BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. "

You have stated your belief about the human tendency to cheat in general. You have made an attempt to draw a conclusion that the immoral behaviour of humans has nothing to do with economy. However, You seem to completely ignore the tendencies man has when he is dealing with a physical representation of value. You are right in saying that people tend to do illegal/immoral things when they believe it to be an "okay" thing to do. This fact supports my statement and in general, Supports cash/physical money when the argument is between a cashless society and a lively society where people's actions are not controlled by the (authoritarian) government. Over time, The government and other powerful systems have been quite successful in making the common man be deluded into believing that a cashless society provides 'convenience'. The advantages of a cashless society which these power-holders do not throw light to are that it lets them control the global population much more efficiently. Can we really trust these few hands? Is this not an authoritarian system being formed in the name of democratic well-being?
"The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. "

Thank you amitian for providing ur arguement. As there were not enough frame work and analogies in your 1st round, It is pretty much confusing for anyone to understand the point you were actually trying to make. But again, As you have shared the opinion of Dr. Dan Ariely, Let's see if it were a right point to make. To understand the evolution of morality and economics, We need to focus on the primitive era of humans in when they had not introduced with these complicated factors. Even in those period of time, They tried to follow their instincts and those instincts were not actually based on the economics parts as economics got its recognition much later. Even if you follow the human history, You would find that the first crime that had been committed was not because of economy but rather because of jealousy. Perhaps you could argue that human itself is a selfish creature which could easily be persuaded with something interchangeable. But solely it was always not the case. In medieval period, If you look on the histories of The Byzantine Empire, The Mongol Empire, Ottoman Empire you will find that these empires tried to spread their emipre sometimes by force over the globe just to prove their superiority rather than persuaded by the economical factors you are trying to talk about. So my whole point is, It is not reasonable to blame economy (as the whole cashless matter comes under the economic section) for moral degradation of humans. As for Dr. Dan Ariely, He also talked about the moral dilemma of humans. To explain that he told in an interview and I quote, "In the case of illegal downloading of music, You can be dishonest and download illegal music, But you don"t have any difficulty thinking of yourself as a bad person because everybody is doing it". This statement helps us to understand how a human usually thinks? In extention, It's possible for us to imply that the whole morality part can vary from human's believes as it's based on standards they create. In other words, The more cashless our society becomes, The more it starts to adapt new changes which even impacts on the whole morality thing which is necessary for human to improvise with timing for revolutionary change that we witnessed in the periods of Industrial Revolution, Social media revolution and so on.
"The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. "

Key Point: "The more cashless our society becomes, The more our moral compass slips. " The above quote is based on solid research conducted by Dr. Dan Ariely, One of the world"s most respected behavioral economists. It is clear that we are rapidly going cashless (Apple Pay, Etc. ), So this conclusion is bothersome if not downright scary. In his book The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone"Especially Ourselves, Dr. Ariely believes that cheating is contagious, And that a group"s behavior will have a powerful effect on each individual.
should it matter how old you are to leigally get maried

Firstly, I wouldn't assume everyone would, but the majority is very likely to have at least some small mishaps in their bound relationship. And secondly, people should be able to love whoever or whatever they want to. It's their own chemical responses, and that is something that I can't change, nor would I want to. But there are many reasons why and how making that connection would make for a field worth of mental, physical, and financial turmoil, I was only pointing out the reasons why you shouldn't marry so young.
should it matter how old you are to leigally get maried

Ah, so I am in the fault. Earlier I should have stated I did not mean literally you, but teenagers* in general. And again, I only used your sentences as an example. You don't need to justify you can make full sentences to marry, I could care less who wishes to get married at what age. Those are merely all the facts why marrying as a teenager makes for a difficult scenario. You earlier said "I think I'm fully capable to handle a marriage.", this is an opinion. You really won't know until you put it to the test, so by all means, do if you so wish to! However, marriage it difficult, and the consequences to a divorce added with hormones can stir for a disaster, the likes of which include drug or alcohol withdrawal, teenage pregnancies, or even higher crime rates. If they want to try, of course they shouldn't be stopped, but from marriage they might gather many more experiences they didn't expect. So I partly disagree with you that marriage at a young age is ok because it can be hurtful, but if others are willing to risk it, then I wouldn't try to stop them.
should it matter how old you are to leigally get maried

Ok 1. I can constructs proper sentence. I choose no too. Because I just don't want to. I have better things to do with my time them make sure the sentence is perfect for you 2. I don't mean a 12 or 14 year old. IM refuting to maybe 16 year olds and up. And if I can pay Taxs, bills and basically live on my own take care of myself. Purchase food for myself with my own money that I earned mind you. I think I'm fully capable to handle a marriage.
should it matter how old you are to leigally get maried

I agree with you, but I believe you're forgetting the reasons one wouldn't marry at an early age. To put this as bluntly and simply as possible, kids are not physically, mentally, or financially ready for marriage. Seriously, it's a flipping drag. Parents may not "Know best,", but they certainly have experience in the turmoil of these legal bindings, so do you honestly think brushing off their advice is going to be helpful? People have managed to find many flimsy reasons to tie the knot, jump the broom, whatever. Now, let's assume you were talking about, say, a fourteen year old. Not only how, but where in the youpleshes are they going to get the money to pay for a wedding? More than two thirds of the world is in middle class and lower-- That's just enough to pay for some mediocre and ridiculous process known as a wedding, and that expenses thousands from you. And, once married, your banks are tied together, or at least your values. Some of these theoretical people don't even have jobs! So, let's move to the mental stage of this. To be rather rude, I'm going to use your earlier statement as an example. Look at it. No punctuation, capitalization, a full run on sentence with pockets of grammatically incorrect words. I use this because, if you're still having difficulties constructing a few sentences, then wrapping your brain around the concept of being modestly tied to someone else is exponentially more difficult. At such an early stage of life, comprehending the many, many troubles of marriage and trying to muddle through that is more or less like learning seven languages- You probably won't even have the motivation to keep up with it. And, physically wise, that should be pretty obvious: Some young females haven't even started their period, and they're expected to have a wedding night? And if they do happen to be past that stage, young pregnancy is a potentially huge issue. That, and hormones. They can make you drop the marriage by batting an eyelash, which is coincidentally pointed toward a significant other who you were oggling at after a make out session. Though I am fully for those marrying whenever they want, at whatever age, admittedly, it's evidently idiotic to do so in years consisting only a few experiences. If they don't want to wait, and they would rather spend money on weddings, divorces, and more of the such, then let them! But then again, you have to encounter the reasons why they shouldn't.
Pedophiles and serial rapists should be killed

I strongly beleieve that rapists and pedophiles should not be killed. Capital punishment is not appropriate punishment for them, unless someone is killed. Even in this case, murders should not be killed. It is not the solution. Moreover, as rapists and pedophiles are mentally disturbed people, their rehabiliation is difficult and not always it is possible to cure them. Sometimes there are situations when someone was falsely convicted of child molestation or rape, so this man will stay in prison.
Pedophiles and serial rapists should be killed

First of all, according to Resick and Jackson most rapists are "mentally ill" or psychologically disturbed. But of course there are some rapists who consciously commit violence, but it is not a reason to kill them. No one has the rights to decide the man's fate. God gave life, God will take away it. It is not our life and it somehow can be evaluated as interference with the right to private life. Moreover, everything can happen in our life and no one is safe from it.
Pedophiles and serial rapists should be killed

I agree that pedophiles are mentally ill but what about the rapists? Is it the same disease? And if you refer to the disease, should we ignore the number of children and women that become victims of violence? Should we close our eyes to this indeed? Besides, according to crisis psychologist Michail Hasminsky, the vast majority of rapists are sane people and they go to this step consciously. That means they are criminals and they should be punished severely!!!
Pedophiles and serial rapists should be killed

According to academic researches most of pedophiles and rapists are people with mental disorders. The cannot control their actions and do not understand what they do. Louis Theroux, a journalist from the UK, visits the mental hospital in Coalinga and talks with pedophiles and rapists. Most of them deny their illness because of fear of psychiatric hospitals, but doctors definitely diagnosed them as mentally ill persons. And we know that mental illness are evaluated as irrational state and nadequate state. So they shouldn't be killed just because thay have such disorders. It is not their fault, but parents' and hospitals' fault.
Climate change is both real and a serious issue

As I finished writing and submitted my argument i later realized the exact point about the polar caps that you mentioned, and i concede that your right about that, but i still stand firm in my point that the polar caps aren't melting in fact they are growing and my evidence is in the link in my last post. But as for the rest of my argument i believe you, you are right and as I read your points i re read my sources and realized that they don't quite say what i wanted them to. i also cannot find any actual evidence that humans aren't the cause, so I concede, Good work Pro i enjoyed the debate and im sorry i cant finish it, i simply see your side now and cant find evidence against it. Im sure others could argue this into the ground but i dont see the point. Good Job, i would like to b=debate with you more later preferably a different topic. Good Job, You Win
Climate change is both real and a serious issue

I want to start off by mentioning that this my first debate with another person and this is a very controversial topic and I hope we can both be informative to each other To start I wanted to address your source, in the source one of the first points it makes is that humans are the main cause of global warming, however there actually is a good deal of evidence that humans aren't the main cause, the earth has natural heating and cooling periods and around 1945 people were actually worried about the cooling effect (1) And this isn't without any evidence there is a petition signed by thousands of scientists (2). the general public and many environmentalists believe that since there are charts and graphs it must be true but humans also once wholeheartedly believed the world was flat. It is widely believed and accepted that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and this will cause "great floods" and whatnot but anyone who knows anything about displacement can obviously tell that's outrageous. Around 400 million years ago during the Ordovician period greenhouse gases were at levels 16 times more than they are at now and the earth was wildly populated with flora and fauna still capable of life.(3) This was brought about by volcanic emissions this can be read about in source 3. SO really the recent rise in carbon emissions inst actually that devastating at all. Also al gores prediction of the melting ice caps due to the carbon emissions is false, according to this (4) in fact it has grown up to 50% larger. the Northern ice cap actually gained area roughly equal to the size of Alaska since 2012. Its silly to say that humans don't make an impact on the environment, and I wont say that because we do have an impact but the earth itself has had much bigger changes in temperature before. to claim that humans are destroying the planet is crazy at most humans will raise the temperature by a couple degrees Celsius. My closing thoughts are that I don't believe global warming is a serious issue the earth has had to deal with much more influential things than humans and ultimately adapts and changes because of it. The U.S. government has spent billions of dollars to fund global warming efforts (5) and this money could be used to fix actual problems that we have identified instead of funding research nearly as heavily as we are. (1)http://www.batteredmen.com... (2) http://www.petitionproject.org... (3)https://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.dailymail.co.uk... (5) http://www.gao.gov...
Climate change is both real and a serious issue

OverviewThis debate session will be 5 rounds with 48 hours to conduct an argument. 10,000 characters are permitted for each response. Open voting will take place over 10 days with comments enabled.Rules Please try to use objective evidence and cite at the bottom of your argument Please try to use proper spelling and grammar Please use an introduction to transition into your argument Please be respectful No trolling China is a valid argument(with proper evidence), lol use sources other than Trump please Debate Info In the age of information, it is very easy to search for knowledge in the blink of an eye. With so much information available, it can be hard to determine what knowledge is true or false. Misinformation tends to be centered around controversial topics that have false evidence or include ideological ideals. One rapidly growing topic is climate change. Many people believe that climate change is a hoax due to "ideological and/or financial reasons,"(Citation 1). It should be noted that political views usually dominate one side or the other. Carbon emissions have been accelerating since the start of the industrial revolution. This is resulting in: global temperature rising, polar ice caps melting, and rapid environmental changes. It is said that this information is being faked to further personal and/or business gains. So what is it? Is climate change real or, is it being used as a front by greedy individuals? Let the best side persuade you.Citation 1 - Wikipedia, "Global warming conspiracy theory"
The Sabbath was one of the Shadows pointing to Christ that isn't Binding on Christians Today

That last point you made was so egotistical. Even if I am right, even if I'm telling the truth, your point would take precedence over mine? That's not a humble way to approach truth. Any person reading the New Testament, seeing that the law has ended, and not finding a single command to keep the Sabbath, would not believe they have to set aside a day at all. Also, its not true that Christian have to set aside a day. If I go to church on Sunday, that doesn't mean I have to set that whole day aside as special. I can go to church in the morning, and then go to work afterwards. The same is true of Saturday. Also, just because a person gets a off day or two, doesn't mean they are keeping a Sabbath. Many people that get two days off work a week are not Sabbath keepers. It was John 5:18 that said Jesus broke the Sabbath, so tell God to be careful what he puts in his word and see how you fear, don't blame me. The Jews had many other Sabbaths in Leviticus 23, so the weekly Sabbath wasn't the only day. What day was Pentecost in Acts 2? lol....OK. You don't want to debate this. It's ok.
The Sabbath was one of the Shadows pointing to Christ that isn't Binding on Christians Today

Hey Daley, Thanks for inviting me to this debate. However, I am not interested in debating this topic so this will probably be my only comment. There are plenty of other Christian groups that keep the Sabbath so it"s not something unique to Adventists; I was interested in debating the IJ. I consider it a waste of time for Adventists to debate the Sabbath. It"s actually not that big an issue if other Christians choose to worship on a different day, even if many Adventists disagree. There is however one major flaw in all the arguments raised against the Sabbath by other Christians which is why Adventists are justified in being different in this respect. Christianity, like Judaism, is a religion where corporate worship is an integral part of the religious experience. And, because people have to work, religious traditions that place high emphasis on corporate worship have to set aside a day for when corporate worship can take place. The problem is that the Sabbath is so well established as that day in the Old Testament and the gospels that, if the Christian church was meant to be different, one would expect to find significant evidence in the New Testament changing the day. And, that evidence is simply lacking. Basically, if you were to give Bibles to an isolated people group somewhere who knows absolutely nothing about Christianity, those who read the Bible and get converted will very likely end up worshiping together weekly and do it on Sabbath. It"s only when people are already familiar with Christian tradition that they worship on a different day. And, Adventists prefer to stick to Sola Scriptura. Besides that I would just say that you should be careful claiming that Jesus broke the Sabbath since, even if Christians are not bound to keep it, Jesus was still born under the law and would therefore have had to keep it Himself. Now you should not interpret this to mean that I am agreeing with your other arguments but simply that, even if your arguments were true, my point would supersede them.
The Sabbath was one of the Shadows pointing to Christ that isn't Binding on Christians Today

Even with that clarified statement you are still totally wrong in your assumption that there must be some special, specific day to go to church. All Christians, even the ones who don't believe in the Sabbath or in Sunday (cause I reject them both, none of them are holy), go to church on various different days of the week. I'm sure that Saturday is not the only day you have church. Like myself, I'm sure you have mid-week services during the night. In fact, I've known churches to have meetings at which they discussed changing the days they have church, and even the times, so nothing is set in stone. Why? Because we don't worship a day, we worship God. And if worship is more than prayer and going to church, but involves all aspects of our lives, then there can be no day of worship - God is worshipped everyday.
Atheism is reasonably impossible

The argument that I am about to use is not one that I have found somewhere else. I have created this argument myself, and I have never heard it used it before (that quite surprised me). I have posed this question to a couple of atheists in my class, and they have been unable to answer it. However, we shall see how it shall fare against a more experienced opponent. Now, I am sure we all know that our universe is orderly, and has many scientific laws, such as Newton's Law of Motion, and the Universal Law of Gravitation. We know these laws exist objectively because of the objective effects they have on our world. Now here's the important part. We know these laws exist objectively, but they are not actual physical things. We can see their effects, but see can not actually touch, see, smell, taste or hear the laws themselves. What are the effects of this in relation to our debate? We now know that these objective non-physical laws must exist. However, with an atheistic viewpoint, it is reasonably impossible for these laws to exist. Atheism is the non-belief in God, which means no spiritual being can exist. If any did exist, even if they were not omnipotent, they would be in a higher form of being than the physical world, and would not be subject to our physical restrictions. This would therefore make any spiritual being able to be called a God, assuming they were the most powerful spiritual being. Ergo, Atheism requires materialism, the belief that nothing exists but the physical world. But mere physical matter cannot create laws or rules, as it requires intelligence. Example: We as humans have intelligence, so we can create laws. But a rock cannot create rules and laws, as it is mere physical matter. But there's more. We humans, despite being intelligent cannot create objective physical laws, as any law we make will be subjective. We only have control over ourselves, so we can only make ourselves obey that law. Through that same logic we must conclude that anything able to make an objective law must have control over everything, ie. Omnipotent. So as the last conclusion, anything that is capable of making objective laws such as the laws of science, must be: 1. Non-physical2. OmnipotentThe only thing that fits this criteria is God. Also, I would like to point out that if this argument is correct, Atheism is reasonably impossible (see above statement), so to win this debate my opponent must refute my argument.
Atheism is reasonably impossible

I will be arguing that Atheism is impossible by reasonable standards. I will have the burden of proof. My opponent will only have to prove that Athiesm is reasonably possible, not likely. I would like to make clear that I am not not arguing against the current Atheistic paradigm, simply Athiesm itself. Dictionary definition of reasonable: 1. In a fair and sensible way. 2. By fair or sensible standards of judgment; rightly or justifiably Dictionary definition of Atheism: The theory or belief that God does not exist.
Resolved: The USFG ought to tax the rich more

1. This is a TEAM DEBATE!!! Pro-- Famousdebater -- TheProphett Con-- lannan13 -- Balacafa 2. The Burden Of Proof is shared 3. First round for acceptance. No new arguments in the final round.4. No semantics, kritiks, trolling, forfeiture etc. 5. Failure to agree to the definitions, rules and burdens analysis is an automatic forfeiture of all points. DefinitionsUSFG - United States Federal Government Ought - used to indicate duty or correctness, should Tax - a compulsory contribution of money to state revenueRich - Somebody earning $1,000,000 per year or more. More - Of a higher amount. Good luck to all participants.