BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
'Is there a sound foundation for atheistic morality?'

Atheists comprise an increasingly large proportion of the population, however the philosophical implications upon the atheist of atheism are seldom discussed beyond academic circles. Religious people can clearly locate their ethics in the omnibevolence of their God, yet where can an atheist locate their morality? The debate does not concern whether or not atheists do hold moral views and principles, this is manifestly evident, rather the debate concerns whether the atheist has a legitimate philosophical foundation for morality. I shall seek to argue that there is not in fact a valid philosophical framework for atheist morals; most attempts at the rationalisation of atheistic morality invariably commit the naturalistic fallacy, I.e they move from an 'is' propositional statement to an 'ought'. Take for example non-religious utilitarianism; the principle that we should seek the greatest balance of pleasure over pain for the greatest number; that humans do indeed desire pleasure I agree, but to move from the statement humans do desire pleasure, to the statement humans ought to desire pleasure some sort of unjustified leap has to be made. Believers in God can invoke God in order to locate deontology (moral duty or obligation), atheists have no such luxury. Atheist morality then is nothing more then a sort of subjective emotivism; 'I condemn murder because it upsets me' etc. In addition, the atheist cannot say that something is definitely and objectively wrong, no matter how detestable or repulsive the crime or action an atheist can only say 'I believe that is wrong'; as opposed to saying that something like murder is wrong now and always regardless of my opinion. Moreover most 'new atheists' such as Dawkins and Sam Harris subscribe to hard determinism and deny the presence of free will. This has two significant connotations for atheistic morality; firstly that moral culpability is in the words of Galen Stawson a moral impossibility hence no nine is blameworthy for their actions; and secondly that the atheist must view any subjective moral judgement as the arbitrary product of random physical processes within the brain. Still more atheists view morality as a biproduct of evolution and social conditioning. In sum the atheist cannot view humans as having s profound sense of some deeper moral code rather they view morality as some novel human abstraction. The increasing prevalence of atheism means that the task of establishing a foundation for atheist ethics beyond mere arbitrary opinion is an increasingly significant task. I myself am an atheist and many people reading this probably are too, do not feel anger that I am labelling your sense of morality meaningless and unjustified - rather be intellectually honest and rigorous and consider whether there is really a basis for morality in the atheist world view. This debate is not about the validity of atheism, it explicitly refers to the nature and possibility of morality within the philosophy framework presented by atheism so please engage with this topic.
Mount & Blade Warband vs Chivalry Medieval Warfare (Multi-player)

Well, once again Koz forgot to post, and failed to provide a closing argument. Sucks for him. If you plan on voting on this debate, please take into account the fact that he forfeited the final round, which could be interpreted as ending the debate. Also note that his arguments contained multiple errors in both grammar and spelling. In closure, I ask you readers to read the arguments and come to the right conclusion. Please vote for Con, then spend the rest of the day playing Chivalry. Peace.
Mount & Blade Warband vs Chivalry Medieval Warfare (Multi-player)

Thanks for posting. I'm glad you decided to actually DEBATE, instead, of raging in the comments. Now I get to argue. Refuting your points: "Since when did a game had to be realistic? (sic)" Both games, to the best of my knowledge, try to be realistic. It would be one thing if we were arguing the merits of Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield Heroes, but both MnB and CMW try to make the games fun by making them realistic, using things like swords and bows instead of lightsabers and plasma guns. "AND HOLY GOD. MOUNT & BLADE NEEDS SKILLS TO PLAY. YOUR JUST SAYING THAT EVERY SERVER USES AUTO BLOCK INSTEAD OF 4 directional blocking. " Many MnB servers do use autoblock, as it has become such a popular hack that they wish to level the playing field. The 4-directional blocking system implemented in the game is good for what it does, but it doesn't compare to CMW's combat system, which could be considered omniblock. Blocking can be a combination of moving your mouse, ducking, and swinging your weapon. "Are you stupi%, a game isnt great by its graphics. Your implying that mount & blade looks sh! t when it doesnt matter. " It's true that graphics don't make a game great, but they certainly help. Would you rather play Crisis 3 or Quake? CMW has better graphics than MnB. It also has mechanics better suited for bloody, glorious, and above all, fun multiplayer. "Your debate is obviously typed out of impressions and you asume most of everything you ssaid about mount & blade. You have 0 experience about the game. " Actually, I own and have spent a substantial amount of time playing both games. I played Chivalry for the multiplayer, and MnB for the singleplayer. Please don't make assumptions about people's experiences. Now I'll talk about the combat, as I feel that's what these games are really all about. In MnB, you basically have one attack. You click the mouse, your character swings his sword/fires his bow. If your opponent is blocking, the attack fails. In CMW, combat is much more complicated. It actually matters where you hit your opponent, not merely if they had their shield out. Also, there is the leveling system. In MnB, you can have an inherent advantage over your opponent based on what equipment you own. If I'm a Man-at-Arms with a level one sword, and you're a Man-at-Arms with a level 50 sword, you will win a fight, regardless of skill levels. In CMW, we would be on equal playing fields. Thanks for reading. I hope the next round will be just as good as this one.
Mount & Blade Warband vs Chivalry Medieval Warfare (Multi-player)

WELL YOU are JUST PUReLY ASSUMING ABOUT WHAT you said about Mount&Blade multiplayer. "less about realistic medieval fighting and more about cramming a sh!tload of people in a single match."Since when did a game had to be realistic? And chilvary is also about cramming a load of player to fight each other."Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a game based on skill, strategy, teamwork" http://www.youtube.com... Mount&blade allows use in the open world for over a hundred of players to perform such stratergies, teamwork and skill aswell."In CMW (I'll use abbreviations now, so I don't have to write the titles out every time), fighting is based on timing and reflexes. In MnB, it's based on whether or not your opponent has a level 5,000 sword or not" AND HOLY GOD. MOUNT & BLADE NEEDS SKILLS TO PLAY. YOUR JUST SAYING THAT EVERY SERVER USES AUTO BLOCK INSTEAD OF 4 directional blocking. 4 DIRECTION! And you need better reflexes than CMW, you obviously just watch a youtube video of a single player gameplay with a load of bots. "MnB is a good game, but the multiplayer gets boring and repetitive, fast."WHY DOES PEOPLE PLAY IT MORE THAN CMW! The GAme came out in 2008 and people are still playing the game. Unofficial servers have supported as many as 222 players. Go check the servers on chilvary. Than actully download the mods : Full invasion where youll see over hundreds and hundreds of people are playing. And than dowload crpg and theres alot of damn people. And you saying that the game gets boring. Well look at this videohttp://www.youtube.com... prove that you are wrong about how the game gets boring. Obviously you are lying and that it is your opinion to the game. "it's based on whether or not your opponent has a level 5,000 sword or not"Well take a look at this, this has feinting, blocking 4 DIRECTIONS, and reflexes all of pure skill.http://www.youtube.com...Now take a look at your side http://www.youtube.com...Dont look at the quantity but the quality of the fights."providing as real and as visceral an experience as the modern PC has to offer"Are you stupi%, a game isnt great by its graphics. Your implying that mount & blade looks sh!t when it doesnt matter.LOOK AT THIS! The most epic battle of a really just eouc battle ever. The map is awsome too.http://www.youtube.com... And thishttp://www.youtube.com...Real tatics right here. And they are players.Your debate is obviously typed out of impressions and you asume most of everything you ssaid about mount & blade. You have 0 experience about the game. I played both game and experienced both. "Also, you cite yourself as a source. That's never a good thing to do, even if you are trollin'."I said its a joke. dumb*ss.....
Mount & Blade Warband vs Chivalry Medieval Warfare (Multi-player)

Oh, it's on. First off Mount and Blade and Chivalry are completely different games. Chivalry: Medieval Warfare is a game based on skill, strategy, teamwork, and providing as real and as visceral an experience as the modern PC has to offer. Mount and Blade: Warband's multiplayer was less about realistic medieval fighting and more about cramming a sh!tload of people in a single match. In CMW (I'll use abbreviations now, so I don't have to write the titles out every time), fighting is based on timing and reflexes. In MnB, it's based on whether or not your opponent has a level 5,000 sword or not. MnB is a good game, but the multiplayer gets boring and repetitive, fast. It just can't compare to the constant, whacked-out awesomeness that is CMW. Also, you cite yourself as a source. That's never a good thing to do, even if you are trollin'.
Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates

----Premise---- This debate was inspired by the comments section of another debate.[1] Let it be clear that the positions of this debate are established and should not be argued (ie "I didn't say PRESIDENTIAL debates!"). The debate positions are clear: My opponent, Ragnar_Rahl, believes that text electronic debates should take over the current system for presidential debates, while I believe that doing so would be disastrous. ----Arguments----- Replacing the current system of presidential debates with electronic over-the-internet debates (similar to Debate.org) would be disastrous because: 1) There is no way of knowing whether or not the candidates are making their own arguments. How would we know that a candidate's chief of communications isn't writing for the candidate? How would we judge a president's intellect? 2) Electronic debates are easily susceptible to hacking. If, say, a hacker changed Senator McCain's position on the Iraq war, many voters would become incorrectly informed, and his chances for President may be unfairly hurt. 3) Almost 30% of Americans do not have access to the Internet![2][3] Now, it's much easier to get access to a TV than it is to a computer with Internet access. I believe that as many voters as feasibly possible should have be informed. Having Internet debates would deny 30% of America to be informed. 4) Even if everyone did have Internet access, fewer people would view the debates-- it is much easier to watch something for an hour than to read for multiple hours. This would lead to even more uninformed voters. 5) In following with argument four, political pundits would have an easier job spinning debates as the public would be less informed. That's all for now. I leave the floor open to my opponent. ----References---- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] https://www.cia.gov... [3] https://www.cia.gov...
Resolved: On balance, Noetic science can be accurately used to prove the existance of God.

I would like to send out a note to my opponent that the debate is not about whether or not God exists or not, but is about whether or not Noetic science can be used to prove his existance. With this being the case my opponent's last round was unTopical and since there was a Topicality violation it must be thrown out of the debate. As for the argument itself, it does not disprove God at any means. I never said that God constantly worked with humans on Earth like Mother Hovered, but that he created the universe and that was all. My opponent is trying to use the creation Straw man where that God seemingly waved a magic wand and everything was there. That's not the truth. God was more like a Watchmaker. He created the universe and walked away from it even though it began to break and fall appart. Even the Catholic Church today is accepting evolution and the Big Bang as part of religion. (http://www.inquisitr.com...) There is no actual link to my case from this argument or even the debate. It's like we are speaking about types of Cars and my opponent is suddenly talking about cats. This argument must be thrown out for these reasons.
Resolved: On balance, Noetic science can be accurately used to prove the existance of God.

This debate is not about whether or not God exists, but whether Noetics can be used to prove the existance of God. RulesFirst Round is terms and definitions by Pro and acceptance by Con. Second Round is for Opening arguments. No rebuttals are to be posted. Third Round is for Rebuttals. Forth Round is for Rebuttals and Conclusion. No semantics, the definitions that are provided are the ones to be used. No trolling. No Sparks arguments. No K's. No Counterplans. Sources may be placed in the comments section if need-be. No prophanity. If any of these points are broken then it shall result in a forfeiture. Noetics- branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind as well as intellect (. https://en.wikipedia.org...) God - the omnipotent, omniscient, intelligent creator of the universe. Existent - having being; existing.
Marijuana legalization

Marijuana should be legal for three reasons. First is will lower crime, secondly it will help the national debt, and lastly it is a personal choice and freedom. First the legalization of marijuana will lower crime. The United States population is around 312 million people that is about 5% of the population in the world today. Yet with such a small amount of percent to population ratio the United States makes up about 1/4 of the world's prison population. Nearly 1/8 of the United States prisoners are in prison because of marijuana. The prisons are full of good people who happen to smoke marijuana while wife beaters and violent battery crimes have small slaps on the wrist compared to those who can spend many years locked away because of marijuana. In the last 5 years 45,000 people have died because of the war on drugs while zero reported deaths have been reported that have directly been caused by smoking marijuana. This number is mainly the Mexicans in the cross fire of the United States and drug cartels, but it is still illegal. While a already legal drug in tobacco is killing close to 445,000 people each year in the Untied States. It would take the drug dealers of the streets because the only people who truly want marijuana are the illegal drug dealers who can make illegal money. While if it was legal the price would go down and people can buy it from less shady people. Secondly, it will help with the national debt. Experts calculate that the war on drugs has cost around one trillion dollars. The last time I checked the United States is in the hole for around 16 trillion dollars. If the United States legalizes marijuana the money that would go to the war on drugs would instead could go toward the debt. If the United States legalizes marijuana they would no longer lose money, but would gain a profit from the tax on it. Lastly, it is a personal choice if someone smokes it. It doesn't matter how bad it can be to someone's health the government can't make us healthy only the individual can. People choose to smoke knowing how bad it is for them or eating at McDonald's it is still their choice. I can but whatever I want in my body it is my body and my life not the governments. Voting pro means that you want crime down, to stop killing innocents, to help with the debt, and have more freedom. Vote pro. Sources http://www.nytimes.com... http://norml.org... http://www.outsidethebeltway.com... http://blogs.reuters.com...
Anime is better than cartoons

-Anime characters have real personality that make them relateable, when their mad their mad, when their sad their sad and when their happy their happy they also really care about other people like Goku who trains really hard to be strong in order to protect his friends and family even at one point he decides not to be brought back to life with the dragon balls fearing his revival would only attract more danger. -Most Cartoon Characters don't die they just get hurt, with Anime characters you feel strongly connected with them you care about them and you feel really sad when they die -Have you seen Fairy Tail's strongest females? Just look at Erza Scarlett and Mirajane Strauss in battle form. Piss either of them and you're in big trouble.
K&M is better than controllers

That's not true. I have gone from a Logitech M315 to a Razer Deathadder Elite and have noticed only a difference in ergonomics. As long as you have 60FPS+, it's all skill. On the flip side, console has too many factors such as aim assists for controllers to be taken seriously. Now, let's go back to my argument which is actually tackling the focus of the debate; a keyboard and mouse setup gives you much more control during FPS gameplay than a controller does. You haven't tried to dispute that.
If Pinocchio says, "My nose will grow now," then it will grow.

I apologize for my slight misunderstanding of the debate, your burden (which I assumed correct) and your title are different. I will therefore drop my arguments save the extension from point bI would like to thank my opponent for His/Her arguments, which are good and very interesting. That being said the preponderance of evidence lies with the con side.My rebuttal to "the mythical elements of the world will see that his nose will grow," and my main contention in this debate is that the mythical elements of the world can not decide whether or not Pinocchio lied, merely whether or not he was false. The premise of the paradox is that when Pinocchio says that his nose will grow, it is possible for him to tell a lie. A lie is defined as: an intentionally false statement [1]. Therefore Pinocchio does not lie when he says "my nose will grow now." Whether or not he is false doesn't matter because he is merely predicting an event in the future, not lying, his nose does not grow. There simply is no paradox because he has to tell a lie for his nose to grow.The philosopher William F. Vallicella that you mention is actually evidence for my side, because he makes a similar argument to the one I just made. In fact that very argument includes the definition about now referring to a time after the utterance. The source that you quote gives direct evidence to my claim, stating "Suppose I predict that tomorrow ... my blood pressure will be 125/75, but... my blood pressure ... is 135/85. ... No one... could claim that I lied ... For although I made ... a false statement ... I had no way of knowing exactly what my blood pressure would be... Pinocchio cannot be lying."In conclusion: Unknowingly predicting an incorrect outcome does not constitute a lie and therefore the statement doesn't cause Pinocchio's nose to grow, even though it is false. He isn't lying, he is just wrong.Thank you,Please vote ConSources[1] Oxford American Dictionary[2]http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com......
If Pinocchio says, "My nose will grow now," then it will grow.

Rebuttals:1.) Pinocchio cannot know with absolute certainty whether or not his nose will grow in the future. It is possible that at some point in his "life" he will never tell a lie again from one point on. a.) We can't know for sure whether or not Pinocchio himself is aware that he is telling a lie, truth, or saying something paradoxical. Yes, there is a high likelihood, but not absolute certainty, as I said before. b.) This is a good way to look at the argument. But this contradicts point 'a,' where you say a lie is false whether or not the one lying has knowledge that they have lied. To sum things up, your positions suggest that the circustances and situations are "probable" and "likely," which does not give a definite answer. We have to agree on the term "now," to fully understand the question.Concluding Arguments: 1.) William F. Vallicella says that 'Now' "does not refer to the time of utterance, but to a time right after it." As you said before, this statement by Pinocchio is in the future tense. For Pinocchio to say "now" does not refer to the instance he says the word, but the time immediately following. 2.) After defining the term of "now," we see that his nose will in fact not grow the instance he says the phrase "my nose will grow now." Since his nose doesn't grow at that very instance, his statement (neither true nor false) becomes a lie because his nose didn't grow. Ultimately, his nose will grow, and one wouldn't be wrong to say that for a brief moment his nose wouldn't grow immediately following the statement. So, if you were to say that Pinocchio's statement was, "My nose will grow immediately," then no, his nose wouldn't grow. But since Pinocchio is using the term 'now,' it will grow. 'Now' is defined as "at the present time or moment,"[2] not immediately. Sources:[1] http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com...[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...I await your rebuttals and final arguments.
If Pinocchio says, "My nose will grow now," then it will grow.

My opponent's argument functions on the premise that there is a time gap between Pinocchio's statement and the decision on its truthfulness, of which there is no indication. take away the time gap and the paradox returns. In logical terms the paradox reduces to trying to find the sum (or final number) of the infinite series Σ n=1 to of -1^n. This is a divergent series, and, even if one uses controvercial methods like Ramanujan summation, it still only converges to 1/2, not giving us an answer. Finding the final number is jut as impossible because infinity is neither even nor odd.To understand this paradox we must interpret it differently. Firstly we must look to the language. because the statement is not made in the present tense (my nose is growing, or my nose grows now.) Therefore, for his nose to grow, it must be true that his nose will never grow in the future. This gives us two possibilities.firstly: Pinnochio knows an instance in the future at which point his nose will grow. In this case he is not telling a lie and his nose doesn't grow because of the statement "my nose will grow"secondly: pinnochio doesn't know a time at which his nose will grow. This in turn gives us two possibilities.a.) a lie counts as any false statement irregardless of ones konwledge of whether it is false. In this case, probablistically his nose doesn't grow given that i think it easy enough to suppose that there is a high likelyhood that he will lie at least once in the future. b.) he must know his satement to be false for it to be a lie. if this is the case then his nose does not grow becasue he doesn't know whether or not his nose will grow in the future.point b. of the second part of the argument also gives us another way of looking at it. I think that it is fairly reasonable that a lie must be conscious, in which case (assuming pinochio knows the paradoxical nature of his statement but doesn't know the outcome of the paradox) he is not telling a lie.Thank you, I await a rebuttal.