BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Should Minecraft be used for education

First of all: The point of me putting 1,000 characters per argument is for there to be a short and effective argument every round. I think Minecraft should be used for education because kids love to learn through games. Minecraft could be used to simulate Hunting and Gathering, the Middle Ages, Probability, and other possible lessons. The fact that it is a popular game only enhances it even more. Kids love minecraft all over. There is also a program called Minecraft Edu which was made for Minecraft at school. It basically allows a teacher to be in the game, and the teacher will have a higher status than someone who is OP'ed. So if a student gets out of control, the teacher can still kick or ban them. It allows students to have fun while learning. It is even better if they are part of it. For example, they could be hunters and gatherers, or be soldiers in a Middle Aged battle.
If God did exist then He is worthy of worship even if he is evil

Can we please firstly define what you mean by worthy? To me worthy would mean "has earned the right". Therefore not worshiping him would be wrong because we are violating something that he has earned rightfully? If you agree with the above definition. Why do you say he has earned the right? Because he has created you and therefore is has the right based on allowing our existence? Just trying to clarify the question here.
Christianity is true whereas Hinduism and Buddhism are false

Con has yet to make a valid argument as to why he believes Hinduism and Budhism or equal or great truth than Christianity, he is in fact by rules of THIS debate to take that stance. His un attached platform to his side of the debate has brought nothing to counter my points. This would be like a debate about how Milk is better than apple juice, yet I only talk about how great cherry coke is. How is apple juice better, con? I stated Christianity is better qualified as a religion than buddhism by the definition I gave stating the belief in one or more deities. As to which Buddhism wouldn't qualify by definition of religion. Again, I never said as to why I believe humans are greater,.. I have not taken personal stake in this debate at all. You listed off parts of the human anatomy as if that were to prove something other. I simply stated that Christianity has accepted their role as the dominate species, a role given to them by their God. Buddhism and Hinduism do not except that position at all, despite the obvious circumstances of the human race, thus, by simple, basic, fundamental, principle beliefs, because of Christianity, when compared to Hinduism and Buddhism, is of the MOST truth!! "Herodotus was a horses @$$."- brthr004 "A legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
Christianity is true whereas Hinduism and Buddhism are false

The advantage of science is that it's evidence isn't based on what people claim. Science is the best way we have of establishing the truth about natural things. It doesn't rely upon ancient books or what people want to believe. Religions do. We want to believe that dying isn't the end, that we'll go to "a better place". So nearly all religions have a heaven or "happy hunting grounds" or drinking halls in the sky - or we are reincarnated and come back again, or we achieve nirvana. Anyone can claim anything... hence people and the books they write cannot be implicitly trusted. Consequently one cannot trust any religion based on what people claim. Science suggests via natural evidence that Man evolved into being just like every other animal. You claim that Buddhism and Hinduism aren't as "true" as Christianity because of their impractical lifestyles, and that having one god (and Jesus, his human manifestation) makes Christianity the most "qualified" religion. 1) Surely a belief is true or it's not? 2) Why should practicality matter? 3) How does Christianity's semi-monotheism make it true? ("qualified") You go on to point out that the Buddhists and Hindus aren't perfect - by eating dairy products and not asserting dominance over other animals respectively. If Christianity rendered it's adherents perfect, you might have a point here. Certainly humans are able to dominate other animals, thanks to our free and dexterous hands, our ability to communicate, our relatively large size, longevity and very large brain to body-mass ratio. You seem to feel this makes us special. We wouldn't appear so special if a virus or bacteria were to evolve and wipe out the entire human population. It may not be likely, but it's entirely possible. No, I don't believe we're the chosen race/species/people. Nor have I seen any reason to believe Christianity is anything special. "If horses had gods, those gods would be horses" - Herodotus, 500BC
you cannot have morality outside of creationism

REBUTTALPro has failed in satisfying his burden of proof, provided that his argument does not conclude that "morality cannot exist outside of creationism" but instead concludes that morality comes from "creation with a purpose" without establishing that this creation should be a godly creation or something pertaining to creationism.Creationism: The belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution[1].Pro concludes: "So what can we take from this the act of creation with PURPOSE gave the amulet a way it ought to behave. Only an intelligence can put purpose into things. So morality comes from creation with a purpose."Let us say that I accept the conclusion for the sake of argumentation, I don't have to accept that morality cannot exist outside of creationism. I can simply have different beliefs such as that the inner creation of my modes of behavior creates morality, and so there would be no role for a Heavenly Father who created the world, but only my intelligence which creates morality.Nevertheless, I accepted Pro's conclusion for the sake of argumentation. Pro's argument actually makes a couple of logical fallacies and baseless assumptions.Pro argues in his first story, "Did the amulet behave the way it should? No most people will say it didn't."Rebuttal: This is an Ad Populum logical fallacy, also known as an appeal to popularity. If "most people" say it didn't, this does not mean that their answer must be true. This premise alone being false disproves the whole argument.Pro assumes the existence of moral precepts(priori right and wrong).Rebuttal: I have not been given any empirical evidence to believe that moral precepts exist so far.Pro argues: "Only an intelligence can put purpose into things."Rebuttal: This is an over-generalization fallacy which ignores non-intelligent methods that can result in purposeful beings. For instance, the process of biological evolution doesn't seem to have any intelligence whatsoever, and has resulted in my species which have purposes(such as survival). This premise alone being false disproves the whole argument.Finally, Pro's analogy commits the false comparison fallacy as it equivocates between moral agents cable of intelligence and amulets that are not, and argues that amulets have to be given a purpose to be evaluated morally, knowing that amulets cannot create their own purposes as opposed to moral agents who could, and so such a comparison doesn't evaluate moral agents adequately.SUMMARYPro's argument ends with a conclusion that is different than the resolution, and so it doesn't satisfy his burden of proof even if we assume that it is logically sound. Moreover, his argument commits many logical fallacies and baseless assumptions, some of which I have addressed in this round.CITATIONS[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
you cannot have morality outside of creationism

Definiton of morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... So the definition is divided into two parts -distinction between right and wrong -distinction between wrong or good and bad behaviour Now I will tell you a story to explain my stance. A gold smith crafts an amullet with the purpose of seducing the neighbours daughter what he doesn't know it's that the gold the amullet is crafted from is cursed and it ends kills the young lady the same moment it touches her hand. Did the amullet act right or wrong ? NO Did the amulet behave the way it should? No most people will say it didn't . Those questions are based on the two parts of morality. -distinction between right and wrong -distinction between wrong or good and bad behaviour Now let's change the story . The amullet is eternal it has always existed an will always exist. The smith found the amullet and gave it to the lady he had a crush on. The lady takes the amullet and dies. Did the amullet act right or wrong ? It DIdn't acted wrong or right it has always existed it has no way it ougth to behave. Did the amulet behave the way it should? The amullet had no way it should behave. What is the difference between this two stories in the first the amullet was created and had a purpose the other hadn't. So what can we take from this the act of creation with PURPOSE gave the amullet a way it ought to behave. Only an intelligence can put purpose into things. So morality comes from creation with a purpose.
you cannot have morality outside of creationism

DISCLAIMERPro's performance in this debate was disappointing. He repeated the same logical fallacies and has failed to offer any deductive logical argument that satisfies his burden of proof. I have already offered many objections to his arguments, but I'm forced to repeat myself in this round.REBUTTALPro's first argumentPro repeats the same false comparison fallacy by treating both humans and chicken as moral agents, to say that an external purpose should be given for moral agents to have morality, when this is fallacious given that humans can create purposes of their own, and so humans do not need an external purpose to have morality, if we assume that chicken actually do. This premise along being false demolishes the whole argument.Pro dropped his argument that "mind is just a chemical reaction" and that "it is predicted by physical laws" after I proved the contrary....Pro's second argumentPro argues, "3.Some thing that cannot be explained by science is considered a miracle."Rebuttal: I have already refuted this premise, and yet Pro ignored my refutation and repeated the same claim, which commits numerous fallacies. If miracles are considered non-physical(according to Pro's definition), that doesn't mean that everything non-physical is considered a miracle too, much like the fact that if humans are all mammals, that doesn't mean all mammals are humans too. In other words, events or phenomena not explained by science do not necessarily have to be miracles. Dark Matter, for the most part, is not explained by science, neither is consciousness, but that does not make them miracles. That is to say, if I can't explain something by science, I suspend my judgment on it. I don't assume that "God did it", so I don't see why I should go ahead and think that whatever science doesn't explain or hasn't explained yet is a miracle performed by a divine agency. This seems like The God of the Gaps fallacy on Pro's behalf.This premise along being false demolishes the whole argument.--DROPPED ARGUMENTS1- Mind is just a chemical reaction.2- Mind can be predicted by laws of physics.3- Amulets are moral agents.4- Humans cannot create their own purposes.And others....SUMMARYPro dropped many arguments, committed many logical fallacies, ignored most of my refutations, made many false comparisons and failed to provide any good arguments for his position that "you cannot have morality outside of creationism," although the burden of proof is solely on him. I had higher expectations and so I was left disappointed.I thank Pro for starting this debate.It was at least interesting.
you cannot have morality outside of creationism

Let"s re-read the premise of our debate : you cannot have morality outside of creationism You cannot have morality outside of creationism . You referring to my opponent who is a human. So we are debating human morality not morality in general. Just to clear that up So my conclusion remains MORALITY COMES FROM INTELLIGENT CREATION WITH A PURPOSE. Since my opponent has accepted it (unless so I think ) Now let"s see what does it take to give purpose. You would say a mind and you would be correct but let me show you why only a divine being can put purpose into things. What are our toughts and mind made from ? Our minds are only chemical reactions in our brain. Now an example: A kid shakes a soda can and opens it the soda spills into his T-SHIRT. You cannot say the soda did it on purpose. You cannot say the soda spilled itself on the kid with the purpose of wetting him. Why ? Because is not like the soda has a mind it was just a chemical reaction. Isn"t your mind also only a chemical reaction inside of your brain? I"m sorry to be the one to say it but your mind is a chemical reaction that could be predicted with the laws of physiques. So for something to put a purpose into it"s creation it has to be something non physical. Definition of Miracle : An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... Non physical things cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category . So morality comes from intelligent creation with purpose . To give purpose you need to be non physical. Creation trough a non physical creator cannot be explained by science and so falls into the miracle category. Miracles are attributed to a divine agency. So morality can only come from an intelligent divine creator with purpose. Hence morality can only come from divine creation . Hence you cannot have morality without creationism.
True liberalism is not compatible with Mormonism

ok, my second argument is going to be very brief because I have almost no time right now to post, yet I saw that I am close to running out of time. To start, I would like to agree with your comment on the Gospel of Jesus Christ being superior to all political ideology, that is a true comment and I agree wholeheartedly. I would also like to clarify to any reading this that my opponent is correct that the LDS Church does not endorse any political party, and the things said here are only my opinion and are NOT representative of official Church views and doctrines. My next argument will be surrounding two things. First is the family proclamation to the world. I would like to know how you feel about the view held by many liberals pertaining to gay marriage and adoption of children, that it shoudnot be infringed upon. Obviously the opinion that these things are good for society clash very much with this document, however from what I understand, you do not actually think that these things are good for society (based on your response to abortion) but that they should be allowed anyway. (I apologize if I am incorrect on your views there). My statement would be that true liberalism would say that it is great if gays can marry and have kids. However, our prophets have warned that perversions like this will bring upon society the "calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets". The breakdown of the family is at the forefront of the battle between good and evil, and there is a strong liberal movement not only to make these things legal, but to charactarize those who look down on these things as "judgemenal and intolerant" President Monson warned that "evil often wears the halloween mask of tolerance". This is clearly happening in out society. So my argument may not be that your personal views clash with mormonism, but that liberalism, true liberlism does, in that it celebrates things like gay marriage and abortion in most cases. Or at the very least, demonizes those who wish to put a stop to it. One great evil is partial birth abortion. This is clearly murder, and I have no idea how in the world people justify it. To deliver a child and then end stop it's heart from beating before it is all the way out. This is something that the liberal movement also embraces, and not for the above circumstances of the mother's life being in danger, but for stem cell research. How is this justified? True liberalism is the speartip in the fight against the traditional family, which as you and I both know, is the way the family is intended to be. Because of this, liberalism flies in the face of LDS theology and views in my opinion when it comes to the family. For the sake of time, I will have to save my next argument for my last post, I apoligize.
True liberalism is not compatible with Mormonism

I'm assuming my opponent is a Mormon. Thank you for starting this debate. You mention Abortion specifically. By me being being Pro-Choice I would like to say I would never support abortion for birth control reasons. As prophet Gordon B. Hinkley said "Abortion is an ugly thing, a debasing thing, a thing which inevitably brings remorse and sorrow and regret."1 That being said, the official church website has a statement from the first presidency on the topic of Abortion. Before I touch on that I would like to post the official church statement on abortion from 1973 from Harold B. Lee and te first presidency: "The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."2 We jump to present day, and we look at the LDS churchs official website and we see that the 1973 stance stands today as truth. I quote from the website: The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when: • Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or • A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or • A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.3 ********************************************** I would like to say that many very faithful members of the Church are also very high ranking political figures in our government. Harry Reid is a liberal democrat from Nevada and he is Senate Majority leader. Look at today's first presidency of the Church, President Henry B. Eyring is a democrat. Thank you for starting a debate like this. I feel that my political and social views fit very well with my religious morals. But we need to keep in mind one very important point the church makes: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics."4 The gospel itself is so far superior to our political spectrum. That being said anyone from any political party can be faithful latter-day saints. (except some of the ones like the American Nazi party, and so on.) Thanks, look forward to your response. -------------------------------- 1.G.B. Hinkley, "What are people asking about us?," Ensign magazine, 1998-NOV, Page 70. 2.Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, & Marion G. Romney, "Policies and Procedures: Statement on Abortion," New Era, 1973-APR, Page 29 at: http://library.lds.org... 3.http://newsroom.lds.org... 4.http://newsroom.lds.org...
True liberalism is not compatible with Mormonism

My opponent is incorrect in his/her first sentence. Partial-birth abortions are only legal when either the fetus is dead or the mothers life is in danger. Oddly enough these are two things that the Church support when dealing with abortion. Thats 1, and 2 stem cell research is embryonic and m yet my opponent is stating that the fetus extracted from partial birth abortions can be used. This is false because ebyronic stem cell research is not compadible with a fetus. On to gay marriage, my overall opinion is you can;t limit God. If God can give the preisthood to anyone he pleases and keep it away from others for a time is his power or to reinstate pologamy when he thinks it should be. After all he is God. Yes the Prophets in the past have given their opinion on same sex couples and with that being said it is known that homosexual acts (sexual acts) are directly out of line with the law of chastity. But who knows. I just want to see the same rights given to those who love each other. But anyways as I've said the prophets and apostles of the past have given out their opinions. For example Bringham Young was very vocal with the Adam-God theroy. (He believed that Adam of Adam and Eve, was in fact God.) He used to talk about it in sermons, but this doesn't make it doctrine. But what I think is interesting is you actually brough up Socialism. Socialism is a different political philosophy than liberalism, although they are similar in some beliefs. But you give a 10% tithe as a latter-day saint which goes to things like helping the poor who need help paying medical bills, rent, food, ect. The base for a functioning socialst nation is to have taxes go into the big pot. Which is where tithe comes in. The goals of socialism is not to deprive rights but to help society and all of its people. try and eliminate poor and rich and other ecconomic classes to make all equal, as expressed in 4 Nephi: "And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift" (4 Nephi 1:3). Also the fact that nobody has something better than anyone else doesn't sound like a right-wing belief: "It is not given that one man should possess that which is above another" (Doctrine and Covenants 49:20). But this is not a debate about socialists, but about liberals. For my closing my opponent still ignored the fact that my stance on abortion is in line with the church. We also see that as my church welcomes gays, they are held to the same law of chatity that the straight members are. Gay marriage is not acknowledge by the church, but we must also keep in mind niether was interracial preistedholders. Then socialism has similar goals to the church, but again this is about liberals in our free and glorious nation, America. I don't have much more to say other than I thank my opponent for giving me the chance to defend my religous morals with my political beliefs. Thank you for the debate.
Babe Ruth in the modern era of baseball

Lifestyle: If the Babe were living and playing in this era, he like any ball player, would conform to the norms of this era. There was nothing during his era to discourage such behavior. This goes back to the adage that nothing illegal unless something prohibits it. In this era of baseball, there are higher levels of accountability and scrutiny for behaviors and lifestyles of ball players. Many kids grow up in a rough lifestyle and go on to do well. There is no reason to believe that Babe couldn't as well. Babe didnt have to do as much as other less talented players because he had raw talent. Many players had to work hard just to be mediocre, he had a gift of talent that required little work to sustain during his prime. 1. Baseballs back then had no set standard. In this era, balls are designed for pop and lively play. The balls of Ruth's era were dead balls. Given his prowess, he would be able to smack a modern ball out more easily than an old ball. 2. Hitters can adjust to pitches and speed. Ruth was a great ball player, he could adjust. 3. While pitching has improved, so has hitting. But the ballparks now have shorter fences then they did in Ruth's era. There is no doubt that if Ruth could hit the ball out of a larger park, he could also hit it out of a smaller park. Prince Fielder & Barry Bonds are horses and they play (ed) the game extremely well. Ruth would do equally well in this era.