BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The required subjects for public schools need to be reworked.

I'm a little new to the site and the debate arena in general, so this is just a trial run so to speak. I'm not following UIL or Forensic rules or anything, this is just a friendly match to see where I stand. If you want to push me (as in using real facts and statistics that I'd have to counter) you can, but banter works too… The required subjects for public schools need to be reworked. 1.Many of the subjects that are enforced after middle school are career specific and useless to the majority of people. Learning how to use sine, cosine, and tangent and calculate logs aren't really going to help someone who wants to be a banker nor will having to memorize all the equations for all laws of physics and motion help someone who wants to be a doctor or a Pre-K teacher. I'm not saying that all these classes need to be dropped completely, but we really need to reconsider who is forced to take them. For example, we all need to have a basic understanding of history, but maybe only the kids interested in politics should be required to take government. 2.Kids are put into the real world not knowing how to do important things. The only thing I can – barely – remember learning in Algebra that had a real life application was how to calculate percent interest rates. No one taught us how to write checks or do taxes which, though it doesn't sound very fun, are things we'll have to do and could use help learning. And it doesn't even have to just be math either; learning first aid would be more advantageous than taking a health class, and basic cooking classes (though I do understand how that could get expensive) would be covering the long term health aspects of it while letting high-schoolers go to college with out having to worry about living off Ramen Noodles and peanut butter every day.... 3.The time spent in school could be greatly reduced if teenagers didn't have such strict graduation credits. You're required to take a fine arts, physical education, and foreign language class in order to graduate. I understand how taking foreign language has practical applications as well as physical education, but saying that you can't graduate unless you're considered at least moderately fluent in Spanish and can run a mile in less than 8 minutes is unfair. Just as an example, I've taken 4 years of Spanish and I can hardly hold a conversation and though I'm a healthy weight (something commonly drawn on as a justification for gym class) and I took gym class twice, I can't run a mile at all. Also, some people just aren't musically inclined, and have no real desire to be involved in fine arts. Forcing them to take these classes is detrimental to their success. I realized that I've left a lot of holes as to how exactly these suggestions would be implemented, but this debate is more about whether or not required subjects need to be reworked and why, not so much how to do it. With that said, I stand ready to be countered.
zygote is not A person

I am talking about human embryology, cell biology and you are talking robots with brains. Even brains splitting in half to form two brains. Let's stick to science (facts). Your argument is backwards. You start with twins where everyone can agree they are human beings then you make the conclusion that where they came from must have already been a human being. An attribute of personhood is indivisibility where you cannot split a person in two and create two human beings unlike the early conception where it still has the potential to twin or not even develop (i.e. blighted ovum). When an embryo splits in two what happened to the original person that now exists as two embryos/persons?
zygote is not A person

I accept. The BoP shall be on my opponent to show that a zygote is not a person.Zygote: a cell formed by the union of two gametes (1)Refuting Pro's argumentsI shall proceed to refute Pro's arguments. Unfotunately they are based upon a hidden premise, which is very weak. I shall convert his argument into logical form to show you what I mean.P1: A zygote can split apart into two seperate organisms.C: A zygote cannot be a person.Now, as the argument is formulated, it isn't valid. So we must add another premise!P1: A zygote can split apart into two seperate organisms.P2: Whatever can split apart into two seperate organisms cannot be a person.C: Therefore, a zygote cannot be a person.Now the argument is logically valid! This captures Pro's argument, since he is arguing that because a zygote can split apart into two embryos, then it cannot be a person.However, the second premise has not been established. My opponent must show that whatever can split apart into two new organisms, cannot be a person. Furthermore, I would argue that it false. Let me make an example...A brain-splitting exampleLet's imagine, for the sake of argument, that my brain is in a robotic body. Now I can think, and do everything that a normal person would do, and all that's left of me is my brain. Of course I am a person, but all that's left of my body is my physical brain.However, let's also assume that my brain could be split in half. Each half would continue on as two people. It's very confusing as to whether or not either of them would be me, or if there are two entirely new people. However, this is irellevant.But the problem is, it doesn't follow that I wasn't a person to begin with! Just because I can be split apart to form two people (one of which may or may not be me) we cannot say that I am not a person!ConclusionSo my opponent's argument rests upon the premise that whatever can split apart into two new organisms cannot be a person. He has not argued that this is the case, so we have no reasons to accept this premise as true, but we have seen good reasons to think it is not. If a zygote is not a person, only due to the fact that it could split apart and form two new people, then we cannot be people either.Sources:(1) http://www.merriam-webster.com...
zygote is not A person

My opponent thinks that I have not responded to his arguments. However, I have. Setting this aside, I shall conclude with a few remarks. .. ConclusionNow, as I've stated above, the personal identity is either material, or it is non-material. If the personal identity, or whatever it is that makes a person a person, is material, then this can surely be divided. My opponent's argument rests upon the premise that division of the human person is impossible. But, if the human person is strictly material, it is very possible for the human person to be divisible, since material is divisible in its nature. On the other hand, if the personal identity is immaterial, then we have seen no reasons to believe that this immaterial personal identity has divided when the zygote does. We know that the physical matter has divided, but we have no reason to believe the immaterial has. Perhaps the personal identity ceases to exist, and two new ones have arisen. Perhaps the personal identity has continued with one part of the zygote, while a new personal identity has arisen for the other half. These are valid options, and as long as they are on the table, we should not assume that the personal identity has divided. Therefore, in either case, my opponent's argument fails, and the resolution remains unaffirmed. It has not been demonstrated that a zygote is not a person.
By definition, God must exist

God is a maximally great being (he has all the great-making properties possible for a being). Since you are doing a proofsay : I propose a being God, who is a maximally great being (he has all the great-making properties possible for a being) It is better for a being to be necessarily existent than to not exist This argument makes no sense. Therefore God necessarily exists. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. I know you have a little support in your youtube video but you really need to make consistent argument the post itself.
It is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time.

1. Love is defined as an intense feeling of deep affection. 2. A romantic relationship is built on love, devotion and attachment. 3. A person in a romantic relationship can be in love with their current partner and their former partner at the same time. 4. Marriage is a legal contract built on a spiritual bond. 5. Polygamy is the custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time and it is accepted by many religions and cultures, including Islam. 6. In Islamic polygamy, a man is allowed to have multiple wives but must love and treat all of them equally. 7. Infidelity is defined as being unfaithful to one's romantic partner or spouse. 8. A married man can commit an act of infidelity but still be in love with his wife, and also fall in love with his mistress. 9. Dating occurs before a romantic relationship. 10. One person can have two dating partners and romantically love both of them. 11. It is possible for a girl to be in love with her childhood best friend and her boyfriend at the same time. 12. Therefore, it is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. Non-Controversial Premises: Premises: 1,2,5,6, and 7 are all non-controversial. Premises 1,2,5 and 7 are all definitions. Premise 6 is based on the Islamic religion and followed by Muslims and is only referring to Muslims. Controversial Premises: 3. This premise is only a scenario and not necessarily the case in all romantic relationships. 4. Marriage is not always built on a spiritual bond, because in some cultures, marriages are arranged and the couple might not even know one another enough to have a spiritual bond. 8. This premise is also a scenario and not the case in all marriages or all affairs. It is also possible for the female to cheat on her spouse. 9. This premise is not true in all occasions. In some instances, two people might already know each other well enough to skip dating and directly get in a romantic relationship. 10. This is also a scenario and not the case in many dating partners. Especially because, sometimes the partners don"t know each other well enough to fall in love. 11. This is also a scenario and might be similar to premise 3.
The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Thank you David for accepting my broad challenge to the Atheistic worldview. Preliminary RemarksNormally I argue in an ethos where I propose a superior ontological grounding of morals while my opponent has her own metaphysical basis on offer. Such a backdrop pits the combatants in a more "strike-block" encounter, allowing one side to argue for their case and defend it and vice versa. With this debate however, though the same encounter will undoubtably take precedence regarding sub-arguments, nevertheless my position will remain, on average, in an overall defensive "block only" condition. (There are more jargon-rich names for what I've just described yet I find those terms boring compared to my days as a power ranger.)Now such a debate can seem like the defending position is losing terribly by virtue of of the inherent criticism alone. Yet apart from all contrivances, and when viewed in it's totality, and even though some of the truth value of the premises will be found less obvious, nevertheless insofar as 51% of the rest persists unscathed and still obvious to us; then we're within our rational right to affirm the soundness of the argument. It will therefore be my opponents job to strike only, while I block; and as long as the blocking or rebutting is successful then I've done my duty in showing the moral argument to be sound.DefinitionsObjective: valid & binding regardless of human opinionMoral values: Good & bad, which bespeaks moral worth.Moral duties: Right & wrong, which bespeaks moral obligation.Moral Epistemology: How we come to know moral truth. Moral Ontology: A Meta-Ethical claim about the objective status of moral properties. Soundness: A valid argument where and all of its premises are more plausibly true than its denials.Law Of Identity: If you have A, then you have A. http://www.debate.org...
The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Thank you for a great debate. Generally, the last round I like to keep for summaries and closings. I don't like adding new arguments/rebuttals to the argument.PREMISE 1A. Non sequiorI argued that the first premise does not logically follow to which my partner claims is a straw man. The only problem is that it is not a straw man. If I can make any parody argument sound that is contradictory, then the original argument is unsound.B."I think Con has confused God, a non-contingent being, with a contingent being; or something reflecting a moral character like every other contingent being, rather than Something being the moral standard, in itself subsisting."Yet what is a contingent being vs. a non-contingent being? Moreover, in some theologies God is a contingent being such as Christianity which teaches the trinity; or in the pagans that teach that their gods are in human form. Moreover, why does got necessarily have to be non-contingent? Premise 1 Therefore, we've reached something of a trilemma for the Atheist which is thusly, 1) either choose a less plausible and more arbitrary ontological basis for moral value than; 2) a maximally great being who necessarily exists as the basis; or, 3) choose nihilism. One needs to define what a MGB is. What exactly does an MGB mean? I asked my partner several questions about Biblical ethics. Whether or not the God of the Bible is the standards for morality is irrelavent. However, it plays in an important part: If the god of the Bible who is supposedly love can order genocide and barbarianism, then why can't any god that is allegedly love do the same thing? If my partner was convinced God ordered him to commit genocide, why or why not would my partner obey god. He has not answered the question.Conclusion We see that God is not necessarily necessary for morality. It is not up to me to provide an objective standard of morality apart from god (though we should debate that later, as I am out of time), it is up to my parnter to prove that god is the only standard of morality. He has not done that. I have shown that it is possible for God to order crimes we know to be wrong (i.e., genocide).
The moral argument for the existence of God is sound

Thank you for your swift reply. I'm sorry I have taken so long for my response. I wish you the best of luck.--->DEFENDING MY ARGUMENTS<---PREMISE 1: IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, THEN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES & DUTIES DO NOT EXIST A. A PARODY My partner does not quite understand what I am arguing. I am arguing that this is the fallacy of the non sequitur; namely, that it simply does not follow. [1] What this parody attempts to show is that the argument is a non sequitur. Why does this argument prove Bible god over Qu'ran God or Book of Mormon god? B. THE EUTHYOPHRO'S DILEMMA This dilemma basically asks whether or not something is good simply because God says so, or because it is already good and evil. Unfortunately, my partner plagarized his response to the dilemma http://www.berith.org...; and therefore, I will not respond to his rebuttals. I am debating you and not your source. When you respond to the dilemma properly (i.e., without plagarizing), we can continue from there. I urge a con vote for the conduct.--->Contra Pro<---PREMISE 1: IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, THEN OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES & DUTIES DO NOT EXIST My partner hasn't really argued anything here. He has simply asked us questions:〻 Must we believe in God to have moral lives?〻 Can we formulate an ethics system without reference to God?〻 Can we recognize the existence of objective morals without reference to God?Let's start with the first part. Do we really have to believe in God to live moral lives? According to Pro (and the scripture he has provided) the answer is no. I agree and will not respond to that qwuery. Second, can we formulate an ethics system without references to God? I believe that we can. My partner has not shown that we cannot so as of now, it is simply a bare assertion. I want to ask my partner a few questions.[2] In 1 Samuel 15:3, "God" says this: "No go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him: but put to death both man and woman, child and infant.."Questions: Was "Put to death both man and woman, child and infant" the word of the Lord whom you worship? Can God issue that same command today? Why or why not? If you did believe you were commanded by God, could you and would you obey? If not, why not? I'm out of time to go any further. Good luck. REFERENCES 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...(literary_device) 2. Questions inspired from http://www.infidels.org...;
ALL men should be castrated

God never said that. However, Https://www. Sciencemag. Org/news/2015/03/how-big-average-penis states that the average erect male penis is 5. 16 inches long. Castrated males still have penises anyways, So even if they were that big, Castration would be useless in terms of reducing their length. I don't believe that girls have a red dot on their butt, Although I am not sure, I have not looked. Neutering females would destroy the human race unless CRISPR or something similar comes along. I would like to point out your potential hypocrisy. Unless you have castrated yourself, You sir are a hypocrite.
ALL men should be castrated

There is nothing wrong with masturbation and erections. Males being castrated just for being male is wrong because it infringes on the rights of the males. It also would cause the human race to go extinct unless CRISPR or something similar comes along and allows people to become immortal. Once that happens, Although the human population would skyrocket, This can be solved by colonizing previously uncolonizable parts of the earth and extraterrestrial bodies.
October beginner's tournament: The USA should get rid of the death penalty

In the USA there are currently 31 states with the death penalty and 19 without (1). The death penalty is a very controversial topic. Many people believe the USA should keep the death penalty while others want to abolish it.I as pro am going to argue that all states in the US should have the death penalty. The burden of proof is shared.The participants have 72 hours to write their posts and the character limit is 10.000.This debate is part of the second round of the October beginner's tournament.Terms:Death penalty: punishment by execution (2) Rules: 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere 5. No trolling6. Both debaters accept the definitions of the defined terms7. For all undefined terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the logical context of the resolution and this debate 8. Violation of any of these rules means the conduct point should be given to the opposition Structure: Round 1: acceptance (no arguments) Round 2: presenting arguments (no rebuttals) Round 3: rebuttals (no defenses just yet) Round 4: defenses (no new arguments) Sources: 1) http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...2) http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Your Choice

I have decided that I will approve the choice and let you begin the debate. I would post an opening argument right now but unfortunately college has drained me of energy today, plus I'm away at my brother's place tomorrow. Sorry about that. I think that as we discuss this topic details from the books should come back into your memory. Incidentally, do you perhaps have access to a library? That may be useful for allowing you to rent some/all of the books which would be helpful to your side of the debate. If not, I've got no objections to you using something like the Harrpy Potter wiki for your sources of information.
Your Choice

1. I only watched 1.5 seasons of Dr. Who (and I really liked it, but could no longer access it), so I don't know anything about these ninth, tenth or eleven Doctors. 2. I read Harry Potter as an elementary school student and have not had contact with the series in 6 years (after reading the Deathly Hallows as a twelve year old) I might be able to take the second option with whatever elusive memories I have of Mr. Snape, I present my opponent with two options: A) Continue this debate with the second option as the chosen resolution B) Terminate it due to the perceived inability of the opposition (me) to present a stimulating or satisfying debate. If you chose option A, you may either begin establishing your premises (in which case, you are to leave round 5 empty to keep the round-count fair) or submit an approval of the choice and have me begin the debate. You may also set further clarifications, but I think that will be unnecessary. Your resolution's setup is pretty clear to me (I won't go DNA Imabench on you either). If you chose option B (I almost hope you do..) then the debate will be tied and no more will be heard from either of us.
Your Choice

As per the comments section of this debate, I am offering my opponent one of two debate choices: 1) "Who Is The Better "New Who" Doctor Of The Doctor Who TV Series", for which I would vouch for the Eleventh Doctor, leaving my opponent with the choice of either defending the Ninth or Tenth Doctor. This debate would centre around the personalities of the Doctors themselves, their fashion sense, what they achieve, who their companions are, the villains they faced, and the quality of their episodes and story arcs. 2) "Even in light of what we find out about him, Severus Snape's position is still highly unsympathetic". To clarify, this refers to the revelation in Deathly Hallows about Snape's backstory as viewed by Harry Potter in Dumbledore's pensieve, which is added on to everything else we've known about him throughout the books. I would take the role of "Pro" in this debate. I eagerly await Beginner's response as to which of these debates he will pick.
Your Choice

Rules: 1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules: 2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind. 3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i. e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments. 4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here: . http://www.debate.org...) 5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that. 6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications. 7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible. Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. The only condition being that you don't end up forfeiting like I've seen others do (my last debater's choice was a disaster). Be prepared to spend a decent amount of time constructing arguments and rebuttals. This includes, but is not limited to, research, logical musings, etc. I really do mean it when I'm asking for a debater of decent quality. Please be relatively certain of your debate prowess (this is a very important criterion. ) .. .. .
George W. Bush destroyed America's Reputation

Now you say that that the terrorists are going to do what their going to do. You ignore the fact that their numbers have increased because of Bush, thus their power, thus their power to commit horrible atrocities. Now I'm not saying Bush caused 9/11, but he has made it much more probable for another to happen. But, the debate is about America's reputation, not just the threat of Al-Queda. So please continue.