BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Philanthropy Should Be Compulsory

I would say that the claim that misconduct is fairly low among charities is because giving to them is due to the fact that charities are currently in competition not only with one another to appear benevolent, but also with the concept of not donating. One needs only look at how some high-profile charities have been. The Clinton Foundation, Wounded Warrior, and let's not forget that Mark Zuckerberg did not give 99% of his wealth to charity, but to politically active LLC's. More charities would behave in such a way if philanthropy were made mandatory (people pursue their own interests). As for the concept of Liberty, the people are deprived of the choice not to give, just as in some societies they are deprived of the choice not to work. This brings us to the next point. Of course those persons who give already would not lose happiness, but what about those people who do not give, whatever their reasons? "Research shows that giving to charity can improve happiness." Well, "can" is the key word there. Research also shows that drinking red wine is good for the heart. Should we then mandate red wine with dinners? Research shows that social interaction increases happiness. Should we make weekly parties mandatory to attend? For a case, take the concept of Scrooge. Although Scrooge does not give to charity because he is a miser, the charity can still obtain donations from others. Thus, Scrooge's happiness, the happiness of all givers, and the happiness of the receivers is in no way decreased. If Scrooge was forced to give, his happiness would decrease, thus decreasing happiness overall.
The term "atheist" is to be preferred to the term "agnostic."

My opponent seems confused. I'll ignore the fact that his syllogism is technically flawed because the universal negative comes before the particular when it should come first (in other words, P2 should be P1, and vice versa), but how and ever. More specifically, the syllogism is flawed because I never make the claim that "no evidence necessitates that something does not exist." Such a claim is objectively false. In fact, in Round 2, I explicitly state that "the existence of God is un-knowable." If you have a scrolling facility on your mouse or keyboard, which is a near-universal feature, you can verify this for yourself. In fact, I claim that, since we cannot know whether or not God exists, we must resort to some measure of probability. In a probabilistic analysis, the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence. It's not proof, but it's evidence. My opponent does all of my work for me when he states that "there is literally no way to justify this claim with a positive or affirmative stance objectively," BUT, and it's a big but, "we can logically conclude its probably false." Probably false. In other words, we are not completely lacking any and all knowledge on the subject of the existence of God. My opponent weighs up the various pieces of evidence and concludes that God "probably" does not exist. I have argued that the term "agnostic" signifies no knowledge at all. This gives a false impression. It's as if we must suspend our decision-making faculties because there is absolutely no information available on the subject. This is simply incorrect. The word has pretentions to ignorance. However, the term atheist, which my opponent correctly suggests should be defined as "someone who lacks the belief of a God," is a far more accurate description of the situation. The average atheist has weighed the evidence, and concluded that, in spite of not being able to make a definitive judgement, the balance of probabilities would suggest that God "probably" does not exist, and asserts his or her disbelief through an embrace of the most accurate and descriptive term available. The term "atheist," therefore, is to be preferred to the term "agnostic." I'll conclude with my own little syllogism: P1: All agnostics are atheists P2: Mikal is an agnostic C: Therefore Mikal is an atheist
The term "atheist" is to be preferred to the term "agnostic."

In the case of a non-believer, the term "atheist" is to be preferred to the term "agnostic." The term "agnostic" is derived from the Greek, gnosis, with the 'alpha steretikon' prefix, signifying its negation. A proper rendering into English, therefore, would be "un-knowledgeable." In a partial sense, this is true, as the existence of God is un-knowable, but we are most definitely not "un-knowledgeable" on the subject. This term gives a false impression. If you're a non-believer, you presumably have good reasons. However, the term "atheist" comes from the Greek word theist, which is derived from, but not equivalent to, the word theos, meaning God. So, in a sense, the word atheist is best translated as "un-godly." I suppose it depends on your definition of God then, but it applies equally well to all interpretations if you're a standard non-believer. In addition, in recent years, the term theist has come to mean an active believer in God, and so an atheist is simply a non-believer. This has obvious benefits over and above the alternative. In summary, then, if you're a non-believer in search of a term with which to describe yourself, then "atheist" is clearly to be preferred over "agnostic."
Compulsory Vaccines, pick which side in r1.

I'm still on the fence about vaccines. I am willing to argue for or against vaccines. This is because many of my real life friends are anti-vaxxers, yet I pride myself on being a rational person. Therefore, I am in conflict. Finally, depending on which side my opponent picks, I will argue the opposite. Just make sure to state which side you are on in round one. If you don't choose a side I assume we go with me as Pro and my opponent as Con. Sides to choose from: A. Compulsory Vaccines should be enforced by law in the USA regardless of any religious beliefs, conspiracy theories, or moral objections. B. Compulsory Vaccines should not be enforced by law in the USA if the person has a religious, conspiracy theories, or moral objection. Exceptions, contraindications [0] and immunocompromised patients, or any other physical reason is it ill-advised patient for the patient to receive the vaccination treatment verified by a licensed medical doctor. Example one, person A receives a vaccination, then a rare reaction of some kind occurs. Then, the doctor would write a note that particular person shouldn't receive any booster shots for that vaccination. Example two, immunocompromised patients. Patient B has a condition, like receiving chemotherapy that hinders the immune system rendering the vaccine ineffective. Just to be clear, physical reasons that can be verified by a doctor would be excluded from the debate. Having moral, irrational fears, and/or religious objections to vaccines is the epicenter of the debate. Round one Pick sides and definitions Round two arguments, don't respond to opponent's argument Round three rebuttals, respond directly to opponent's r2 Round four Defense, respond directly to opponent's r3. Burden of proof will be equally shared. Common definitions are assumed unless otherwise and agreed upon. Sources 0. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...
Abortion (I"m against)

1. You stated that my name is not a good name, which is not part of the debate. My name refers to my personal love of life that I share with my friends and family, but this is not related to the argument. 2. The Declaration of Independence is not a list of rules or laws that are to be followed, but a list of grievances spelled out to King George III. The Forefathers understood and acknowledged this and ignored the Declaration when they created the Articles of Confederation in 1783 and the Constitution in 1789. Since King George has since passed, who the Declaration was for, just stands as a reminder of that time period and what the United States originally stood for. 3. Religion is not part of the United States legal system, therefore its use to argue for a cause in the United States or any other secular country is invalid. 4. As terrible as that is, it's entirely circumstantial. We do not know how many of those were needed due to medical issues, for economic reasons, or any other reason. 5. Life is defined as the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death. A fetus is not and will never be capable of reproduction and a fetus is not capable of functional activity (the task or act that allows one to meet the demands of the environment and daily life) since it is entirely reliant on the mother. 6. While it is true that women die from legal abortions, it should be noted that as many as 5,000 women die every year from illegal abortions in the United States and the death rate for abortions is 0.6 per 100,000 procedures[1]. 7. I have been through every stage of life up to young adult, I do not see how this is relevant. 8. A baby is an infant which has been born, a fetus is a fetus until it is birthed. 9. Abortions done for convenience are entirely situation, ranging from a lack of wanting a child to dying if a women does not get an abortion, to rape victims, to women who cannot afford to take care of the baby and do not want to bring it into a world of poverty. 10. The cost of birth should go down or be free, but unfortunately it costs thousands of dollars in the United States and is not going down anytime soon. [1] http://www.ourbodiesourselves.org...
Abortion (I"m against)

Wow 1st Lover_of_life isn't a good name for you 2nd we may not live in a theocracy in the US, but the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (no matter how old you are -1 to 200), that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE rights, that among these are LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 3rd Abortion offends God 4th 52 million fetuses have been killed in the last 40 years! That's 1 baby every 20 seconds! 5th in any medical textbook it will say that life begins when a woman's egg is fused with a man's contribution 6th 347 women have been killed by legal abortion since 1973 7th I'm sure that if you are human that you were a baby once 8th the number of American babies killed each year is roughly equal to the number of US military deaths that have occurred in all of the wars that the United States has been involved in combined. 9th 86 percent of abortions are done for convenience 10th the cost of birth should go down Sources: The Declaration of Independence www.tfpstudentaction.org/politically-incorrect/abortion/10-reasons-why-abortion-is-evil.html www.endoftheamericandream.com/archives/19-facts-about-abortion-in-america-that-should-make-you-very-sick
Abortion (I"m against)

In the The Holy Bible in Exodus 20:13 it is stated that "thou shall not murder"[3]. While it is true that murder is wrong whether you are religious or not, our legal system is not a theocracy and thus not based on religion or the bible, assuming that you are not living in a theocracy. When it comes to birthing a baby and putting it up for an adoption instead of terminating it whether you are a teenaged girl or a mother, this is completely situational. Many women are in different situations including economic and social reasons. Economically they may not be able to afford giving birth since many states and countries charge people for giving birth[4]. This is not including food, car seats, daycare, and the countless other requirements an infant has. A birth can cost thousands of dollars, which many women could not afford and would go into large amounts of debt to do so. Socially a teenaged girl may not want her family or friends to know that she has gotten pregnant, or comes from a family that are strong anti-abortion thus making her keep it from fear of judgement and being disowned. Of course this is situational, but it is still an issue that scares many young women into getting or not getting abortions. Doctors who perform abortions say that the best time to get a surgical abortion is within the first 8 and 12 weeks of pregnancy [1] where during this time period the fetus is incapable of feeling pain. A fetus being able to feel pain is a terrible thought when it comes to abortion, but according to the Journal of the American Medical Association the fetus does not feel pain until at least 24 weeks[2] during the late stages of the second trimester of pregnancy and early stages of the 3rd trimester. It is important to note that 3rd trimester and late 2nd trimester abortions are looked down upon and in many countries and states are illegal by this point, thus most abortions are within the first twelve weeks of pregnancy where the fetus is neither viable nor can feel pain. To kill a baby would be murder, but in the case of terminating a pregnancy an abortion is terminating a pregnancy by getting rid of the fetus. An unborn fetus is not a baby, but a fetus[5][6][7]. Sources: [1] http://www.netdoctor.co.uk... [2] http://jama.jamanetwork.com... [3] http://biblehub.com...^ [4] http://www.webmd.com... [5] http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org... [6] http://www.ted.com... [7] http://www.princeton.edu...
Liberalism is an epidemic of stupidity:

Alright, I must argue that liberalism is "an epidemic of stupidity," here are the definitions:epidemic: a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time.stupidity: behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment.So I must prove that liberalism is a widespread occurence of poor judgement and/or a lack of common sense. First of all is gay marriage, a key proponent of liberalsm which is both widespread and showing a lack of common sense, since when does the goveronment get to define a religious rite? Whatever happened to the sepration of church and state? These being the same liberals which whine about the sepration of church and state, clearly demonstrating that they don't know what the hell they're talking about. Gun rights are another example, liberals think that if you ban guns criminals won't be able to kill people, even though a. they could just go steal a gun from a police officer, they're criminals remember, that means they have no regard for the law. Second of all they could just go kill someone with a knife or a club or a spear or a rock or a crossbow, or even just put draino in their coffee. Preventing law abiding citizens from being able to defend themselves doesn't somehow protect them from criminals. It is already illegal for felons to own a gun, so nothing woyld really change if you banned law abiding citrizens from owning guns also, at best you would put them on the same level as them, but eoither way, felons who commit gun violence ha to have had a way to get a gun dispite it being illegal bfor them to own a gun, so nothing has changed for them, exept now you have a massive unarmed population and felons with guns, which isn't going to turn out well. Then there is universal healthcare, liberals think that we need to expand Obamacare and add more socialism to healthcare to solve the high costs, but the issue is that socialism is exactl the reason why healthcare is so damn expensive these days that it costs 100$ to get an asprin, before medicare, you could pay out of pocket, you didn't need insurance,m but whenever you subsidize something its cost rises, so now we're in the sh*t hole we are in today, thank you Lyndon B Johnson.
Objective Morals and Values DO Exist

Objective morality does exist. This means that no single person can claim what they do is "good" or "bad" without a standard by which they call that act "good" or "bad". If someone, namely atheist, claim morality is subjective, that is, "good" and "bad" are decisions chosen by said individual, they would have to explain what they mean when they call that action "good". For example: Joe, an atheist, claims: "Rape is bad" Would have to provide a standard by which he calls it "bad". What does he mean when he says "bad". The reality is, you cannot make moral claims because they are inherently objective. You cannot call something north or south without a reference point from which you call is north or south. The same idea applies to morality because you cannot make a moral claim without appealing to an objective standard. When an atheist claims "Rape is bad", what do they even mean? Do they mean it is not beneficial? So they must have a standard by which something is beneficial or not.
Objective Morals and Values DO Exist

Welcome and thank you for enjoying and engaging your minds to this debate. My name is Anthony. I am a self-taught philosopher, that is, without formal education. My favorable method of arguing is argumentum ad absurdum. I favor William Lane Craig and Sye Ten for their theological arguments and use a combination of their arguing techniques myself; i.e., informal and formal logical mixed with presuppositionalism. I use these two forms of aplogetics to create and negate arguments. This debate is not a debate about IF God exist, but, if Objective Morals and Values do and what would logically follow if so.
Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.

Saying that "Leftists can be hypocrites" is like saying anyone can be a hypocrite. Of course, anyone can be a hypocrite. Donald Trump's a hypocrite. at times, you or I might be hypocrites.But I believe that the purpose of this argument, to debate whether Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are or aren't hypocrites., is to state whether all or none of the leftists that shop at capitalist buinesses are hypocrites.Changing the argument from all Leftists who shop at capitalist businesses to Leftists can be hypocrites if they shop at capitalist businesses changes the debate greatly.I still am firm on my belief that not all those who shop at capitalist businesses are hypocrites.
Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.

Well, as I stated before, I mentioned there are some cases where I don't consider them to be hypocrites, such as if they can't get a product at a cooperative and have to get it at a traditional business, or have no other choice. They're hypocrites when they have the option to go to a cooperative, but choose not to anyways. If you have the opportunity to do something in line with your beliefs, but then choose not to do it and do something against your beliefs, then you're a hypocrite.
Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.

I apologize but I forgot to post my definitions for key terms in my argument.Leftist: a political ideology that supports social equality and egalitarianism and socialism, often in opposition to social hierarchy and social inequalitySocialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole Capitalism: an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. I personally believe that a person can at least have a firm belief in something, but fail to carry out that belief throughout their lifestyle due to reasonable circumstances. You argue that, because leftists may purchase products from capitalist stores as opposed to cooperative stores, they are automatically hypocrites. Though I understand your view, I respectfully disagree with your reasoning. Capitalism, as I defined above, is an economic system controlled primarily by private individuals and corporations. Capitalism dominates America. Small and local businesses, and cooperatives, have a hard time of being able to sell their products in a society where wealthy and large private business dominate the playing field. Because many small businesses and cooperatives lack the resources to mass produce their products, they're more likely to sell their goods at a higher price than bigger businesses, who are equipped with the means to mass produce their products. This will likely cause the smaller business to initially fail and run out of business.Because bigger businesses are able to provide similar services to those of cooperatives at a lower price, leftists may have to make the choice to buy from them.
Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.

Well, it should be pretty self-evident why a leftist who shops at capitalist stores when they don't need to are hypocrites, but maybe it is not to some. First, I realized I didn't define hypocrisy, which I shall do here: "the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense." [1] Someone who claims to be a leftist would have the belief that capitalism is wrong, and that either it needs to be heavily regulated, or completely replaced with an alternative economic system. The fact that some of these leftists shop at capitalist stores just because it might be more convenient or easier, shows that they are not truly dedicated to the cause of leftism, and shows that their behavior doesn't conform to their beliefs and are thus hypocrites. Cooperatives already have a hard time competing with traditional businesses(as their goal isn't to compete) so how can we expect to go to socialism when people don't support the socialist-like businesses? I do agree, as stated before, that a leftist is not a hypocrite if they don't know about cooperatives, which is the case for majority of Americans[2] Just for fun, did you(con) know about cooperatives before this debate? I don't feel like there is anything else I can argue for, so I turn this over to con. Sources: [1] https://www.google.com... [2] http://www.geo.coop...
Leftists who shop at traditional/capitalist businesses instead of cooperatives are hypocrites.

Definitions: Leftist: For this debate, leftist is anyone who is at least as left-wing as a social democrat, and as far left as a communist. Liberals, neo-liberals, etc are excluded since they support a capitalist system traditionally. Traditional/capitalist business: Any business which is owned by an individual or a few individuals at the top of a hierarchical chain of command for the business; they also make the decisions for the business. Cooperative: Business which lacks a hierarchy, and has the workers directly own the business, control the business, and vote on business decisions Structure of debate: Round 1: acceptance, definition of terms, rules for debate Round 2: Main argument Round 3: Rebuttals/conclusion. Note: I'll allow con to start their main arguments in round 1 if they choose, if they agree to waiving round 3 to keep the number of arguments even between us. If they do this, they must say in round 3 "I am waiving this round as instructed" Or something similar. Otherwise, you can follow the above structure In addition, I couldn't put everything in the title of this debate that I wanted. I am putting exceptions for cases where there is no other case but to shop at a capitalist company for the product you need/want. So, if con points out that it's not always possible for them to shop at cooperatives, I would agree with this and is not what I'm arguing against. Rather, I'm arguing that "When possible, leftists should shop at cooperatives and not traditional/capitalist businesses in order to not be considered hypocrites". That entire sentence would not fit in the title. This also has the exception of where the leftist doesn't know about cooperatives. It is true that majority of people don't even know what a cooperative is, so we can't blame someone who doesn't know about them for not shopping at them.