BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morals Do Not Exist

I would compare well being to health. Both are undefined terms. Health is not a subjective matter. It isn't one's opinion over whether a chemical is poisonous or not. It is a scientific fact that poison by definition reduces the health of an organism. To liken this to well being, the well being of an conscious being may be reduced by torturing a child. Now I think this is an obvious one, as we know the ability to flourish in society is severely impaired by the mental and physical damage caused by torture. However even if I were to say that I don't know, the fact is torture either contributes to or impairs well being. It isn't a subjective matter, it is a factual one. The reason it is factual is that well being can be established on the level of the brain. Trauma can lead to physical damage (changes) to the brain. Consequently we can say that trauma reduces well being.Torture as far as I am aware never stops being immoral, as a society that encourages torture will be one with far more worrying, and far more suffering in. I see no need to justify why suffering is objectively bad, however I will for the sake of argument. Suffering is objectively bad because bad is a term that refers to the morality of an action. Morality only exists as long as conscious beings exist. To that extent morality does not exist, but only insofar as history doesn't exist, as both exist only as long as conscious beings do. Morality refers to the well being of conscious creatures, which is either improved or impaired by actions. Suffering is by definition a negative experience. In no one is suffering enjoyed. Even though a masochist may enjoy being cut, he may not enjoy his family being cut, and so suffering will apply to everyone in their own particular ways. Morals appear to only apply to man as only man appears to be capable of contemplating right and wrong. This is different to being created by man. I will confess that some moralities are made by man, e.g religious morality. However the existence of right and wrong is a very true one if looked at as an action's impact on the brains of others.
Death Penalty

I would like to start this second round by saying that a family's pain is not what is wanted when a murderer is exacted it is the fact that they are to dangerous to keep alive because even if the man/women is thrown in jail for the rest of their life with no bail they could escape and take revenge. Another point I would like to make is that why spend money making harsher prisons that people will kill themselves in or die trying to escape from when we could just do the humane thing and kill them why make them suffer and die why not take out the middle man and just kill them I mean a firing squad is more humane then that now for your last three points 2 keeping them in prison cost less that is simple don't leathery inject them bring them outside and take one bullet then put it in their skull. point 3 we need to pull away from an eye for an eye the idea is not an eye for an eye it is this person is not right mentally or is just to dangerous to keep alive we need to deal with him in a way that he can not comeback from point 4 sending the wrong message to the youth it is bad to kill people so you kill killers that is not the idea the idea is the wicked will be punished point 5 it is useless and dose not make the victim come back to life we know that but this is to teach people if you do this you will die we will kill you barbaric or not.
Death Penalty

I would like to start by wishing my opponent a good debate Now for my first point I would like to say that the death penalty is not over rated or barbaric why should a family lose a innocent loved one and mourn the loss while a killer should continue living with a roof over their head and three meals a day. As for playing god we are not playing god just because you choose if a man/women of evil should live or die that is disposing of trash not playing god. Now about the part of what is it teaching the youth it teaches them that if their is a evil enough force death should be dealt people who kill their own countrymen/women for the pleasure or for jealousy or hatred do not deserve to live.
Death Penalty

Have you ever wonder if the death penalty is over rated, I have thought about it and I personally with millions of people out there think the death penalty is over rated and should be banned everywhere in the U.S. Not only is it over rated and barbaric but innocents were even excuted only to find out later down the line that they were really innocent. Taking chances our government does to put a murderer to death not only that the person could be innocent not only that some crimes aren't even worth spending allot of money to put one to death. Who are we to play God if were going about this the religion way, yea eye for an eye, cheek for a cheek, but why take revenge, and put more hurt into families lives not just victums but now its even worse that the families who were close to the person that did the crime to watch there child or nephew or who ever he or she is be killed. I am not saying its right to go out and kill no its not but kill the person who killed what is that teaching our youth that if us as a society chooses a fate of a man or woman to be put to death is ok then they learn that if we can get away with it then its easy to kill. If we kill someone who kills that makes us also murderers since we pay for the death penalty and vote for it. I think with the millions of people who agree think the death penalty is overrated, very expensive waste of money, just not a right thing to have if we want our youth after us to think its ok to choose someones fate by opening there eyes that hey he/she killed so lets kill them and it will be alright, also using the bible words for someone excuses to keep the death penalty going is not right.
The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite.

The "Communist Manifesto" written by Marx and Engels is little more than a doctrine explaining why the whole world should engage in war. It spends a lot of time telling people what they should believe history really means and then upon the outcome of Marx's conclusions of all of history, it goes on to inform the proletariat that its only option is war. This doctrine spends little time explaining what a communist society would really look like or how it would sustain itself (is it any wonder it's so easily exploited?) because it's too busy plotting people against each other and explaining in detail why we should hate and kill. The Manifesto is contradictory and full of irony until the only thing that's crystal clear is that it serves to divide, not to unite. So what I'm aiming to prove in this debate is that "The Communist Manifesto" (1848) is more divisive than it is helpful in the goal of achieving a peaceful society. That's to say, it does more harm than good. Con should want to show how I'm wrong. Hmm, so we'll see if this works or if I get caught in something that has nothing to do with my original intentions...
The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite.

Thank you for starting the debate. First, some observations. Since this resolution is "The "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, not to unite," my opponent must satisfy both parts of this resolution, that the "Communist Manifesto" serves to divide, and that the "Communist Manifesto" does not serve to unite. If my opponent fails to meet one of these burdens, you should default CON. However, if you want to reject that burden and judge the debate based on which side outweighs the other, CON will still win that. Also, since we are talking about the unification/division surrounding a communist revolution, this is what the debate should focus on. The success or failure of this revolution and the consequential communist state is irrelevant. Alright, now, for my case. My opponent tries to make the claim that the "Communist Manifesto" does more to divide than to unite. Well, it obviously does support some division, otherwise a (violent) revolution would be pointless. But to say that it does not serve to unite is rubbish. What you see in the doctrine of the "Communist Manifesto", whether you agree with it or not, is an attempt to unify the poor masses against the wealthy few. Since we're uniting a lot against a lot, there will always be more unity inspired than division, so you will always vote CON on the simple fact that the CON outweighs the PRO. This defeats the PRO on both burdens, as it proves that the "Communist Manifesto" does unite, and that the CON outweighs the PRO. Continuing, my opponent talks about how Marx and Engels spend a lot of time telling people "what they should believe history really means". This implies that they are manipulating people into seeing history in a certain light. But this isn't true. Even if Marx's predictions were off (which, when you look at Russia, they weren't), there was still an accurate portrayal of history. Different social groups tend to clash. It really does become inevitable. In fact, 1848 is known as "The Year of Revolutions" in European history. Revolutions happened across Europe from France to the Habsburg Empire to Italy to Germany. Revolutions happen because social groups tend to clash. But what about these clashes? Who is fighting whom? Look at something like the French Revolution, where many groups were competing with another for control. There was more division there during that time period than one could imagine, and it had a lot of dire consequences. Now look at the "Communist Manifesto". What is it trying to do? It is trying to unite these various factions against one common enemy. Even if you don't agree with Marx's and Engels philosophy, you cannot deny that it serves primarily to unite. It tries to tell these various groups that they shouldn't be fighting each other; that they should be uniting against the oppression of the bourgeoisie. In this vein, the "Communist Manifesto" does more good than bad, at least from the revolutionary perspective, which is what we are debating here.
Fordebating.com will not see a substantial gain in membership based on the site owners advertising..

Full resolution: "Fordebating.com will not see a substantial gain in membership based on the site owners advertising methods on Debate.org"The site owner in this context is coveny, who is also my opponent in this debate. I mean for this debate to be a well thought out construction of arguments to settle a dispute we've had in the main forums for some time now.The debate resolution was agreed upon by my opponent in this post:http://www.debate.org...I wish my opponent the best of luck in this debate, and encourage fair voting. Because my opponent has shared his opinion that his public perception in this debate may be biased against him, I will personally be reporting any votes that I don't feel fairly show they represent they have read both sides of the debate to the fullest, or overtly display bias.Thanks coveny in advance for accepting this debate. 1st round will be for acceptance, and I have the character limit set to max at 10k. Select winner system is in effect to suppress vote juicing. Arguments should be prioritized over conduct violations, spelling and grammar, and sources, though all of these things collectively should attribute to the argument. Good luck.
God is Evil

I have already stated...Satan was an Angel created by God. The Bible and other relevent texts say this. It is only man's very limited and minute mind that would seek to create the argument that God should have given you and others on this planet something better than life is!!! HOW HORRIBLY MINIMIZING of the grand scheme of things your argument truly is!! God should have 'GAVE YOU (us) better???? Yes it is a GIMME kinda world isn't it?? Lol! Would you have us all robots? Incapable of feeling pain or empathy or great feeling because we have LIVED with 'bad' to a point we FEEL its result? Or incapable of fully feeling the happiness of good things in life because we have good all the time to spite how we live or what we do??? I don't believe people would welcome being robots. I don't think life would be worth living that way...it DOES take some deep thought. Your attempt at play on words distracts from the pointed issue you raise! God does not appear to have known that Evil would come from Satan or any of the Angels He created...like I said before creating them to not be able to be destroyed was a mistake...likely because in the body of all 'goodness' even God would have a hard time believing any creation might choose EVIL over GOOD! No way to get around the making of a mistake here which would also fall short of what some people think in their view of God...but making a mistake is NOT THE SAME as intentionally promoting EVIL!!! The type of world you present is one I sure would not want to live in....who wants to live with little emotion due to lack of depth of life and results of one's own choices. What kind of people would we be?? The only REAL goodness comes from those who have saw true EVIL. It takes one to build the other!! What strength of character CHOICE builds! If we question God and Evil within our God...then we should also be questioning it within ourselves! Pointing that energy to our own lives is much more practical than trying to define God and turn the GOODNESS he gave us (THAT WE TURNED BAD) into our focus which then obviously turns to bitterness as we play the BLAME game with God...instead of looking to our own being for the strength to become GOOD...fight EVIL and live life productively.
God is Evil

If Satan is evil, then who made Satan? Who knew that evil would come from it and who could have prevented it? Is it just to create injustice? He could have made a better world than the one we live now, with no need to learn from "calamities" or "evil" things. We wouldn't need choice because we wouldn't need to choose between good or evil because evil wouldn't exist. To put choice in the equation is to put evil in the equation. Wouldn't it be easier to just create something purely good? Why create an angel that could turn evil so He could sacrifice Himself to Himself so He could save us from the choices He put there in the first place? Evil is evil. To have infinite wisdom and yet create the possibility of evil is an evil thing indeed.
God is Evil

"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; a God of faithfulness and without injustice, righteous and upright is He," (Deut. 32:4). "Thine eyes are too pure to approve evil, and Thou canst not look on wickedness with favor," (Hab. 1:13). The translation of EVIL...in your posted argument is often translated for other 'words' which most often are indicative of the word CALAMITY as a purer translation...the original word was 'Rah.' You are confusing the word EVIL....with the actual truth that God often does interfere in our lives and that of those before us to cause 'problems' that CHASTISE us and that TEACH us things we need to learn. Just like any good parent!!! EVIL is the creation of Satan and quite often the CHOICE of men. God gives us FREE CHOICE and while He may forgive us when we learn our lessons we still suffer the human consequences on this Earth for what we do....what others who have done wrong has caused us....and sometimes what God sees fit to put us through to make us much better human beings. The Ultimate goal of course is making us (as many as possible) FIT to be a spirit being and to add goodness to God's realm. Your use of the word EVIL is the problem here....you are confusing punishment or our God giving us 'lessons' for immoral EVIL. The two are quite horribly different.
God is Evil

If God can't understand evil by virtue, does that makes him not omniscient? If God made a mistake, does that makes him not omnipotent? If God is all powerful then He made things just as he wanted and if He sees all then He knew evil would exist. But given that He doesn't understand evil then He isn't all powerful. Nevertheless, scripture says the following: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." [Isaiah 45:7] So He knew what He was doing. He could even prevent evil. Something infinitely good can't make systems that result in a bad consequence unless He isn't all powerful.
God is Evil

Because Evil exists cannot offer PROOF that God is Evil...because Good also exists. You would be jumping assumptions to conclude this. That God is all knowing, all powerful and all good does NOT contradict the existence of Evil. By virtue of 'what is' we cannot say good is ever evil or evil is ever good. They stand alone. What one can conclude is that the story within our Bible and other texts are telling of ONE contradictory thing...God created the Angels 'to not be able to die.' He maintains control of them but this was not always so as we are told of a huge battle when Lucifer and his 1/3 of angels (demons) tried to take control of God's domain. So obviously God made a 'mistake' in creating creatures that He could not totally destroy. Mistakes are not either 'Evil' or 'Good' ....both sides of those contrasts can make mistakes. Gods incapacity to understand EVIL by virtue of his unadulterated GOOD created that 'mistake.' The truth of his great power lies in how He turned that Evil to GOOD. Who of us would know a difference or learned true sympathy or empathy or built TRUE character without the results of Evil. Living through 'BAD (Evil)' is what can create the greatest and most powerfully of exceptional character and what creates the people who can overcome the world to become 'good souls' worthy of becoming a value to our existence and beyond.
God is Evil

Hello and welcome to this debate. This is the first debate I've created. I will argue that God is evil. Con will argue that God isn't evil. In this argument we will not argue God's existence. I think that God is evil because it is given that He's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, yet evil exists in this imperfect world. Ergo, there are three options: God isn't omnipotent, God is evil or God doesn't exist. Because we are not arguing God's existence, I propose that God is evil.
In the united states, hate groups should be treated as terrorist organizations.

I will try to be more concise (this is my first debate as well). I also urge him to point out where I said terrorist attacks were motivated. Terrorist attacks (as I'm certain I didn't mention) are never (or almost never) motivated, with the exception of fear. Let's just go over the point my opponent made. He claimed that treating these hate groups as terrorist organizations would make it safer for the people the hate groups are against. I would like to pose the question, how will it possibly make anything safer? As far as I am concerned, from the examples my opponent has stated, the KKK has not been active for at least 13 (Calender) years, and is therefore sliding into the abyss. If their kind are falling (not necessarily racists, but people who violently strike out against people based on race), then why bother waste taxpayer's money on a group that is no longer a great threat? As well, increased spending has done almost nothing to prevent terroirsm on our soil, nor has it done anything on foreign soil. Since 9/11, when the world got "tough on terrorism", we've had hundreds of random attacks, classified as terrorism. We cannot stop terrorism- it will always be there. It will always be a factor, be it of our or others' citizens. My point is that being classified as terrorist doesn't help anything. So. .. my next point is that hostile hate groups like the KKK will not be stopped by being classified as terrorist. One of the interesting things about terrorism is that the more you kill, the more they recruit. When we kill terrorists, those people are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, even grandparents of others. Those others now think poorly of us, because, let's face it: no matter what the circumstance, we killed their relative. They'll never forgive us for it. These people are now anti-western and hard to convert back. Imagine this effect with hate groups- the effect would balloon, because there's nowhere near the amount of consequence required to join (terrorism you give up your life, hate groups you give up. .. ?) This, in effect, could quite possibly make more hate group members and strengthen them. Lastly, I'd like the prop to clarify what he meant by "be treated as terrorist organizations". After all, terrorists still can't be tortured or harmed, and hate groups are easy to spy on anyways (wiretapping, infiltration, etc)
Beginner's Tournament, Nuclear Power Plants

Before I make my case, lets begin by a few rebuttal:1. Our opponent has stated that nuclear power is not cost-effective.But according to UK Electricity Generation Summary, we need to pay for 96.5 pounds for 1 megawatts of energy generated by coal, while 93.4 pounds for 1 megawatt of energy produced by uranium(i.e. nuclear energy)[1]. Thus, we can see that nuclear power plant is the cheapest one for generating electricity.2.Our opponent has exaggerated the health effects of using nuclear plants.Although these are accidents, but according to Clean Air Task Force, nearly 12,000 deaths in the USA only are accounted to coal-fired power stations.[2] Can our dear opponent tell us that these 12,000 peoples' lives don't matter?Nuclear power is safe, stable and superior.I will tell you that nuclear power generation is a must in our advanced society in this round; stating that nuclear power plant is safer than most generation method and we cannot use alternatives to power our world in round 2, and then conclude our case in Round 3.Nuclear power is safe, stable and superior. Nuclear energy today is well-developed, and it is cleaner, more stable than the other electricity generation methods. Clean: Nuclear fuels are technically infinite and it don't produce harmful gases into the atmosphere we live in.[3]It is also producing the least harmful by-products to us[4]. Comparing to fossil fuels, which gives out lots of harmful gases and greenhouse gases, is a better one to choose. In normal operation, nuclear power plants don't ever injure a person, but in fossil fuel plants, it is annually killing 12,000 persons only in USA[1]. Can our opponent neglect the harmful effects that fossil fuels have brought to us?Stable: Nuclear fuel is currently supplying countries with nuclear plants continuous power. This is different with other renewable energy, as renewable energy only produce energy when the specific weather demands for it is accomplished, for example, you cannot produce solar power when it is raining. Can our opponent imagine that in a hospital, patients are dying just because it's raining and solar power plants cannot produce energy? Thus, we need nuclear power to keep up with our energy demands; nuclear power is currently holding 10.8% of the power grid,[5] and is projected to expand. Why is it so? Because countries need it!Dear opponent, if you cannot give me concrete examples of how nuclear energy can be replaced, then this motion must stand.Nuclear power is safe, stable and superior.This motion must stand, thank you! [1]:https://www.gov.uk...;[2]:http://www.catf.us...;[3]:http://scienceline.ucsb.edu...;[4]:http://www.nucleartourist.com...;[5]:http://www.world-nuclear.org...;