BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Social Darwinism

After reading the comment, I realize the user is correct. I apologize, this is my first time doing anything on this site, I kind of jumped onto a moving train in a way. What I guess my question is truly, somewhere mixed into my previous post, is this: If these baboons were able to progress in what was their society, why do we humans see the need to benefit ourselves toward our own goals, instead of progress all? Sorry for the lack of clarity. Also, (to understand my point of view) I feel as though there could possibly a different way of looking at success in a particular nation, wherever on this earth. The economy, I feel, is not necessarily the best way to rank a nation or state or whatever it may be. Perhaps instead success should be measured by success in terms of food distribution, or technological innovation. For that last example I feel a sense of competition provided by the idea of Social Darwinism is good, but I believe the incentives you just spoke of could be found elsewhere, not from the defeating of others through an external reward, but maybe from an internal reward of just being helpful to others. That being said, this internal reward system is where I feel people for the most part lack similar ideas of what is rewarding. Human nature tends to show, from what I have learned/observed, that humans can be selfish in their lives. But what I personally believe is that because humans have a large pre frontal cortex for logical reasoning and future planning, substantially larger than other mammals and creatures, there is no reason why we could not use this to overcome the biological drive to be selfish quite frankly. Despite kind of going off on a tangent there, I believe the idea still fits within the overall discussion, your thoughts?
Social Darwinism

Hello, and thank you for the challenge. this should prove to be an interesting discussion. I would like to begin my side of the debate by also quoting this popular phrase "Survival of the fittest..." What does that really mean? When you take a second to think about it deeply, you understand that it makes sense. For instance, if an animal is born with a birth defect, lets say it was born without the ability to walk, it would be impossible for it to last long. A predator would find it easy prey. That, my friends, is the Social Darwinism Theory. The idea that even we as humans, in all our supremacy in the animal kingdom, and all our development as a species, still has the best of the best, and the worst of the worst die off. If you, for instance, were unhealthily weak, because of overindulgence in food, it would immediately eliminate a surprising number of job opportunities. Thus, as you become weaker, you make less money. Its all connected.Another scenario, if a person is unable to complete high school, their job opportunities are also slashed. So while Social Darwinism may not apply to America in the "survival" aspect, it does in power, money, and health, and I believe this is necessary in our culture. Nobody wants to do something without incentives. If it were not for the fact that I need a degree in order to get a job with nice pay and support my future family, I would drop out of high school right now, but I don't, because I need that job. Social Darwinism should be implied in American culture, as it is a consequence for falling behind. This combined with the incentive of money and power with acceleration, would bring the American society back to its former glory. Thanks again for an interesting debate. Good luck
Social Darwinism

I am starting this debate to see a plethora of opinions on the matter. My opinion is that Social Darwinism is currently the philosophy of the U.S. but it is not a fact of life and it does not necessarily have to be. What I am primarily looking at/ talking about is the desire of people to compete against one another and work for their own personal goal, as opposed to working for a common goal or accomplishment. (I do not want this to turn into capitalism vs socialism PLEASE KEEP THIS IN MIND) From a biological standpoint it is typically believed that "survival of the fittest" is the way it is, but I don't believe this to be true. Robert Sapolsky has done extensive research on a group of baboons, and he found that a group of these baboons that survived was the group that worked together and promoted group contribution, as opposed to the aggression promoted in most other groups. This is what I will base the discussion on. Please no personal attacks, and I think if this went as more of a discussion of opposing sides and not a "debate" per say, we could get some really good talk going. Thanks!
Gravity Falls is the best cartoon airing right now, and Teen Titans Go is the worst.

Do not vote for the troll. Anyone who votes Con will have their vote removed. Con has violated my rules and did not give any proof supporting his alleged cartoon. Even if it was a cartoon, he gives me no reason to believe that this so called "DEEZ NUTS!" cartoon is better than both of these shows. Vote Pro, the logical debater who doesn't make up his own imaginary cartoons. Do not vote for the rule breaking troll, or like I said, your vote shall be removed.
Abortion is wrong.

"I argue that killing a baby in the womb is the same as killing a baby outside of the womb. There is no difference." I argue that there is a difference in that a baby outside the womb is alive and a fetus inside the womb is not yet alive. "Life begins at conception so we should not allow people to kill babies just because they cannot fight back." I believe that life begins at birth and as you have the bop it falls on you to show why lief begins at conception. "The government should not fund abortions as there are tax payers who are morally opposed to it. If I pay taxes they should not be used to destroy an innocent life." That is not what this debate is about. It is about the inherent morality/immorality of abortions. Not whether or not the government should fund things some voters don't like.
Abortion is wrong.

I accept both your definitions. Thank you for the chance to debate. I realize i have the bop so i will move right along. I argue that killing a baby in the womb is the same as killing a baby outside of the womb. There is no difference. Life begins at conception so we should not allow people to kill babies just because they cannot fight back. The government should not fund abortions as there are tax payers who are morally opposed to it. If I pay taxes they should not be used to destroy an innocent life.
Abortion is wrong.

I've been through a couple of abortion arguments recently and both of them endd up lame cause we couldn't agree on anything. If it's okay I would like to post a few definitions for further reference. Abortion: the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy[1] Wron: not in accordance with what is morally right or good[2] [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://dictionary.reference.com... As you have the BOP I will let you post your arguments first.
Everyone should own a truck.

I'm not talking about any part of the world specifically, I'm just saying that everyone should own a truck, and listing examples from around the world of why trucks are the superior from of vehicle. When purchasing a vehicle you typically have specific uses for the vehicle in mind, whether it is transporting yourself, other people, hauling materials, or whatever you might need it for. A truck can fulfill nearly any need you might have for your personal vehicle. When you say trucks are cramped in the back, which part of the vehicle are you referring to? Some trucks are made without an extended cab, so the area behind the driver's and passenger's seats is very small. Most trucks do come in a four door option though, so should you find yourself needing more room you can choose a truck equipped with more space. If you are referring to the bed of the truck when you say "the back of the truck is cramped" then you must be seeing some very small trucks, because there is nothing "cramped as a box" about the bed of a pickup truck. You can fit large amounts of materials and objects in the bed of a truck, as well as large groups of people. Since it is illegal to ride in the back of a pickup truck in most of the United States, you do not see trucks carrying people very often, but in almost every other country around the world people get around by riding in the back of trucks. Mentioning another country does not make my argument "all over the place". You brought up that trucks have a lack of people carrying abilities, and I was simply pointing out that in majority of the world trucks are used to carry and transport other people.
Everyone should own a truck.

When you buy a vehicle you typically want to have all the perks of a truck. Trucks, however, are as cramped as a box in the back. You can put stuff in the back, but not people. And since you mentioned Thailand what the @$$! are we talking about?! I hate to say this but you aren't being the most consistent in your argument. Are we talking America or worldwide because if so I walked into the wrong argument.
Everyone should own a truck.

Trucks do fall short on their people transporting abilities compared to vans and SUV's, which are designed specifically for carrying large amounts of people. It is possible for people to ride in the back of a truck, though it is not legal in most places in the US, and it not as safe as being inside the vehicle. In most other countries around the world, riding in the back of trucks is one of the main forms of human transportation. For example, in Thailand, most of the taxis throughout the country are simply pickup trucks with benches attached to the bed of the truck. Also many pickup trucks have four door options available, which allows them to fit just as many passengers as a standard sedan car. If everyone owned a truck then there wouldn't be the need to transport large groups of people in your truck, because they would all have their own.
Everyone should own a truck.

Pickup trucks are superior to standard sedan style cars in nearly every way. They can carry much more than cars, are becoming more fuel efficient, can handle almost any road you need to drive on, one can easily sleep in a covered pickup bed, etc. The list of reasons is extensive. Cars may have better fuel economy, but trucks make up for their lack of fuel efficiency with their overall usefulness. Whether you are moving, building something, going camping, driving in the snow, or whatever else you might be doing, a truck will be a much better option than a car. Therefore everyone should own a truck instead of compact cars.
Evil proves God does not exist

?? ?? controls it absolutely (omnipotent) - I reject that, on grounds you have mixed omnipotent (Gods ability/power) with Gods control or lack of control of something has created a heaven for those who are deserving and a hell for those who are not - I might accept this, if you accept that heaven is also attainable for those who do not deserve it (eg grace, forgiveness etc) Man, absolute free will - Sorry i have to reject that, I define free will as the capacity to choose good or evil So unto the arguments, thanks for numbering them makes it easier to reference them C1) "Why would God allow people to fall victim to these occurrences if he was all-powerful and good? " This isn't an argument for Gods non existence, at best this is an argument that we don't know why God allows something to happen You ask why , well so do I, but the topic isn't why does God allow certain things to happen, the topic is evil proves Gods non existence. What exactly is the argument for proving Gods non existence from C1) ? Please show a direct argument that proves Gods non existence, I am sure you have an idea in your mind what the direct argument is, but I am not going to speculate what that is, id rather let you make it. C2) Is a bunch of questions, again there is no argument that evil proves Gods non existence here. Why are we forced to struggle for food and water IF our God is supposed to be "good"? If he cared for us, why not provide all that anyone needs for every being? This argument seems to be 1) We struggle to survive (which I agree) 2) God could make it so we don't struggle (which I might agree) 3) There fore God does not exist (I dont agree) Is struggling evil ? if so, why do you say that, ? if struggling isn't evil then what is the objection ? Again C2 ends with a question " If he cared for us, why not provide all that anyone needs for every being? " Again, please make an argument for Gods non existence based on "evil" existing. C3) Heaven is a creation of God that is perfect and without evil. Why not simply allow mankind to live in heaven from birth, than force him to suffer in order to find out if we're "worthy"? More questions from C3, I might come back to this later. .. .. .. .. C4) If God condemns me for sending people to heaven, there must be a significant flaw to his "rules" you pretty much laid out the condemnation yourself, your not getting condemned for sending people to heaven its that baby killing in your example that is getting you condemned In the next round I would ask my opponent to make a DIRECT argument of evil proving Gods not existence. .. .. .. I mean are asking questions after question really an argument ? I remind my opponent the topic is Evil proves God does not exist and they are the PRO Give me just 1 direct argument please thats all im asking Whats a direct argument ill give you an example 1) My opponent presents questions of why doesn't God xyz as proof of Gods non existence 2) Asking questions of why God doesn't do something is not proof of Gods non existence 3) Therefore I am winning the debate in the evil does not prove Gods non existence debate
Evil proves God does not exist

Pro says "My line of logic is that God created this universe. He has created a universe that can result in evil. If he chooses the capacity of evil, he is choosing evil JUST as creating the capacity of good is creating good. God is infinitely good, so he should not create any course that results in evil." This is clearly unfair, this morality states that if God does something good, but that good then results in evil, then that means God is morally accountable. To illustrate this point, and my refutation of Pros' argument, If person X, was to build a car, then sell car to person Y. then person Y sells car to Person Z. Then person z drives car and runs people over. According to my opponents reasoning person X would be responsible for the people getting run over. This type of moral reasoning should be rejected. Pro again says "I stated God created a world that causes earthquakes, floods, disease, INDEPENDENT OF OUR FREE WILL TO CHOOSE WHETHER THESE EVENTS WILL HAPPEN" I don't object to this. And as I said before, your arguing that "evil" should operate more nicely and fairly. I refuted this before as evil by nature and description doesn't act fair. PRO says "Thus God has chosen to allow death without reason to exist.", I refuted this that free will (capacity to choose good and evil) given to moral agents allows for evils existence. Pro says "If God is all-powerful, he can give us the perfect life without cost." and I will demonstrate why this claim is false I'am assuming that Pro is arguing a perfect world is one where there is no "evil". Trouble is it comes at a cost, the cost being that their is no free will (the capacity to choose and do evil) given to any anything or anyone, that restriction is a "cost". This refutes Pro argument about there being no cost. Pro says "ALSO I agree there are objective morals. There are good acts and evil acts. My opponent asks if God has a moral duty, and I state yes. God, being infinitely good, must be the highest moral agent in existence" I would claim that God is the objective standard. In order to be the standard of good, the standard its self has to be good. If you object to this, since you agree that objectivity morality exists, then what is the source/standard of objective morality? My argument was 1) Objective morals only exist if God exists 2) Objective morals do exist (pro concedes this point) 3) Therefore God exists Evil existing is the cost of free will existing. Evil existing by nature and description doesn't restrict its self to existing only with the confines of human choice. The exercise of free will by moral agents is a sufficient moral reason for the allowance of "evil" Thus the existence of evil does not prove Gods non existence.
Euthanasia

Yes, of course I meant to say that "the right to life" in the Declaration of Independence doesn't mean having the right to death. The Supreme Court ruling of Vacco v. Quill (1996) is still relevant due to the fact of how hard it got shot down. It's not like it was a 5-4 vote, all 9 justices voted against it. That means 100% of the supreme court justices said it's unconstitutional, even with society slightly changing it's not going to change enough to make a difference here. Also, if you want to talk about other countries that have legalized euthanasia already there would be 75,000 US Euthanasia deaths a year at the Dutch rate according to Wesley J. Smith at nationalreview.com. Just imagine too if euthanasia was the norm for once people got old and sick. That would completely change the ideas of society because we would constantly be discarding people that aren't perfect. Furthermore, sick patients could be pressured into killing themselves by family members when they don't really want to. Allowing doctors to euthanize people not only confuses the role of them being healers with them being killers, but also is them trying to play god. It also counters the Hippocratic oath the doctors take. There's a huge difference between a patient dying in surgery due to a mistake and the doctor intentionally ending a life so your argument about how the doctor being a killer due to a mistake being the same thing as actively killing someone is invalid. To answer your question about moving on, no, I wouldn't want to "move on". I personally don't believe in the after life and I wouldn't my life to end. Even if someone did want their life to end murder is still murder, doesn't matter the reason. I should touch on the religious argument to that in case you do actually believe in a god, there is no way god would want people to end the life he created for them. Many Christians believe that their body is a gift from god so destroying it is disrespectful to god.
Euthanasia

Would you please specify what you mean with "the right life"? Your argument "supreme court already ruled against euthanasia in the past" is slightly invalid considering how much our society is changing and evolving. More countries across the world have started to take up the case. Another thing is sometimes doctors fail - lets say an operation gone wrong - and the patient dies. Then the doctor is a killer. My point is there is a very thin line that separates doctors and killers if we"re following you argument. To throw some personal light on this: Imagine if you were suffering from stage four cancer and you had no way of surviving. You are in pain and have to stay in hospital day in and day out, connected to 5 different tubes and everyday you family comes by and you see how it affects them to see you like that. In pain and they can"t do anything about it. Imagine that you don"t have any energy, you can"t move and it hurts your family to see you like that. Would you feel like living on?
Euthanasia

Euthanasia should be legal. Any person who does not feel like their life is worth it should be able to end it. Since everyone isn"t strong enough to do it themselves, they should be able to get it done for them. Why should the government have the right to choose it for us? We have rights. Some people say this isn"t a black and white case but I believe it is. Why should the person not have the opportunity to choose? What it you opinion?
Euthanasia

I never said that it was meant as "norm" for older people to seek to such measures. My idea is that if the individual man or woman sees no point in life, for example if he/she has a great struggle living any shade of a normal life due to extreme health problems, why shouldn"t the person be able to go somewhere and say that they no longer have anything to live for? Why let them live through pain every day without any opportunity to get out " unless they do it themselves? Besides isn"t it the right of the individual " and not the government " to choose when and how they die? The government already accepts out right to slowly kill ourselves by smoking and drinking. This is because the state understands that we have the right to control our own lives and how we live them. My point is, why shouldn"t people be able to choose when they die too? It is just the next step of freedom. To choose when and it what manner we die. Of course not any random person would be able to walk in and ask to be killed, there should be various psychological tests to determine that they are in a fit state of metal health and the family"s opinion will also be included to an extent. We live our lives as we please so why not be allowed to choose to die when we please?
The government tax on cigarettes should decrease if locations where smoking is permitted decrease.

Refutations: "...reducing the amount of smoking sections in public places, such as restaurants and the workplace, will not cause smokers to quit." -While I never claimed that reducing the number of smoking sections would cause a reduction in cigarette usage, I did say that it would be more beneficial to the individuals around the smoker who do not wish to inhale smoke. It is unfair to cater to this minority and allow them to put the health of others at risk. "Nearly 50,000 non-smokers die from secondhand smoke each year." (USA Today 6/27/2006)The risks for Heart Disease and Cancer are raised by 30%."Even brief exposure to smoke damages cells, beginning a process that can lead to cancer, and increases the risk of blood clots, which can cause heart attacks and strokes." If the tax is indeed decreased it will benefit the tobacco industry more than the common smoker; because supporting an unhealthy adiction that 77% of all smokers have attempted to quit, is not helpful (Ash.org). R.J. Reynolds Tobacco does not dispute the science in the surgeon general's report, and is no excuse to subject children and adults alike to the harms of second-hand smoke. People should not have to choose whether to stay at a retaraunt or in a room at their workplace when confronted with the obstacle of a smoker. Besides, it's not as if there are limited places to smoke. "A person may begin to smoke to be considered "cool"; but later in life, they keep smoking to cut down on the stress and anxiety of not having a cigarette. By that time, health concerns for themselves and others go out the window." -Once again, as I've cited, 77% of smokers have attempted to quit. Why support a habit that the smoker doesn't even wish to support? Just because our health concerns "go out the window" for that smoker we should reduce the tax and limit the areas we ban from smoking? Workplaces and resttaraunt have a responsibility to their employees and customers to provide a safe environment, and limiting smoking to certain places is a part of this duty. Besides these are unwarranted statements, most smokers I've been around have shown enough concern to ask if it bothers anyone, or they simply go to smoke somewhere else regardless of whether they have to or not. "All I am saying is, if the government is going tag on a high tax onto already high prices, they should at least give the people a place to smoke." -You said it yourself, these people have a place to smoke! Smoking areas are provided by most restaraunts and workplaces in the first places, it's just that they are away from the places that are meant for the general public or employees. Preventing the harm to others should be worth the minute walk to a smoking area. If a smoker is willing to pay the high price, they will be willing to walk the distance allocated for smokers. Seeing as all of my arguments and statistics still stand, I urge the readers to consider all the arguments presented, and vote neg.