BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
MOTION: A reasonable claim can be made that Western civilization is superior

First off, I will start by making my claim crystal-clear. I am by no means saying that Western civilization is inferior. I am merely claiming that there is no hard proof that it is superior. I cite five reasons for this claim: 1) I believe in God. As we do not all share the same beliefs, I will not use this argument again unless my opponent turns out to be Christian, and preferably Protestant. But if my opponent does acknowledge a divine Creator, why would He make one culture or civilization superior? 2) "Western civilization" is very loosely defined. Ask pretty much any two people and they will have a different view of who gets to be included. It's almost like a "secret club" of cultural supremacy that no one can do anything to join or leave. Furthermore, a reasonable argument can be made that "Western" civilization is the amalgamation of many cultures, and not one entity. 3) How is "superior" measured? How can any reasonable person look at an entire culture and claim it is superior to all others? The way I see it, we're all human, and humans are very complicated. Entire cultures have many practices, and it's quite subjective to an extent which are more important than others. Furthermore, when you look at subjective, amoral matters, it is not fair to judge another culture's practices by your own culture's standards. Just so my opponent knows, there are absolute morals, but within those, there are many differences the world's cultures have. 4) The perceived superiority and supremacy of Western civilization has been used to justify moral atrocities committed by European imperialists in less developed parts of the world up until about a hundred years ago. While I do not like having to invoke things that no one was alive to remember, the truth is, as Winston Churchill supposedly said, "Those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it." We have to look to historical mistakes for guidance. Our own forefathers willingly exploited millions of people all over the world based on this idea that I am claiming no one can prove. Not only that, only ten years after this ended, World War I broke out, and they used this "supremacy" to slaughter fifteen million of their own! Talk about hypocritical. 5) I am sure that most people agree that individuals should be judged by their own actions. To be prejudiced against other cultures just because they are not like us is not only wrong, it relegates members of other cultures (and us) to slaves, slaves to their cultural beliefs. Furthermore, if the fact that a person could be judged by his culture was indeed the case, then his culture would then justify any evil acts he commits, and any judgment that the culture is inferior because of the person's evil acts becomes an effect of circular reasoning and is thereby self-refuting. Furthermore, terms that my opponent could call me, such as "globalist," mean nothing. They're just words, and I don't even know if I am a globalist or not, so my opponent definitely wouldn't. I eagerly await a response.
Should juveniles be tried as adults

Being tried as adults is intrinsically harmful to society and the children themselves. . https://www.splcenter.org... "Research has shown that children in the adult criminal justice system are 34 percent more likely to be arrested again than those convicted of similar offenses in juvenile court. They also are 36 times more likely to commit suicide than youth in juvenile facilities. " Children's brains do not fully develop until the age of around twenty , and their rational thinking skills are last to develop, meaning juveniles have a higher ability to rehabilitate. . http://www.cnn.com... "researchers for the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Adolescent Development and Juvenile Justice found that teenagers are less blameworthy than adults, and that their capacities change significantly over the course of adolescence. The researchers found what many of us were trying to say years earlier about Cameron Kocher: that at the age of 9, he simply couldn't process information and plan a crime like an adult. The MacArthur Foundation Research Network recognized that legal sanctions for misbehavior should not be based only on the harm a youth causes, but on the youth's culpability. " The goal of juvenile detention ought to be corrections and rehabilitations rather than punishment, as juveniles have more chances to improve as their brains are still growing and maturing and they have a long life ahead.
If a $1 Trillion coin is minted, and if I stole it, I would be the most powerful man in the world

Allow me to premise this debate by welcoming you to DDO! I am impressed at how well you've framed this debate given that it is in fact your first debate. I've seen you comment on a few debates, so I want to also say that I appreciate that you've taken an effort to aquatint yourself with the customs and practices of this site before officially beginning to debate. In case there is anyone who does not know what my opponent is referencing when he speaks of a trillion dollar coin, here is an article from CBS which explains it[1] [1] http://www.cbsnews.com... That said I would like to bring to the judges attention that my opponent places conflicting burdens on me in this round; he at first claims that I may start this debate after he offers three clarifications for the round to operate under and then at the end of his round 1 he claims that I should use this round solely to present the premise by which the Con's advocacy will operate under. I'm going to assume that the later burden is the one I should write this round under, so I will not provide a full argument at this point. If this was not my opponent's intention then I urge the judges to keep my analysis here in mind and not dock me in their vote. That said I reserve the right to expand upon the following premise and flesh the argument out to much deeper degree. in the following rounds I make the assumption that the aforementioned trillion dollar coin would be the size of a regular coin, and not something of a much bigger size. My position will be twofold- First; Since these coins were created for a specific purpose and not distributed to the general public, they would be useless to you as leverage for gains of power. The moment you tried to use it you would be recognized as a thief and incarcerated. and Second; The coin's value would not be intrinsically related to the coin, but would be representative of wealth elsewhere. Since the Federal Government would be on the lookout for you there would be nowhere you could use the coin without drawing negative attention to yourself. These are the two premises under which I will build my argument in following rounds. I look forward to an entertaining round, and I hope any readers enjoy this debate as well!
If a $1 Trillion coin is minted, and if I stole it, I would be the most powerful man in the world

Hey y'all this is my first debate here! Glad to join everyone. I thought I could start on something rather mild and fun so I get used to how things are. Please point me in the right direction if I made any mistakes.So the trillion dollar coin is an attempt to avoid the debt ceiling fiasco that is inevitable in the United States. Through a legal loophole, it is possible for the President to mint a $1 trillion platinum coin, since paper denominations of that size cannot be legally printed. Personally I find it ludicrous that this will solve anything, but I am not here to debate the economic effects of this on the United States, oh no. Let us assume that The $1 Trillion dollar coin is minted and deposited in the Federal Reserve System, the coin being specifically put into a guarded building. I break into such building and steal the coin a la Ocean's Eleven. I get away with it, going on a plane and flying somewhere far away, let your imagination go wild. The coin can be liquidated if need be, so finding someone that can give me change for a trillion, won't be a problem.Value is, obviously, $1,000,000,000,000 USD as of the time of this posting and nominal. The main argument is if I will be the most powerful person in the world, which is subjective, but we can use our imaginations a bit, and the one with the most convincing argument prevails. The current most powerful man in the world is POTUS (President of the United States), but also the Pope, Bill Gates, and the other top billionaires, political leaders and such.http://www.forbes.com... Forbes can be a reference for us, but is not absolute and you can convince otherwise. No semantics The argument is whether I am or I am not the most powerful man in the world with $1 trillion, not if I can rule the world Comparison of individuals is okay, but not comparisons between a person and an entire nation Since I am new to this, I will let the Con start it up. I will then offer the rebuttal and my arguments afterwards. Billions are in short scale.Example of what a trillion dollars would look in Benjamin Franklinshttp://s13.postimage.org...In Order: $100 - Hundred bucks $10,000 - Ten grand $1,000,000 - Million dollars $100,000,000 - 100 million $1,000,000,000 - 1 billion $1,000,000,000,000 - 1 trillion Let us define what power means exactly in this context:Power - The ability to influence other peoples' behaviour with or without resistence.I can use the $1 trillion to do as I wish to gain as much power as possible, but I do not have any income unless I spend the $1 trillion on something that can produce income. The burden of proof is on me. If you accept this challenge, provide a brief introduction on why your position contending, then I we will respond with our cases in round 2.
God exists

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as well as thank my opponent for setting up this debate. The ontological argument: 1: It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2: If it is possible that God exists, he exists in some possible world. 3: If God exists in some possible world, He exists in every possible world. 4: If God exists in every possible world, He exists in the actual world. 5: Therefore, God exists in the actual world 6: Therefore, God exists 7: Therefore, a maximally great being exists. When philosophers talk of possible worlds, they just mean the way the world might have been. A possible world is not a planet or universe. It is just a world description. The actual world is the description that is true. Other possible worlds are descriptions that might have been true, but are not in fact true. To say that something exists in some possible world is to say that there is some description of reality which includes that entity. To say that something exists in every possible world is to say that no matter which description is true, the entity will be included in that description. We can use unicorns as an example. Unicorns do not in fact exists, but there is some possible world in which unicorns exists. There are many mathematicians that think numbers exists in every possible world. That is to say they exists necessarily. God is the greatest conceivable being. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. What would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and he would exists in every logically possible world. Let's look at the implications of this. If Gods existence is even possible, then if follows that God must exist. If a maximally great being exists in any possible world, it exists in all of them. That's part of what it means to be maximally great. So if Gods existence is even possible, he exists in every possible world, including the actual world. The atheist has to maintain that it is actually impossible for God to exist. The atheist has to say that the concept of God is not even possible in any possible world. Take for example a married bachelor. There is no possible world in which a married bachelor exists. My opponent would have to show that God is something like a married bachelor, not existing in any possible world. The problem is that God does not seem to be incoherent in that way. The idea that a being is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good, and exists in every possible world is coherent.
God exists

I would like to provide a definition. For this debate God will be defined as a maximally great being as to include the general attributes (ie: omnipotence, omniscience) commonly associated with Judeo-Christian monotheism. That is to say, we are not referring to any specific deity. Hence doctrines such as the incarnation and Trinity are irrelvant to this debate. I hope my opponent is okay with this definition. As he has stated, the burden of proof is shared. It is incumbent on me to show that God's existence is probable, and it is incumbent on my opponent to show that God's existence is not probable.
You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

To end this debate i would like to destroy my opponents arguments.. My opponents first argument is saying that Maybe Tommy's father loved him. Well first off he agrees that Tommy's father ives him so my point is still standing also He also gives example of his personal life but as my argument still stands, people can change and Tommy can bring his father to change. Also, My opponent also said that What if the disgusting pig molested and raped Tommy? That dose happen you know. Someone who dose that to children shouldn't be allowed around them AT ALL. Well first off this this i agree shouldn't be allowed by still my argument goes against that still saying that if Tommy can bring and change him and teach him like a father then, he can change. I said that people can change. So that point is still standing. My opponent also said that Tomm'y can't make him change but as i gave you many sites on how it can here is an example. http://www.peoplecanchange.com... http://www.forbes.com... These sites say that people can change their past. To finalize, my argument that people can change is still standing and my opponent's argument fail to stand. This is why you should vote for me thank you.
You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

You can't give life randomly? Um excuse me but my mother was trying not to have babies when she had me. And I said maybe Tommy's father loved him. We don't know for sure, I know my grandfather didn't love my mother but that is a personal story I'm not my mother would want me to share. And who's fault was it then that Tommy was beaten? And what if there was another kind of abuse as well? What if the disgusting pig molested and raped Tommy? That dose happen you know. Someone who dose that to children shouldn't be allowed around them AT ALL. And as for people changing, well they can but Tommy can't make him change, and if his father hasn't changed already then who knows what he will do if Tommy tried to change him. In the end it is Tommy's choice. If Tommy doesn't want to ever see this man again then he has the right to shut the door in is face.
You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

To go forth on my arguments... Contention 1: Even if you have been abused, Tommies father gave him life which is much more important than anything. Well first off, Life is rare. You can't give life randomly. Tommies father gave Tommy already an important thing which is life. Even is Toomies father beat him up because he was drunk is not his fault. Parent have love for they children. Seriously, parents care. And so on, Tommies father called Tommy for help first which means that Tommy is something to him. You even admited that Tommy's father does love him when he is not drunk. So that means that Tommy's father does love Tommy and not only that Tommy should already know that Tommy's father is drunk and can't stop but its not his fault. Tommy would have already gotten used to that. But Tommy now could stop his father's addiction if he could just help and help Tommy's father our to stop this addiction and become a good man. Later on Tommy's father would thank him and be sorry for hitting him in the past. Contention 2: People can change. http://www.peoplecanchange.com... Tommy could help his father and change him into a not alcoholic guy. He could help his father and grate him well and later on, Tommy's father could change and help Tommy's children. As the site say that people could change and that is what Tommy should do.. These are the reasons why you should got for me thank you.
You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

The reason he was abused was his father drank to much. Tommy did nothing. Sure there might have been a time or two where he was being a kid and messed up and deserved a time out or maybe a spank, but there is NEVER a reason to beat your child. Maybe Tommy's father dose love him when he is not drunk. Maybe if he doesn't have other family members Tommy and can out the old man in a nursing home. But the old man wouldn't deserve any of that. And what if Tommy has kids now? Would yo feel it's safe to have an alcoholic child beater around your children? I wouldn't. In fact that's why I never met my grandpa. My mother new is wasn't safe to have such a man around children.
You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

I accept this rather ongoing topic.. But to refute your argument before hand.... It is moral duty to help Tommies father. Even though he got abused but it must have been for a reason. Not only Tommies father have other relatives then why did he call Tommy first? Well Tommies father loves him like any other father and his father gave brith to him and thats what counts..
You don't have to take care of an elderly or sick family member if they abused you as a child.

Scenario: As a child Tommy had no mother for one reason or another and his father was an alcoholic who beat Tommy whenever he was drunk for no reason. As an adult he has moved out and finally moving on. Then one day Tommy's father calls him and says he is dying/very sick/homeless and needs help. Dose Tommy have to help him? My Argument: No Tommy dose not. There are other family members who have no problem with the man they can take him or send him to a nursing home or something. Tommy moved away with plans to never see the bastard again, and he should keep those plans.
Aliens are humans from the future

First of all I didn't say that when humans became smarter they grew bigger eyes and heads, I said over time we evolve. source: http://www.foxnews.com... If you take a look at the link I gave you, you would see why we would change over all these years. And many people have said that aliens appear in some paintings from the past which may prove that they want to learn about their ancestors as you said. And it's possible that aliens could've left the earth because of things like radiation or global warming. Because of global warming the Earth is getting hotter, and soon it may be too hot for humans to live in. If the Earth is too hot to live in than humans may be forced to leave to a planet where they might be able to live in. So humans start to adapt and change the way they look and that concludes my debate. source: http://www.mnn.com...
Aliens are humans from the future

Counter: My opponents main argument comes from the assumption that future humans have become smarter, and this has made their heads grow which led to the growth of other body parts such as the eyes. Biologically this makes zero sense. The anatomy of any animal has only been known to change as a result of necessary adaptations to survive in something like a new habitat. What this means is that for a human to develop a larger head and eyes he/she would have to live in an environment radically different from anything we know now. Therefore any humanoid creature that has such drastic changes in anatomical appearance would have to be from an alien environment such as one that might be found in space. Argument: It is clear that aliens are actually aliens from a foreign planet because of many things including anatomy, as I mentioned above, dialect, arrival method, and many more. What id like to focus on is the purpose for their presence. If aliens were in fact future humans their purpose for traveling back would likely be to learn about their ancestors and what happened in their history. However this is not the case with aliens. Aliens are traditionally a hostile race that either see competition with another life form or are in need of a vital resource such as water that the Earth holds. Future humans would not come back with the intention of harming the planet they live on. It just wouldn't make sense. They would be harming themselves.
agnostic=all g no stick=default non religious position

agnostic. n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. The keyword here is "believes". Contrary to what you are claiming, agnostics have a belief system, also known as a worldview. Their worldview is that nothing beyond the material plane can be proven or disproven. This is not nonbelief.
agnostic=all g no stick=default non religious position

As much as I would like to correct your poor grammar and lack of coherence, that is not the subject of the debate. From what I understand, you are arguing that agnosticism is the default religious stance taken by any individual at the beginning of life (childhood). I think many people will agree that religious involvement or disinvolvement begins at an early age when parents teach their children about what they believe. Children naturally adopt the belief system exhibited by their parents and/or environment, and generally believe whatever they are fed. Islam, Christianity, atheism, and agnosticism are a few prime examples. Therefore the default religious position would be whatever the child's parents were.
agnostic=all g no stick=default non religious position

theist=belief that an imaginary claim is true=false atheist=disbelief, belief to the contrary=false agnostic=i accept i dont know=true belief=be lie=doubt=fear=care=serious=humorless=slave=grave belief=expectation=hypnosis=unconscious mind=matrix theism=belief=i accept imagination a(theism)=dis(belief)=belief=theism=i accept imagination agnostic=i accept i dont know=i accept reality belief is doubt, doubt is the balancing point between belief and disbelief
agnostic=all g no stick=default non religious position

Belief does not have to be limited to a god of any kind. You can believe that your car will start in the morning or that you will still have a job next week. You can believe that your wife/girlfriend will stay faithful to you. Are you saying that you hold a polytheistic view in which every belief has a god behind it? If so, I will ask you to refrain from using your polytheistic beliefs as arguments in any future debates we may have as these beliefs are not observable evidence.
agnostic=all g no stick=default non religious position

belief. n. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. theism. n. belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.' As you can see, belief is not theism. Agnostics believe that there is no way of knowing truth beyond the observable realm. Keyword: believe.