BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Truth is relative

Gravity: "If you drop an apple from a roof, it is not absolutely true that it will fall down. If that is ALWAYS the case, prove it." http://www.youtube.com... Note: prove to me that it always does not happen. Blue: "Language is arbitrary. In Spanish, blue is signified by azul. The possible existence of an infinite number of languages demonstrates that signification is relative." Azul still means blue. Perro still means Dog. Just because they can exist in different forms of language does not mean the definition of the word is relative. Azul does not mean dog, and Perro does not mean blue. Math: So if math is relative, for all we know, I actually have 5 hands and 6 feet. But why stop there? Octagons are actually cubes, and spheres are actually triangles. Existence: "According to Quantum Mechanics, if you truly believed your keyboard didn't exist, it would not exist. (Read the wikipedia article)" So if I believed that quantum mechanics didn't exist, it would not exist? What happens then? Contradiction: Am I a alive? The answer cannot be yes AND no. Circle-Square: If a circle-square is possible, it is my opponent's burden to prove it. A square by definition has 4 points, a circle has none. Final claim: Our individual perception and experiences does not change the truth. Just because I can claim that you do not exist, does not mean you disappear into thin air and cease to exist. This is not the case. Just because we are ignorant of the truth, does not mean that truth is relative. Just because 1,000 years ago, people thought the earth was flat, does not mean the earth was flat. Opinions are relative. Facts, truths, and laws are not. I have demonstrated that some things in this world are absolute. My opponent can feel free to disagree that if I drop an apple, it will fall. I thank Mr. Dorb, for debating this topic with me. And leave the rest to the voters. Thank you.
Truth is relative

::Resolution:: "Con believes that I am arguing that all truth is an opinion, and therefore relative. I never stated this." "Truth is relative" is Pro's resolution. Nowhere does Pro state that only "some" truths are relative; therefore, Con must assume that Pro is claiming all truths are relative. ::Gravity:: "Relativity is only required when there is a need for extreme precision, or when dealing with gravitation for extremely massive and dense objects." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org... The above quote explains it rather well. Furthermore, you missed my point entirely. If I drop an apple from a roof, it WILL fall down. This isn't relative. It is not a matter of opinion that gravity pulled the apple down to the ground. ::Blue:: Language was invented so that humanity could communicate, we labeled blue as blue, so we would have something to describe the color blue. Similarly, there is a word to describe the color of an apple, red. Blue is not red. It is not a matter of opinion. "My opponent's claim, "The wavelength of blue is not subjective to MY interpretation of wavelength," is wrong. Interpretation is subjective." My interpretation of the color "blue" is not subjective. Blue is blue. That is fact. ::Math:: "Mathematical truths, for example, are objective" My opponent has just conceded that mathematical truths are objective, if something is objective; it is not subjective, hence not relative. If you have one apple, and I give you another one, you have three apples. That is your proof. Must I prove that I have two hands, as well? ::Existence:: Con claims that physical existence is relative. That would mean if I didn't believe my keyboard existed, it would cease to exist. As that is not the case, Con's resolution is negated. ::Contradiction:: Relativism is self-refuting by definition. Since truth is relative, if I claim that relativism is false, does that not make it true? ::Circle-Sqaure:: P1: A square has four points. P2: A circle has no points. :: therefore, a square is not a circle. According to the theory of relativism a circle can be a square, as long as it is what I want to believe. Circles are not squares, therefore relativism is false. ::Etc:: Light is a particle and a wave. Wave-particle duality. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org......... "At some point in time and space, the earth was not, is not, or will not be, spherical. It is a truth relative to time and space. Again, look up general relativity." The earth is spherical at this moment; therefore, as of this moment, the present, the earth is spherical. The future is nonexistent, what has not yet happened does not qualify as truth or fact. I apologize for my previous round being cut short, it seems I ran out of characters.
Truth is relative

I thank Mr. Dorb for starting this debate. First, I would like to present a few definitions for Truth. 3 .a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths. 5. actuality or actual existence. 6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude. 10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com.... :: Relativism and Truth are incompatible :: I would first like to contend that relativism and the truth are not compatible. It is universally accepted that the sky is blue, the sun is bright, and 1+1=2. These are objective truths that are not a matter of opinion. I will give a simple analogy to demonstrate my point: Tom: 1+1=2 Jack: No, 1+1=3 David: It is both 2 and 3. My opponent is making a claim that is the equivalent of David's. And since 1+1 obviously equals 2. My opponent's resolution is negated.
Truth is relative

I would like to argue that truth is relative. As such, to win this debate my opponent will have to prove that some absolute truth exists absolutely. Before my opponent proffers his initial argument, I would like to address the obvious and familiar question: "is the relativity of truth itself relative?" This seemingly quick refutation suggests that if the relativist position itself is nonrelative, then it is false. But this does not refute the relativist position. Rather, it suggests that it is unstable. And "unstable" does not necessarily mean impossible. I'd like to give my opponent a chance to choose his own direction for this debate, however, before pursuing the issue of stability vis-a-vis truth and relativity. I look forward to this debate....
Travel bans are poor policy response against Ebola

Like I said in my first argument, a travel ban isn't going to solve Ebola, but it certainly won't hurt. What I got from your argument was that you think we should do more than that. No one disagrees with you. However, keeping it contained will give people more time to come up with a permanent solution."Much better to maintain current travel" You're basically giving Ebola a flown escort to other countries. While Ebola is currently hard to catch, it won't be if it is in any and all countries.Also, a travel ban wouldn't be cutting travel "wholesale", just on the hot spots of Ebola. There is not a low risk of an infected person getting on a plane if a travel ban is not soon put in place. It will spread much quicker, and that would make the chance of an infected getting on a plane HIGHER.All in all, a travel ban would slow the Ebola spread down and give scientists a chance to find a working cure to make the travelling world safe again. There really isn't anything but positive outcomes by implementing a travel ban. Thank you.
Travel bans are poor policy response against Ebola

Appreciate the thoughtful response. While I agree that it is easier to manage a disease like Ebola if it remains geographically contained, it is not necessarily the case that a travel ban will accomplish that purpose. As you point out, a travel ban by itself does nothing but worsen the situation within endemic countries by shutting off the aid (in personnel) that is needed to treat the disease. As the disease spreads within those countries, more and more people will be tempted to flee, and tempted to try to conceal where they came from. Currently about 150 people per day travel to the U.S. from these infected countries. (http://www.usatoday.com...) These people can all be screened. The odds of any one person having the disease is very low. With about 5,000 current cases (4,000 additional cases have died) out of a population of 16 million in the affected countries, the risk is about 3 in 10,000. And that risk is much less when you consider that people wealthy enough to travel are much less likely to be infected. Also, a symptomatic person who is obviously sick would be in no condition to travel. So we are only talking about the very low risk that an infected person in the asymptomatic stage of the disease will get on a plane and lie about his/her contacts. Much better to maintain current travel and work together with the affected countries to ensure that infected travelers are banned, rather than banning travel wholesale.
Travel bans are poor policy response against Ebola

Forgive me for taking so long to post an argument, I could not find the time to get back online.I would like to begin by thanking you for sharing such an educated opinion, and I hope mine will amount to the same standard.My response to your argumentEbola is a disease that is not airbourne, it is very hard to catch, and it already has vaccines being developed. However, none of these factors alone do anything for us. Creating ONLY a travel ban will result in a very large amount of Africa dying out. Creating ONLY a vaccine won't stop the virus from spreading through people who already have it. The CDC (and other organizations) have to make a number of methods to collaborate and respond aggressively to Ebola.A travel ban is a start.Ebola is yet to have a cure. While it is still treatable at early stages, it will be easier to contain if it remains in Africa. I also believe you are misunderstanding what a travel ban is. A travel ban would be any resident of Liberia (or other infected countries) to depart in destination of America (and Vice Versa). However, the CDC is capable of using equipment to quarantine cases.
Travel bans are poor policy response against Ebola

Threats from infection are endemic to all societies. The advent of modern transportation systems has increased the risk of spreading disease. Nevertheless, travel is an essential part of every country's economic well-being. Shutting down travel in response to the Ebola outbreak will decrease aid and economic viability in countries where Ebola is present, worsening the outbreak and making it more likely that people will attempt to flee and spread the disease. In addition, travel bans are unnecessary and disproportionate as the risk of an infected person boarding a flight to the U.S. is extremely low and that risk can be further reduced by screening. If travel bans became standard operating procedure for infections, the U.S. would face the risk of travel bans around the world for disorders like enterovirus d68. This would cause devastating economic disruption, far beyond that of fighting Ebola itself.
I think broncos will beat the Seahawks

For one, I think we all know here that the Seahawks defense is going to completely shut down Peyton Manning. Peyton Manning may have an exceptional passing game, but Doug Baldwin tops Wes Welker, Marshawn Lynch tops Knowshon Moreno AND Monte Ball, Zach Miller tops Julius Thomas, and the Broncos defense will have to try to contain Russell Wilson's rushing game. And when you get Russell Wilson and Golden Tate in the Red Zone, we're going to make magic happen. Not to mention Seattle has the highest ranking defense in NFL today. It really is simple. The Broncos are going home with a loss.
Secular Society Amounts to Statism

As I have stated in the comments, this argument is in disregard of Con's previous contention. This is because it was in violation of my rule that the first round will be for acceptance only. I ask that the voters disregard her first round post as well.Separation of Church and State?"If our government ever comes to the place where we renounce our accountability to God, we will cease to have basic human rights." (Pro, first round) As is understood, our rights are something we hold in common among and for all men, but where do we derive these rights? The Declaration of Independence enumerates the intent of the founding fathers of the United States:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [1]This intent was clearly that it be understood that these rights are endowed by our Creator, him being God. The complete secularization of the State would require that even this founding document be rewritten to remove God. Before my opponent challenges this, it is obvious that matters so trivial have indeed been a source of strife, as seen in the cause of the removal of religious symbols from government buildings and the like. A mention of the Creator is not simply defined by mention in a piece of law. This is clearly the view of the proponents of radical secularism- that all official government should be left secular. [2]AuthorityFor there to be order in society, enough to ensure the complete removal of God from all government and practice, there must be a potent authority for man to answer to. As we have learned from history, as well as theory, totalitarianism starts with control - namely control over religious beliefs. [3] And as we all know, the removal of religion from all government practice is a property of secularism. Totalitarianism is a form of Statism. The USSR is a great example of this. [4]Sources: [1] http://www.archives.gov...[2] http://www.infidels.org...[3] http://oae.sagepub.com...[4] http://blogs.ssrc.org...
Secular Society Amounts to Statism

If our government ever comes to the place where we renounce our accountability to God, we will cease to have basic human rights. The only reference point that we can rely on for the rights of Life, Libery, and the Pursuit of Happiness is God, and in a secular society, the only god would be man and all of his faults. In this society we would no longer be subject to the immutable God (even if just in our minds), but instead to the selfish whims of man. . In a state of anarchy, an ambitious man would rise up and take power. He would declare himself as a god. Having a sense of accountability for our actions gives us a reason to not be selfish; only an idiot would be benevolent if he was powerful and believed God did not exist In this society, the government (be it a doctatorship or oligarchy, what-have-you), would become the god, and it would create our rights. We would be completely subjugated. My opponent will argue that secular societ does not amount to statism.
Secular Society Amounts to Statism

Thanks for the debate. Pro never explained why rights had to come from God. I've given examples of philosophical perspectives and an explanation about why rights do not necessarily come from God. This is an argument in support of secularism. The audience must accept (considering a lack of rebuttal) that you do not need God to derive the concept of rights. I also never said that rights do not extend to all persons. Pro dropped my argument that our founding fathers asserted human rights are determined by secular, natural laws, and not by any God or religion. Pro also dropped my point that secular laws are preferable in terms of governance (as it avoids religious oppression). Pro concludes, "The removal of expression of religion from all those individuals who hold public office would equate to control over religious beliefs. You can not eliminate religion from public office without infringing upon individual rights."This is inaccurate. As I explained in the last round, secularism does not aim to control the religious beliefs of the masses. In fact, it does the opposite. It does not prevent those who hold office from having or practicing their own religious beliefs. What it does is aim to protect non-believers and those of various faiths from religious and political oppression by using one set of values (or a politician's values) to dictate laws about their livelihood. [ Conclusion ]I've explained why rights do not necessarily come from God. I've also explained that not only would it be practically impossible to determine which God/ interpretation of God's values to use as a precedent for law, but that it would be oppressive to impose religious beliefs on non-believers through force (a State's monopoly on law and governance). Pro never disputed this claim throughout the debate. I've argued that one doesn't have to be religious to have a conscience; theism is not a prerequisite for morality. Pro never challenged this. I've also challenged Pro to provide an explanation as to how a secular society would automatically become a State. People wouldn't/don't worship a secular State as they do God. Rights are not derived from government; rather government protects rights secular societies derive from humanist principles. Pro hasn't remotely proven that a lack of religious values amounts to Statism, i.e., a tyrannical, aggressive monopoly on force and violence. The two are not related and I've negated Pro's attempts at finding comparisons. Just because people might prefer a secular society does not mean 1) they themselves are not religious, 2) they will necessarily respect or legitimize the authority of the State.
Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legalized In The United States

I'm honestly a bit confused on your stance. You seem to be okay with gay people getting married, but insist on the government... not allowing that? The title of this debate suggest that you think the government shouldn't allow gay people to be legally recognized as married, as that is what it means for gay marriage to be legalized. Your argument however seems to say you don't think the government should force religious organizations to be priests at gay weddings. If churches are issuing marriage licenses for the state then they have to obey the law. Maybe a church shouldn't have to host a gay wedding if they are insistent upon being backwards and bigoted in their ways, but if you work for the state, or perform any function for the state, you must follow the state's rules. I'm sorry if I am not very sympathetic to people whining that they can no longer deny people their fundamental rights as human beings, which the Supreme Court has ruled marriage as (1).I'm not sure what you mean by "government endorsed alternatives that exclude employment of people based on their religion." You do know people are already hired to issue marriage licenses to straight people, right? Like, you don't have to hire more people. You use the same people issuing straight marriage licenses to also issue the gay ones. And if a person has a problem respecting the law, then they shouldn't have a job to enforce it.You do know that the court decision last June wasn't just a formality, right? Like people weren't just whining that the bigots wouldn't marry them; in many states, people couldn't get married to their same sex partners. Obviously there's an issue there, and the government needed to address the legality of same-sex marriage. As it turns out, when there's an issue about the Constitution affecting the majority of the nation, somebody has to sort that out. Otherwise, we'd still be in this odd limbo where some states wouldn't recognize state-issued marriage licenses.Yeah, I'm all for just letting people decide what marriage means but marriage isn't just a formality either. There are tax benefits to tying the knot. If you are some body's spouse, you have control over medical procedures if your spouse is unconscious. You can sue for wrongful death of a spouse. If you're married, you can inherit an estate without taxes, and if they have no will, you can inherit it anyway (all source 2). In retrospect, it seems like you want to completely delegalize marriage completely. All marriages. As in, nobody is married in the eyes of the state. Which, I don't know about you, seems like a much more expensive process than just... allowing gay people to do something straight people already can. I mean, it's been legal for 8 months now and the country hasn't burned. I've yet to see any gay caused riots in the streets. The Constitution hasn't been shredded to pieces as roving Straight-Hunting death squads target the last few God-fearing patriots of this once great land.Sorry. That got away from me for a bit there. Anyway, see you next round.Sources:1. https://www.lifesitenews.com...2. https://www.theknot.com...
Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legalized In The United States

Well first I'd like to reference the comments in this debate as an example of one very large problem we have, here, in America. People seem to feel that the government needs to make a decision on this, one way or another. People seem to feel that the government needs to make decisions on a lot of things that they really shouldn't be involved in at all. Government involvement should be viewed as a last resort; governance always comes with an inherent breach of freedom under threat, whether it's an immediate threat of force or muddled through fines or taxation. The idea that government should be any part of marriage is completely ludicrous. All law comes at the cost of freedom, in some way or another. To legalize gay marriage, an over-step of government power is unavoidable. The government would be required to take an active role in providing a means for gay people to get married. I see this happening, generally, in two ways: Make it illegal for anyone, vested with the right to marry two individuals, to deny them the "right" to be married based on orientation. This will obviously be a huge problem for religious figures. Provide government endorsed alternatives that exclude employment of people based on their religion. This will mean government jobs that require an act that infringe heavily on a very commonly held religious/moral belief. It always means taxation to provide this regulation and enforcement. I think it's entirely unnecessary to create these conflicts. I would propose that any legislation, regardless of whether it's making gay marriage legal or illegal, is going to cause issues. I believe that the government should have absolutely nothing to due with marriage. Any legislation concerning marriage should be reformed. This would leave the definition of marriage up to the individual, the way that it should be. Gay people who want to get married may have trouble finding a priest to do it, but it's not the government's place to impose their will upon a priest or anyone else when it comes to something like marriage. The stigma about homosexuality is beginning to dissipate in this nation. A great wealth of entrepreneurs are ready to capitalize on the market of gay marriage. Let people do what they want, and don't infringe upon the rights of prejudice people to pander to the desires of gay people. There's just no need to provide any couple with a legal right to be married. Providing marriage as a legal right requires taxation of people who will never get married. It requires the government to define marriage. It requires government workers to quit if their religion does not allow them to participate in a gay marriage. But again, the most important question here, is why are their any government workers dealing with marriage at all? It's completely asinine, and it all needs to stop.
should the age to drink coincide with the age to join the military

There are, however, many other things that people are not allowed to do until they turn 21. (e.g. gambling, buying a handgun, or adopting a child) (1) These decisions require a greater sense of maturity and responsibility. Drinking should also be grouped with these because of the many consequences that can occur as a result of irresponsible and excessive drinking. (1) http://drinkingage.procon.org...