BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Violence does not equal evil

REBUTTALSMy opponent actually pretty much only makes three arguments in his long round. I will break them down for the viewers.1. Overthrowing a tyrant is not evilAh, but from the perspective of the tyrant it is immoral! You never stated in the first round that I had to fulfill the BoP that violence had to be equal under every single circumstance possible. Furthermore, I never stated violence equals evil in every single circumstance. The topic is very vague, and you did not clarify it, so therefore I can manipulate it to mean "Violence equals evil....under most circumstances".2. Competitive Play There is a reason why the referee has yellow and red cards, as well as foul rules. These show that particular violence is looked down upon, is thus immoral, evil, and fulfilling my BoP. 3. The HammerOf course the hammer itself isn't evil!!! Killing someone is evil. An inanimate object cannot be evil, by any standards. However, an action that is looked down upon can be concluded immoral.I have thus proved violence equals evil in most types of situations.Back to you, pro.
Violence does not equal evil

Thank you very much con for answering my argument and taking the challenge. Now let us begin the debate. Well then, you have stated that every use of violence against anything is truly evil. But maybe you have not truly understood what I meant by that sentence. But first we must understand what "violence" even means. The definition of "violence" is basically... use of force against anything in particular. I'm going to use the same source of definition that you use, so here: http://dictionary.reference.com... Point two. So when we get this out of the way, we can find violence in almost anything we do. Hell, we can even calm down by being violent to inanimate objects. That means, that also sport, killing animals for food, and even sometimes the ways that we have fun are in some way violent. So this mean that violence can be used for developing yourself in competitive play, which is not a bad, and I would even go as far as to say a good thing. Have fun, again not too evil. But there is also the fact of killing animals, though it might be an evil fact considered by many, I would rather put it in neutral territory, as it serves to feed families and is very important to our society. Not to mention that using violence to let's say overthrow a tyrant can be considered a good act. So in short, violence isn't always as drastic as "Slaying poor kittens". And even if it is, it can be still used for good, as I mentioned before, overthrowing an oppressive government. Not to mention that violence is also often used in art, as a form of expression, and it allowed us to create some true masterpieces. Again, I would go as far as to say, a good act. Although violence in certain situations can be concluded immoral, it can be concluded neutral, or even moral in other situations. And a tool having evil uses isn't evil. A hammer can be used to build a house, or it could be used to kill someone. But is hammer evil because of that? No, of course not. It's just a tool.
Free Will Does Not Exist

Well, since it seems Con had dropped out of the running, this will be less of a debate than a rant, and if this site was made for rants it would be "Rant.org". That being said, I'll let this debate taper out for the final rounds, and let my voters only vote based on the first two arguments (Con for round one, and Pro for round two). Anyone who wishes a PROPER debate, please comment your interest and I'll begin a new debate (I will use a different argument as well, if you wish). Also, anyone interested in any related debates, such as, "Can a society function if there is no free will?," or "Does the Bible/Torah actually allude to free will?" or whatever, comment and I'd enjoy to argue with you!
Free Will Does Not Exist

Free will, as it has been defined as one's conscious ability to choose with no outside influence, cannot exist because all "choices" are tainted by outside influence. Every "decision" is made with motivation, and all motivation is influence. To better explain, here is a scenario I will use to demonstrate: A Mary Sue decided to eat waffles as opposed to pancakes one morning. Any possible "because" added at the end, would negate her autonomy as mere reaction. For example: A) Mary Sue chose to eat the waffles because she wanted to. ---- One does not choose one's wants, therefore something outside of her control influenced her decision, meaning she had no will in the matter. B) Mary Sue chose to eat the waffles because she did not want to. ---- The fact that she chose to eat them despite her dislike proves that she had some other motivation, some "even though I don't like them, I still did it because...", thus causing this rationale to be fallacious. C) Mary Sue chose to eat the waffles because she "felt like it". ---- We cannot control our feelings, therefore it was out of her control. D) Mary Sue doesn't know why she chose the waffles. ---- This is almost self-evident, as if one is not sure why they did something, then that means the "choice" was rooted in subconscious desires and influences and therefore not conscious, a main part of our definition for free will. Etcetera. This can go on. Think of any decision, no matter how complicated, counter-intuitive, muggy, or convoluted, there is always a motivation. To show the process of a more complicated decision, I will explain how I was coerced into starting this argument: A teacher assigned an essay explaining free will and how it pertains to our society. My nature (personality, instinct, reflex, etc.) caused me to think of all the reasons the essay was inane. One reason was that free will cannot exist. My subconscious memory clung to this concept, forcing an obsession on me so I continually dwelled on the topic. My obsession also wrought an incessant need to share it, something characteristic of obsessions. Thus plagued by a need to discuss, debate, free will, I Googled "debate website", and debate.org was produced. I clicked it because in my experience, concise websites ending in ".org" are generally superior to shady ".com"s. I saw a button that said, "begin debate", and I was motivated to begin this on my own. Did I choose to do this? No. I was motivated. We cannot control how or when we are motivated, and therefore we cannot control our choices.
Free Will Does Not Exist

First, a definition: Free will (for the purpose of this discussion) shall be considered as "The ability to choose of one's own mechanism, or to choose without coercion from an internal or external environment". A little more simply, free will means someone chose something not through instinct. My stance: Free will does not exist in humanity*. Your stance: Free will does exist, and humanity has it*. *i.e., no arguments such as: "Even if we don't have free will, that doesn't mean it can't exist." You may begin.
Contender chooses topic (Video Games)

3. I do know what innovation means, and the topic took a turn from the main point, which was that CS took more time to improve their games, while COD just rushed theirs, creating new game, after new game, after new game. Sure they had different campaign modes, but they didn't have to come out in such a hurry. Con states that with 4-5 years wait between an old game and a new game, you lose interest? Would this not make you look forward to the new game even more? Just like the Hobbit movies, where everyone was pumped, even though the first hobbit movie came out 11 years after the last Lord of the Rings movie came out. They were bored of the old movies, and ready for some new ones, right? Distance brings people together, as Time also brings people together. After 11 years of no new movies, one would yearn for a new one more than that of a person waiting 2 years. This is just like the CS/COD situation with release dates. Cod comes out year after year, but CS makes the players yearn for the new games, almost as if they are special treats every couple of years. Each new CS game also came out with better graphics, faster frame rate, etc. 1. Multiplayer I acknowledge this fact, but really, comparing different game platforms and consoles is difficult, as they were both built for different purposes. With a computer, you have better access to the internet, and instant internet connections, while with an Xbox for example, you have to go through the process of hooking it up to your wifi and all of the above to be able to play with other people. This does not include just playing a private game with friends, which is possible in the same room on both consoles. 1. Marketing and Business Yes, we are debating which game is better, and what I mean when I say that you can make money, is that it allows the player to modify his/her game substantially with different weapon camos, similar to that of COD, only the ones on CS are actually worth money. There is a reason that this is not like McDonalds Monopoly campaign, and let me tell you why. While you may be spending money on these crates, you will always get something in return, you see, with McDonalds' campaign, the chances are close to none for you to come even close to getting something in return. Although you may not make your money back, you still get a sweet camo to show off in-game in all of its glory.
Contender chooses topic (Video Games)

Well, here we go. Rebuttals =============== 3. Innovation Um... I hope you know what innovation means . Innovation: something new or different introduced Nothing to do with with prices or timeliness. As for the other argument, here is my rebuttal: It seems cheaper and better to buy games from a franchise that only comes out every so often, but here are some downsides. First, losing appeal. With 4-5 years between each installment, what happens when you get bored of the new installment? There isn't a lot of other games to choose from, and a new installment won't come out for a while. With a series with a lot of installments you can go to the store and get another game, or, you could wait for the next installment, which will come out in a little bit. Second, up to date software. If you play a game from a franchise that doesn't release games too often, you are stuck with an outdated game for a while. Think about it, they can't improve the graphics or the gameplay with a patch or update, they need a new game to keep the games up to date. While a series that releases games every year can stay up to date, let's be honest, who doesn't want to play an awesome game with the newest graphics, gameplay mechanics, and the fastest frame rate? 1. Multiplayer You can also play with your friends around the world on console in a private room. You can play with your buddies around the world, you don't all have to be in the same room. There are also small maps for newbies to play in. 1. Marketing and Business We are debating about which game is better. Being able to make easy money on CS is cool, but it doesn't enhance the gameplay. May I remind you of my analogy with the McDonald's monopoly campaign. It makes it more worthwhile to go there, but it doesn't make the food or the establishment better.
Contender chooses topic (Video Games)

I'm pretty sure this is my 5th attempt at this, not once did I get a valid topic... 10,000 character limit BoP is ALWAYS shared 72 hours to argue 10 days voting period Open to anyone You must follow the rules, failure to do so will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit. RULES: 1. The topic must be about video games 2. The topic must be debatable 3. The debate must be a normal debate (no rap battles, tic tac toes, wars, etc.) 4. You must argue in round 1, after explaining the topic 5. Due to rule 4, you cannot argue in round 5 (don't care what you do, just don't argue or forfeit) 6. No trolling or spamming 7. You must take the pro side of the topic 8. No forfeit Good luck to my opponent!
when in conflict idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism

Edmund Spenser once said "He that strives to touch the starts, oft stumbles at a straw. "[1] It shall be my job to prove the truth of this statement as we look at idealism, pragmatism and the conflict that they present. Before beginning, it is imperative to understand the resolution. Idealism and pragmatism don't always conflict, it is my job therefore not to prove that idealism is bad; but rather that when the two conflict, that pragmatism is the better option. Sorry I don't have much time today. C1 Idealism- ex. Communism communism is and example of when idealism and pragmatism are in conflict and idealism is the wrong choice. C2 Pragmatism- In law enforcement it is imperative to look at people the way they are not the way they should be. Overestimating the morals and beliefs of people has caused too many problems in law enforcement. Once again sorry about my lack of time.
when in conflict idealism ought to be valued above pragmatism

Alright I accept and now for definitions. Conflict: fight, battle, war (1) Idealism: "it generally suggests the priority of ideals, principles, values, and goals over concrete realities. Idealists are understood to represent the world as it might or should be, unlike pragmatists, who focus on the world as it presently is." (2) Pragmatism: in other words "realism: the attribute of accepting the facts of life and favoring practicality and literal truth" (3) Valued: Consider (someone or something) to be important or beneficial 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Climate Change is driven by human CO2 emissions

My opponent as PRO has the BOP, this shall not be negotiated. Definitions: CO2 emissions: "emissions of CO2 from burning oil, coal and gas for energy use. Carbon dioxide also enters the Atmosphere from burning wood and waste materials and from some industrial processes such as cement production. Emissions of CO2 from these sources are a relatively small part of global emissions and are not included in these statistics."[1] In other words, it is a naturally occurring gas that supposedly causes the majority of global warming. ==> What we argue <== PRO (my opponent) argues these CO2 emissions cause global warming (which we assume exists). CON argues that global warming is primarily controlled by human emissions. In this debate I must provide a time frame. The little ice age - present. 1st round acceptance by PRO. No abusive arguments please. [1] http://www.wikiprogress.org...
You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

Thank you my dear, my very dear opponent. I'm not going to give any more analysis on my own points. That would be redundant, I am not going to argue in circles, and I have seen no evidence that Pro has disproved that most confronations are a result of aggressivness and racial profiling. Of course Pro summarized my points to make them look extremely hyperbolic and silly, but hey, debates aren't won on analysis and critical thinking anyways, it's all about summarizing your opponents points to make him look like a lunatic right? Let's look at some assertions Pro has made. "Suspicion is something you feel, not rationalized. When someone notices something or someone wrong, they should be admired for acting against their own fears" So appearently Pro supports following irrational feelings. It is irational to get nervous when we see 4 African-American youths loitering on the street outside your house in the middle of the night, but we see how this suspicion is based on Racial Profiling. Plus, if those youths are up to no good, walking out and confronting them will probably get you mugged or attacked.... "Confrontation leads to safer neighborhoods as criminals will not have the opportunity to commit crimes." Confronting a criminal doesn't stop the crime, it gets you punched in the face by someone who obviously doesn't follow the law and has no desire to be caught or hindered in his illegal actions....confrontation is just an unnecessary action that follows calling the police. Here's what my entire case comes down to to all who bother to listen. We see someone who we think looks suspicious. We verbally confront him or her. Three options come out of this. A) The person is doing nothing wrong, we were wrong about our suspicions. They walk away feeling slightly harrassed. B) The person is doing nothing wrong, but becomes agitated at being confronted. Conflict arises (See Pros sources for an example) C) The person is planning on doing something wrong, but when he is "confronted" he plays innocent. Since he hasn't done anything wrong yet, no action can be taken against him, so he merely waits for the confronter to leave until comencing his criminal activity. D) The person is planning on doing something wrong, and when confronted he gets angry, panicks and shoots his confronter in the face. (See Pros sources for an example). Maybe we should have left this one for the police? So Basically I've shown why confrontation either leads to someone being harrassed and offended if they were doing no harm, and the confronter putting himself in a dangerous situation if the person they are confronting is up to no good.
You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Con, thank you for typing in words in under 3 days. Let me provide a point by point that I think will help illustrate some of my points and yours: Recap: My Points: 1. Freedom of speech means you can talk to anyone you want to 2. It is healthy and moral to want to protect your neighbors 3. Suspicion is something you feel, not rationalized. When someone notices something or someone wrong, they should be admired for acting against their own fears 4. The world is better where neighbors confront criminals instead of another passive course of action 5. Jason Rosenbloom was killed confronting his neighbor, this was wrong, as Jason should have had the right of confrontation. The law should protect the non-violent confronter, and punish the violent confrontee. Cons Points: 1. Anyone that confronts someone is violent, prejudicial, and terroritial 2. All confrontation leads to violent conflict 3. If you feel suspicious of someone you are a racicst 4. Let the police (Government) handle anything of importance Confrontation leads to safer neighborhoods as criminals will not have the opportunity to commit crimes. It is a right for people with a vested interest, the people that live in a neighborhood, to have the burden of making their neighborhood safe. This gives them the right to confront people they believe are suspicious. There is nothing dangerous or crazy about talking to your neighbors. Who is in the best position to prevent crimes of opportunity? The citizens that live there. Empower them with the law and legislate the right of verbal confrontation. Take away the legal protections of violent response to non-violent confrontation.
You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

I extend my arguments that didn't meet any rebuttal I could see. I think a direct quote from my opponents speech will show why I have won this debate. " Rosenbloom goes to Allen’s house to confront him about his complaint, Allen shoots him twice on the porch" I have shown how most of the time confrontation is harrassment and racial profiling, but as Pro shows here, confrontation does not solve the problem, ever. It leads to more conflict. If there is a robber walking around your neighbourhood, you don't walk up to him and say "HEY GET OFF MA LAWN".......................He'll probably shoot you or something. " Do we want our neighbors to confront suspicious people or hide from them?" I want my neighbour to decide whether the person is suspicious (and doesn't just happen to belong to a group the neighbour doesn't like), see if there is any actual evidence to show that the "suspicious" person is commiting a crime, and then call the police. If he confronts him a fight is likely to break out-whether the person is innocent or not. When confrontation isn't the result of prejudice and racial profiling it leads to uneeded conflict. Don't confront, call the police.
You have an inherent right to confront people in your neighborhood

1. Freedom of Speech 2. Christian obligation - You are your brother’s keeper, if you see someone suspicious lurking around, sure you could call the police, but just because they look suspicious doesn’t mean they deserve to have the police called on them. Why not ask them how they are doing? If your not a Christian replace it with the golden rule or some other altruistic model of behavior. 3. Neighborhood watch - Our nation is built on the strength of our citizens. Every day, we encounter situations calling upon us to be the eyes and ears of law enforcement. Not only does neighborhood watch allow citizens to help in the fight against crime, it is also an opportunity for communities to bond through service. The Neighborhood Watch Program draws upon the compassion of average citizens, asking them to lend their neighbors a hand. USAonWatch is the portal for training to assist law enforcement agencies and their communities, technical assistance, resource documents, watch stories, networking, and assistance to the field. http://www.usaonwatch.org... Why not be the eyes, ears, and mouth of law enforcement? Sure, some might consider it harassment, but a random “Hey, how are you? Do you live around here?” kind of greeting makes everyone safer as would-be criminals know that this is not the neighborhood to rob. Why let your neighborhood go the way of the bad guys while the police do nothing, a little extra neighborly vigilance goes a long way.
Abortion

I accept this challenge. Good luck. Some notes: -Con may not use Bible: Life begins at birth. This conclusion is the one that excludes religion, as inclusion of religious beliefs will contest with other interpretations of religion. One should not argue that life begins in conception by spitting Bible verses at a Muslim, and then warranting their source by saying their God is the true one. This is unfair and uneducational. -Con descriptions of life must be sourced and warranted: Contending definitions of life MUST have some root of evidence, as well as reasons as to why such a point of view is to be endorsed. (If this is difficult to comprehend, take this approach: Who is saying life begins at conception? What benefits does this have in realms other than abortion?) ARGUMENTS: AGAINST "life begins at conception" 1) Most evidence in scientific fields that support this claim are ridiculously outdated and outdated sources do not apply to this realm of debate, because Life is a subjective point of view that is influenced very easily by science and logic. As it advances, revisions must be made. Arguments arrive anywhere from 1891 to 1996 at most. Because of this, any evidence read likely has a timestamp that invalidates it. 2) Other evidence is likely from very recent HHS definitions that have passed. However, the HHS is incredibly right-wing controlled, and because of this peer-review or these articles is unachievable and very implemented with bias in order to push an agenda. This evidence is illegitimate as well. 3) What philosophical grounds can the Pro use without being riddled with religion? Likely very few. General theoretical questions/comments: -How does one evaluate life? Is life experiencing the world, seeing and hearing more than darkness? Is life a heartbeat, or is this merely conciousness? The comatose have a heartbeat, yet it is very arguable that they are living, because living must not just be defined biologically, but philosophically. In order for true clash to occur, the Contender must describe their interpretations of each of these, otherwise there is no clash between points of view, merely vague and abstract political agendas.