BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality comes from evolution processes in society, not from the biblical God, Yahweh.

Thank you for taking the challenge. This is my first debate on here, and very excited to get started. I will be mostly quoting from the The new American Standard Bible. And just want to be clear that this is the biblical God, I'm speaking of. Not any deity, just the god Yahweh. I disagree, Western society laws are not based on the teachings of the Bible, especially not all laws. The Funding Fathers of the U.S. constitution based the constitution on freedoms from both government tyranny, as well as religious tyranny. An example of this is the first amendment, freedom of speech and practice of any religion as long as that religion's believes do not physically harm or take rights of others. The Bible tell us that those who worship other god/gods or does "evil" in god's eyes, shall be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 17:3-5). Is law from god is of course completely illegal, also being a cruel and unusual punishment. You can not practice the Bible in the U.S to the fullest extent, those who do, would be seen as a terrorist and extremist. Stone a child to death for disobedience(Deuteronomy 21:18-21), Killing homosexuals(Leviticus 20:3), and being able to beat your slaves as long as they get up in a day or two(Exodus 21:20), and so much more immoral acts and punishments. These rule are not guideline to morality for us today, nor should be. Morality, comes from society itself, we humans are the ones who decide what is moral and immoral, what is good and bad. The more the civilization is disconnected from any religious tyranny and the better state of The civilization, having things like food, clean water and education will improve morals, because people are not desperate to get these necessities for survival. The better luxury of the society the better the morals. Example: my father used to hunt with my grandfather, Killing deer, and farming chicken and cows, for food. My father never took me hunting, so I was never exposed at a young age that killing another animal for food was ok, but I can eat another animal knowing it was another animal, but I can not even kill a bug, let alone an animal, why can my father kill anything other than another human? I believe it's because I never had the need to kill animals for food, If I want meat I could go to a grocery store, now that food has become easier/cheaper to get. Some would consider that I have a higher morality than my father or grandfather. The conclusion: the higher luxury for the civilization, the higher moral. The morality will stay the same with a religions tyranny, like Saudi Arabia. Killing those who do not believe in their holy-book is not moral.
On Balance, Religion is a Positive Social Force

Thank you for offering me the opportunity to debate with you! I gladly accept. I stand as the CON against the claim that religion has a net positive social force. The definition of religion is acceptable, however I would like to add an important detail. This is mentioned already as a nonexclusive definition, but I would suggest religions in question must possess attributes of the supernatural, and be faith based. I do this in the hopes of a less convoluted and more manageable debate. CON's claim is that the institution of religion has not caused a net gain of positive influence upon human society as a whole, and agrees with the definitions and evidential requirements given by PRO. Thanks again for the opportunity and I look forward to debating with you.
On Balance, Religion is a Positive Social Force

Rd. 1 Acceptance, Definitions, and Interp. Rd. 2 ConstructivesRd. 3 Constructives/RebuttalsRd. 4 Rebuttals (No new evidence)Burden of proof is shared. The debate ought to be evaluated as more true than false or vice-versa. I stand as the PRO to affirm the resolution: "On balance religion is a net positive social force." INTERP.The definition of "religion" ought to be flexible, and based on religion as a social phenomena that includes social communities, faith-based institutions, faith-inspired activities, and the personal experiences of believers. Generally religion is, but not exclusively, "(1) a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. (3.) the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.<http://dictionary.reference.com...>PRO's thesis contends that the human-made social institution of religion is a net positive social force. "Social force" meaning something that affects interactions among human beings; "net positive" meaning more beneficial than harmful. This means you should evalute the debate based on sociological, phemonological, and empircial evidence. Theological rationalizations about the existence, or lack thereof, of the divine and the miraculous are not relevant to the resolution. I hope the CON will accept. I am open to counter-interpretations, definitions, and resolutional tweaks.
Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake (4th time)

The crux of my opponent's argument is "Today we live in a world of corporate greed, political corruption, desire, health issues, and social and societal issues, all of which were no excitant in pre agricultural times. Sure, technology wasn't as great, but was having a little more comfort worth all of these problems?" 1. "we live in a world of corporate greed, political corruption, desire, health issues, and social and societal issues, all of which were no excitant in pre agricultural times" My opponent has not proven in any way whatsoever that these did not exist in before agriculture. Life before agriculture was ridden with war and terror. Before agriculture, 15% of people died because of violence[1]. Right after agriculture, death by violence declined to about 3%[1]. Now agriculture has made it possible that if we include unrecorded deaths and those from famines that come from war, less then 1% of people die from violence[1]. This statistic alone shows that life is a lot better now than before agriculture. If everyone never fought and there was no political corruption or social issues before agriculture, why did 15 times more people die from violence? "In pre-agricultural times there were few social issues." There was a lot more. After all, there was so much that 15% of people were murdered before agriculture. The most likely reason my opponent believes this is that there is no concrete evidence that there was social issues, but there is examples in the news of violence and war everyday. My opponent has given no sources for his claims. "People will knowingly harm each other just to be able to obtain little green pieces of paper, or in ancient times, shiny coins." Though some people will knowingly harm others for money,there is still a lot less violence. Not only that, money usually makes people less likely to commit crimes in order to obtain money. Customers are more likely to buy from processes that are humane, thus there is an incentive to be humane. And why does the incentive matter? Remember, without agriculture 15 times more people died from murder. 2. "Sure, technology wasn't as great, but was having a little more comfort worth all of these problems" It is not "a little more comfort". The new technology were things like the polio vaccine[2] and MRI[3]. Vaccines alone are estimated to save about 3 million people per year[4]. These are not just little things that make life a little better. We are talking many millions of lives being saved every year. Conclusion So not only did agriculture make violence 15 times less prevalent, it has also made possible almost all of our technology. This technology is not just little things like iPod and backpacks that made life a little easier. They were things like vaccines that save millions every year and tractors that have made it possible for our current high population. I don't know how anything with an impact this positive could be considered a mistake. Sources [1] http://online.wsj.com... [2] http://www.brown.edu... [3] http://www.radiologyinfo.org... [4] http://drtenpenny.com...
Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake (4th time)

I would like to clarify a few things before I hand it over to my opponent. First, I will not get into semantical debauchery over his use of the word biggest; rather, I am going to argue that agriculture has been beneficial to humanity. To support my claims, I will show that agriculture has a) improved the quality of life, b) made many things possible which were impossible with hunting and gathering, c) though there was some immediate negative effects of agriculture, these were caused by the fact that man had not yet gotten used to the ramifications of agriculture, but the long term effects were most definitely good and d) life before agriculture sucked. I will now hand it over to my opponent.
Agriculture was mankind's biggest mistake (4th time)

Pro will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was dis-beneficial and made life worse than before the agricultural revolution (before 10,000 BCE). Pro will also have to show how humanity would still be-able to survive without the invention and use of agriculture. Con will have to prove that the invention and use of agriculture was beneficial and made life (the quality of life) better after the agricultural revolution (10,000 BCE to today) and acceptance and use of agriculture either as whole regions or individual areas. Con will also have to prove that humanity would not have been able to survive entirely or as the dominate species without the invention and use of agriculture. Terms: Agriculture: The domestication of plant or species for use and convenes of humans (farming, herding, genetic altering, etc.) Humanity: all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind. Not a religious debate in anyway I have already debated this twice and it is a extremely varied subject and for the last two debates I have been mainly addressing three major points, so for this debate I will let Con make the choice of either continuing the broad subject or focusing on one pacific aspect. First round is for acceptance and to tell what choice only; argument and rebuttals on following rounds Previous Debates: http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org...
2b. Affirmative Action

My opponent's argument, in favor of affirmative action, is nothing but racism. I would say "sure, it may not seem that way at first," but so many people have already noticed this fact. Affirmative action is racism against all races. For simplicity's sake, we'll just talk about whites and blacks here, and with nothing said about other minorities or the genders - though the same arguments about whites will apply to men as well, and the arguments about blacks will apply to all other minorities along with women. Affirmative action is racist against whites because a black person who is equal in all other regards will be given more opportunity. The very effect of affirmative action is racist against whites/majority groups. Why should two men, of the same quality in every other regard, be treated differently based on the color of their skin? This is a barbaric notion, and the fact that we have yet to cut ourselves off from such things makes me uneasy, as it should make all of you. But you might be wondering, how is affirmative action racist against blacks (/other minorities/women)? It is in the implied premise behind the thing. Like I said before, a white man and a black man, equal in all other regards, will be treated differently. The black man will be given more opportunity. What does this say? This says that our society thinks a black man _needs_ some sort of handicap. It's as if society thinks that 'equal in all other regards' doesn't actually mean equal, it means that the black man is less than the white man and needs to be propped up. This is just as ridiculous as the other racism from this wretched excuse for a social program. My opponent points out that racism was once a problem in a very different sense, back with the separate but equal stuff. However, fixing these problems of racism has nothing to do with affirmative action as it is now. Separate but equal was struck down because it did not allow the races equal opportunity with all other things held the same. However, we've now taken it to the even further extreme - instead of blacks being treated poorly simply because they were black, we now have blacks being treated better than whites simply because they are black. My opponent's case is nothing but ridiculous spins, turning this racist practice into some sort of 'equality.' As I said, it can only be considered an equalizer if we consider being black to be a disadvantage on its own. There is no way for affirmative action to operate, by very definition, without giving one race more opportunity based solely on race. My opponent suggests that we need to make sure racism is eliminated, and I agree. Egalitarianism is spreading just like any other idea. We do not need some racist system in place to try and even things out - it is unjust and unnecessary.
2b. Affirmative Action

The greatest indicator in today's society for where a person will end up in life is where they started in life. Nowhere is this more true for minorities where racism and bigotry has repeatedly and throughout the generations squandered any chance at the American dream. It is the duty of government to give everybody an equal shake at life. The concept of liberty is not simply a lack of chains but a chance at gains. The opportunity to do better than our fathers. The first and most well known step of affirmative action was to eliminate racial bias in the case of Brown v. Board of Education which resulted in a busing system such that individuals from white neighborhoods and those from minority neighborhoods could end up getting the same opportunities. Prior to the decision everybody simply went to the closest school and if that school happened to be a majority minority school, it just happened to get far less money and far less support. After breaking down the idea of "separate but equal" we were left with what what amounted to the same thing without the mandate. We needed to take an affirmative action to make sure that equal opportunities were had by all. We needed to take action to make the institutions of this fine country free of bias after it had been entrenched for so long it wasn't simply going to go away because we said it was wrong in a loud voice. Affirmative action is an attempt to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake in society. That you can't simply hire people who look like you and deny the opportunities to those who don't. We don't simply take your word that you hired the best and the brightest and they happened to be the whitest. We need to make sure that those of our fathers generation and their father's generations are allowed to rise to their full potential and not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. Admittedly the idea of quotas within affirmative action was a mistake. However, allowing individuals to suggest that all minorities just happened to be less qualified than their white counterparts is just as far from acceptable. Companies can hire whomever they want, they can freely choose one person over another. They can't, however, choose that person because of the color of their skin or gender and deny chances to those who have historically been denied chances. Is it too much to ask that when policemen patrol an area that some fraction of that police force look like those they are policing? That we should take a stand against quiet racism and allow the hiring and firing of people to the point that the entire workforce happens to be all white men? We can't just say "no" and leave it at that. The government needs to continue to take affirmative action to make sure that we banish the specter of racism, not simply the direct bigotry of hate, but also the scars left on those populations which were quelled by injustice and whose children do not have the opportunities of others because their parents didn't have the opportunity of others. It's a vicious cycle and we need to take action, not just in word but deed, to make sure it dies with our father's generation.
Do imaginary things truly exist or not? Can this universe be a universe that has real and non-real p

Sorry for the delay in posting my rebuttal - I had some computer problems and beginning of classes... Anyway, here goes... Imaginary things do not exist. If they existed, they could not, by definition, be imaginary. To answer your other question, yes there are portions of the universe with a real quality, but no substantial existence. For example, perfect equilateral triangles are able to be conceptualized, thus they exist, but they are not actualized (no concrete examples). Imaginary numbers cannot be used to "measure" anything. In order to measure something, it must be quantifiable. Numbers like the square root of -1 are not quantifiable, because they simply don't exist. They CAN'T materially exist. It's easy to understand how 2 is the square root of 4. But it is impossible to multiply a real number by itself and obtain a negative number. Attempting to quantify things that are not actualized - like volume of mind or length of a thought - cannot be done. In order to be quantified, the thing must have a quantifiable aspect. For example, even though perfect equilateral triangles are not actualized, one can quantify the length of a side, or the number of them that are cognized. This is because we can assign a hypothetical actualization to the thought temporarily. To assign a hypothetical actualization to something like volume of mind is impossible without assigning an endless string of variables to the hypothetical. - What shape is it? What is the density of thought in this volume? To arbitrarily assign variables to uncognizable and unactualized things is pointless. If I tell you my volume of mind is 13.24i, schifty-five, or 9 scrinnies, you have no idea at all what I mean. I might as well tell you my volume of mind is warke ug froppen. The length of my thought is dublor gorney. Assigning imaginary variables to other imaginary things is completely pointless.
Do imaginary things truly exist or not? Can this universe be a universe that has real and non-real p

Do imaginary things truly exist or not? Can this universe be a universe that has real and non-real parts to it? I think that if we know that mathematics explains natural phenomenon with accuracy and precision. Maybe the study of the diffent classes of numbers can tell us something about how many different measurements we can possibly get out of reality. Maybe irrational numbers do materially exist. These numbers would represent measurements of the real world or "material" world. Maybe Imaginary numbers can explains measurements, for instance, the volume of mind. How the length of a thought.
The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections

The United States is democracy, and it is absolutely unacceptable to deny people the right to a fair vote. Under the 14th amendment, people will have an equal say in the vote. In the United Sates, the breakup of the Nation into the electoral college unfairly harms those who live in republican or democrats dominated States. Besides, there is always the issue of gerrymandering. It is impossible to gerrymander a system in which everyone is put into the same voting area. This means in order to succeed in popular elections in the United States, candidates must appeal to National issues, not just the issues of a small collection of states. Let's take a hypothetical election in the United States. There are only three sates left. California, Texas, and Florida. Texas and California are guaranteed to vote on party lines, but Florida is a swing state. Both politicians will then base their policies and arguments on Florida issues, as those are the only ones that matter in this election. Therefore an electoral college gives to much power to the a small minority of political diverse states. The recount is almost absolutely unnecessary to worry about. We live in a modern age with (potentially) internet voting, digital transaction, and methods. As a programmer, i can tell you that f we embraced slightly newer technology, we could remove any potential of a recount.
The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections

The electoral college was created during the creation of the United States with the idea that it would protect the government from the votes of potentially misinformed electors. These were noble intentions at first yes, but it has later devolved into a system in which "swing states" decide elections, because candidates know that certain states will vote on party lines, all of the effort is poured into a relatively small group of individuals who end up having a disproportionate weight in the national elections. For example, A democrat would campaign very little in California, but heavily in the state of Florida. Therefore, this candidate will largely ignore the needs of California, and focus on the needs of Florida. this creates a situation in which we see increasingly polarized politics. If we were to look at the political history of the United States, a trend becomes very obvious, We have gradually shifted away from a society in which third party candidates could win votes, to a nation in which we only vote for the big candidates. If we were to host a direct election, we would obtain a point in which the people chose their won politicians. On to you Con! Good Luck!
Targeted Killing is a Morally Permissible Foreign Policy Tool

This is for Bsh's tournament. Thanks to Bsh for hosting the tournament and thanks to kasmic for debating me. Resolved: Targeted killing is a morally permissible foreign policy tool.I'm affirming the resolution. Kasmic is negating the resolution.Round structure should look like this:Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Affirmative Case, Negative Case + RebuttalsRound Three: Affirmative Rebuttals, Negative RebuttalsRound Four: Affirmative Rebuttals + Conclusion, Negative Rebuttals + ConclusionNo new arguments in the final round, of course. Forfeits are still generally frowned upon by this establishment. All the usual jazz.