"s it I"m done Admit that I"m winning
Caucuses should not be used in determining candidates for President in the USA

Well im sorry for that just lost track of time and to vote against me for that is absurd, it should just make it harder for me to win not to automatically lose at any rate to the issues 1. I'd like to start this argument by commenting on the fact that theses caucuses and primaries are for the sake of showing the parties who the most electable candidate is. Again delegates are chosen by the people and if you dont like the way your delegate votes you can vote against him in the next election for that position. Until that time caucuses are the most effective way to choose because there are less people in the precincts to tally. 2. The fact of the matter is it doesn't do the task as effectively or efficiently if you look at my arguments above. For the simple fact it gets the same job done in half the time with a more accurate count because of the delegates. 3. If the system has been working for centuries and it hasn't failed yet then it seems logical to continue on. It would be like finding a new way to walk just because we have been doing it for centuries.... good luck with that 4. This point basically goes on with the arguments made prior to this and he said it was a government for the people by the people this just fuels my arguments because delegates are elected for the people by the people. Please consider my arguments and again I apologize for my tardiness
Caucuses should not be used in determining candidates for President in the USA

First, i would like to refute all of your previous points You have said That 1) Caucases give the party an idea of which candidate to chose, and that caucuses are for the people. The truth is that caucuses are not fair because it does not reflect the popular vote, so how can you say that an election in which not every vote counts the same way is for the people. The only kind of election for the people is one closely based on the popular vote, like primaries. 2) There is no other way to do this as effectively. As i said earlier, there is. the way Caucuses work is people get together with other people in their "presinct" and try to convince others to move over to their side. If that doesnt work, any candidates supporters that do not have at least 15% are forced to move to another group. Then, whichever candidates has the most supporters wins the entire presinct, while in primaries you just vote for whoever you want. Most states use primaries, not caucuses, and they work, so there is another way to do this effectively. 3) We have done it this way for centuries Just because the current system is old, doesnot mean it works. In fact, just how old it is proves the system needs to be reformed for the good of all americans. Now i will move on to some of my own points 1) Primaries have a higher turnout on average than caucuses. Caucuses take more time than primaries also so less people show up. If we want a government by the people and for the people we should use the system which gets people to vote, not the long tedious unfair system of caucuses. Srry GTG....
Caucuses should not be used in determining candidates for President in the USA

Caucuses are a fair way to elect officials and choose them for the primaries. 1. It is the best and most effective way to choose a candidate because it gives the party an idea of who to pick, based on the votes of delegate who are elected by the people for the people 2. There is no other way to do this as effectively at such a mass scale and magnitude as America can only present 3. The point of elections are to elect officials to speak on your behalf, if you don't like the way we have done this for centuries you are in the wrong country
Caucuses should not be used in determining candidates for President in the USA

Caucuses are unfair and should not be used in determining candidates for president in either party, in any state. 1) Caucuses, unlike primaries, do not use popular vote in determining the winner. Thus, it is possible for the candidate who a majority of people vote for president to lose. Most similar to the electoral college, caucuses should not be used because they dont show what a majority of the people want, which is the point of having elections. I will bring up more arguements after you take up this debate.....
Fast-food resteraunts should be banned to help stop child obesity

A. Cost - You almost always end up with extra, wasteful food when cooking at home which is also a waste of money. Fast food almost always comes at a lower price than home cooked meal. B. Convenience - Fast food saves so much time compared to a home cooked meal, leaving more time for busy lives. C. Health - Although the main disadvantage of fast food are health related, there are many healthier alternatives that are starting to appear on menus like McDonald's and Burger King. And these are the more unhealthy fast-food. D. Sustaining - Eating fast food satisfies hunger fast, it"s very filling. So it could be argued it prevents some weight gain as kale won't fill you. E. It tastes good. Well that's more of an opinion but I am 104 pounds and I eat fast food all the time. I love Freddy's!
Socialism is the most beneficial form of Government for the welfare of it's people

Since my opponent no longer wishes to respond, I shall reiterate my points: First, my opponent makes no substantial case for socialism at all, whereas I have described, in depth, the mechanisms with which America's mixed economic machine generates its massive GDP. Second, my argument is essentially that socialism only works in a fantasy land. The driving force to a perfectly functioning socialist economy would be that everyone works for the betterment of mankind. This is unrealistic and naive. The American economy focuses on drawing power from an individual's ambition and willingness to work for more, more, and more. Numbers don't lie. There is no successful, fully socialist economy and there never will be. It is a flawed ideal that can never be reached. Thank you.