BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moral relativism

YOU SAID IN OUR LAST DEBATE "I will say it, Hitler was not wrong in doing what he did. He was harmful, he was tyrannical, he was genocidal; however, he was not wrong because there is no such thing as right and wrong." Is that the way Atheists think, I mean how people voted for you is mind boggiling to me. Maby you thaught that my poins were bad, BUT READ THAT "HITLER WAS NOT WRONG" i mean C'mon you have learned that in elementry through high school. If there is no such thing as write and wrong then i could do whatever i wanted i could RAPE, KILL, STEEL, SELL DRUGS. I mean the list goes on and on, if you say that there is no write and wrong then why do we need jails why does our goverment even need a judicerary section in the goverment. Do you see the chaos that would go on in the earth if if it were like what you just described. You no what would happen if the world had no write or wrong to it everyone would be murdering, stealing, raping all over the place. I mean how do YOU LIVE like that where your morals are "HITLER WASNT WRONG, AND THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS WRITE AND WRONG." If you said that there is no such thing as rite and wrong then i would be interested to know what your morals are what you live by. Also if there is no such thing as write and wrong why do you even support certain issuse on your public profile. You are the stupidist 19 year old i have ever talked to in my life and this is why. and i have to capitilize all of this because this is just to good. You say that it is ok that Hittler killed 6000000 inoccent jews not just killed them but tortured them and had most of them die creul and unusuall deaths that is what you are saying that when you say "Hitler was not wrong in doing what he did." But this is when you get even more of a moron. YOU ARE AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY. It says that on your public profile dont deny it. you have CONTRIDICTED yourself in so badly it actually is funny lolololol you are a moron. So this is what you are saying that its ok for Hitler to kill 6000000 innocent jews but its not ok for us to kill men that were mostly proven guilty in court. You no what price tag your not stupid, you not a moron, your crazy and you need held i recomend a sychologyst as soon as possible. lol
Moral relativism

Your debate on moral relativism is all very contradictory you say that "No, I did not contradict myself in any way. I may have not adequately stated earlier what I meant but I assure you my statements were not contradictions." Well actually Pricetag you did contradict yourself and your debates to prove that you did not were not very convincing to me. And I will explain again how you contradicted yourself to the audeance so that that they can judge fairly. You say that Hitler was "despicable" (hey what do you know I spelled it right) but how does the word despicable hold any weight in society if there is no right or wrong. As you all of you know, if you read my previous argument, despicable is a synonym for the word evil and if your evil you are doing something wrong. I hope we all agree on that. So since Hitler was despicable (evil) as you said. How could you say that in a world that you believe in where there is no right or wrong? Thats right you cant say that without it ultimently being a CONTRADICTION!! That is one of the many ways you have contradicted your self. When actually there are so many other ways you have contradicted yourself because your whole debate is a contradiction do to the fact that you use right and wrong all the time like when you agree or disagree with politics. For example on your profile you say you want Obama for president, why what is WRONG with the presidential candidates on the republican side if you were really true to your word and in what you believed in then you would atleast be independent and even they have politocal morals so actually according to you, you would not even vote for anyone. It was fun getting my point across to you and debating with you I enjoyed the conversation and your debates really opened me up to a better knowledge of what is going on in America so thank you Pricetag and God Bless
Moral relativism

In your last post you asked me the question: "Did you or did you not contridict yourself in the fallowing 2 statements. 1'As to 'morals' you asked and I will tell. As I have stated I do not believe in 'morals' because ethics and morality are subjective to the best interests of that particular person.' 2 'I never said it is 'ok' in fact I said it is 'despicable' what Hitler did, but that does not mean that it is wrong because there is no right or wrong.'" Your entire post centered around this and therefore I will answer your question and ignore the rest of it, because it all had to do with this question. No, I did not contradict myself in any way. I may have not adequately stated earlier what I meant but I assure you my statements were not contradictions. The point you seem to be missing is between objective and subjective. Right and wrong are in their nature objective terms. They aim at making everyone agree with some idea or cause. They can be used for good or for evil, but are very dangerous terms. For example: Jews and Muslims are wrong for denying the divinity of Jesus. That idea has lead to the deaths of millions of people. Another example: It is wrong to question the (insert authority here). That idea prevalent throughout society has led to oppression, slavery, genocide, et cetera. However I will say I believe that Hitler was despicable in what he did, that I believe that the death penalty is a poor system. I use these terms because I want to express my personal feelings and thus not seem so arrogant as to know what is truly right or wrong. Who knows, perhaps at some point in the future a genetic disease will surface amongst the jews and the only way to save humanity is to kill them. My point is this, we can't judge people as right or wrong because we do not have the knowledge or the agreement amongst our people to do so. Right and wrong are dangerous terms and have been used and continue to be used by many to move towards an armageddon (Ahdmanijad in Iran being amongst them). So, I urge caution in using those terms and emphasize use of terms that show you're personal feelings but do not force others to feel the need to conform around them.
Free will is an illusion.

I'm going to use this last round for brief rebuttals and a general closing statement. My opponents car example seems odd. Your car example is one of mathematics, which can be definitively proven. There is no "prediction" in determining the speed of a car and concluding its distance, it's an equation (distance = speed*time). However, in regards to the experiment, "element A" is free will. Remember, the researches were able to determine with 80% accuracy which button the subjects were going to press about a full second before they were consciously aware. So, if the researches were able to measure "element A" to this extent, there is simply no scientific explanation for free will. This study also contradicts the "ability to act at one's own discretion" definition my opponent offered. "All actions are not objectively necessary and thus, objectively, all actions affirm free will." I'm going to use this quote to fuel my final statement. Once again, I will admit that even without free will, we have to make choices. Objective necessity is not needed to argue free will nor should it ever. One could choose to just lay in bed all day and do nothing. If free will truly is an illusion, why don't I just sit back and see what happens? This in itself is a choice, a really hard one at that. Just try to sit, lay, or stand and do absolutely nothing. You will feel compelled to do something. My point of view is saying that thoughts and impulses simply arise in consciousness of which you are not consciously aware. You are no more in control of the next though that pops into your head than you are in the next thing I type. Also, I would like to personally thank you for making my first debate on here a pleasurable experience. Free will is a very touchy subject for most people so many will just assert that it's real without hearing argumentation. I probably should have extended this another round or 2, but this gave me a decent framework if I ever choose to debate this topic again.
Free will is an illusion.

I'm going to consolidate all of your 4 evidences into one basic phrase: We choose to perform our actions. Please feel free to correct me if you feel this is a Straw Man. All of your statements are true. Choices are real and they matter, I don't argue this. However, I argue that thoughts spontaneously arise in consciousness. Example: I chose to make an account on debate.org but I could (and probably should) have chosen to work on my college history paper. Why did I do this? In hindsight, I could say that it's because I read Sam Harris' book on Free Will and wanted a medium to have a friendly debate on this topic, but I truly wasn't aware at the time of making the account. Basically, every choice that you are consciously aware of is the result of background causes in which you are not aware. Also, if you wish, please go into more detail in your "there's no such thing as objective necessity" argument. That was my philosophical/metaphysical argument, now onto the scientific point of view. fMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) is a method of measuring brain activity in neuroscience. Basically, it's a more accurate measure of fluctuating neuron activity. It's needed because different neurons fire at different rates based on the activity being performed. This is an elementary explanation seeing as I'm obviously not a neuroscientist. A study done by John-Dylan Haynes in 2008 using fMRI asked participants to push a button with either their left or right index finger. Also, they had to remember a specific letter that was shown on a screen before consciously deciding to push their desired button. With this, they were able to determine the participants decision with 80% accuracy and within 700 milliseconds of them becoming consciously aware of it. BP (blood pressure) spikes were detectable up to 10 seconds before a decision was made. This is because the body was preparing for an upcoming conscious decision, that's what causes the BP spike. Sources: http://io9.com... http://fmri.ucsd.edu...
Free will is an illusion.

"the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion."Since fate is a vague concept I will ignore it for now and will wait to see how my opponent chooses to argue fate if he argues fate.Evidence of free will:Things we've chosen to do outside of necessity based on our own discretion:1)You and I both chose to make this debate topic.2)We both made an account on Debate.org3)We both (probably) play video games. 4)People do commit suicide - contradicts necessity[1]...n) Anything and everything we do....etc)There's no such thing as objective necessity: I assert that ultimately nothing is objectively necessary. Since nothing is necessary objectively, everything we do exists outside of constraints of objective necessity. Therefore the definition of free will is objectively satisfied and objectively unfalsifiable.I will provide refutations later. I turn the round over to my opponent for him to establish his case.[1] https://www.afsp.org...;
Free will is an illusion.

I'm going to use this initial opening to lay down the rudimentary forms of my argument. I'm "pro" which means: - I believe free will to be an illusion - This illusion is worth talking about as it affects everything about our everyday lives, including the justice system. - Free will, even in subjective terms, isn't compatible with reality - fMRI scans show that observers (mostly in neuroscience) can detect what the subject will choose to do, before the subject is consciously aware of it. I think this will give my opponent (if there even is one) a decent starting ground. Feel free to add any additional points for possible refutation. *It's worth mentioning that I'm arguing this in a scientific point of view rather than a philosophical point of view. I realize I put this in the "philosophy" category, that's because my understanding of the counterarguments to this position are mostly philosophical. Of course, this doesn't undermine their positions and I'm completely open to persuasion. *
Noah's Flood Is An Actual, Historic Event

I already defined Worldwide flood as:Simultaneous overflow of water due to global oceanic sealevel increases, submerging at least 1 area of land on the 6 habitable continents.You cannot introduce a new definition to a term that has already been defined and used based on that definition midway through the debate. Besides, on an honest note, I didn't expect you to mean that the whole world be submerged in water. Either way, your definition is moot at this point. I extend my arguments from round two. As this is our agreed upon last round. If voters see that I have no case, then they are free as always to vote accordingly.
Noah's Flood Is An Actual, Historic Event

Why this is not a Semantic Argument Semantics - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form. (1) Semantic arguments are avoided by providing definitions. However, once that definition is provided, that is what we refer to without question (hence avoiding any misconception) My opponent's definition was "An "event" in history that was a world wide flood". As semantics, or further intermretation of meaning, was not allowed, my opponent compelled me to take the meaning strictly and literally. Did I exploit a poorly worded definition? Yes. Did I interpret the meaning of the sentence deeper than what it said EXACTLY? No. 1. http://www.answers.com...
Noah's Flood Is An Actual, Historic Event

Contention 1: The Flood is Scientifically ImpossibleC1.1) Tree ring datingSince we are getting a literal reading of the texts, we know for a fact that the fllood would have occured 2500-2300 BCE [1]. However, this produces a major problem. It is a fact that there are tree ring datings that go well beyond 10,000 years and have produced 0 evidence of a catastrophie of that time [2]. C1.2) The flood did not leave traces on the sea floor. According to Genesis, the flood lasted for about 1 year. This should be reconizable in the sea floor due to the following: An uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detrius; Different grain size distribution in the sediment; Shif in oxygen isotope ratios; Massifve extinction; and Many other characteristics. The problem, of course, is that none of those things that are predicted in a global flood have shown up [2]. C1.3) The polar caps are impossible if a global flood really did occur. Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to fload the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, Greenland would not regrow under modern climatic conditions [2]. Contention 2: A World-wide food is historically impossible. Since we are taking a literal reading of Genesis, we are also taking a literal reading of the genealogies. Therefore, if we can prove that cultures existed before and after 2500-2300 BCE uninterrupted, we can prove that Noah's flood is a myth. The Egyptian Pyramids were built about 2560 BCE [6], apparently, the Egyptians were not affected by this "global" flood. Neither was Assyria [4], China [5], or Sumer. Just a sidebar note, here is an interesting quote from Answers In Genesis:"The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years. " [8]Obviously all civilizations do not fit into the last 4,285 years; nor do scientific evidence. | CONCLUSION |My opponent has agreed that we are taking a literal reading. Therefore, the historical and scientific evidence is sufficent to prove that a "world-wide" flood never occurd. I could go into math details, but honestly do not feel like it. I await my opponent's opening arguments as to why Noah's flood is a world-wide is a historical event. ___________Sources1. . http://www.creationtips.com...2. . http://www.talkorigins.org...3. . http://ga.water.usgs.gov...;4. . http://tinyurl.com...;5. . http://tinyurl.com...;6. . http://www.authenticwonders.com...;(Egyptian Pyramid Source)7. . http://ancienthistory.about.com...;8. . http://tinyurl.com...;
Noah's Flood Is An Actual, Historic Event

DEFINITION Noah's Flood: An "event" in history that was a world wide flood. Historical event: An event that actually happened. BURDEN OF PROOF It is my burden to show how a world wide flood like Noah would be impossible and historically unlikely. My opponent needs to prove it happened and it occurred. 8000 characters 1 month voting period 3 days to argue NO semantics. No video links.
Resolved: The Death Penalty be abolished

Our first debate (well our last one) had an FF. I want a debate where neither of us FF/concede rounds (like all of ours have :P). Rules: Pro can either accept only first round (argue 1-3) or argue his case this round with a short closing 4th round. No FF's No semantics with resolutions no trolling =Definitions= "Capital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is a legal process whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. [murder]" http://en.wikipedia.org...
The United States Should Adapt the Metric System as its Official System of Weights and Measures

Show me how to easily do fractions in metric And I will show you a happy carpenter. It is easier to do fractions with the Imperial/British/Standard system than it is with the Metric system. The Imperial Standard is usually done by binary, even the 12 inch ruler; every inch is broken down into 1, 2 (1/2), 4 (1/4), 8 (1/8), and 16 (1/16) - some might even go so far as 32 (1/32). These are indicated by tic marks on rulers and measuring tapes, thereby simplifying or nullifying any math work needed. Also this makes for easier repeated measurements. What is 1/2 of 12? 6. What is 1/4 of 12? 3. What is 1/3 of 12? 4. What is 1/6 of 12? 2. 8 ounces is 1 cup. 2 cups (or 16 ounces) equal a pint. 2 pints (32 ounces) equals a quart. 4 quarts (128 ounces - note 2 quarts is 64 ounces) equals a gallon. Very simple binary, and also very easy to break down the measurements. Now looking at Metric. Base 10. Yes it is easy to go from meter to kilometer, gram to kilogram, etc. But really, outside of math class not many people will be doing this. What is 1/2 of 10? 5. What is 1/4 of 10? 2.5. What is 1/3 of 10? 3.333333333333333... Find me 3.33333333333(never ending 3's here btw) on a ruler. Impossible! So you would then have to round down to just 3.3 and your measurement is already off. What is 1/6 of 10? 1.6666666666666 (again and impossible measurement on a ruler), rounding to 1.67 throws your measurement off. Yes, Metric in a base 10 makes for going from smaller units to larger units rather simple. But when you start trying to use Metric in everyday applications for measuring you are going to fall short every time. http://www.debate.org...
Gay Rights

If he is not claiming that civil unions have religious connotation then his main point is irrelevant and simply distracting. "Does it matter if a pope agrees with civil union or not." He is the high earthly authority in the Church so yes is opinion matter from the perspective of religious rights. "Can you state who thinks that, ""civil unions" are not considered a religious tradition" because saying that marriages are religious is a stereotype." -> I have given you the definition of marriage which confirm that it has religious connotation. I will now give you the definition of civil union: "a relationship between a couple that is legally recognized by a governmental authority and has many of the rights and responsibilities of marriage". This is it sole definition therefore it does not have religious implications. "If I was gay and, my loved one and I wanted to get married and live the rest of our lives together, and finally feel the same as a regular couple. I wouldn"t want to be denied my rights because of a belief that people choose to believe in. "Why should my civil rights be dictated by your interpretation of parts of the bible that you choose to believe in?" Atheist republic.com. I don"t care whether some religion thinks civil unions are religious or not!" -> Hypothetically, you would not want to be denied your legal right but would be fine with infringing the religious rights of others. As long as there is an alternative that satisfies the rights of both parties, which is civil union with equal rights, then the debate on marriage equality is moot. Unsupported claim: "You think that marriage should strictly be a religious ritual. And that in one of a religion"s bible it says that it can"t happen". -> I have admitted that marriage also carries legal connotation. My argument is that one should not have the right to infringe another rights in order to gain rights themselves. "I again, don"t care whether a religion denies people rights, I don"t care about the religion;" -> This is not an argument, it is merely a selfish opinion. Here, he is repeating an argument while ignoring the rebuttal: "Again, why have civil unions if it is the same as marriage?" -> Again, marriage carries religious connotation while civil unions do not therefore they are not the same.
Gay Rights

My arguments: I state that religious people deny gay people the right to marry because it carries religious connotation and that civil unions do not. And therefore granting gays the right to marry would infringe on the religious right of Christians as they do not support gay marriage. I make the claim that one should not infringe another persons rights in order to grant another rights. Gays should fight for the right to enter civil unions that offer the same legal rights since there is no specific reason to demand marriage rights instead. My opponent arguments: First my opponent contradict himself: His premise: "I will state again that marriage is not a religious ritual. " -> His counter-argument to his premise : "The celebration of the marriage, the marriage traditions, the pope saying the "you may kiss the bride" all can be religious". - He therefore admits that marriage is a ritual since it has traditions and it also shows that marriage carries religious connotations. Then he claims that civil unions also carries religious connotations and centers all his arguments on it. He starts by pointing out fallacy in my argument :"'Marriage is a religious ritual since civil unions exist.' Was untrue since any couple (that was not gay) could get legally married without religion." - I will retort with the definition of the word ritual which is a religious or solemn ceremony consisting of a series of actions performed according to a prescribed order. This shows that it is marriage is a religious ritual of it on accord supporting my claim that marriage is a ritual but also showing that it is not because civil unions exist. This inaccuracy, however, does not validate any of his argument since it was a retort to his inaccurate statement that "Marriage in not a religious ritual". Therefore his argument is a moot point. He then goes on to say : "This statement is also untrue since civil unions can be religious. They can have a celebration, in a church with the pope and everything, bonding them together with a civil union" Just because civil unions can be done religiously does not mean that they have religious connotations since "civil unions" are not considered a religious traditions. In addition, the church does not yet support civil unions, although they do debate about the issue. This mean that no pope has sanctioned civil union.