BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
anger can be a good moral motivation

I disagree with you that it is IRRELEVANT to not want or desire. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger can motivate you and it should motivate you to do greater things in life. When you state that people should be content with the lifestyles is a very unclear claim. of course there are people on this earth that would agree with you but do you really agree that this is the case. everyone is in college for some type of better situation or fulfillment According to Aristotle's when some one is lacking something they become angry with triggers the emotions pain and pleasure . so it is NECSSARILY the case that anger can be good moral motivation.
anger can be a good moral motivation

I say this because angers is weakness which means you are in pain and living in pain is not good because you will not be happy you will not live life long due to health. anger shows lust and want for something you should not want you could be content just live tomorrow is not promised. IT IS POSSIBLE one would want to better there self but it is IRRELEVANT because you should nit think in the future because you do not know if you would be here in the future. do all you can and all you see fit. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THAT you have to have motivation. therefore you should not be angry.
anger can be a good moral motivation

I don't agree when you say , "you say that anger is a good moral motivation you will look at yourself different IT IS NOT NECASSARILY THAT CASE that one want to look at their self different." why would you not want to look at yourself different? when you evaluate yourself it makes you set goals and standards for yourself. I also don agree when you say " You should not want to look at yourself different because you are then desiring you should be happy with yourself and live life." when you are not desiring a better life you set your self to just be at one sate and that isn't what life is about . if we don't set goals or standards for ourselves where would we be?? when're would human civilization be if we didn't set standards for ourselves? we would not have any doctors, lawyers, teacher, police officer act. when we set standards and goals we live life and make sure we know what it is all about
anger can be a good moral motivation

you say that anger is a good moral motivation you will look at yourself different IT IS NOT NECASSARILY THAT CASE that one want to look at their self different. You should not want to look at yourself different because you are then desiring you should be happy with yourself and live life. If you are angry you feel you are lacking something and that is not a reason why anger is a good motivation because you should just have the will and want to do whatever. IF IT IS POSSIBLE THAT anger is a good motivation because you look at yourself different .. you got angry in your life should you look at yourself different? Anger is not a good motivation because you are stuck in the past IT IS IRRELAVENT to live based on the past if you claim anger is motivation isn't motivation about moving forward why would you want to be in the past?
anger can be a good moral motivation

We should have anger because it is a motivating force. It makes us look at ourselves differently and makes us want to change. 1. In order to see anger as good we must cling to the middle state. 2. Therefore to cling to the middle state you must stay there so you can reason when it comes to anger. 3. In conclusion it is good to have anger so we can have motivation in life. For example when we are fighting for something that we want we are fighting because we have a desire for something. When you desire to have something that causes you to experience anger when you are looking forward to a new promotion at your job, you desire to be hire up or making lots of money so you are angry then. When you go on the interview your desire which causes anger makes you do so well because it leads to your motivation in convincing the boss. According to Aristotle we get angry when we feel we are lacking on something. So in the example above the person may feel like they are lacking in a position or authority at their job they work hard to get in the position to be where they are at. When we are angry we are motivated and we become angry when someone doesn"t see good in us and this will be a very strong motivation point.
The death penalty by lethal injection is too lenient a punishment compared to life in prison.

A lot of people are against the death penalty because they feel it is too harsh a punishment. I'm personally against it because I don't feel that it is harsh enough on those truly deserving of punishment. As long as it is done painlessly, the death penalty is over before it begins. Sure, it must be psychologically punishing to know, to the day, when you will die, but this is the only punishment the death penalised prisoner will receive. Once the injection has been made, the criminal slowly fades to an unending sleep. The prisoner will now Rest In Peace, so to speak. There will be no further pain or suffering, no further thought put to the perhaps unspeakable crimes the prisoner has committed. My opponent may argue that the deceased can no longer enjoy a nice sunset or watch their kids grow old, or enjoy life in general. The point I am making is that dead people are unable to reflect on the past and realise what they are missing out on, while someone doing life imprisonment can certainly dwell on these things. Hence they are being punished far more harshly. Now consider someone given life imprisonment. There is every possibility and indeed likelihood that this person will be punished, mentally and physically in prison. They will be forced every day to think about the crimes that landed them in the situation they are in, and a guilty conscience can often be akin to torture. They will be forced to eat food they don't particularly enjoy, as opposed to the deceased who will never again be forced to do anything they don't want to, and will not be able to consider what he/she is missing out on. The prisoners will be forced into laborious jobs they don't enjoy, and again this obviously can't be said of the deceased. I could go on but I feel I'm rambling. My point is that someone put painlessly into an eternal sleep has hardly been punished at all, and certainly much less than someone put into prison for life.
The death penalty by lethal injection is too lenient a punishment compared to life in prison.

My opponent has provided 3 arguments why the death penalty is beneficial for society, or at least more beneficial than placing someone in prison for life. I happen to agree heartily with these arguments, but once again, this has nothing to do with the resolution. These arguments would be much more welcome in a debate called "In terms of a society's well-being, the death penalty is better than life imprisonment", or something similar. I'm sure it was no more than an honest mistake, so I would like to remind my opponent that the resolution we are debating is that "the death penalty by lethal injection IS TOO LENIENT A PUNISHMENT compared to life in prison. " That is, too lenient on the person deserving of punishment. My arguments from Round 1 remain unchallenged and so at this stage, the resolution is AFFIRMED.
Barney is the Proverbial Antichrist

I propose that, in the television show "Barney and Friends", Barney is actually attempting to take over the world. Specifically, to take over virtually the entire earth, institute a communist government, and torture all who refuse to accept the political/ethical ideals held by his benevolence, Barney. Thereby, making Barney the proverbial antichrist. . http://www.debate.org...first
If a god exist, he is a terrible communicator.

” However, you are missing the most important “trait,” that is, both the source and the recipient must share the same language. What is God's language? What stage of life's evolution will come to understand God's language? We have man's written scriptures covering many religions and beliefs throughout the ages, some of which Pro mentioned. For those of faith, including preachers, prophets and atheists, should be careful when studying man's written scripture about God. We must remember man is fallible, and those who study or write such scriptures may misinterpret of what God wants; therefore, God gets---and, in some cases, God help us all (“72 virgins” upon a suicide-killing of infidels, etc. ). On the other hand, there is a common thread that runs through all scriptures, in all cultures, that claims some entity, which transcends all life (aka God), and this entity created the universe and everything in it. By the way, throughout recorded history, not one culture was found to be atheistic; but I digress. Getting back to the creation of the universe and everything in it; everything includes the Laws of Nature, therefore, the Laws of Nature is the handwriting of God and the scientific method is a way to learn God's language. When man morally follows God's handwriting hence; the evolutionary fruits of technology, food production, and medicine, the stables of human existence throughout the world today. A compelling example of what happens when our Unalienable Rights, are free to morally flow having minimal resistance (Constructal Law), within the awesome machinery of God's nature. Morality (the fingerprint of God) is an outgrowth of life's Unalienable Rights, which is an outgrowth of the Constructal Law, which is an outgrowth of the Laws of Thermodynamics. . http://www.amazon.com...http://www.amazon.com...It is the recipient's responsibility from birth to learn, via the tutelage of its parents through trial and error, the language in order to understand its parents. Symmetry is found throughout nature, therefore, it is life's responsibility from evolution to learn, via the tutelage of the scientific method through trial and error, the language in order to understand God. Life is a way for nature (aka "nature's God") to experience itself. Through the evolution of life, humanity is just beginning to learn to read the handwriting of God. Perhaps one day, we may come to read the entire script of God's handwriting, and on that day, communication will be on a different dimension that transcends our current primitive reality of some “10 characteristics that are considered traits of a good communicator. ” And in saying that, “If a god exist, he is a” GREAT “communicator;” for us humans are still wearing pampers on the road to utopia. As Albert Einstein once said, “When the solution is simple, God is answering. ” . http://www.simpletoremember.com...
Should phones be allowed in school

While the concept of individual responsibility is one I normally applaud, in this instance it is a bit different. The job of the schools is to teach the next generations how to be productive members of society. They must do that the best way they can, for that is the job the schools have been deemed responsible. Their charges are not adults who are able to make their own decisions but children, who need rules, structure guidelines etc. The schools must attempt to maintain discipline and ease of learning for the students. Researchers Richard Murphy and Louis-Philippe Beland, from the London School of Economics conducted an extensive examination of cell phones in schools from 2001-2015. Their results were not shocking to most people. They found schools that banned cell phones had better pupil examination scores by 6.4% overall and amongst underachieving students by 14%. That is considerable. As schools are tasked to insure the students achieve to their utmost potential, it seems counter productive to allow them. Technology plays a vital role in today's education, to be sure, but children using phones to text, tweet, snap chat, snap pictures of unknowing students or use the phone for the purposes of harassment and bullying, are not using their phones productively. Most classrooms contain computers and most schools have computer labs. Children usually have computers at home with which they can do homework, so the need for instant access to a cell phone in school is not necessary. Certainly we all know the guys (or girls) who text back and forth during class, making fun of the teacher, the material or other students. We all know that one person who has been targeted with anonymous (via fake Facebook or Twitter accounts) harassment during school hours. This is all counter productive to learning. There is no need for the child to have a cell phone (schools have phones and if a parent needs to contact the child he can call the school) and as the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits, schools should not allow them.
War does more good than harm

Agreed. Than I will make certain about other things. First of all, the fact involving vaccines is wrong. Vaccines have existed since the 1700's, 1800's, and 1900's. Penicillin wasn't actually discovered until 1928, after World War I. Not only such, but showing from your history on World War 2, it holds a huge financial burden. In efforts, World War 2 costed 4 trillion USD (Current USD) only for the United States. This shows without a doubt that the 4 trillion that was in that could had been used in many other good ways. Going to ancient times, many villages and cities were pillaged during war. The Sacking of Rome was related directly to a war. Because of the Sacking of Rome, there are few ancient structures that existed in Rome that exist today.
War does more good than harm

War. All in all if has caused geneside,murder and destroyed great cities. However this cost is mere compared to all the lives it has benefited. Penicillin was the first mass produced drug in the world and was mass produced in war to save soldiers at the front. Since then has saved over 200 million lives in the past 73 years.This mass production fuelled by war did bot only save over 200 million lives, but fuelled a new industry:the drugs industry(medical drugs).Sinse 1945, the drugs industry has almost tripled in size. Vaccines were also mass produced at the beginning of ww2 and have saved 365 million lives. Without war, the medical industry wouldn't have had the kick start it needed to make as much of an impact as it has.
existence=reality+experience

Your arguments make little to no sense. You keep using abstract terms and fail to define them properly. How on Earth would you experience smell (olfaction) without the evolution and existence of chemoreceptors within your nose??? How would you experience the visual spectrum without pre existing retinal cones and rods shaping your experience. You have a deluded and overly relativistic sense of reality. In fact I think I am getting dumber trying to teach you common sense
existence=reality+experience

if you remove reality, you can have no experience, but if you remove experience you can have no reality, as there is no one to verify that it exist, but more importantly experience and reality is the necessary root for existence without experience of it, 1 billions years is like a second experience shapes existence like we can create machines, but im not sure what you mean a blind man cant know what is on a picture i am showing him, the picture dosnt have true existence to him, he could at best believe my story about whats on it to me anything i can experience exist, and beyond reality and experience is non existence
existence=reality+experience

Existence and experience are never mutually exclusive. They are indeed separate but part of a greater whole (like 2 separate sides of the same coin). Existence shapes experience (my eyes allow me to see in the visual spectrum) just so experience shapes existence (education and learning done by my eyes leads me to making good choices). Each organism on earth is born with specific sensory capacity that is a result of a series of genetic trial and error leading to a specific type of existence (that is favored by the larger environmental existence) hence shaping a specific and unique type of experience. When you say "with no one to experience there is no one to verify that it exist" I am guessing you mean that: experience shapes existence... Without experience you cannot have existence... Well I will say the opposite it is equally true: without existence shaping the evolution of the observer there would be no one to experience to begin with.... meaning existence shapes experience... Without existence you cannot have experience.
Banning voters is a tyrannical society. That be this.

To Moderate- to reduce the excessiveness of; make less violent, severe, intense, or rigoroushttp://dictionary.reference.com...A moderator is supposed to provide a safe and welcoming environment to visitors and members. The moderators of Debate.Org have strived to do just that. They are active and on-task. They are very cautious in trying to take out inappropriate and unkind comments and debates while also trying to allow people to debate on a topic.If a moderator abused his or her powers, he/she would most likely be stripped of his/her powers, seeing that this is a very popular site that has a good reputation. The owner most likely anticipates for a continuing good record of good moderation. Additionally, the owner would only entrust worthy people to be a moderator. Thus, it is unlikely that a moderator would use their powers abusively.
Banning voters is a tyrannical society. That be this.

I do agree BANNING voters is bad.However, on Debate.ORG, moderation is very fair. If you say something unkind, you are likely to be punished. For example, if you vote for a debate just for your own prejudice and not because of the arguments made by the opponents, you should be banned from voting.I was banned for voting, although I do believe it was for a just reason. I voted for something based on my thoughts, and not on the thoughts of the debators. I lacked the thought and consideration of the debator. It was pretty obvious the person I didn't vote for, deserved the vote more. He had obviously had a better argument with facts and resources that suggest his side is right. If a moderator fails or neglects to eliminate these types of voters, this "society" would fall apart. Devoted debators would give up; people would make debates which they would obviously win such as "2 + 2 = 4"; "trollers" would vote for no just reason.
Justin Bieber is a better person than what you make him to beeee.

First off. I'd like to bring up the definition of "you." According to Oxford Dictionaries, "you" is defined as used to refer to the person or people that the speaker is addressing. Since my opponent is debating with me, I am the "you." Basically, the topic states, "Justin Bieber is a better person than what I, LDPOFODebATeR0328, make him to be." Now, moving onto my arguments. 1: I, LDPOFODebATeR0328, never attempted to make Justin Bieber seem like a bad person. Justin is ALREADY a bad person... Period. 2: After several hours of researching, I noticed something about JB. He is NOT A GOOD person. First of all, he is perverted. He groped a fan's breast at a "Meet-and-Greet." [1] He is also known for having sex with a Brazilian "prostitute." Second, I'd to say that Justin was constantly in trouble for his immaturity. (Maybe this is why people want to deport him...) Justin Bieber was once fined when he egged his neighbor's house for no apparent reason. He was forced to pay $80,900 and attend anger management courses. [2] He was once again in trouble when he was illegally drag racing in South Florida. Urine tests showed the presence of marijuana and the anti-anxiety drug Xanax in JB's system. [3] Third, he doesn't really care about his fans. He was once 2.5 hours late to a concert. Instead of coming up on stage, he took topless selfies of himself. [4] He also once spat on his fans gathered around his hotel. [1] 3: He tries to solve everything with money... Justin constantly gets in trouble. How does he get out of them? He uses money. For example, he was supposed to go to jail for drag racing. Instead, he was forced to pay $50,000 worth of charitable donation. [3] So, he didn't donate to the charity because he was nice; he donated because he had to. REFUTATION: Basically my opponent's only argument was: Justin is nice because he donated to the charity. Judge(s), I'd like to say that just because JB donated money, doesn't mean he's a good person. Like I said he was once FORCED to pay charitable donation. JB provided the "generous" donations because he wants to repair his damaged reputation. For all these reasons, please vote for the negative side of this debate. Thank you. [1] http://news.distractify.com... [2] http://www.nydailynews.com... [3] http://www.people.com... [4] http://www.smosh.com...
Justin Bieber is a better person than what you make him to beeee.

What I don't understand is everyone claims that they hate Justin but don't have a good reason to hate him .He goes through so much.Like that petition to deport him was ridiculous...He's doing what everyone else is doing and I don't see none of them getting threaten and wanted out of the country .Everyone treats him so wrong i understand why most of you think he's full of himself, he wants to be treated like a real person but he doesn't want the consequences other people have. But still. He goes through so many death threats, people calling him gay, a lesbian, and constantly telling him he has no talent. You can't expect him to hear those things on a daily and assume him not to react. Everyone keeps telling him how much of a punk he is and that he doesn't fight his on battles. But then when he actually defends himself, "He's a bad influence". Which one do you want him to be?? a bad influence or a Punk because ha can't be a nice bad boy. It's like nobody even cares about the good people do anymore. Justin is in so many charities and donates so much money.... (http://www.huffingtonpost.com... ) But nobody sees the good he does You only see this (http://www.people.com...) And it's so stupid. I don't care what anyone does he doesn't deserve this hate..Yep immma belieber but long time ago i wasn't and i still never treated him the way others do.
gun control

Alright first I will look at your topic on they are only semi-automatic weapons. First that is false you can buy a full functioning ar-15 legally in certain states, some states like California make them semi-auto only and require a key to change the magazines out. But on a semi-automatic weapon vs someone with no weapon at for example a mass shooting doesn't matter. And even if he needed a key to change the magazine out then he still has thirty bullets until then so he can inflict the damage he intends. Look at the Colorado Theatre Massacre, he bought swat gear and semi-automatic weapons and smoke canisters, not to mention he is deemed mentally ill. Look at Sandy Hook the gentleman killed his mother and then went to the school and shot several people including children. Look at Columbine and Virginia Tech. I could go on for days about public mass shootings. If we had a huge crackdown and took those weapons from criminals AND civilians we could jail the criminals because chances are they aren't supposed to own a weapon and for innocent law abiding citizens we give them the worth of their gun or a gun of their choosing that is appropriate for them to own without the chances of them killing hundreds of people in minutes. It just does not make sense why people would NEED these guns. Yes they look cool, fun, and exciting but they cause more destruction than good. Not to mention the human brain is so fragile anyone with these guns could snap and go crazy in a minute. http://www.statisticbrain.com...
gun control

I disagree people have the right to own those types of guns if they want. plenty of people hunt with those types of guns, and if they interest you then yes you should be allowed to own them one because they're semi-automatic and cannot go full auto like on military weaponry so they're just like any other rifle. And yes they are designed to kill what gun isn't that's what they're for it doesn't matter what the gun looks like. If people have earned the ability to own and operate the gun responsibly then they should be able to own assault weapons if they choose