BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sonic Boom vs. World of Tanks

Are you kidding me? You're a freaking troglodyte if you think that Sonic Boom is geared towards children. Never before have I seen so much bloodshed and cruelty towards animals. A human being with a mustache (Hitler had a mustache) invents terrifying devices to annihilate a group of cute forest creatures. At least in World of Tanks, you know what you are being given. It explicitly states that violence is present in the game, which is not all that bad if you imagine the tanks are remote controlled, which is a viable idea that has been declared canon by the forums. Also, the game is free, unlike Sonic Boom. Another problem I have is that sonic boom states itself as E rated, but lies after the first scene in the game, when the villain nearly kills the creatures. therefore, sonic=bad World of Tanks=good
Sonic Boom vs. World of Tanks

Hello, Sonic Boom is one of the best games of this decade, only surpassed by my personal favorite Mine craft. As Sonic can run near the speed of light, and has a spin attack, he could easily act as an anti-tank missile. Yet Sonic is not alone, he not only has his core friends Amy, Knuckles, and Tails, he has many fan developed characters at his side. The games themselves may offer stark contrasts, Sonic Boom is heartwarming, exciting, suspenseful, and teaches the player good values, and the overall value of friendship. Meanwhile, World of Tanks offers purely player vs. player combat that is slow, unimaginative, and downright boring, and is primarily enjoyed by adult males (basement dwellers), while Sonic games as a series is enjoyed by all, and truly deserves the rating E for everyone.
Religion is not necessary for morality to exist

My intention in this debate was to show that it is not necessary for a person or group of people to be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Mormon, or have any type of faith in order to follow commonly accepted moral principles. Religions merely take from the accepted morals of their times. As I have stated earlier, something is not simply moral or virtuous because a religion deems it to be, religions deem things to be moral because these acts contain principles which are intrinsically good. These are the only two options. If my opponent denies the latter, then he must be implying the former: that which is moral is only so because a religion has deemed it thus. In order to refute my claim that morality is a set of universally accepted principles he has provided several examples of morally reprehensible acts which are accepted in some societies, some of which contain loaded language. He inserts his political views by choosing to define as "infanticide", and euthanasia as "murder of the elderly". It is interesting to note that religion has been used to justify these generally unacceptable acts such as female oppression, human sacrifice, honor killings, and even slavery. My opponent says on his profile that he is a Catholic, and apparently views female oppression and honor killings to be immoral. Yet consider this passage from Deuteronomy 22: 20-21: "If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house, there the men of her town shall stone her to death. " This is a text from the Bible apparently endorsing such behavior, and yet this is an act which most Christians, and indeed most people, would find appalling. Why? Because they have chosen to judge these actions based on today's more liberal, secular norms. This view morality does not owe itself to any religion or religious movement. Instead it owes itself to social movements by human beings such as the Women's Rights movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In his book, Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche claims that human morality has continued to evolve with the human species. This is e clear example of it. While there will always be deviants from the norms, such as some of the examples my opponent has provided, morality is a constant part of human existence. Some of its intricacies may change along with humanity, but it will always exist separate from mankind's religions.
Religion is not necessary for morality to exist

To put my argument simply, Morality, if it exists, is by definition preternatural. It is a series of rules imposed upon and sometimes even against the natural inclinations of mankind. Therefore, it is in the prerogative of religion. It cannot, has not, and will never be, proven to exist, let alone proven to be "universally" accepted. My opponent asserts that the burden is upon the Con to prove that morality cannot be proven. If morality is preternatural, then I have now done so. If morality is not preternatural, it remains upon my opponent to prove that a "universally accepted morality" may be derived without a preternatural appeal. But that anything is "universally accepted morality" is on his part only asserted, and not proven. Human Sacrifice, Infanticide, Murder of the Elderly, Female Oppression, Huberis, Rape, Slavery, Honor Killings, and Female Castration, have all been, and in many cases continue to be, commonly accepted moral principles of some society or another. But instead of addressing this, my opponent only argues that my definition of morality may be applied to the Constitution. Actually, this is correct. Most sociological perspectives, from Durkheim to Freud to Beuer, define religion not as an appeal to the Gods, but as a system of traditions and values developed from a symbol. Any symbol. Hence, it remains upon the duty of my opponent to demonstrate why morality is to be universally accepted from purely naturalistic reasons. Morality is itself preternatural. Any other attempt to present a moral code becomes arbitrary to the part of individuals or society.
Religion is not necessary for morality to exist

First, I must say that I disagree with the definition of religion you have used. Religion comes from the Latin religio, meaning "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu...). This translates very closely to the first definition you have provided. Your use of the second definition circumvents the entire meaning of this debate. By your definition, our nations strict adherence to the Constitution would amount to a religion. This definition is too broad and includes many groups which have no relevance to this debate. I apologize for failing to provide any such definition of my own, but I feel that for the purpose of this debate, the first definition gets at the heart of the matter the best. The question I am asking is: Is something moral because a religion tells people so, or do religions tell people to do things that are already moral? I argue the latter. My argument is that morality comes from humans, not from God. Is something moral only because a religion says so? I think everyone would agree that it is not. Religions mandate moral codes which are already universally accepted. Because of this, that means that morality must exist independent of religion. This proves the Pro position. If a religion were to say that it were acceptable to molest children, rape, and murder, no one would follow it. People accept moral codes because of a morality already instilled in their nature. One does not need to accept Christ as his savior, Muhammad as the one true prophet, or even acknowledge that anything exists outside of the world as we see it to accept morality. It is burden of the Con to prove that morality does not exist independent of religion.
Religion is not necessary for morality to exist

According to Dictionary.com, Morality: n. pl. moï¿½ralï¿½iï¿½ties 1) The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. 2) A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality. 3) Virtuous conduct. 4) A rule or lesson in moral conduct. Religion: –noun 1) A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3) The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. According to definition, religion creates a standard by which to live, which in turn, is the definition of morality. In order, then, for Pro to his case, he must provide an alternative source of morality which does not equate into religion. For this he offers: >However, moral codes have existed long before religion, such as the Code of Hammurabi. First, Hammurabi's Code is positive law, not moral law. Nobody disputes that a legal system may arrise without religion, only that this legal system will be ordered not by a moral code, but merely for the ruler's criterion for social stability. Second, Hammurabi most certainly did not pre-date religion. My opponent then concludes: >Modern day monotheism has simply taken generally accepted principles of morality and compelled its followers to abide by them. Christians often equate the Bible with morality when the Bible in fact has many passages condoning acts which are immoral. The morality legislated by the Bible and other religious texts comes from human compassion, not divine mandate. But despite any apparent conflicts within the Bible, Christianity has consistently upheld a moral tradition which distinguishes itself in many ways from the rest of the world. Moreover, that Christianity has a moral code is almost universally agreed upon. Moreover, my opponent is assuming that a standard of morality should be internally consistent. That in it iself is a moral premise. But regardless as to whether any of this is true, it does not suffice in showing the existence of a non-religious source for a standard of Morality.
Religion is not necessary for morality to exist

People have long equated religion with morality. However, moral codes have existed long before religion, such as the Code of Hammurabi. Modern day monotheism has simply taken generally accepted principles of morality and compelled its followers to abide by them. Christians often equate the Bible with morality when the Bible in fact has many passages condoning acts which are immoral. The morality legislated by the Bible and other religious texts comes from human compassion, not divine mandate.
People should clean their rooms

Our decisions come from self-interest and intending to recognize desired ends. Mercer: MARK MERCER. IN DEFENCE OF WEAK PSYCHOLOGICAL EGOISM. Erkenntnis 55: 217–237, 2001. “To understand what another has done is … to have a … description of the action he has performed, one that reveals it to be intentional … to know an agent’s reason for performing … action involves understanding his motivation in doing it. … It is not enough, … to understand what a person who intentionally sips from a saucer of mud has done … An interpreter has also to comprehend what in desiring to sip from a saucer of mud was attractive to him. … One way is to connect that piece of behaviour to one or more of the strange agent’s self-regarding ends. If we can see in sipping from a saucer of mud a way of maintaining self-respect, or even a way to delight in the taste of mud, we can understand the desire the agent had to sip from a saucer of mud. We need not connect his self-regarding end to an intention to realize that end in or through his action; we need only … connect it to an expectation of realizing it.” And, this lays the basis of normative egoism. Mercer 2: “weak … egoism is the doctrine that all actions are performed in expectation of realizing self-regarding ends. … egoism is the doctrine that behind any action whatever that an agent performs intentionally, ultimately there lies the agent’s expectation of realizing one or more of her self-regarding ends, an expectation without which the agent would not have performed the action. … if an agent does not expect to forestall his own unhappiness or to promote his self-image, …, in … performing an action … then that agent will not intentionally perform an action of that type. … some other self-regarding end, not as a consequence … but directly as part of engaging in that activity, … To enjoy tennis is to take pleasure in playing tennis, and not, … to attain experiences of pleasure through playing tennis.)” So, we are moral in intending to further our own self-interest. I don’t deny that there are decisions that are to benefit those external to the self but we are motivated to take those acts in trying to recognize self-benefiting ends.So what my case means is pretty simple. People should only really do what's within their own subjective self-interest. Meaning that if it's not within my self-interest to clean my room, I shouldn't have to clean my room.
Resolved: In the United States, the death penalty should not be a form of punishment.

I will prove in these arguments in round two that it is a form of punishment. I. death is more of a punishment then rotting in jail. I am sorry to say but i see the death of him being dead is more of a worse punishment then him sitting in jail till he is 96 and dying. i think death is more of the way to die, and the death pentaly isn't always pretty. In Texas they still use an electric chair. Now that is no painless prick in the arm. that is more of a torture then sitting in a cell everyday of your life till you die. II. The criminal has a chance of escaping. The criminal has a chance of escaping from jail or prison. If he or she did, he could commit the same crimes that he was put back in for. with putting them to death we do not have to worry about this happening. they would be tooken care of without having the problem of worrying they might escape III. Most man can not be rehabilitated from there crimes the committed. Most man can not be rehabilitated from the crimes they have committed. would you really wanna keep a serial killer alive in jail that will never be rehabilitated and could escape. would u want a mass murder to break out of jail and continue what he was doin. this is the reason we have the death penalty, is to kill the people like this that could harm other people if they break themselves out of jail. i think i have proven with these three arguments that the death pentaly is the best way to go with for a form of punishment.
Resolved: In the United States, the death penalty should not be a form of punishment.

ORDER: his case, my case, voting issues... I. --> His first argument simply shows the people who will get the death penatly... But the type of punishment that we are giving goes right along with my entire case. That these people deserve a worse punishment (which is life in prison which went completely unargued) and that the society does not deserve to pay for it all. We really should not sink to their level but we what we should do is give them the punishment that gives them time to re-think what they've done... which would be life in prison. II. --> If the Criminal wanted to be killed, WHY would we kill him then? It makes no sense, this argument actually backs my I argument about life in prison being a better punishment because it's more than a pinch in the arm of pain, it is the criminal rotting in prison for his/her entire life. Another argument that many overlook, is that these criminals have NO chance to be rehabilitated, unless we give them life in prison. Sure they have the ten (appx.) years before the death penalty is implemented, but the more time they have to be rehabilitated the better. But in the end, life in prison with no parol is the best punishment. III. --> 2.6 MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY... That is MORE than the 500,000 dollars spent on life in jail. Better punishment (dropped by CON) less money (proven by CON)... death penalty should NOT be a form of punishment. My case/Voters... My case was basically argued in my opponents case by both sides. EXCEPT III which should be pulled through to the end of the round. We really do sink to the level of the criminal by using the death penalty... It's more expensive and painless, therefore hardly a punishment at all. The only thing that the criminal has to look forward to with life in jail is death. Don't give them what they want (which was also dropped) by giving them death early and therefore vote PRO. Thank You!
Resolved: In the United States, the death penalty should not be a form of punishment.

The death penalty is the best form of punishment for criminals. I will prove this with these arguments. I. some criminals in jail get the death penalty because they are mass murders or the are sex offenders. The people that get convicted of these crimes have the right to die for the people that they have killed in the past or that they have rapped or molested. It is wrong in out government to kill someone or rape them for out enjoyment. These people should be killed for this so they my never do it again or me seen out of jail to commit what they have already done. II. If wanted by the criminal then it should be done. If the convict wants to die because he knows what he did, then he has the right to kill himself through the death penalty. It is his right to kill himself because everyone has there rights. III. They death pentaly is cheaper then keeping them in jail till they die. The death pentaly is used to kill people so that we don't need to keep spending money to feed them to keep them alive. The death pentaly is only 2.6 million dollars. In the end we will spend more on food to feed them till they die. The death pentaly is probably one of the best things we can do for a criminal if wanted by them or the severness of the crime.
Resolved: In the United States, the death penalty should not be a form of punishment.

The death penalty is not a good form of punishment... therefore, I stand in favor of... Resolved: In the United States, the death penalty should not be a form of punishment. I will prove this with the following arguments. I. Life in prison is more of a punishment. Recently, the death penalty has become just as painful and pinch in the arm or a shot at the doctors. My ingrown toenail hurts just as much as the death penalty does. All that happens, is that they fall asleep and then they are dead. There is NO punishment to it. Polls have been taken and they have proven that most people that have life in prison WANT to have the death penalty. Think about it, rotting in prison is triple the punishment of the death penalty. II. The death penalty costs more with the increase in appeal costs. What most people don't realize is that the death penalty actually costs MORE than life in prison. I have found that the death penalty usually costs well over $1,000,000 after everything is said and done, while life in prison costs approximately $500,000 dollars. This makes no sense, WHY do we give the punishment that feels like a pinch in the arm and pay more than twice as much? It makes no sense and should not be a form of punishment in the United States. III. By using the death penalty, we sink to the criminals level. To justify the use of the death penalty, many people use examples. This person killed two people and raped one of them.... Right, that was bad... HOWEVER, WE are going to kill that person? This is two bad actions while is should only be one. The United States should set and example and NOT use the death penalty as a form of punishment, so please vote PRO. Thank You!
Politicians should not use the Bible as a stance on an Issue

You clearly said that you were against the issue? "I believe that the bible or any holy book for that matter should be used to justify a stance on an issue" You clearly stated above that you think holy books should be used and then you said you were against it. Technically, you conceded the debate, not I. You did not clearly stated that you were the one against the issue. You can give yourself as many points as you wish, but these points are not going to get you into the gates of heaven. I believe that the bible should be used to justify a stance on an issue. Even without the Bible, politicians are still going to justify actions and consequences by other means. The Bible is not their only resource, but rather just a way to further project their purposes. The Bible is a source well known to the public and therefore, its use would only be similar to the use of proverbs or idioms to express something. Since 70% of the American demographics are Christians, using the Bible would prove useful to justifying a stance on an issue. The Bible would serve as a moral backbone for a justification. Regardless of whether Christianity was created by God or by the people, it serves as a moral guidance. The issue presented should be justified with morals rather than with immoral purposes. Therefore, the Bible should be used to justify political issues.
Barack Obama vs Vladmir Putin

I would like to remind my opponent that there is no next round. I will extend my arguments and continue on to my rebuttals.1. Vladmir Putin may support the Devil, but when has God done anything? He gets a single woman pregnant in the Medieval Ages. Then he gets his son crucified. The Devil offered him all the kingdoms, while God leaves him homeless walking across the world until his untimely death. Sure he walks on water, except he isn't converting dolphins. His power of healing does nothing when he's hurt. He turns water to wine but he can't get drunk. Look at Joan of Arc. She manges to help France until she gets burned for being a witch. God on your side seems to mean that you get cool powers that do nothing to stop your eventual horrible death. (This case being burned by lasers. ) Now the Devil gives you exactly what you want. The Faustian bargain, the guy gets what he wants. Thus the support of the Devil is better. Sources:. http://www.biography.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...2. This is a complete non-sequitur, but I'll entertain this idea. I was a little 10 pound baby, and now I'm morbidly obese with diabetes and hooked up to a dialysis. That bit of trash I ate yesterday manged to result in many many pounds of diarrhea. It doesn't mean anything except maybe I should go on a diet. Now, I provide the only statistics about it so we'll have to accept it. Lasers are around the speed of light. Now at the speed of light, Putin can burn through Obama and have the laser can circle the world 7.5 times. That's seven and a half visits to the Middle East and strengthen my bond with The Wicked One to further ensure his death. Sources:. http://physicsworld.com....http://www.grc.nasa.gov...3. I have searched up several images that most likely refutes your sources that I didn't read either. Putin riding Obama's eagle Putin is the eagle. Rebuttal to Rebuttal of My Arguments That My Opponent Said He Wasn't Going To Refute But Did So Anyways1. I'm going to keep this PG but he and the bear have faced many accusation such as this, but one night in a hotel with these people has shown that they have other openings to project their powers. Putin shoots charisma out of his eyes, and in bed he shoots super-charisma out everywhere during a intimate act. Since he is a magic gypsy, he can infuse this quality into the bear. All they need is a little stimulation. ;) Sources:. https://en.wikipedia.org...(I googled select phrases from that article plus bear, which lead me to a extremely dark side of the internet, with very hairy men.