BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
All life has Unalienable Rights

I (Pro) would like to explore a different vantage point with (Con) in the construct of life"s Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature, not man-made. The term Unalienable Rights originated with Thomas Jefferson"s celebrated statement where he found it "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. " Takac, presents an interesting approach in his book "Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights" revisiting Jefferson"s claim by treating those Unalienable Rights as life"s primitives: of once alive "Life," has the freedom ("Liberty"), to expend bio-energy in "the pursuit of" positive-feedback (aka, survival, chemical/electrical, evolution, etc. , including the emotion of "Happiness" for us humans). . http://www.bookdaily.com... Takac"s foundation is based on the Constructal Law, a relatively new physical law discovered by Adrian Bejan. . http://www.amazon.com... Ideally Con is familiar with the above references, but it is not a prerequisite. Pro would like to keep the debate in the realm of physical science as oppose to metaphysical speculation.
All life has Unalienable Rights

In conclusion, my opponent made basically two major arguments:1) Life tends to follow a certain pattern. We can call this pattern Unalienable Rights. - This is a game of labels; it is akin to calling the Universe "God" in order to claim that God exists. One might as well call a debate a "war" in order to claim to be a veteran of the army.2) Without liberty, happiness and life, things tend to die. - Not only is this false (except for life, obviously), but it is also an appeal to consequences. Moreover, as I have previously said, the fact that living things NEED something does not make that something real. My opponent made a strategic mistake when he decided to apply "unalienable" to the concept of rights. Something that is unalienable CAN NOT be taken, by definition; not SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT. When my opponent acknowledged that the rights he mentioned could actually be taken away, he contradicted his position. My opponent complains that I used metaphysics in this debate. But he seems to be unaware that rights ARE metaphysical; they can not be measured, tested, seen, touched, etc.
Does god exist

Definitions:Definition of God- By God, I shall understand God as a omnipresent being that has infinite essence, and is the first-cause of everything. [1] a.) Argument from OntologyP1. God is infiniteP2. The negation of God's existence means that God is finite, which is absurdP3. Henceforth God exists objectivelyP1. It is analytical from the definition of God that God is infinite. P2. Infinity is the greatest attribute to any being ever. Infinity is defined as being the greatest of all who share such attributes (in this case, existence) i.e. something that is infinite cannot be limited by anyone of it's kind. Then let us assert that a God exists in the intellect: this then, by the negation of God's existence, would be the negation of his infinitude, for God is henceforth limited by the physical, which shows that there is something greater than God, which via the first proposition is wholly absurd to think. P3. Henceforth, since God cannot exist only in the intellect for that reduces the nature of his infinitude, then necessarily exists objectively. b.) Argument from ExistenceP1. I necessarily existP2. To exist means to exist in something that is necessarily omnipresentP3. God is omnipresent P4. Henceforth, God necessarily exists P1. This is ultimately the most controversial premiss of this argument, for idealism is still an important influence in many societies, and especially on this website. Then let us first assert that we can "doubt" that we exist. This doubt then necessarily leads to an object that doubts of the existence of the object, and it would be wholly circular to say "I think that I do not exist" for then this "I" would not exist to doubt the existence of this "I" too. Hence, it follows that "I" exist, and that is certain. I shall not attempt to prove the existence of other minds, as I do not see that as especially needed in this debate. [2]P2. Then let us assert that something omnipresent does not exist: then analytically, the object would not be omnipresent. Hence, our existence would necessarily be included in a being that is omnipresent. P3. This is developed from the definition of GodP4. Henceforth, the existence of God can be implied.c.) Arguments from CauseP1. Everything has a first causeP2. The first cause is GodP1. Conceive a thing that does not have a cause, except for the first cause: that is impossible. Henceforth, it must be argued that something must have caused everything, including casaulity. For how can something come from nothing, if the necessary tools for something "coming into existence" has not been made yet. Hence, we can necessarily denote that something must have caused everything.P2. This is analytical from the definition of God. Henceforth, I hold the resolution negated.CITATIONS: [1] http://www.gutenberg.org...[2] https://www.marxists.org...
Is it Acceptable to have a Waifu (A love interest in an animated character)

My point about reproduction was that if we allow people to love things other than humans then they are deterred from an important function of our species, that of reproduction. If a straight guy was unable, at the current time, to get anywhere with women then he needs the help from society to try and fix whatever he's doing wrong. Your suggestion is to allow him to develop and rationalize feelings towards animated characters which is not a cure to the problem it is giving up. I will not condone individual action, as long as it isn't bothering me. However that doesn't mean me or the rest of society will say "yes we think it is okay for you to love an animated character". We won't vilify those who do but we won't agree either. So yes, an individual can love an animated character but that doesn't mean we as a society thinks it's acceptable - we just appreciate freedom. My murder analogy was just to distinguish the difference between society acceptance and individual acceptance. It is not directly relevant or linked to my argument against the love for animated characters. The reason why, and I will express this again, society must not accept the love of animated characters is because it will hurt those very individual's who choose to love those characters. It's like if all drugs were legal. Society wouldn't recommend taking them but there'd be no one stopping you from taking them. And just like drugs, the delusion of loving an animated character is not healthy.
Is it Acceptable to have a Waifu (A love interest in an animated character)

I do not think that the ability to reproduce or not has much to do with the choice of loving a fictional character or not. It is no different from two women or men in this case. The idea of loving an individual doesn't always have to resort to a sexual act. If someone has made their mind up in a one way relationship then so be it. It does not harm anyone and is not as severe to warrant your murder analogy. It is not up to what society thinks is right to love animated characters or not, but the decision of the individual instead. Perhaps the relationship is one sided or maybe it is not. There are numerous of programs and merchandise that allow one to interact with the one they deem "waifu." VR is a growing platform that enables people who have an romantic interest in animated characters to experience their dreams.Perhaps not as intimate as you may want, but it's a step closer for those who desire such circumstances.
Is it Acceptable to have a Waifu (A love interest in an animated character)

We need to distinguish between individual acceptance and societal acceptance. It may be acceptable to an individual to commit murder, they might stand to gain from a particular murder(s). However society certainly does not accept murder for it is wrong to take the life of another. This distinction of individual and societal is key to understanding my stance on this issue. While animated characters may bare resemblance to people they are in no way the same. First of all, these characters in no way interact with you. It's a one way street. You devote yourself to a self-less fiction with no devotion in return. It's sad. But reality kicks in and asks "why devote yourself to something that will not and can not devote itself to you". That is ultimately irrational. Second, these characters will not grant you nature's perhaps: that of reproduction. Why does this matter? If society accepts the love of animated characters then those who love such characters will be binded to their delusion. They will never experience true love, actual rational love between fellow humans. They will not reproduce. Their life simply will be a devotion to that of which does not truly exist. So yes they may be neglected by people at the current time. But substituting human love for delusion is no cure, it is giving up. Those individuals will not improve themselves, as humans. They will sink into their own creations, void of reality void of human interaction. They chose to but that is not a better outcome. As a society we must reject delusion in preference to reality as to maximize our humanity. By shunning delusion we keep people on track with happiness, happiness derived from human interactivity and being in tune with what is real. I think that is a good introduction to how I feel. I await my opponent's response.
Is it Acceptable to have a Waifu (A love interest in an animated character)

I believe that it's ok to have a waifu and disregard other living humans, simply because that is what they choose. To be emotionally attached to a fictional character allows someone with a waifu to express an emotion that they probably lack from another human. In result they should have the right to turn to animated characters when no "3D" person was there for them.
Is it Acceptable to have a Waifu (A love interest in an animated character)

The term Waifu has came up time and time again throughout my life. I find the idea ok and encourage people to have a waifu. People should be able to express their love no matter how they choose. Wether they are "3D" or "2D". Yet the Waifu is able to be "3D" via body pillows and figures, among other forms of merchandise. So where do you stand? Are you for the love of "fictional" animated characters or not.
Should we cut Welfare

1) Yes I think that we both agree that Welfare needs to have defined standards for eligibility and that the recipients need to continuously look for work while on and before Welfare. However, since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 bill Bill Clinton signed into law, it limited federal funding for Welfare for 5 years per capita maximum, so the earlier statistics I quoted were not updated to this provision, so the few people who DO commit fraud on Welfare rolls (recipients) have only a limited amount of time with help from the Federal Government. Also, with defined standards and eligible people, people who do not need assistance won't get it, and the people who DO need temporary assistance (the 80% + under 5 years) can be given sure help. Also, Welfare is critical for family members who lost the Breadwinner of a family and disabled people that cannot find work. 2) The fact that it takes some so long to get off Welfare permanently (true needy) is because they lack the educational skill to hold a higher more stable job. Also, the largest group of people on Welfare are children, Yes, people under 18! So they cannot be held responsible for their condition. 3) What I said earlier was that out of ALL fraud 93% was committed by the vendors, NOT the recipients. I did NOT say that 93% of vendors committed fraud. Welfare is not as "inefficient" as many think, I lowers the poverty level, gives a boost to local economies (esp. in poorer areas), and helps the poorest of our people. You also said that Welfare was "well intentioned, but theft nonetheless". Is it theft to give a helping hand to a person and their family while they (should) be looking for a job? They cannot survive without it in most cases. However, Corporate Welfare is theft because the rich cats don't need more money, $100 billion a year in potential funds is horrible. You say that Private Charity could replace welfare. So, I will present the information supporting your belief. - Before Welfare (Private Charities DID exist and were in the same conditions as today mostly) poverty was at the 22% range. After Welfare; it was around 13%, reaching a low of 11% in the late 1990s. - Private Charities do not look to see if the recipients have a job or are looking for one, they can rely on it for much longer than necessary, the Federal Government looks for inefficiency. - Private Charities are less stable than the Government by far. In the recent recession, many charities had to cut back, and without Government Aid, the needy would of been in a poor state, if still alive. 4) You say that Welfare is a system to help politicians get reelected by their helped Constituents. However, voter turnout by the significant majority of Welfare recipients is only about 36%, so this may be a small reason for Welfare support, but the majority of Americans like the idea of a Safety Net for when people lose their jobs. - Welfare is less than 1% of all of the Government's total yearly spending! . http://www.zerohedge.com... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://en.wikipedia.org... . http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
Should we cut Welfare

Here is is my rebuttal: 1. My opponent says that welfare works because 80% of the people who use it usually just take 5 years to find another job. What about the other 20% that are taking this to the long term because 5 years is not a long time. By middle class life I guess opponent has not just meant the vital things needed (running water, electricity, a house, food supplies, etc.), but also several luxuries you get in middle class life. Some Americans on welfare have great housing while receiving unemployment checks at food stamps, but are abseloutly making no attempt to find a job. In fact one baker was asked by a woman to make a cake that looked like her new designer purse. When the baker told her it would cost 150 dollars she asked if he takes food stamps. 2. I do agree with my opponent that we need more stable funding and need to make sure that these people on welfare are actually looking for jobs. As for educational assistance I think that we need to send the people who need it back public schools or schools for just adults that need to look back at education. We should fund educational assistance, but make sure we have the capability to teach all these people without going over the needed capacity which would cause more government funded teachers to be around than needed. 3. What we must do is find out who and why these vendors are giving out welfare claims to people who need them. It is possible that they are just doing it so they can make themselves useful. That goes for the 93% that my opponent claimed that are abusing welfare. This is why we need more detail on the other 7% that find other ways to get welfare without needing it. In closer I have found this: "It is morally wrong for the government to take money from people and redistribute it to those who they say are in need (i.e. more likely to vote for them). Having said that I want to emphasize that I am not against charity. Just the opposite, I believe it is the duty of every man to help out his fellow man as he is able but I am very much opposed to public welfare. Let me put it on the very personal level. If some poor fellow comes up to me in the street and asks me for some help feeding his family and getting medical help for Tiny Tim (who is a cripple), perhaps I will be moved with compassion and want to help. I would then reach into my pocket and see if I have anything there that would help. But maybe he needs a friend or a teacher and I could be that person to make a difference in his life. Maybe my efforts to restore this guy who is down on his luck could change both our lives. But the least I could do is give him a few bucks. But let's say I don't have the means or interest in helping out this guy. Is it okay for me to go to you, beat a few dollars out of you and give it to him? No, it's not. That is theft. Perhaps a well-intentioned theft but theft nonetheless." http://www.youtube.com... http://shine.yahoo.com...
Should we cut Welfare

Here is my rebuttal: 1) My opponent says that welfare is unsuccessful in the long term and is only necessary for children and hopeless people basically. I have to say that I do not agree, Welfare achieves most of its goals of providing short term income and helping the genuinely disadvantaged. In fact, over 80% of welfare recipients are on Welfare for at the most 5 years; no more. Also, at income less than the poverty rate for these people, it provides an incentive to gain a middle class life, with help with educational training for needed skills if necessary. 2) My opponent says that we need to reduce funding for Welfare; I partially agree. Yes, we need to define what welfare can and cannot help who, and we need to make sure that the people on Welfare are and are still looking for work. For example, here in Michigan, people need to look for work for at least a month before receiving funds. However, people who really need welfare will have trouble getting by, so this helps them reenter the workforce with the promise of more cash with a job as well as a house! (Welfare cannot usually help people alone own a home). Welfare needs stable funding for the genuinely needy and we need more educational assistance as well for people who need an additional footing, and the "Welfare Queens" can be kicked of by more defined standards. Welfare also reduces poverty for people in the short term. 3) My opponent says that Welfare are Socialist actions that are useless to the "Welfare Queens", in conjunction with my above arguments, about 93% of all committed fraud with Welfare was by the vendors. This is still insignificant to Corporate Welfare, but both need to be ended. http://www.anitra.net... http://www.anitra.net...
Should we cut Welfare

I am first going to say I am new to this whole debating website so I am probrably at the moment a terrible debater. 1. From a practical point of view, it never solves the problem. People living on welfare never get back to the working force, at least not the formal working force and that is perhaps why they jump in and out from different jobs. It also sets a threshold for the cost of labor. If you get 100 dollars for doing nothing, then you probrably won't take a job unless it pays more than 100 dollars. If you are not work, then you are probrably not getting the work experience needed. As for education, that may be a different issue, but we all know we need to make sure people get a good education, but we also know that now everyone can be succesful. 2. Now by cutting, I off course do not want to eliminate the system entirely, but just partially. If we spent more time looking into the profiles of the people on it and find out they do not need the welfare due to their physical performance as well as how long they have been on it then we should make the decision to either remove him from the system or not based on how he is doing, if he is finding jobs, and so forth. My father is a police officer in Milwaukee, WI and he sometimes encounters people who are in perfect shape, but they end up being on the welfare system. As for Corporate tax and welfare for them I believe we should find a way for them to acheive economic growth and development for more jobs and still be able to pay their fair share. One problem is that if the corporations have so much money then they should be able to hire many people and build more. I agree with you that perhaps 75% or 85% of the people on welfare do really need it. One issue is that from politically it is a socialist way to keep the people on it supporting the same person. One candidate says he wants to keep it and the other says he wants to either cut partially or cut in entirely, then who do you think the people on welfare will vote for? They are so many people working at the offices of this system for the goverment as well as it is basically a nice but worthless job if you have so many. . http://answers.yahoo.com...
Should we cut Welfare

I will now post my position on this statement. 1) Welfare saves lives by providing the poorest citizens food and economic relief, and 1 in 4 children receive welfare. Also, when welfare is substantially reduced, poverty increases as shown in the early 1980s. Also, most people on welfare (excluding children) have been in and out of the workforce, most caused because of lack of skills and education. 2) Also, social welfare is not super expensive by Washington's economics. Typical Welfare (assistance) cost around $31 billion in 2008; this includes state and federal government's expenditures combined. However, corporate welfare was not cheap. Corporate Welfare; which includes tax breaks for corporations, oil subsidies, etc. was around $100 billion. Social Welfare was only around 1% of the Federal Budget, yet people do not seek to reduce a waste of federal funds that is given to the already wealthy. When people refer to "welfare," they usually mean the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program (TANF), which provides funds to families with children while encouraging parents to find employment so they do not need the assistance long-term, so I assume this debate is on TANF. So, instead of hurting millions of citizens, 85% + of which do not abuse the system (likely), why not analyze the system for fraud, end corporate welfare, and improve education with the new funds? Vote Con! Sources: . http://voices.washingtonpost.com... . http://www.huppi.com... . http://www.zerohedge.com... Other