BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Theism offers a more likely context than atheism for affirming moral realism.

AveI thank PCP for arranging this debate. I will be showing that the arguments presented by PCP are not sufficient to show that moral realism is better supported on theism rather than atheism. If I can do this, then the resolution is negated.Knowing PCP, this is sure to be an interesting debate for the two of us, as well as the audience. I eagerly await his next round.Vale
Theism offers a more likely context than atheism for affirming moral realism.

I thank Sargon agreeing to debate me on this topic. I shall be arguing that given moral realism theism is more likely than atheism. Or that theism makes "more sense" of moral realism than atheism does. My job is to argue that, yes, theism offer a more likely context in which to affirm moral realism and Con's job is to argue that, to the contrary, atheism offers a more likely context than theism in which to affirm moral realism. In short, this will be a mostly meta-ethical debate. [1]DefintionsTheism - Theism is the view that there is a God which is is the creator and sustainer of the universe and is unlimited with regard to knowledge (omniscience), power (omnipotence), extension (omnipresence), and moral perfection. [2] Atheism - ‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God. [3]Moral Realism - Taken at face value, the claim that Nigel has a moral obligation to keep his promise, like the claim that Nyx is a black cat, purports to report a fact and is true if things are as the claim purports. Moral realists are those who think that, in these respects, things should be taken at face value—moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, they hold, at least some moral claims actually are true. [4]RulesRound 1 for acceptance and/or clarification of defintions, rules, etc, etc.Rounds 2 - 4 for argumentation.Sources[1] Metaethics is the attempt to understand the metaphysical, epistemological, semantic, and psychological, presuppositions and commitments of moral thought, talk, and practice. As such, it counts within its domain a broad range of questions and puzzles, including: Is morality more a matter of taste than truth? Are moral standards culturally relative? Are there moral facts? If there are moral facts, what is their origin? How is it that they set an appropriate standard for our behavior? How might moral facts be related to other facts (about psychology, happiness, human conventions…)? And how do we learn about the moral facts, if there are any? These questions lead naturally to puzzles about the meaning of moral claims as well as about moral truth and the justification of our moral commitments. Metaethics explores as well the connection between values, reasons for action, and human motivation, asking how it is that moral standards might provide us with reasons to do or refrain from doing as it demands, and it addresses many of the issues commonly bound up with the nature of freedom and its significance (or not) for moral responsibility. http://plato.stanford.edu...[2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...[3] http://plato.stanford.edu...[4] http://plato.stanford.edu...
fornication is wrong

honestly, i'm not sure where i stand on this issue. my religous upbringing has messed me up. i could see saying fornication, even when it's done as responsibly as possible, is inherently bad. the feelings of permanency that one has for another, indicates we're to save ourselves for that one other person. and the guilt associated with fornication, is also an indication that it's wrong. of course, these are just my feelings, and i could see a rational statement being put otherwise. given both are rational, it'd seem i'd defer to "feelings". i want others' feelings.
fornication is wrong

Ok first things first, I agree that you never said that sex before marriage is wrong, that is why your stance and framing of this topic is problematic for you. If you agree that pre-marital sex is a good thing, then you can never have a wholesale rejection of fornication, since, fornication includes premarital sex. It is because of this concession and clarification that you make is a reason why you should lose. Next, you say that I didnt make my spiritual arguments before, however you merely sluffed them off and called them fluff. You say that masturbation is bad because of dreams of being with someone else or of a feeling of lonliness. This only feeds my argument why all types of fornication are good because they bring everyone closer to god with a partner. You say that you feel guilt because you are conditioned to believe that fornication is bad, however maybe this debate should be about a wholesale rejection of religious conditioning that focuses around sex, but it is not. And you finally clarify your argument about guilt in your final post. I believe that acknowledging that sex is a spiritual act that brings you closer to god will help overcome this guilt. However, I believe a wholesale rejection of fornication only forces more masturbation, which only breeds more guilt. The reasons why you indict masturbation are reasons why your argument should be rejected, because the alternative to fornication is masturbation. After reading and re-reading all of your posts, I do believe that you never clearly state what your argument is. At times you say it is pre-marital sex, other times you say it is guilt, however you flip flop on these issues consistently. I believe that I have stuck to the topic, listing reasons why fornication is good, and why your arguments and your alternative only fosters more guilt, masturbation, and lonliness. I would love to continue this debate with you if you could more clearly articulate your position. For the readers, dont get caught up in my original arguments about islamic and christian views on sex. This is an unessecary confusion that came from an original misinterpretation of my opponents arguments. I believe I have proven some benefit to fornication, and any wholesale rejection of fornication only makes guilt and victims of religious psychological conditioning feel worse.
fornication is wrong

as per common usage, though, fornication refers to sex before marraige. and, again, if you read my first post, it's clear that's what i was referring to "save yourself" etc. your spiritual nature arguments are compelling. too bad you didn't argue it the first time, but they're decent. the first time you onlyrefered to spirtual sex, something not excluded in marital sex. what do you consider about all that feelings of "for one only" and guilt that people like me feel? do you contend it's social conditioning? do you find that you have no feelings like that, or is your's mere theoretical debating? when i masturbate, and others ahve told me this, they dream of being with anothier, not just for f&cking's sake, but for closeness. and feel alone and such afterwards. it seems masturbation might be wrong, too. please be honest in your feelings, not just theory. not saying that you are being just theoretical but, just make clear the context, just saying is all. i never said sex before marraige is wrong. in fact, if you read both of my posts, i state that. "for the first islam quote, about two purposes for sex, again i don't dispute sex before marraige. in the context marriage, it doesn't say you can fornicate. i'm almost certain the quaran says you can't. sex can have a dual purpose within marraige. think about it." i did say that, which is hard to follow, but does hint that "doesn't say you can fornicate" means it's wrong. and that dual purpose in marraige is there for another hint. etc the first sentence was suppose to be ".. sex before marriage can be unitive" the quotes after that qualify my ideas to show that sex before marriage is indeed te subject of my debate.
fornication is wrong

Ah, touche salesman, maybe I should open a dictionary and read the definition of the term fornication before I made all of my arguments dealing with religion and marital sex. However, I still find a few of your arguments to dispute. You make the comment that "i don't dispute sex before marraige" However, after I decided to open a dictionary...the American Heritige Dictionary defines fornication as "Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other." This means all premarital sex is constituted as fornication. Therefore you have shown in replies to my argument you so lovingly call "fluff" that you disagree with your overarching claim that all fornication is wrong. Finally, I'll stick with my argument that orgasms are spiritual in nature. You say that it is irrelevant to this debate, however I think you are wrong. If you deny all fornication, you deny more orgasms, which deny more closeness and feelings of oness towards god. You could say that many can achieve these moments with god via masturbation, however it would be good to share that moment with someone else. In the end, I am unsure as to what your argument really is. You say fornication is wrong, but premarital sex is not? I have no clue what to debate against, you say that it is not wrong to save yourself for someone, but say its okay to not......Either my arguments, or your discussion of your own show that you believe that fornication is not wrong......which means you lose the debate.
fornication is wrong

this is why i posted two debates, to ensure i actually got a quality response and gloss over the fluff. fornication by common usage means sex before marriage. by jewish law, it simply meant unlawful sex. it has never meant so general that marital sex is wrong, so that's obviously not what i intended. what i intended is even more clear when i wrote that it's not wrong to save yourself for that one other person. i don't know if you were quoting genesis to prove that sex during marriage is okay.... you shouldn't as no reasonable person disputes that. as for sex before marraige, it doesn't prove anything. This means that God made man in his own image, and the duty of the man and the woman is to "be fruitful and increase in number" for the first islam quote, about two purposes for sex, again i don't dispute sex before marraige. in the context before marriage, it doesn't say you can fornicate. i'm almost certain the quaran says you can't. sex can have a dual purpose within marraige. think about it. i don't even know what you're trying to show with the following, as it does not make sense within the context of your argument: ------ Although the primary purpose of sex is procreation, the Qur'an does not forbid it when a woman reaches menopause. For example, in the Qur'an is the story is about the Prophet Zakariya a.s.(2) (Christian spelling -- Zakaria) [see Qur'an 19:1-15] who had fathered a child well into his old age. One verse in particular reads: "He [Zakariya] said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son, when my wife is barren and I have grown quite decrepit from old age?" [Qur'an 19:8] "He said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith, "That is easy for Me: I did indeed create thee before, when thou hadst been nothing!" [Qur'an 19:9] " ------------- all the stuff about the spirital nature of the orgasm only shows that orgasms have a spirital nature. no one should dispute this; i don't. so your quotes are irrelevant.
The Modal Ontological Argument for God's existence is logically valid

I will be arguing that Plantinga's Modal Ontological Argument for the existence of God contains no broken logic. My position in this debate is that if premise 1 is true, a maximally great being must in fact exist. My opponent must argue that even if premise 1 was true, it wouldn't lead to the inevitable conclusion of God's existence. Basically, this debate will not be on the truth of the first premise, but on whether or not the argument proves God exists if the first premise is true hypothetically. P1: It is possible that a maximally great being exists. P2: If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. P3: If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. P4: If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. P5: If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exists. P6: Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
Brewing is an art form

There is no set structure. Just either start debating my points made in round one, or point out, without refuting my points, why brewing is not art. I will respond respectfully.This is also my 100th debate. I am happy to reach this milestone in less than a year._________________________________________________________________Brewing beer is a form of art. It is done by people doing very unique things when brewing. Although there are macro, factory brewed beers like Bud, Miller, and Coors, there are craft beer brewers who go through everything a painter or musician goes through: an idea goes through their head for something new; then they start with a base (painters use a canvas and paint, musicians use music sheets and instruments, brewers use water, starch, hops and yeast); they start adding what they need to make it unique; then they add the finishing touches, and then release their pieces of art to the public.
Stress can have positive impacts

Although people may think that stress is bad for our health and it can affect our lifestyle, That doesn"t mean that we should rule it out completely. Stress may seem like an annoying feeling that you just want to get rid of, However, If we are feeling this emotion so strongly and so often then doesn't that say something? I believe it does, I also believe that stress plays an important factor in the decisions that we make and the actions that we take.
Stress can have positive impacts

Emotional stress that is present for a couple of weeks or more, Can weaken the immune system and cause high blood pressure, Fatigue, Depression, Anxiety and even heart disease. Your health starts to go very bad which means you start to become incapable of doing activities like sports, Education and hobbies. Common effects of stress on your body includes, headaches, Muscle tension or pain, Fatigue, Stomach upset and sleep problems.
Stress can have positive impacts

Stress is a natural emotion that each and every human being experiences. Without stress, What would force us to study for a test, Complete homework or train for a sporting event? Stress pushes us to our limits and enables us to show off our full potential. A study at the University of California, Showed that stress boosts the production of neurons that improves performance. Stress has also been found by Stanford University to boost our immune system which results in a healthier lifestyle.
Robot Zombies vs Ninja Pirates.

My opponent states that I have not presented any reasons why Robot Zombies are better than Ninja Pirates, even though In the opening of my previous argument I stated clearly that my Robot Zombie single-handedly took out 125 Ninja Pirates. Now I will further demonstrate why Robot Zombies are better than Ninja Pirates. 1. Have you ever seen Terminator? Linda Hamilton couldn't kill Arnold Schwarzenegger with a shotgun, and that was before the movie began filming. What use are a Ninja Pirates weapons against that of something have a strong metal base. Let's see. Swords? Only in anime. Shuryken? Great against flesh, but will just bounce right off of the metal base. Blunderbuss? Just makes a loud noise. 2. It took all of the resources, and luck that Sarah Connor had to stop the T-800; a primitive base model in comparison to the later T-models. She barely survived. I would expect that a Ninja Pirate would have better luck, but let's break things down some more. Ninjas are stealthy, crafty. Pirates on the other hand are loud, drunken, disorderly. When you combine the two together more often that not the pirate side takes over, and they give away their positions. 3. A robot's strength is only limited by it's mechanical, and structural integrity. A Ninja Pirate is still a weak human no matter how strong. Now on to the reason why zombies are cool. Zombies are cool, because they're zombies. Watch any zombie movie, usually the zombies win against humanity. Now let's do some math Robots*awesome*zombies^2 = awesome Robot Zombies ^2. Which are far more superior than Ninja Pirates.
Robot Zombies vs Ninja Pirates.

I am amazed by your writing skills which I would consider far more than your 'ordinary' creative writing. But nevertheless, you have written a story about a 'existent robot who became a zombie' but you have failed to actually present your reasons why robot zombies could be better than the awesome Ninja Pirates. That set aside, I shall continue. Ninjas originate from the mysterious province of Hiroshima in Japan. Ninjas are secretly trained and have been since the Shoto dynasty. There, they were trained to high standards and were provided with your basic weapons such as the katana, Nun chucks and ninja stars. Ninjas were trained to protect the province and the people from foreign marauders. To do this, the Ninjas are trained to employ both guerrilla warfare and also mainly frontal combat. Everything about the Ninja has a purpose and in terms of their combat, it is a paradox because 1) Ninjas don't give a crap about anything. 2) Despite not giving a crap about anything, Ninjas are precise and thorough by default. Why are pirates so cool? Because they arrr. Okay? Now, I will talk about the awesomeness of Pirates. Pirates have originated from numerous locations: For those of you who are up to date with current affair, you will know that there are plethoras of ‘Pirates’ in the North East of Africa, in the Middle Eastern Sectors and also in West Asia. For all you Disney aficionados, you will be familiar with a certain class much different to those in the Africa’s known as the ‘Gay Pirates’ who are commonly situated in the West Indies. Pirates murdered innocents for loot, food and profit. This is said to have occurred in large groups of these pirates and are said to have travelled in master-built ship designed to hold strong under resistance. What could be cooler than this...? Now what happens when we combine these two types of people? You get black pirate ninjas who have beards and instead of pistols and daggers, they carry katanas, nunchuks and throwing stars. You cannot see it, but Ninja Pirates have stealthy invisible transport ships. This is perhaps the best combination of two different figments of our imagination that has ever been possible.
Robot Zombies vs Ninja Pirates.

It seems that you have not clearly stated which of these two you are for. But nevertheless, I shall be con and therefore, I shall argue that a Ninja Pirate is obviously better than a robot zombie . Let me start be defining 'zombie':"A corpse said to be revived by witchcraft."Now, let me define a 'corpse':"a dead body, especially of a human being rather than an animal".1) Now, let me begin this argument by saying how a Robot Zombie does not make sense, because a Robot is not a living object or person because a robot cannot Grow, eat and excrete, chemically respire, reproduce or be biologically sensitive. Therefore because of this, there is no way a robot can be zombie. A zombie would have needed to be alive ( whilst following the above factors of a living object).2)Secondly, let me talk about how a Ninja pirate is obviously better than a robot zombie.Pirates and Ninjas are both legendary anthropomorphised characters (often accompanied in the imagination of children) which would easily appeal to anyone. Ninjas, through the publicising of the media, has been seen as fighting warriors who constantly dwell in the darkness who carry a range of concealed weapons. Yet despite this, they are able to flawlessly move about in tactile combat. Now, lets combine this with a pirate, who has the qualities of someone who is brave, has great leadership skills, present their battle wounds as trophies etc, would create one of the greatest beings in the world to live in the figment of our imagination. s://www.lpmn.org...; alt="" />
Is money the most motivating factor in a workplace.

I just want to say one thing before my argument. My opponent's argument seems totally to be for the said statement. So I am giving my say against the say. Hopefully viewers will not have much confusion. Okay so here are my points: 1. If I say money is not important then I am totally wrong. But if I say it is the most motivating factor in workplace then I am also wrong. Let me give an example. A very good doctor gets a lot of money for his experience and good work. This doctor however could not give much time to his near and dear ones, especially his child, because of his work. Would he still like to work harder to earn more money? 2. A person surely wants to earn money. But more important for him would be the recognition that his work could get him. I will give an you example. Let say you are in the beautiful city of Rome. But you could not get out of your hotel. Why? You are there to launch a product. You do a lot of work to make the investor get impressed with your idea. However the whole presentation that you do, some one else take the credit. You are however paid a lot of money for your work. How much would anyone like to earn in this way? 3. Money is your survival kit but that never says that you will always try to earn more money. Let me give you an example. Let say a well experienced person is asked to do something unethical or something against his religion which his value system forbids. Will he be able to do it? 4. What if the person who earns a lot of money from his workplace is alienated by his colleagues. No one provides words of appreciation or encourages him. He could get this recognition from another workplace but the money is not that much. So don"t you think he will move out to the second workplace? So concluding my argument I would like to say money is very important factor of motivation in our workplace but more than that a social working condition is more important. Thank you.