BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Human suffering is bad

I'm going to argue that if "human suffering" and "badness" are coherent concepts, then human suffering is bad. It is clear that these concepts are real, as we all know what is meant by human suffering, and we all know what is meant by bad, especially in this context. "Good" and "bad" are value judgements that we make as human beings. Let's suppose that we find life on another planet. These life forms are kind of like jellyfish: they eat, produce waste, reproduce, and so on (fulfilling the requirements for life), but they cannot feel pain and have no interest in living. Let's call them species X. It would not make sense to say "Species X suffering is bad" because the concept of suffering would not be meaningful in the context of this species. It wouldn't be false, it would just be incoherent. But we can suffer, and insofar as we do suffer, we make judgements about it: there are better and worse ways to suffer (e.g. suffering a paper cut is not as bad as suffering prolonged torture); there is physical suffering and emotional suffering; and so on. And insofar as we are humans who have a capacity to suffer, we attribute a negative value judgement to suffering. You might say: okay, insofar as we are humans suffering is bad, but why should human interests matter? Well, what else COULD matter to human beings? To say that human interests don't really matter is not a practical position to take. Of course human interests matter. If they didn't, you wouldn't eat or sleep or avoid pain or death. But you do these things, and so you cannot reasonably say that human interests don't matter. To that response you might elaborate: "Human interests matter to us, but they don't matter objectively, or independent of us." No, but two things to say here: 1. It's incoherent to talk about things 'independent of us' that apply to us. We might be able to abstract things like numbers from us as human beings, but human suffering only applies to, well, humans - to talk about human suffering independent of humans is like talking about the subjective experiences of a bat independent of a bat - you're left with nothing. To summarize: human suffering is obviously bad to human beings - this really doesn't need any further clarifications, and denying this would be intellectually dishonest. Human suffering is not 'bad' independent of human beings, but since it is not a coherent concept outside of the context of human existence, we cannot make judgements about it at all, which means con is not entitled to deny it, either. I think at best, all con can do is play some sort of semantic game, but I usually don't find those very convincing. Of course I've anticipated some objections he or she may well not have raised, so all I can do is wait for the response and address it accordingly.
Human suffering is bad

Resolution: The resolution is as stated in the title. Pro and Con will be debating over the immorality or negative value that human suffering has. BOP: Pro must prove that human suffering is bad. Con must only prove that pro's BOP has not been filled. Definitions: Suffering- The state or instance of feeling pain Bad- Of low or poor quality Rules: Debaters must accept the definitions stated above. Pro must write "No round as agreed" in the final round. Pro must start his argument in the first round. To break these rules is a forfeiture of all seven points.
Africa Will Never Catch Up with the rest of the world

Eventually, though, in theory I already win because Africa will catch up when the planet is destroyed, putting everyone to death. Still, Africa could be made great, people just don't look at it the right way. It may never be industrialized or a number one place to manufacture goods, but that doesn't mean it isn't caught up. For example, Africa could become the number one continent for nomadic herding and make huge profits with good connections. All it takes is for our bigger countries to expand/conquer. In a way, they already have it as good as us. This video is a good song, so you should listen to the entire thing. The important parts are the parts with the two guys sitting and talking at the beginning. Rise Against is also my favorite band. http://www.youtube.com... He is talking about Italy, but you get the idea.
Africa Will Never Catch Up with the rest of the world

"workers on minimum wage is probably common" African labour has always been exploited.Why?Most of the labour is uneducated & not skilled enough to build future infrastructure for Africa. In quality, school material might be cheap,but since there's a high shortage of schools and school material,the quantity of those material required will probably surpass the American costs. Yes we do have great leaders but they are unable to easily make way into well manipulated political systems and there's little change of another leader coming from somewhere given Africa's history of colonisation.
Africa Will Never Catch Up with the rest of the world

It is easy though for a great leader to move from somewhere else or even come up from South Africa. The funding you would need to fix all these things would individually be less than they would be in the United States. For example, to build a school here costs x amount of dollars, including salaries, equipment, materials, and more. All of that could be bought so much cheaper in Africa. Workers on minimum wage is probably common, and lumber yards would love to see half the amount ones in America see. If the right entrepreneur moves there he will find it an easy market.
Africa Will Never Catch Up with the rest of the world

I agree.Lets go all out. Africa will not have competent leaders,who will carry it forward,into a technology-directed route,as according to AIA research on African Education,33 million Sub-Saharan children do not go to primary school,and out of those who actually do,only 2/3 finish the final grade. If education is indeed a key requirement for a continent's success,then Africa will not catch up,because Africa's youth is heading in the same direction as their adults.1 to 3 adults in Sub-Saharan Africa cannot read whilst this situation does not seem to be attended to because according to UNESCO's findings,47 million youths(aged 15-24) are illiterate plus 21 million adolescents are not in school. Africa is facing a lot of problems,and this problems are standing in the way of its children's education.It has to focus more on health and other basic services,but it is not doing so,hence why many African companies are closing down,due to a decrease in productivity(from high death rates) and it will hurt Africa's economy in the future. I feel compelled to compare one of Africa's most "advanced" country,South Africa, in terms of educational structure,with that of the United States: In the United States,16,611,711 students enrol for tertiary education whilst in South Africa it is only 675160.This suggests that in the future,the United states will always have 1.5 million qualified professionals more than South Africa hence pointing in favour of the argument that Africa will never catch up. Globalisation will have to deal with Africa's education too,if it is to help it catch up,but that won't happen.Its highly unlikely that countries will invest a lot in Africa,whilst most economies all over the world have just recovered from the recession.
Africa Will Never Catch Up with the rest of the world

As an African,my purpose in starting this debate is not to highlight any pessimistic approach taken by Africa to recover,but simply to understand factors,if any,that I am unaware of,which express hope for Africa in the future.I am looking forward to an educational debate.Do note though that I am heavily armed on this issue and hence feel that its highly unlikely that I will lose. Proceedings of this 5 round debate are highly negotiable between me and my opponent.However,the 1st round will be for definitions & acceptance & And the negotiating of how round 2 to round 5 will take place.
Microevolution does not accumulate to Macroevolution

The formalities out of the way then, I would like to address your argument as follows: It does, indeed, seem incredible (in the literal sense of the word) that the seemingly fantastic diversity of flora and fauna that inhabits almost every crevice of our planet could have evolved through natural selection. Indeed, when I was a schoolboy, I was taught the theory of evolution in science lessons and creationism at Sunday school. For a long time I questioned Darwinism and found it easier to make the leap of faith necessary to believe that the Earth and all its inhabitants were created by divine hand than to make the leap of imagination required to believe that life could spontaneously develop from chemical compounds and eventually evolve into human beings and all the other weird and wonderful creatures we share our world with. However, as I grew older, I rejected the religious dogma I had been indoctrinated with as a small child and accepted the scientific evidence as being infinitely more plausible. I offer the following analogy: A group of Western explorers happen upon a hitherto undiscovered tribe living in a tropical jungle. The adventurers arrive in a helicopter and are equipped with a generator and lots of electronic equipment. They decide to film the tribe and replay the footage to them on a monitor. Now the tribe has no way of comprehending the mechanisms of the giant metal insect that the explorers arrived in or explaining the technology behind the images of themselves they viewed. However, they have witnessed these inventions in action with their own eyes and reconcile their experiences the only way they know how and put it down to the manifestation of some deity or mystical spirit. This is what all humans used to do, until we became enlightened. As recently as the 15th century The Catholic Church put Galileo on trial for rejecting the traditional geocentric model of the universe yet even the most pious religious fanatics today wouldn't seriously argue that the universe revolves around the Earth.
Microevolution does not accumulate to Macroevolution

No scientist will claim to be able to prove any theory absolutely, merely to suggest that his theory is the most likely explanation for the given phenomenon. Since you live in Boston, presumably not far from the ocean, you might like to try the following experiment which illustrates my point: It used to be believed that Earth is flat. However, some ancient philosopher noticed that when a sailing boat left the harbour, its mast was still visible after the hull had disappeared over the horizon. Now if the Earth was flat, the hull and mast would gradually become smaller until they both disappeared out of sight together. Now, having witnessed this phenomenon for yourself, go home and dig out a ball and a little model ship (if you don't have one make one out of matchbox or something). Now place your eyes level with the "horizon" of the ball and move the boat away from you. You will see that the hull disappears before the mast and, therefore, conclude (but not prove) that the Earth is, in fact, round. Similarly, the theory that the species evolve through small increments or changes has, and never will be proven, nevertheless most scientists accept it as correct. Charles Darwin wrote in the "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," 1859, p. 162. : "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps. " However, he conceded: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. " Ibid. p. 158. My opponent might have quoted the above and adopted Michael Behe's theory in "Darwin's Black Box," 1996 where he stated: "Such a complex organ would be known as an "irreducibly complex system". An irreducibly complex system is one composed of multiple parts, all of which are necessary for the system to function. If even one part is missing, the entire system will fail to function. Every individual part is integral. " However, Behe is mistaken in this assertion. Consider a species of bird whose habitat is in the water margins. If one bird mutates and grows an extra long beak which allows it to dig further down into the mud and catch more food, it will have the advantage over the bird that mutates a short beak that inhibits its feeding, causing it to starve. Thus the birds with longer beaks will prosper in that particular environment and pass on their genes to the subsequent generations. The Theory of Evolution is only a theory, but it's more plausible than God created the world all its creatures in 7 days and that the universe revolves around the Earth (which, by the way, is flat)!
Microevolution does not accumulate to Macroevolution

And in the second round he wrote: "You did not address the issue that small changes can add up to large body plan changes. This is the crux of the argument" These statements appear to directly contradict one another. However, I will address the matter in general. Small mutations, passed on, and accentuated, through the generations can lead to wholesale and fundamental changes in a species, though these genetic differences can prove to be either an advantage – in which case the creatures or plants will prosper, or they can be a disadvantage, in which case the unfortunate recipients of the mutated genes may suffer as a result. Let us examine the human race, for instance. There have been several species of human that have had fundamental differences in their genetic makeup yet were, nevertheless, contemporaries of one another. For example, modern humans usurped Neanderthal Man, making them extinct 30,000 years ago while the recently discovered Homo floresiensis did not die out until around 10,000 years ago.
So not true

Let us go through our opponent"s case before making our own, shall we? "School is not meant for praying. " Now, my opponent says that school is not meant for praying. Thee is no rule against it. Just like school isn't meant for buying large amounts of food, it is still allowed and still happens. "It is just plain wrong to teach a student how to pray" So this suggests that they don't want their kid indoctrinated on how to pray. Many creationists do not want evolution to be the only thing taught but it still happens. Common courtesy would suggest to let us be able to pray too. "This is a violation to the amendment #1. " TO quote the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Now notice this: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof Prohibiting kids from praying would be against the 1st amendment, contrary to my opponents beliefs. "It is cruel for someone to harrass a poor kid who doesn't want to pray. " And why would that happen? My opponent doesn't want payer in school just because it is "plain wrong. " However, it is right. Westside Community Board of Education v. Mergens, (1990) -- Ruled that schools must allow student groups to meet to pray and worship if other non-religious groups are also allowed to meet on school property. Kids have the RIGHT to pray, just like other kids have the right to text. Taking that away is in violation of the first amendment.
Scientific Evidence Strongly Supports the Theory of Evolution by Common Descent

NO TROLLS PLEASE. Resolved: Scientific evidence strongly supports the Theory of Evolution by common descent over the "theory" of Creationism. Definitions: No semantics please. These are the definitions that will be used throughout this debate. Theory - A well supported, conceptual framework that encompasses a large body of scientific facts, inferences, data, and observations and explains them in a coherent way (Fairbans, 2012)Evolution - Genetic changes over many generations ultimately result in the emergence of new and different species from a single ancestral species”. (Fairbanks, 2012)Scientific evidence - "Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions. " (Douglas Theobald, 2012) The logic of such is seen in this syllogism:Premise 1: Theory T predicts observation O. Premise 2: Observation O is observedConclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably true. or conversely:Premise 1: Theory T predicts observation O. Premise 2: Observation O is NOT observedConclusion: Therefore, theory T is probably false. Supports - The supporting evidence (see above) is consistent with the Theory of Evolution and makes evolution more probable than not. Creationism - The view that God created life in its present form on earth within the passed 10,000 years. Rules:Structure(1) Acceptance;(2) Opening statements;(3) Rebuttals;(4) Rebuttals/ClosingConduct (1) Debater must have typing experience, internet access, and should have sufficent knowledge of the Theory of Evolution. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate(3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics,or trolling. (5) Burden of proof is shared. My burden is to prove that scientific evidence supports the ToE and your job is to show that it doesn't. Additional information:(1) This is not a debate on God's existence;(2) This is not a debate on whether the Bible is God's word;(3) This is not a debate on the age of the earth. Good luck and thank you for this debate. Bibliography Douglas Theobald, P. (2012, April 16). 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, 2.89. Retrieved July 18, 2012, from Talk. Origin Archive: . http://www.talkorigins.org......... Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmester: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print.
Scientific Evidence Strongly Supports the Theory of Evolution by Common Descent

I'm sorry. I have to forfeit this debate for three reasons. 1. I do not support the form of creationism as defined by Pro. I assumed it was something different. My apologies. 2. I do not have the time to write out a full rebuttal to Pro, even though I have a rough draft of how to refute Pro's opening arguments as well as a very, IMHO, impotent rebuttal to my opening arguments. 3. My phone went broke and my computer is not working well. With these in mind, I apologize for wasting everyone's time. I would love to re-start the debate again in about three weeks time with the definition of creationism being different. I would put the definition of creation as, "The view that God created life in kinds, or baramin, on Earth 6000 years ago, which has since been degenerating into smaller species. " For more on baramin, which has been defined, search the CMI website search-bar. I will not here define baramin. My apologies.
capitalism

computers are becoming more intelligent and are estimated to become as smart as humans eventually. as this process continues, all labor sectors will be taken over by intelligent machines. the idea that we will still need people to fix the machines is flawed because as time goes on, machines will be able to fix themselves and other machines. also, your idea that technology only makes us more productive proves my point that machines will eliminate the need for human labor because some day machines will be able to do anything humans can except more efficiently and machines wont require breaks. this could be a great thing on one hand because humans will be freed from labor but as the transition from a capitalist society to an equal society without social classes continues, more conflict between social classes is likely to occur. so to your idea that mechanisms will raise our standard of living rather than lower it, i would agree, as long as we move away from a monetary economy without destroying ourselves. either way, we have no choice but to continue the transition because technology wont wait for us and the longer we wait, the harder the transition will be. if we make the transition, scientists predict a coming age of abundance. in this future civilization, humans have almost mastered science and are able to do things considered unimaginable by today's standards. no one goes hungry and we have everything we need because, machines are basically free slave labor producing all of our goods. i saw an episode of star trek once where a person from the past comes aboard the space ship and asks how they got the funding and resources to build something of that scale. the captain informed her that they dont use money anymore and that the old system almost destroyed their civilization. it may be scifi, but it is a good insight and a prediction that many people are beginning to recognize. i would like to make it clear that i am not attacking the ethics or past effectiveness of any individual economic ideology that may be construed into a sub category of capitalism such as corporatism, socialism, or communism, i am arguing that no form of capitalism involving a monetary trade system will be able to survive through future technological advancements.