BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
That the US government is responsible for 9/11

My opponent has made it clear in other debates that he would like a serious debate on whether 9/11 was an inside job. Until now I haven't had the time to issue him a debate challenge. Burden of proofTo win this debate, I must show that the US government, on the balance of probabilities, was involved in the planning and/or execution of 9/11. My opponent shall refute whatever evidence I put forward. RulesThe first round is for acceptance and clarification, the last round is for summaries. Substantive contentions should be argued in the second and third rounds. Please don't post videos. Other than that, standard debate rules apply. DefinitionsUS government - any branch. That is, the whole US government need not have been in on this for the US government to be responsible. Even if I prove a single CIA officer knew about 9/11 in advance, the US government is responsible because that one person helped with the planning by not informing others, which may have prevented the attacks. responsible - responsibility is assumed if the US government had any part to play in the planning or execution of the 9/11 hijackings and the resulting catastrophe.9/11 - All four plane hijackings that took place. However, even if I only prove that the US government was responsible for one plane hijacking, that is enough to carry the motion. Standard definitions otherwise apply.
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

Utilitarianism "Though there are many varieties of the view discussed, utilitarianism is generally held to be the view that the morally right action is the action that produces the most good. There are many ways to spell out this general claim. One thing to note is that the theory is a form of consequentialism: the right action is understood entirely in terms of consequences produced." [1]. Resolution: Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness. Rules Last debate Con made the argument that Utilitarianism is an inanimate concept that is incapable of recognition. This is purely semantics and disallowed for this debate. [2]. Links 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.debate.org...
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

" The reason for the maximization of human pleasure was due to it being in according with the wishes of God.' Con There are religions in which animals are important. For example all life is considered sacred under Hindu religion. "Hindus believe that all life is sacred, to be loved and revered, and therefore practice ahimsa, noninjury, in thought, word and deed." [3]. John Gay would need to prove his religion was right and all the others wrong. John Gay's theory also relies upon a supreme being. "Another philosopher, G. E Moore , considered beauty as the ideal by which utilitarianism worked." Con Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. By Moore's theories an animal's perception of beauty is just as valid as a human. Since perceiving beauty tends to make a human or animal happy, its hard to separate beauty and happiness. An animal lover's version of beauty is to see a happy animal. Now to explain why all models of utilitarianism need to take animal's happiness into account. "Like Bentham, Mill sought to use utilitarianism to inform law and social policy. The aim of increasing happiness underlies his arguments for women's suffrage and free speech." [1]. As a person can see above, utilitarianism has been used to help women. Moving away from the self centered and self serving patriarchal views. If the jump from patriarchal to women's rights can be made, so can the jump from women's rights to animal rights and happiness. Finally in an attempt to destroy Con's rebuttal. Human's get much happiness out of being nice to animals. How can the happiness of hugging an animal be compared to the pleasure gained from shooting a pigeon? It can't. The hugging of the animal will win. Even seen from solely a maximizing human happiness point of view, humans get pleasure and see beauty in happy animals. Watch the bear video with 1.5 million views and tell me humans don't get happiness from watching happy animals. [4]. Links 3. http://hinduismtoday.com... 4. https://duckduckgo.com...
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

There are two ways in which this resolution could be seen in Pro's favour. The first being that the basic premises of Utilitarian ideologies necessitate the consideration of animal suffering. The second being that utilitarianism which considers animal suffering to be a more valid ideology than that which does not. In Pro's argument, they seem to have solely addressed the former. My opponent argues that utilitarianism recognizes animal suffering by definition: "In both pleasure and preference utilitarianism animals are important. "Classical utilitarians (hedonists) believe that happiness/pleasure should be maximized, while preference utilitarians believe that preferences, i. e interests, should be maximized. "" Since it is obvious that animals possess the traits mentioned above, Pro makes the conclusion that all varieties of utilitarianism are ones that, if followed, consider either the pleasure or the preferences of animals. This conclusion is simply untrue. There are varieties of utilitarianism that do not focus on animals at all, and they have various criteria that demonstrates this. One of the earliest utilitarian philosophers, John Gay, did not judge pleasure as positive due to its own intrinsic value. Instead of simply suggesting that the greatest amount of pleasure is good, he suggested that we humans must maximize our own pleasure. The reason for the maximization of human pleasure was due to it being in according with the wishes of God. Another philosopher, G. E Moore, considered beauty as the ideal by which utilitarianism worked. Within such a framework, Pro's argument falls flat. Unfortunately, since Pro did not address the second meaning of the resolution, there is no way for me to criticize their argument any further. Vote Con. . http://plato.stanford.edu...
Utilitarianism must recognize animal's happiness.

In both pleasure and preference utilitarianism animals are important. "Classical utilitarians (hedonists) believe that happiness/pleasure should be maximized, while preference utilitarians believe that preferences, i.e interests, should be maximized." [2]. Since animals are capable of happiness, clearly animals should be included in hedonist utility calculations. Because animals are sentient, their desires or preferences are clear. Anyone who has ever had a pet dog or cat will known this. When a pet wants food, the pet lets the human know very clearly. There has been many cartoons illustrating this. Animals prefer freedom to confinement. Well fed to hungry and so forth. Thanks for the debate. Vote Pro. Links. 2. https://nonhumananimalethics.wordpress.com...
Islam contradicts science

Resolution: - Topic: wether Islam does or does not contradict scientific facts. - Terminology: > Islam = the religion founded by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) & revealed through the Qur’an. > Contradict = deny the truth of (a statement), especially by asserting the opposite. > Science, since the concept is broad & abstruse, I’ll define it pertinently as = scientific facts. > Religion = scripture, law, theology. Standard Rules: - No forfeit, no disrespect, no bare assertions & no shotgun argumentation. - BOF: the burden of proof is on Pro, for he is making the affirmative claim. - Sources: authentic & authoritative. (In case they are in a foreign language, a translation should be provided in a google document, at least for the relevant parts. )
Mankind is developed enough where we should no longer need territory

First off, you are correct, in that humans no longer need "territories" as a grazing ground in which they hunt their prey, but, you have clearly overlooked your third definition "a body of people politically organized under one government/nation". A territory is no longer a necessity for survival, but it has come into new light, as a place where people can be among other who believe in the same thing as them, and support each other. Without territories, there would be chaos among governments, unless you think that all governments should also be abolished, and there should be world wide anarchy. Assuming that governments attempted to stay and power, and people continued to rely on their government, as a form of protection, for education, for social services, to maintain infrastructure, and as a larger entity which defends their views, there would be no way that this could happen, as the number one form of government revenue is taxes, which could not be collected if there was no "body of people politically organized under one government/nation", because the laws could not be enforced, and people couldn't be forced to pay taxes, so the governments would go bankrupt, and collapse, leading to anarchy. This plan would also be ineffective, because of things such as racism, and elitism. As long as these two things exist, the groups with either, A) separate themselves, creating territories, or B)Try to bring the other under their rule, such as has happened in history with slavery. This will cause one of two things, either a united force of people who defend their views as a group, which I believe meets your third definition, or the weaker of the two will flee to a different area, such as Taiwan, and China, creating borders, and territories, separating the two. I have proven that unless anarchy could work, and all people could come to rely on themselves, and get over their differences, borders will continue to exist.
Mankind is developed enough where we should no longer need territory

I believe that we, meaning humans as an entire species, should remove all borders in terms of individual states. Wikipedia.com's definition of territory is: any geographical area that an animal of a particular species consistently defends against con specifics (and, occasionally, animals of other species). Dictionary.com defines borders as: the line that separates one country, state, province, etc., from another Webster's New World Definition defines a state as: a body of people politically organized under one government/nation Territory, when used in the days that we where still australopithecus, and among every predator know to date, territory was a necessity to insure the safety of the species food supply, by marking of boundaries where prey grazed or fruits grew. It was a basic necessity for survival, and reasonable seeing as how we still had animal instincts. Now, however, seeing as how we are so keen to describe ourselves beyond our primal selves, we should be able to abandon this most animalistic trait that has lead to the deaths of trillions of humans. No longer do we have to defend against predators because we are the top predator. We keep our prey contained, so we no longer need to maintain a game trail. The only predator we face is our own kind. The only thing that we are defending within our borders and territories is the ground that comprises them. Dirt that has existed since before the first amoeba formed is the number one cause for war. In ALL wars. Countries may attempt to justify the bloody events with political, or religious reason's, but the simple matter is that there is no such thing as a country, we've only convinced ourselves that there is. So, to put it bluntly, we are all fighting over something in our imagination's. I believe the end to wars hinges on our elimination of these imaginary lines. Examples of wars caused by territory conflict: name one, and there's your example.
Mankind is developed enough where we should no longer need territory

First off, you are lucky, I had 6,000 Characters used, then I pushed the back button someone conveniently put on the side of our new mouse :( Moving on, now that you have clarified, there are other, large problems you have overlooked. First off, you have forgotten one major thing, if you remove borders to ALL states, not only nations, but their provinces, and states, there will be large problems. Think back to the American Revolution, it was caused because the British government did not know what problems American colonist faced, and did not adjust laws according to the colonist's needs. The same happened in the American civil war, the north wanted laws put in place that jeopardized the southern economy, again, leading to civil war. The purpose of having separate state governments, is so that laws can be made where they are needed to take care of situations in local areas, for example, the south would have been destroyed, had there been sanctions against European countries, as the north wanted. In places such as Africa, the main export, oil, would loose some value, when the government took over, and was able to control oil prices more effectively. Another problem that you overlooked is the demographics of the nations which your plan would attempt to unite. Uniting countries such as Israel, and the surrounding Islamic countries, or the Koreas, which have been in conflict for years, would be impossible, especially in the middle east, where factions of the Islamic religion are constantly at war. Also, the reason that the United States has kept a decent poverty level is that we take care of each other, to an extent. The young take care of the retired, with Social Security, and the middle/upper classes take care of the poor with programs such as welfare. This is possible, because the population is not divided between rich and poor, but, when the nations where united, places such as Africa would expect government benefits, but wouldn't be able to pay, so the burden would fall on the shoulders of the west, to expect the west to pay for all the impoverished in the world, is illogical. On the topic of preventing civil war, statistically, democratic countries have the lowest chances of civil war, assuming you would have a democratic nation, it would be impossible to fairly represent the people, without borders between different areas, such as the agricultural areas of the midwest, and the manufacturing areas of the northeast in the United States, without proper representation, the same thing would happen as in the American Revolution. It would be impossible for a government to contain all of these internal conflicts without civil war, and as soon as there is civil war, your plan would fail. I don't believe, nor do I expect that anyone does honestly believe that all the people of the world could live together in harmony without war, while putting other regions such as Africa before themselves.
Slavery

My opponent has pointed out that the more you do something, the better you are at it. However, there are other ways to get at this than through slavery. In fact, the free market is much more efficient at transferring short-term tasks into long-term tasks than any other system.[1] Your idea that the slave owner forcing the slave to do something the slave owner thinks he would be good at for the profit of the slave owner is alike the idea that an individual in a free market will force himself to do something that he thinks he will be good at for his own profit. You also mentioned the relationship between slavery and evolution. This is, just as above, also something demonstrated by capitalism. It is called social Darwinism, and it is something I cam currently debating elsewhere on DDO. But, your theory does not match up with social Darwinism, because it dismisses individuality as unnecessary and supports collectivism. Now, we all know that collectivism is like an anchor on evolution and progress in general.[2] Slavery is a form of collectivism, because it sacrifices the good of the individual for the good of the group (or in this case, the slaver owners). Slavery has never been based on characteristics of an individual, that is to say, people were never made slaves SOLELY from their own actions. They were born into it, by their ancestors, nation origin, ethnicity, race, or other collectivist ideas.[3] Also, my opponent said that slavery was actually GOOD for the slave. This is allegedly because he becomes good at his job. But he does not go on to explain why that is a good thing. If he is not working toward some personal goal (i.e. paycheck, salary, retirement) then it is not good for him, only in the same empty feeling of accomplishment that one gets while working under communism. I must point out that, contrary to my opponent's statement, slavery stunts evolution. This is because the slave has no choice but to work the same job for the same wage for the same slave owner in the same conditions. If a system was to enhance the evolutionary process, it would focus on individual advancement.[4] Proof of this is that species evolve by the efforts of the individuals involved. Anything that stunts this process is stunting progress. My opponent obviously has no idea how evolution works and how it can relate to human society. [1] http://www.clemson.edu... [2] http://psychology.wikia.com... [3] http://www.newspeakdictionary.com... [4] https://www3.nd.edu...
Slavery

Debate perimeters: This debate is on the subject of slavery, the act of physically keeping a person in a labor environment he/she does not want to be in. Slavery essentially has nothing to do with wages, only whether or not a person has the decision to leave his work environment. This debate will be argued using fact and reason, no emotional opinions or subjectively heavy thoughts are used in the debate. ............................................................................................................................... Slavery is an idea that only works well for one party: the slave owner. In that, it differs from other economic ideas. It is also reliant on the assumption that a human being can become property in the same way that an animal or inanimate object can. This idea is clearly false as it does not demonstrate who can and cannot become a slave without another idea, such as racism. To support slavery, you must support an idea that discriminates against people based on arbitrary characteristics. This means that people can become slaves because of their race, national origin, religion, ancestry, or other irrational classification. It does not make sense to support such an idea because it means that individuals are non-important to the equation (i.e. it does not matter a person's efforts, it only matters their parents' class). The alternative is that anyone can become a slave if they are unable to physically compete with those capturing them. This is the lowest form of slavery, as it nothing higher than the world of the animals. Only cavemen would support such an idea. No civilized society would allow slavery to exist without being extremely ignorant to reason.
Slavery

My opponent has failed to understand the idea of "individual success". He seems to think it is right for some people (slaves) to sacrifice their entire lives for other people (slave owners). He says that you become good at something under slavery, though I dare not found out. Yet, he has not rebutted my simple statement: it would not be good for the slaves. How is it good for me if I can be a very efficient slave? I am not receiving the benefits of labor that I am so efficient at producing, my slave owner is. There is no point in slavery other than the benefit of the slave owners. The health of the slaves is not good.[1] How do you expect someone to live their entire lives as a sacrifice for other people. That is communism, and it is horrible. Another odd point you made is that "most of Africa and south Asia, and South Africa" are free market economies? Obviously, my opponent has not idea what a free market economy (capitalism) is. Well, let me give you a clue. There is no slavery. Most of Africa, south Asia, and South Africa is in ruins because it is using the system that you advocate.[2] Much of the political power in those countries is exercised by slave owners (South Africa used to be a mainly slave-based economy).[3] Calling that capitalism is just plain crazy. Also, Pro brings up North Korea, a bad choice on his part. North Korea tricks its people into being slaves, because that's the only way for them to stay. You say that instead of tricking people into slaves they should tell them that "they were a slave (even the owners) to the nation itself and that there was no true leader other than the need to excel at whatever socialized skill you were forced to do form birth and that is all you should aim to excel at." That's pretty much what they said. What you need to realize is that their is no point in life other than self-pleasure. And that slaves cannot experience that, and it doesn't matter how much they toil, they are not benefiting from it because they are not free. You are denying that the ends justify the means. Success is a mix of innate talent and practice[4], but my opponent assumes practice is solely important. This is idiotic because this would mean that a person who's mind is physically more capable of doing complex math problems in their head could do better in a field tilling the ground. It ignores the fundamental truth that some people are better than others at different things. Slavery is not the way to go, as it does not help any one person, it only helps some weird thing you call "society". Though I don't know who that is, he's probably not as important as me, the individual. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://articles.latimes.com... [3] http://www.sahistory.org.za... [4] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...
angel=demon

Okay, my opponent has admitted it themself. A fallen angel is classified as a demon - however a fallen angel is a specific type of angel. The general term angel is defined by Oxford dictionary as follows: "a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God, conventionally represented in human form with wings and a long robe." Now this is the definition of a devil according to Oxford dictionary: "the supreme spirit of evil; Satan" The Oxford dictionary is classified as one of the most reliable online dictionary sources on the internet. Your argument is flawed and clearly you have not researched this topic as much as I would have hoped. The definitions clearly show distinct differences and unless you can point out a similarilty that outweighs the differences between the definitions then I have won this debate. The Burden Of Proof is solely on Pro to prove that angels are devils. The position in this debate is defensive and so far I have refuted my opponent's arguments with success. My opponent states that Atheism is theism which is irrelevant to the debate and makes no sense to me. Unless my opponent shows this comments relevance to the debate then I do not feel the need to refute this claim although I can if I have to. SourcesSearch: 'angel definition' into google Search: 'devil definition' into google
angel=demon

A demon rising may be an an angel however again you have provided 1 example. Due to a poorly phrased resolution (which I have been following and my opponent hasn't) this debate is being debated differently from both sides. Pro is arguing that there is one type of angel that can be considered as a devil however I am actually arguing against the resolution since the resolution only refers to angels in general which so far Pro has been unable to refute. I honestly don't know how to respond to rest of my opponents argument. It is completely off topic since it has now turned into a God debate (apparently). Why are we discussing atheism being theism and belief being disbelief. I believe that my opponent is attempting to make their argument look longer since we are now discussing 3 different topics within 1 debate! Why on Earth are you talking about adding being retracting? What is that's relevance to the debate?