BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need

Thank you for your condolences, luckily no one I am close with was severely hurt or affected by the storm. And I offer my condolences to you, as the scale of Katrina dwarfs that of Sandy.The government does indeed have a role in these large scale moral obligations I did not doubt that. I simply downplay the scale of things because your argument does in fact regard the individual. As a society we have sacrificed some rights to the government for them to make some moral decisions for us, but that is simply based on the voices of the majority. I am not against your philosophy on the government having say on some moral decisions, but the basis of the argument is individuals. Depending on the region, the governmen has varying degrees of clout in these matters. However, when you argue the fact that individuals do not have a moral obligation to assist others, you are making a completely generalized accusation on the entirety of the human race.We still do not live in a perfectly moral world, but throughout history people that felt this obligation to help those who are unjustly punished have risen to the occasion and made a difference. People fought to end slavery, to give suffrage to all, and now are fighting to extend these rights to the gay community. It is because of people like this throughout history that we have moved closer and closer towards a morally just society. To say that we sacrifice our character, the code that we live by, to the government is somewhat ludicrous. You have argued the point that we as citizens are simply not well-equipped enough to handle some great situations very well, and how we as citizens make sacrifices so the government has enough control to prevent these catastrophic events from tearing our society down to the ground. But for the individual, we all live by our own rules, our own obligations and make our own decisions according to our moral code. I appreciate the assistance the government and other organizations provides for us in these dire times, but I do not believe I have extended them access to my core values and allowed them to make these choices for us. I conclude with this, we as human beings are unique. So unique in fact that it is almost impossible to make a generalized statement that applies to all of our race. And this is why I believe that inside each and everyone of us lies a foundation that we live upon. A code that we live by, and are obligated to follow throughout the course of our lives. Whether we stray from that at times does not make us bad people, it simply means we have made mistakes. As humans, we all have slip-ups, but it does not rock the foundation we stand upon.I thank you for this debate, I thoroughly enjoyed the topic and hope that we can have this again.
Justification of Euthanasia

No matter what argument you give me, euthanasia is not justifiable. Richard Brandt states, "It is altogether unlawful to kill oneself, for three reasons. First, because everything naturally loves itself, the result being that everything naturally keeps itself in being, and resists corruption so far as it can."" That alone shows that people want to thrive in their lives. Euthanasia is wrong because people are meant to have a change and see what they become as potential beings. In reference to Craig Ewert, if there was a cure for his disease, he surely would have chosen life over death. His act of euthanasia goes against his potential for a cure. He decision to end his life was solely based on the fact that he did not want to be a burden to others. "It is then seen at once that a system of nature by whose law the very same feeling whose function is to stimulate the furtherance of life should actually destroy life would contradict itself and consequently could not subsist as a system of nature."
Justification of Euthanasia

First of all you did not finish off Rachel's' quote, "If a doctor deliberately let a patient die who was suffering from a routinely curable illness, the doctor would certainty be to blame for what he had done,.." the quote goes onto say that "just as he would be to blame if he had needlessly killed the patient." Letting on that charges against the doctor would in fact be appropriate because the doctor made the decision of "letting" his patient die. In your example of the two men that wanted the boy die. The second man who saw the boy would in fact not be guilty, since he did not psychically make contact with the boy. Sometimes, everyone wants to see harm done to others, this does not mean that we literally want to see them harmed, we are but merely agitated with them. Richard Brandt mentions that "Persons who say suicide is morally wrong must be asked which of two positions they are affirming. Are they saying that every act of suicide is wrong, everything considered? Or are they merely saying that there is always some moral obligations, doubtless of serious weight, to commit suicide, so that very often suicide is wrong". What Brandt is affirming, is that there are different ways in which one can interpret whether or not suicide is justifiable.
Justification of Euthanasia

There is nothing in modern medicine that mentions that euthanasia is the best means of treatment. A pledge from the Hippocratic oath states "I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion". Even the oath mentions that a doctor is not supposed to end a life. A doctors job is to be able to keep the person alive as much as possible. Once again Rachel's mentions "If a doctor deliberately let a patient die who was suffering from a routine curable illness, the doctor would certainly be to blame for what he had done....". Imagine the scenario of two men that wanted a boy killed. The first man goes into the bathroom with the boy and drowns him in the bath tube, while the second man walks into the bathroom, and sees the boy slip out and crack his head. In both scenarios, both men would be guilty of letting the boy die, since they both had intentions of the boy being dead as the end result. Both men are still guilty for taking a life, whether or not they physically did it.
Justification of Euthanasia

A doctors job is to minimize suffering. To deny euthanasia is to deny an end to suffering. If it weren't for doctors not having the drive to help others, we would not be able to cure anyone of anything. Craig Ewert once mentioned "Suicide is a marvelous possibility for a human being to restore themselves from a situation that is unbearable". What this is saying is not that the person is a coward for wanting to end their suffering. But rather, they are actually maintaining their dignity and ability to make decisions as a human being. Speaking of maintaining dignity, or even the potential for dignity. When it comes to making a decision for a child born with a terminal illness. It is morally justifiable to make the decision to end the child's suffering. The child is not yet at an age, where they can make a moral decision about themselves, they can't comprehend any of these things. As a parent, you would hopefully be horrified to see your child suffer even a minor injury. While it would be incredibly difficult to deny the child the life it has not yet been able to have, in a situation like this, it would be better to end the only feeling they have ever felt, in this case pain. Once again, Rachels argues that "A number of points need to be made here. The first is that it is not exactly correct to say that in passive euthanasia the doctor does nothing, for he does do one thing that is very important: he lets the patient die". There are many benefits that modern medicine has given us. To deny euthanasia is to deny modern medicine, are you against modern treatments?
Justification of Euthanasia

Suicide is wrong no matter what means one goes about ending their life. If someone is suffering, you can't guarantee that their mental clarity is as efficient as someone who is in a healthier state of mind. They should not be in charge of such a finite judgment since it would be expected that they would want to end the suffering, because they are in the state of illness. In one of Rachel's arguments, he also mentions that "If a doctor let's a patient die, for humane reasons, he is in the same moral position, as if he had given the patient a lethal injection for humane reasons." What the quote describes is, that killing is killing, even if the person who conducting the killing had a morally justifiable reason to do so. In the instance of the doctor with a patient, if a patient was in fact curable then the doctor clearly made the wrong decision. When someone is dead, there is no bringing them back. That would be the worst kind of mistake one could make. Life should run its nature course. Your body should determine when it is your time to pass. A doctor should not play God.
Justification of Euthanasia

While it may seem inhumane to many, there are many benefits and justifications to euthanasia and one wanting to end suffering. A few philosophers offer their means of justification, one such philosopher is James Rachels. In Rachels' article described is the difference between active and passive euthanasia. He states "Part of my point is that the process of being "allowed to die" can be relatively slow and painful, whereas being given lethal injection is relatively quick and painless." There is a consensus among both moral people as well as philosophers, that the more humane thing to do with a person in a situation in which there is little chance of full recovery, is to terminate the person's suffering before they are allowed to suffer any further. Every human being is entitled to basic human rights, one of these rights is to be able to do what they wish with their life, even if this means voluntary execution, of course the person must also be of mental mind and be able to distinguish what the difference between life and death are at the time of this determination. In the documentary the Suicide Tourist Craig Ewert was an American suffering with ALS, because of this terminal disease he concluded that he wanted to end his life by means of assisted suicide compared to getting to the point where he "couldn't talk walk or move". He said "how would one know if I was suffering? It would be utter hell." Meaning if he deteriorated so long he wouldn't be able to physically or verbally express how he was feeling, and no one could help him. He would also become a burden on others. If you were put into a similar situation, would you want to become a burden to those you care about?
Jesus's story is just another version of many other ancient deities

Some people believe that Jesus's story came from many other sources, (ex. Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Mithras, etc.) due to a number of "similarities". I am here to disprove that. The first round is merely an acceptance round. I will be using this definition of "version". Version - a particular account of some matter, as from one person or source, contrasted with some other account (from Dictionary.com) Begin!
Jesus's story is just another version of many other ancient deities

Originally, I was going to go back and attack each one of my opponent's points, but I will quickly brush over a few things for these reasons: - I'm very limited on the time I have left - I feel like I've already said everything needed to win the debate in previous rounds - I feel like I'm repeating the same things 1. Gospels Peter Here is a great website that shows all the evidence that Peter wrote Peter 1: http://www.abu.nb.ca... Peter did not write the Gosel of Peter or any of the other fake books that you mentioned. That's why they're not included in the Bible - it's not historically accurate at all and the earliest version they found was about 400 AD. http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com... http://www.4truth.net... Overall, it seems like you're not using common sense, but instead looking at the ancient translation like a lawyer, nitpicking every word. I feel like I have argued these points in the last round. Your evidence comparing the other ancient dieties to Jesus is not substantial. Wine being a part of their story doesn't make them the same person.
The public has a right to see the Muller report as soon as possible

1. You're correct as long as the justice system provides in all cases full reports of ALL the information in spite of the fact that these cases have never gone to prosecution due to lack of evidence. 2. Prosecution DOES NOT report all information that has been ascertained in cases that do not have adequate evidence of guilt. 3. Therefore, It is not proper in the US judicial system to publish information obtained in a case that has been deemed inadequate for further legal action. In other words, If there is no or inadequate evidence to reasonably go forward with prosecution, The information is not available to the public in our judicial system.
Resolved: The idea of Intelligent Design is a product of religion, not science.

I affirm. [Definitions] Intelligent Design- A conjecture claiming that biological life on Earth, or more broadly, the universe as a whole, was created by an unspecified intelligent agent rather than being the result of undirected natural processes. (en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intelligent design) Product- A consequence of someone's efforts or of a particular set of circumstances (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) [Burdens] Affirmative- Must show that Intelligent Design as defined is a product of religion and has no scientific basis. Negative- Must show that Intelligent Design as defined is not a product of religion, but is strongly grounded in science and has strong scientific roots. ---------------------------------------------------------------- I'll let whoever takes this debate make the first move.
The objectiveness of reality

Things can only be defined insofar as we can perceive them with our senses, or imagine them abstractly. What I'm saying is that without the abstraction (math, geometry), there's no way to understand anything. But those abstractions, though real in the sense that they reveal real properties of things, are extensions of the mind. If you had a blind basset hound, the world for that animal would be built entirely of smells. Dogs smell things we can't. They can differentiate parts of a smell that for us melds together into one thing. So the picture of the world based on smells would be totally different from the one we see. But how things smell is also governed by laws, so a system of geometry or spatial reasoning based on smell might be totally different, but equally valid, to what we know. I'm relying on Kant's idea about the noumena vs. phenomena. My interpretation of this is that, for instance, chair looks one way from one vantage point, and different from another vantage point. So then to 'see' a chair objectively you have to view it with no vantage point, in which case our definition of seeing breaks down. There can be no seeing without perspective. In the same way, math and geometry can't exist without the mind.
The objectiveness of reality

It's true that the anatomy of the eye determines the type of light we experience, however when you speak of black holes, remember that these objects are not something we humans can perceive with our senses. According to general relativity, a black holes is an object so dense that it's escape velocity is greater than light, meaning not even light can escape its event horizon, moreover, its singularity has no time nor space therefore it is something abstract that we cannot perceive directly. We find evidence of their existence through the radiation they emit, through the light they produce and most recently, through the gravitational shock waves they create. You say that mathematics is a construct of the human mind, but mathematical and geometrical structures existed long before humans. For example, the way in which atoms are ordered in a molecule say a water molecule, the ratio between Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms is always 2 to 1, the fact that spiral galaxies had a geometric structure, that the planets have elliptical orbits, are aspects of nature that existed billions of years before the earth was formed, thereby billions of years before we came along. If mathematics is not independent of the human mind, how can you explain the ELLIPTICAL orbit of planets, fractal geometry in molecules, numerical patterns in the energy states of electrons, the value of the cosmological constant and so many other mathematical properties of the Universe that formed eons before the brain?
The objectiveness of reality

I will take the Con position and say that the languages by which we understand reality are not independent of the mind. Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. The word "imagination," obviously, is rooted in "image." Both 'black' and 'hole' are images from human experience that frame our understanding of a cosmic phenomenon. Just as blue light illuminates the blueness of things and red light reveals redness, mathematics illuminates the mathematic properties of things, and geometry illuminates their geometric properties. Both are mental constructs that must exist prior to knowledge of the thing in question.
Due process for illegal immigrants

My personal view has nothing to do with the argument. I am arguing that illegal immigrants have a constitutional right to due process according to the fourteenth amendment. However, if the argument is emotional or personal I do believe illegal immigrants have the right to due process still. They are human beings, and they simply should not be deprived of such a simple right as the courts deciding whether they are deported whether they may stay. The courts are civilized; the government deporting without due process is not. Simple.
Due process for illegal immigrants

The inherent problem of that argument is the ability given to the government to deport anyone they want if they can not prove they are a citizen, naturalized or not. This takes away rights even from the actual citizens themselves if the government wants to deport them. The other question is why the fact that someone is a citizen or not changes their person. Why should a murderer or rapist who happens to be a citizen be paid for, but a responsible but illegal immigrant not be granted the right to due process? They may be wrong, and then they re deported, but at least they were given a fair chance to argue their point? To literally cite the Fourteenth Amendment of our own constitution- "...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The key word in the quote here is ANY. The article before this snippet specifically stated 'citizen' ("All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."), deliberately separating it from the section mentioning 'any person'. Your argument literally goes against what is stated in the Constitution, and what the Supreme Court has upheld for years; that even illegal immigrants are granted the right to due process.
Due process for illegal immigrants

I do not agree with the US imprisoning anybody for being an illegal immigrant. My view is that if they can't prove right off the bat that they are legally in the US, they should be deported back to their country. When we are detaining aliens to have their due process, that is coming out of the taxpayers pocket. In FY 13 the budget for ICE was $5.9 million, the US Customs and Border Protection's budget was $11.9 billion. ICE has to keep approximately 34,000 beds nationwide that Congress has said it has to maintain the beds at full capacity. We as taxpayers are having to pay to feed the aliens, for medical attention if needed, and for the electricity they have in the detention centers.
Genre Shuffle: Music Selection War

R1- Rebuttal - Ok so since its only 1 song per round, i listened to the instrumental version. I found the first half repetitive but I definitely enjoyed the latter half. On the other hand, ya hooked until you get tired of hitting repeat with thugz mansion, which is never. _....___....___..._...._._.____....___....___....___....___....___....___....___....___....___....___....___...._ R2- You're Gonna Pay- WWE Since WWE was pretty much my childhood its hard not to include it in my fav genres choice. This song was briefly used for Undertaker, everyman knows about taker. At the time, it suited him perfectly, the message is crystal-clear in the lyrics, simply Don't fck with him, or the listener to an extent. It truly does teach you some life lessons.
Genre Shuffle: Music Selection War

Thanks for the challenge! Music has had a strong impact in my life as a musician of several genres, and advanced student of handfuls of instruments while also finding impact from the listening side as well. Though I may not be as competitively eloquent in my arguments, I find the concept of arguing my taste to be extraordinarily challenging yet rewarding. Thanks for throwing down the gauntlet. I look forward to listening to new music and building a stronger bond with the subject. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First genre - Jazz (I assume this covers the ridiculously diverse sub genres of jazz as well) Weather Report - Birdland Covered by Maynard Ferguson Highly would recommend listening to the Weather Report version for like a minute or two then the full Maynard Ferguson interpretation up until his solo toward the very end . :) Weather Report: Maynard Ferguson: One of the many great characteristics of jazz is its establishment of a powerful, open and catchy "chorus" line. Birdland establishes its chorus early on and has a handful of variations all under the same drum beat and key. Maynard Ferguson's extremely comfortable tone in the high octaves of lead trumpet is heavily exemplified in this piece. Every "variation" of the chorus line is catchy. Not to mention some impressive solos by the accompaniment followed up by what is definitely a highlight of Maynard's open solo sections. I believe music should be felt, it should move, and it should invade our eardrums and Birdland without a doubt represents my favorite Jazz(Fusion) song. Its hard to not tap your foot to the beat and I have been consistently inspired by this interpretation of the Weather Report's hit Birdland.
Genre Shuffle: Music Selection War

Rules Each round we post our favourite song from alternating genres, at the same time must argue who has the better taste in music. To clarify, Imagine in R1 I choose a rap song, which I am going to do, you don't necessarily have to choose rap, you can pick a jazz track for instance, then give a brief justification. Then in R2 when we post our next genre song, we argue about the previous round at the same time, and so on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK SO My first genre - Hip Hop Rap Tupac- Thugz Mansion, Anthony Hamilton Remix https://youtu.be...... Great beat, amazing lyrics, and such an appealing and motivating message, especially for ethnic minority youths struggling to find peace. Truly the best hip hop rap song ever.
The gender wage gap in the US is mostly because of discrimination.

No, Pro, you misunderstand my argument. Women make similar amounts in the same job, but women as a whole make less than men as a whole because of the sexual discrimination. The issue is because women are stuck with the kids, because it is acceptable for a deadbeat dad to walkout on his kids, but not okay for mom. And, with couples, it generally comes down to the woman to take care of the family.