BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Small children should not compete in pageants

I agree that some parents push kids too hard, sometimes, and that leads impressionable children to the conclusion that that is the most important thing. That's true, though, with school work, sports, cheerleading, music, and many other aspects of life. A perfect example is the tiger mom (link #1). Many parents go too far, in our opinion. I would argue, though, that that speaks to the parents, themselves, not the pageants. It's hard to argue that it's not right to put kids in little league, or give them piano lessons, just because some parents will push their kids too hard, or be too competitive. All these activities, pageants included, have positive aspects, as well as negative, and can teach valuable skills. Whether it will be a positive, or negative experience, and what the child learns from it, depends on how the parents handle it. Another thing that's not considered, in your arguments, is the fact that many children actually enjoy participating, and many parents handle that participation in a much more reasonable fashion. If the child says they don't want to do it, the parents don't force them to do it. There are thousands of kids in pageants, but shows like, "Toddlers and Tiaras", only show a very small percentage, of those participants and their parents. Why?? Probably because, in the majority of cases, there is nothing sensational to show. If there is nothing sensational, about the situation or people, it's not going to make it to reality shows.The picture you posted is disturbing, but there are other pageants that don't allow that. They just focus on the child as they naturally are (link #2). I would also ask, even in the "glitz" pageants, do the rules require stripper outfits, caked on makeup, etc. If the rules don't require those things, then once again, the responsibility falls back on the parent, not the pageants.I look forward to pro's comments. http://www.time.com...http://wainternationalgirl.files.wordpress.com...
Small children should not compete in pageants

First, I'll sat that parents do indeed have right to make choices for small children, but they later convince their child that pageantry is the most important thing, and that looking pretty and showing off to people is all you have to do in life. Some of my evidence lies in the show, "Toddlers and Tiaras", which is supposed to show little girls doing their best onstage, but really shows how controlling and obsessed these moms are. They watch cluelessly as their own children turn to brats who only care about pageants and the money they win being used to buy dresses instead of college. One mother on the show says, "... And a lot of the money they win goes to (opens closet, full of a huge amount of tiny dresses) pageant clothes! We never wear the same ones twice for the judges, right girls?" (The girls, infant twins, do not reply) here you will see the anatomy of a pageant girl. Little kids shouldn't live with their only goal to get first prize! http://www.google.com...
New Member Tournament: Emotion is a form of Intelligence

I will be debating that emotion is a form of intelligence. Con will be debating that emotion is not a form of intelligence.Round 1: Acceptance, definitions, opening statement, clarificationsRound 2: Arguments, rebuttalsRound 3: Rebuttals, closing statementsEmotion: a conscious mental reaction (as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feeling usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body [1]Intelligence: the capacity for understanding; ability to perceive and comprehend meaning [2]So we see that emotion is a subjective understanding resulting in intentional behavior, which requires (and is the basis for) intelligence. I will expand on this in the next round, and I look forward to hearing my opponent's viewpoints on how this is not so.1. http://dictionary.reference.com......2. http://dictionary.reference.com......
New Member Tournament: Emotion is a form of Intelligence

Definitions. In addition to my opponents definitions I would like to tag these ones as well. Emotion - an affective state of consciousness in which joy, sorrow, fear, hate, or the like, is experienced, as distinguished from cognitive and volitional states of consciousness. Intelligence - capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. Opening Statement Emotion in it's own self is strongly subjective to moments in life which leads to a strong bias in the situation. This bias is what assists in it not being a form on intelligence. In addition to the aforementioned intelligence is gained throughout life, in other words learned, more so than emotion. Emotion is within the human psyche that grows, not learns, to life. I pass it on to my opponent to begin arguments.
My Opponent cannot prove there is a god.

First of all beemOr I'm not sure what you read in round two but the logic was completely absent from that argument. Either way, I appreciate you jumping to a conclusion before all the arguments are in, that was. .. special. Hoosier you said: "First, pantheism is not an organized religion. While it has many followers, there is no formal hierarchy of organization, no international interconnection, no widely acknowledged or formally recognized organizational following by other religions, by governments of the world, or by the general population. I would submit that a majority of people around the world, while they are familiar with buddhism, catholicism, Judaism, etc. have never even heard of pantheism. Considering this lack of official status or structure, the question necessarily arises whether this belief structure can be legitimately applied to this debate. A vast majority of religious believers would likely say no. " This argument has nothing to do with religion or the accuracy of it. You said that I cannot prove that there is a god, you never defined what that god is. You never specified and said it to be the Christian god or a specific god. You simply challenged me to prove that there is a noun named god. As a Pantheist I define the Universe as god. The Universe obviously exists by any empirical standard and since the Universe is god then logic would follow that God exists, as the Universe. Whether or not others are familiar with the idea of Pantheism or consider it an actual religion is not an issue. The only thing asked of me was to prove that there is a noun called god, I have clearly done that--the rest of your arguments don't matter. Finally you said: "Indeed, pantheists believe the Universe is god. However, this minority view is likewise not proveable. If you are indeed a pantheist (or even if you are not) it falls to you to prove that the Universe is indeed god. Can you do so? " The Universe is god in that it is a noun that is called god. You never asked me to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent being exists. You asked me to prove that god exists. I have proved that god exists as I have proved that there is a noun that is called god, that does exist. That was all that was required of me and that is what I did. Clearly I am the winner of this argument as I have proved this point.
My Opponent cannot prove there is a god.

Thank you for taking this debate. Alas, my opponent purports to cleverly argue the angle of pantheist. However, this position is flawed in two ways. First, pantheism is not an organized religion. While it has many followers, there is no formal hierarchy of organization, no international interconnection, no widely acknowledged or formally recognized organizational following by other religions, by governments of the world, or by the general population. I would submit that a majority of people around the world, while they are familiar with buddhism, catholicism, Judaism, etc. have never even heard of pantheism. Considering this lack of official status or structure, the question necessarily arises whether this belief structure can be legitimately applied to this debate. A vast majority of religious believers would likely say no. Indeed, pantheists believe the Universe is God. However, this minority view is likewise not proveable. If you are indeed a pantheist (or even if you are not) it falls to you to prove that the Universe is indeed God. Can you do so? I eagerly await my opponent's proof!
My Opponent cannot prove there is a god.

My opponent will not be able to prove the existence of God. Proof, I might ad, is the absence of question. My opponent cannot prove there is a god by saying "faith is enough." Or "Mary Magdalene appeared on that piece of French Toast, therefore the is a god." Proof is not theory, proof is not innuendo or supposition, and proof is not opinion. I eagerly await an opponent with incontrovertible proof that a god exists.
Murder is evil.

Rebuttals: "Example A : Self defense. If someone were to try and rob your house, and you had no choice but to kill them or die, the only option you have is to kill them. In this circumstance it is forcing you to commit murder. While the person robbing you is intending to murder you and this can be considered evil, since he has forced you to commit an act of self defense and murder him, this can be justified. " I stated in the opening what the definition of murder is (for the purposes of this debate). It was "the UNNECESSARY taking of an INNOCENT human life". My opponent is talking about the NECESSARY taking of a CRIMINAL human life-almost the direct opposite. "Example B : Societies. Take a society in Africa that has not been effected by western culture. They still are a tribal community and have never been exposed to the modern era that we know. They can still commit murder in rituals or even in contests of strength. This type of murder is acceptable. My adversary would say it is not, but that is because he is judging them based off his perception of what is good and evil, not what their standard of good and evil is. According to their culture this is an acceptable act and without a way to gauge what is right or wrong, murder would not be evil. " I had expected something like that to come up. But as you said, I stated the definition of evil that will be used for the purposes of this debate in my opening, which was anything with more severe harmful consequences than positive consequences. My opponent has not explained the positive consequences of this action, instead relying on the old "different things are evil for different people", even though the definition I stated can be quantified, while the negative consequences are obvious (loss of a life). "In both of these situations considering the situation and location of where the murder occurred, there is a positive impact that overwhelms the negative impact. Thus qualifying and meeting my adversaries definition of what is not evil. " The first scenario is not murder. The second scenario does not have positive consequences. Arguments: Extend previous argument as it was not contested.
Murder is evil.

My adversary is claiming murder is objectivly evil. This is almost an impossible stance to support. We are not debating "Can murder be evil", or "Murder can be evil" , but "Murder is evil". This is an objective stance that murder is always evil. I will go more in depth if I need to in later rounds, but I think all I need is one contention Contention 1Subjectivity with morality and ethical principles. Murder can be evil depending on the circumstance. The question is can murder be justified. He defines evil as something offering more bad consequences than good. So let us look at some circumstances where murder can be morally acceptable and not evil. Example A : Self defense. If someone were to try and rob your house, and you had no choice but to kill them or die, the only option you have is to kill them. In this circumstance it is forcing you to commit murder. While the person robbing you is intending to murder you and this can be considered evil, since he has forced you to commit an act of self defense and murder him, this can be justified. Example B : Societies. Take a society in Africa that has not been effected by western culture. They still are a tribal community and have never been exposed to the modern era that we know. They can still commit murder in rituals or even in contests of strength. This type of murder is acceptable. My adversary would say it is not, but that is because he is judging them based off his perception of what is good and evil, not what their standard of good and evil is. According to their culture this is an acceptable act and without a way to gauge what is right or wrong, murder would not be evil. In both of these situations considering the situation and location of where the murder occurred, there is a positive impact that overwhelms the negative impact. Thus qualifying and meeting my adversaries definition of what is not evil. It is an error and just flat wrong to judge someone elses choices based off of what you think it wrong, because it does not take into consideration all the variables at play. Given the right circumstance and time frame almost everything and anything can be justified.
Murder is evil.

Well, since my last opponent conceded I was wondering if anyone else would like to debate me on this subject. The topic is whether or not murder is evil. First round is acceptance only. Rules: 1. No insults or personal attacks 2. No forfeits. Definitions: Murder-the unnecessary taking of an innocent human life Evil-Any action that has more harmful consequences towards a person or group of people than helpful consequences towards that or any other person or group of people.
Murder is evil.

"Whether or not he is innocent is irrelevant. You claim that murder must be necessary. I have shown how someone can take his life without needing to, and it still be considered fair. " Assuming you mean I claimed that murder must be unnecessary, I also said that the person had to be innocent. This is not the case in your example, and therefore is wrong. "In this situation the man is innocent , this is because you claim that is has to be a necessity to kill him for him not be innocent." I claimed no such thing. This is a flat-out lie. I claimed murder must be unnecessary, and that the person must be innocent, but I never connected the two. "It can be your definition, but your hurting yourself. It is actually helping me because it is so limited. " Then why are you complaining about it? "You completely either do not understand, or just chose not to answer the point I made. Murder can be committed and be acceptable without saving another life. I have explained how and why. Your definition of evil is harmful vs non harmful. This is directly stated in your R1 stance. I have shown abundantly how someone can commit murder, and it have a positive impact based on culture and location" I have also explained how and why these positive consequences objectively do not outweigh the loss of the life. Not that this matters, because neither of your examples is murder, and you have had to ignore arguments and flat-out lie to make them fit the definition laid out. "You completely either do not understand, or just chose not to answer the point I made. Murder can be committed and be acceptable without saving another life." Neither of your examples is murder, because neither is the UNNECESSARY taking of an INNOCENT human life. "This is reference to my society question that I brought up. Again he is failing to realize or just not accepting the point I am making. He is judging harmful by his definition of harmful, not what is in fact harmful to the society in question" Why judge by the society? Why not judge by the individual? Certainly the individual would say his death harmed him, and besides as I already said if they are in fact "fighting to the death", then one must die for the other to live, and therefore it is necessary and not murder. I already said this, but my opponent completely ignored it. Since my opponent has not shown an example of murder, neither of his scenarios can be considered justified murders.
Compromise is the first step to a solution.

The government is compromised of elected officials who are elected to support the opinions of those electing them. They were not elected to stand down at every chance of a fight. Its often not an acceptable choice. However, to counteract that, it is also the responsibility of citizens to elect intelligent officials who will also know when compromise must be accepted. fanatic and extremists will certainly harm our government, but policy needs to be made decisively and in accordance with the majority of the citizen's views. On the outside it may be fine to talk about compromise, but often voters are stuck with two choice options, unless they just refuse to vote. By the way, that is definitely not the right choice. We've seen what kind of things result from not enough people caring about the issue.
Compromise is the first step to a solution.

I concede to you only this point: the government needs work. A system has been developed that focuses on keeping our politicians there rather than to do anything useful in a timely manner. However, compromise is by itself not a sound solution in a significant amount of cases. People are guided by principle, and often compromise still leaves a party marginalized. And when two completely opposite views collide, compromise is impossible. Such as abortion. Its either allowed or it isn't. Even a "compromise" in this case would not achieve either parties goals, to either completely outlaw abortion or let everyone who wants to get an abortion. This applies in other circumstances, such as the war in Iraq, legalizing narcotics, etc. Often there is no middle ground, and eve when you can see it that doesn't mean that compromise is acceptable or even worthwhile. As for your purple and yellow case... the fact is that sometimes people will vote purple, and yellow will get nothing. But sometimes people vote yellow, and purple gets nothing. That is the basis of our system. Keep in mind that there will be pros and cons for both sides, and that common sense should keep a majority from voting on something overtly destructive. Even if yellow is put down, it still can come back and win the next one if people start to dislike purple. That is the essence of our capitalist society. Let the best man win. Only the best will survive, and if they aren't the best, then oh well. Better luck next time.
Compromise is the first step to a solution.

Debating and the battle of wills is also the american way, as it were. You reject the idea of a majority getting decisions made too much on one side of the political spectrum, and how this disagrees with the american population as a whole. "That spirit has been perverted into a system where whichever party has the majority in Congress this year gets their way, and everyone else gets shafted. " The house of representatives, and to a certain extent the Senate, were built so that as the times changed and people moods changed certain groups would get their views passed into law. The Congress IS a reflection of the majority and the fact remains that any agreement made whatsoever would leave one party getting shafted. "George Washington wanted nothing to do with a partisan system, and in all likelihood, it's because he knew what would happen. Indeed, the moment he was out of the picture, two parties sprang up, leading to a series of some of the ugliest elections this nation has ever seen." George Washington willingly rose to the responsibility of command with a sincere devotion to seeing a true american government begun. He knew what he was taking a part of, and he had his chance to turn away. Do not say that he wanted no part in a partisan system. Two parties had already sprung up, ever since the constitution fought to get past the state governments. Even during Washington's reign Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson raged against each other to fill their leader with their own opinions. As times change new opinions and problems will form and each and every citizen has the free will and right to empathize with whoever the want. They can also defend their opinions with their right to elect representatives. Your opinion has merit only when national crisis looms, and then the presidents executive orders are what count most, and we still have the ability to guide his opinions. The government serves the people, it is a reflection of the public consensus and attitude. That is the beauty of a democratic system.
Compromise is the first step to a solution.

Stubbornness is all well and good, and it has helped me out of a jam more than once. However, I believe that it has no place in Congress. To completely shut out an opposing idea without appreciating its merits is nothing short of foolish. The USA is fairly evenly divided, with no clear majority being either Liberal or Conservative. Thus, passing legislation that is clearly far-left or far-right is utterly irresponsible. The spirit of America is that everyone's voice is heard, and everyone is considered when a law is made. That spirit has been perverted into a system where whichever party has the majority in Congress this year gets their way, and everyone else gets shafted. George Washington wanted nothing to do with a partisan system, and in all likelihood, it's because he knew what would happen. Indeed, the moment he was out of the picture, two parties sprang up, leading to a series of some of the ugliest elections this nation has ever seen. America is a country which encourages disagreement. In fact, I think nothing is more American than a good battle of the wits. However, if two people disagree on how to solve a problem, nothing will proceed until one of them gives up at least some ground. Some call it spinelessness. I call it responsibility.
When it comes to truth, Christianity is no different from any other belief system.

Responses to Your Points: I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for this debate challenge. "1) That Christianity is a subjective interpretation of the bible that differs from person to person and denomination to denomination." I agree with assertion 1. "2) That all beliefs in Christianity are a matter of faith, just as other beliefs are matters of faith. That is to say that they are only subjective beliefs and they can not be known to be objectively true, only believed to be." No, I don't think every beliefs are matters of faith. My Points: Yes, truth. We are never certain. But sometimes we know. I would like to argue that there are two types of belief systems - open ended system and a closed system. An open ended system are systems of truth based on faith. A closed system are systems of truth based on knowledge. Closed systems are systems where you make basis of truth to create a system. Truth is fact. Its not denied. Example: Oompas exist. Loompas exist. Existence exists. => Oompas and Loompas both exists. As you mentioned, Christianity is matter of faith, one chooses to accept truth by faith. That is why there are subjective interpretations. Since Christianity is not a close ended system, it is different from other belief systems. Christianity's faith based truth is certainly different from the Oompa Loompa system.