BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Attacking ISIS on the basis of their humanitarian crimes is a bad argument.

Before we dive in, let's cover a few definitions: Attacking: To attack in any way, including, but not limited to, military attack, political, verbal, etc. ISIS: the Islamic State of greater Iraq and Syria; the terrorist regime. Humanitarian crimes: any crimes that violate the basic human rights of Life, Liberty, and Property. Bad argument: any argument that is not morally, ethically, or politically sound or right. Observation 1: No given time frame. The resolution gives no inherent timeframe for the attack on ISIS. Observation 2: Any attack. By definition, an attack could mean sanctions, the military, verbal reproach, etc. Before we take a look at the Pro's case, let's cover the value I will be upholding throughout this debate, as well as a criterion. Security: Security is defined as the state of being free from danger or threat. This includes the protection of Human Rights. My criterion, or plan to achieve my value, is Verbal Reproach. As defined, attack can mean verbal reproach, which is also shown in my observation. This is an attack, and we will (for the most part), not be using military force under my plan. In response to Pro's 1), I would argue, that as we need to protect the National Security, as well as the security of the innocents, we need to have some form of attack, described under my criterion. 2) So what? This is true as a general rule. 3) Although that is debatable, I will concede that point. 4), 5), 6), 7), and 8): By my criterion, we can attack the Mexican cartels with military force or other attacks at the same time or in different time frames, as stated in my O2. Also, my plan does not take away any significant amount of resources. No ground troops will be involved. This is within the interests of the US as the US was started to protect Human rights, especially Freedom of Speech and Liberty. Now my case: Contention 1: We need a response: a. Silence means agreement. Someone once wisely said that "To be silent means to agree". We cannot continue to let ISIS conquer the Middle East and leave our allies unprotected. We must take a stand for Human Rights. b. If we don't who will? The US is looked upon as the leading (or one of them, anyway) nation on Earth. We are supposed to take a stand, as a) others may be too weak/unstable, or b) If we don't, then no one else will, or even c) everybody may think as we do and no one will retaliate against ISIS. I believe I've countered Pro's 8 main arguments as well as establishing a few of my own. It is for these given reasons that I believe that a Con vote is warranted. Thank you.
Attacking ISIS on the basis of their humanitarian crimes is a bad argument.

The resolution to be pro or con on is Resolved: Committing US ground combat troops is in the best interest of the United States. I have changed my formatting here though because instead of taking on every single argument at once, perhaps some people would simply like to take on a single argument. This will be for argument: [ C ]……if you want to debate this, please just tell me in the comment, Thanks! D. ) (This is a response to an anticipated PRO argument) Human Rights violations 1. ) Many people posit that because ISIS kills innocents we have a moral obligation to protect them 2. ) Thus if another group were comitting inhuman activites of worse account And greater threat to us, we should attack them first. 3. ) The Mexican crtels do worse And are a greater threat to the US directly. thus they are a greater threat to US interests. 4. ) We should attack the Mexican cartels instead 5. ) The plan takes away recoures to do so 6. ) We should not commit ground troops because it prevents us from fighting the bigger problem 7. ) This is not in the interest of the US 8. ) The reslution should be negated or the argument should be dropped. Rules, Rounds and Regulations1. ) R1: Opening argument/ resonse to opening argument2. ) R2: Responses/ rebuttals3. ) R3: Rebuttals/ rebuttals4. ) R4: Summary and Why you win5. ) BOP is on CON6. ) No arguments in support of the resolution, If con looses his argument then he automatically looses the entire round thus this argument is all that must be negated.
Rock Music is better than Hip Hop, Dubstep, and Rap.

It seems my opponent has forfeited this round. I suppose I'll begin.I disagree with my opponent's contention that Rock music is better than Rap, Hip-Hop, and Dubstep. I'm actually a fan of all four genres, and believe that they all have something good and valuable to bring to the musical table.I hear very often from people who believe that Rock music is a superier genre to Hip-Hop/Rap and Electronic music. One reason the people who take this stance typically give for feeling this way is that Rock bands typically contain members that plays "real" musical instruments such as guitar, bass, and/or drums. These "real" musical instruments are thought to be more authentic and legimate ways of making music than a computer or a synth which is what many Hip-Hop and Electronic procuders use to make their music. Now, of course, there are Hip-Hop/Rap artists that do use live instruments. NERD, Lauryn Hill, Lupe Fiasco, etc. all use live bands when playing shows and recording. The Roots, themselves, are a Hip-Hop/Rap band. So, this argument can't be applied to all Hip-Hop/Rap acts.But in defense of the Hip-Hop and Dubstep producers that do utlize electronic production over writing songs on "real" instruments, I think what they're doing is just as valid as what musicians do. It certainly does take talent and a massive amount of creativity to accomplish something good in those genres. It is not the "lazy" way of making music either. Lots of effort most be put into it. Now, Rap music takes a lot of criticism from Rock fans as well. Many make the claim that Rap takes no talent and is simply fast talking. This isn't true. It does take work and effort to become a talented rapper. There must be a consistent inner structure to the flow, rhyme, and rhytym of the words. Lots of creativity and thought most go into it.I'll elaborate more on these points in the next round. Hopefully my opponent will show up, but I have a feeling that might not happen.
Banning guns and gun control in the U.S

Thank you for contending! Now many, which I gather you are one of, believe that banning guns will reduce crime rate and have great outcomes. However, this is not the case. By banning guns, you are only taking guns away from the law abiding citizens. Lets take someone who is on the run from the police because they have robbed a bank. Lets also suppose that the government has banned guns. They have already broken the law and decide that they will kill someone. If they have ALREADY broken a law, why do you think they would decide to follow the no guns law? Now I know you may say that if guns were banned no one would be able to get control of guns. But I have current proof that this is not the case. Meth is not a legal drug yet it is still used and up for purchase (black market). Before marijuana was legalized in Colorado, people were found using and owning marijuana. These are things that are banned and in marijuana's case controlled. Does it look like criminals care whether or not it is banned? I await your reply, Skeeter
nature is a threat to humans

Dear friends, "Nature is a threat to humans", this phrase could stand for a broad terminology. Especially the word nature, in Cambridge dictionary, it refers to all the plants, animals and other things on earth not created by humans; events or processes not caused by humans. So if we take that definition, then one can't argue that nature is absolutely harmless to human existence, supported by the theory of evolution, where 98% of species have extinct in the past four billion years, due to revolutions in the natural world. so that would not be in the spirit of this debate. On the other hand, if you're arguing whether the nature and it's potential to harm has been modified through human habitation or not, then this side of the house would argue that the existing nature has been heavily damaged through destruction and pollution. This is because of human-caused biodiversity loss and climate disruption gain ground. We need to keep our sights clear and understand that the measure of a threat is not a matter of whether it is made on purpose, but of how much loss it may cause. It's an ancient habit to go after those we perceive to be evil because they intended to do harm. It's harder, but more effective, to "go after," meaning to more effectively educate and socialize, those vastly larger numbers of our fellow humans who are not evil, but whose behavior may in fact be far more destructive in the long run. The opposition's stand is clear, we believe that nature is modified by humans' habitation, and these changes in environment cause harm. However we need to better adapt ourselves to the everyday changes in the natural world to minimize our loss.
philosophy is better than science

Quick road map. I'll address Pro' points then move on to why you should vote Con. 1) philosophy studies, beside nature, soul, god, spirits, magick Should have brought this up earlier. That's a new point in the rebuttal. 2)no scientist have observed genes. they cannot show how genes look like. False. We have observed genes and can map them to extreme detail. We know the basic building blocks of genes (Thymine, Amine, Guamine, and Cystine) and the patterns they follow. 3)if so, then how come genetically modified foods becomes a disaster? Genetically modified foods have not become a disaster. I'm not sure how you came up with this. We successfully manipulate genes all the time, such as genetically modified crops. 4)of course. we read star using different telescope from different labs that gives us different results Wrong, nowhere in your example do we manipulate the stars. We simply change the ways we observe them to better understand them. I'd also like to point out that prior to the use of the telescope, philosophers thought the universe revolved around the earth. 5)science do not use common sense to interpret nature which philosophy does. New point in rebuttal. But I would like to point out once again that lab research allows us to study things philosophy does not (genes) and that the majority of the knowledge we've gained in the last 100 years is not possible without lab research. Once again I would like to emphasize that Pro's arguments have zero solvency. He has not brought up one advantage to philosophy that does not apply to science. Therefore he cannot win. I'll run down few of my points really quickly, showing why a vote for Con is the obvious choice. Science often studies nature without interfering with it. Lab research is accurate and important in advancing our knowledge. Philosophy is limited in it's ability to study nature. Philosophy require science. I would also like to bring up the strawman presented by Pro, which states that science distorts it's study matter. This is a voter for Con. Thank you again for a great debate.
philosophy is better than science

1] philosophy studies anything that science does notphilosophy studies, beside nature, soul, god, spirits, magick etc. science simply deny the existance of these things. but many people have experienced these things. this is evidence of the bigger span of philosophy.2]First, we have observed genesno scientist have observed genes. they cannot show how genes look like.the genetic heredity patterns discovered by science have been found to hold true in nature.if so, then how come genetically modified foods becomes a disaster?3]Have we interfered with the stars? of course. we read star using different telescope from different labs that gives us different results. in the past when there was no telescope people use to read the stars by observing them with naked eye. that was the day of philosophy.anything studied in a controlled environment instead of natural environment is bound to give abnormal result.one new point:science do not use common sense to interpret nature which philosophy does. thats why philosophy made more sense than science. for example: by observing the fossil records, our common sense tell us that once these creatures played on the face of earth. but the uncommon sense of science dictates that these creatures evolved from one another. this does not make sense.philosophy is better than science.
philosophy is better than science

Pro once again has used a strawman fallacy, another voter for Con. He jumps to several conclusions. 1)Science always interferes with it's object of study. This is false. Have we interfered with the stars? We still study them. Also, in ecology nature is often studied without interference from the observer. Also, this interference is done in a constructive way. I cannot properly examine the effects of genes if I cannot isolate the gene. I cannot study the effects of parasite A on plants without isolating it from parasite B. 2)Because genes are studied in lab, we cannot trust the findings. First, we have observed genes. Secondly, the genetic heredity patterns discovered by science have been found to hold true in nature. This is just one of many examples of lab research that has been proven true. 3)In reply to my third contention, you misrepresent my statement. I said science studies everything philosophy does. You did not refute this. You simply state that there are things science studies, but philosophy does not. For my final contention I would like to bring up solvency. Your points for philosophy have no solvency. You have yet to show how philosophy studies anything that science does not. All of your points also apply to science, where objects are often studied in nature without interference. Therefore you have zero solvency. You cannot win a debate without solvency.
philosophy is better than science

con did not understand properly my points. hence i will tell those points once again.1] science interfares with its subject of observation and thus distort the reality very much. take any science and you will find that it interfares with its subject in some controlled environment and thus getting wrong infos.2] Lab research is used to research something that cannot be researched in nature. those that cannot be studied in nature cannot be reliable. we only have heard the existance of genes and saw them in computer made simulations. none of us saw genes with mortal eyes. scientists claim they see but they cannot show us. what they show does not match with the model of gene. thus it makes the existance of gene very doubtful.philosophy teahes us to be free from doubt.3] Science studies, in nature, everything that philosophy studies in nature. no thats not true. philosophy does not study the following things: genetics, atoms or subatomic particles, robotics, quantum physics, string theory, god particle, black hole etc. because theses things are very doubtful.4]Philosophy does not research in a lab, and therefore is limited in it's ability to study nature. no sir. philosophy will always study the nature as it is without interfaring or distorting the subject. thus it is always speaks truth. it is not limitation. it is a plus point.philosophy is better than science.
philosophy is better than science

I'm afraid pro is very misguided about what science is and how it works. I'll hit a few points here and show how they relate to his contentions. 1)Science does not always happen in the lab. In fact, if you read many science papers you will notice that the majority of the research is done in nature. IE "the flower is on the tree". This is a strawman argument, which is a voter for Con. 2)Lab research is used to research something that cannot be researched in nature. For example, everything we know about genes are a product of lab research. Plants were taken in a lab and fertilized in a controlled environment so that the genes of the parent organisms could be controlled. This allowed scientists to properly monitor the gene heredity of the offspring. This brings me to my final two points 3)Science studies, in nature, everything that philosophy studies in nature. Therefore philosophy does not study anything science does not study. 4)Philosophy does not research in a lab, and therefore is limited in it's ability to study nature. Everything we know about genes and gene heredity is credited to science, and would not be possible without lab research. This is a major achilles of philosophy.
philosophy is better than science

i accept that both science and phlosophy is the study of natural world. now how these 2 study nature is debatable.1. in the question of how flower grows, philosophy and science, although both study the same thing, gave different answer. con cleverly avoid the main point here. i hope the voters will consider that. philosophy study flower while they are on the tree. science separate the flower from the tree and bring it into the lab. these 2 different approach can easily be identified. i think truth comes from the philosophical approach of studying nature because by the time you separated the flower from the tree, the flower dies and you take the dead body of the flower into the lab.2. the major branches of science such as physics, chemistry, biology take the nature into the lab. this is what i mean when i say science takes nature into lab. science is not the prerquisit to study philosophy because science and philosophy has no relation at all. both of them only study the same thing. it is like i and Mr.x studies math. we are not related to each other but we study the same thing i.e math.3.how do you know science gave us horse drawn cart? science as we know it today started from renessians, right after middle age.horse drawn cart existed before renessians.4. philosophy do not require science. if you study the time frame of our history you will see that philosophy exists before dark age and science starts after dark age. so between philosophy and science dark age is the gap of time. so philosophy does not require science.5.debate are possible without science. just take some friends to a hangout and start debating.since philosophy study nature as it is, without distorting it a bit, philosophy is better than science.
philosophy is better than science

Quick Road map here. I'll go down my opponents contentions, then address my own points. But first I would like to point out that Pro did not refute the definition I provided for science. Therefore we must assume that he has accepted it. Contention 1) PRO states, "if the question is how the flower grows, philosophy will study the growth as it is". Because the flower is the natural world, and science is the study of the natural world, then the study of the flower is science. Therefore it can be concluded that such a study of the flower cannot exist without science. Contention 2) PRO states, "philosophy will study the nature as it is without distorting it a bit. science on the other hand, takes the nature into lab and cut and twist it and distort the reality." There are two major things I would like to point out here. The first was addressed in contention 1. Science is the study of nature. Therefore if philosophy is studying nature, then science is a prerequisite for philosophy. Therefore philosophy cannot exist without science. I will address this again later in the round. Also, science does not "take nature into a lab and distort it". As an ecologist, I study organisms in their natural environment. Therefore this is a straw man logic fallacy. You are misrepresenting what science is. Logic fallacies are voters, and this one flows to CON. Contention 3) "Science only improves upon what we have." Science also gave us the horse drawn cart. Science gave us medical care. Science gave us those goods to be transported. Everything is a product of studying the natural world, which I will address farther down. Now for my contentions. 1)Philosophy requires science. Without science, philosophy would not exist. For example, let us take Dr. Karl Marx, a Dr. of Philosophy. Marx spent an excess of two years studying the natural world to develop his philosophy of Marxist Socialism. This shows that science, the study of the natural world, is required for philosophy. You will also notice that in every example of philosophy provided by PRO, the study of the natural world (science) s mentioned. If PRO cannot even provide an example of philosophy that does not require study of the natural world (science), then obviously science is required for philosophy. 2)This debate would not even be possible without science. Computers, the internet, and therefore debate.com are products of science. Therefore without science, this debate cannot even happen. If philosophy cannot exist without science, we can conclude that science is superior.
philosophy is better than science

philosophy is better than science because:1] philosophy assums that natural laws can be discovered by experiencing the law as it is. on the other hand science assums that natural laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.this means taking nature into the lab and interfare with it and thus distorting the reality.for example, if the question is how the flower grows, philosophy will study the growth as it is. it will watch a flower grow up from buds to the complete flower.philosopher will say that when the season comes the flower will grow up on its own from bud to the complete flowering and then it withers out.but science will first tear down the flower from the tree and then it will take it to the lab and cut or twist it. then science comes out with an explanation that will contradict our daily experience.2] philosophy is totally based on common sense i.e. objective reality. it will study the nature as it is without distorting it a bit. science on the other hand, takes the nature into lab and cut and twist it and distort the reality. for example: how world is made up of? if this is the question, philosophy will say that world is made up of 4 elements: earth, air, fire and water. both philosopher and laymen can see these 4 elements everyday.thus these 4 elements have an objective existance. but science will say that the world is made up of strings or sub atomic particle like electron, proton or nutron. neither the scientists nor laymen ever seen these particles or strings. thus i don't know if these things have any reality at all. 3] some will say that science gave many advanced things to the world: ships, airplane, cars, computers etc. but just think about it. what are the functions these advanced things performed? ships, planes and cars are used for transport. before these we have horse/bulls for transport. these advanced things just do that same ancient job of transport in a new way.computer is doing the job of a tv in a new way. it is like old wine in new bottle.but philosophy will give you the eyes to see which you have not had before.it will teach you to see new things and explore the objective reality of the world.
philosophy is better than science

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.science refers to the body of reliable knowledge itself, of the type that can be logically and rationally explained.better = takes us to the truth.i will argue that philosophy is better than science.con will argue that philosophy is not better than science.first round acceptance only.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...