BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Voluntaryism is correct.

In this final round, I am going to very quickly summarise the debate as I saw it. My opponent argued in favour of the political philosophy called voluntarism - that "all forms of human relationships should be voluntary". My opponent believes it is best because it promotes the net welfare of society, if all human interactions are voluntary. He has stated that this benefits us economically. I have argued against my opponent's case in three respects. Firstly, I have shown using externalities that my opponent's political system will bring about a sub-optimal distribution of wealth. I fear my opponent does not completely understand how the economic consequences of his argument would even come about, because in the final round he is still not grasping the concept of externalities, mixing up negative externalities with opportunity cost. Secondly, I have argued from a 'ought implies can' perspective to say that it is impossible that all acts are to be voluntary - my opponent even agrees, says that " Voluntaryism does not claim that it is possible to achieve a situation where every association is voluntary,merely that it is an ideal to strive for. " Frankly, then, voluntarism makes such a generous exception for itself that it becomes something other than voluntarism. Finally, I have argued that it is undesirable to hold my opponent's moral defence of voluntarism. While he argues that we ought to be maximising the average welfare of society, he says that killing those with below-average welfare in society - a clearly Swiftian solution that would certainly work in increasing average welfare - does not fall under the purview of a moral act, because we must act to maximise average welfare "all else being equal". Yet this begs the question: what else being equal? If I argued that we must maximise welfare, unless it breaks a Kantian imperative, or if I argued that we must make all acts voluntary, except when letting people act voluntarily reduces maximum welfare, I am clearly making the exception the rule. My opponent implicitly agrees that a bare-faced voluntarist society would be morally disastrous to society. In these three respects, I believe I have negated the resolution.
Voluntaryism is correct.

CON wrote"My opponent’s argument is that voluntarism “would makesociety function more efficiently and increase … welfare”. Voluntarism necessarily means that only a PMB equilibrium can be reached. However, a PMB equilibrium is necessarily worse than a SMB equilibrium. Indeed, the textbook case of market failure is when externalities are not taken into account.[1]"This is incorrect because in an entirely voluntary society there could be voluntary government-like organizations that would take into account externalities and attempt to achieve SMB equilibrium. Any regulation or moderation that is done by a government could plausibly be done by a voluntary government-like organization.CON wrote "one way to increase the 'average' welfare is to remove those who are below average, by selling those people. Eating family's starving children would also suffice, as Swift aptly noted."I wrote "all else being equal" in an attempt to preclude such options. I should have been clearer.CON wrote "if he is “not attempting to argue…because of some objective moral truth”, why should we promote welfare? If I do not value others’ welfare, why should we promote it?"Because promoting welfare of all is likely to promote your welfare. CON wrote "Firstly, my opponent claimed that taxes are a negative externality. This comes from a poor definition of the term externality. To use a strict definition, "A negative externality is a cost that is suffered by a third party as a result of an economic transaction.""I admit that taxes are not an externality I meant to say taxes cause externalities. Even by this definition I can show that they can and do have negative externalities. If a person A pays tax to government B, they have less money to spend and invest and therefore will usually spend and invest less, costing those whom they would transact with missed business. CON wrote "Voluntarism requires all bonds to be voluntary. Therefore, any coercive bond is banned in voluntarism."Voluntaryismholds that all forms of human association should be voluntary. Should be voluntary not must be or can be. Voluntaryism does not claim that it is possible to achieve a situation where every association is voluntary,merely that it is an ideal to strive for.Con wrote "Coercion is the persuasion of someone by the use of power." That is a definition of coercion. In the context of voluntaryism the definition is more specific to mean persuasion by the use of force. Voluntarism rests on the assumption it is possibleto have only voluntary relationships. Yet if even our culture is involuntarily thrust upon us, voluntarism cannot be sound. Clearly it is possible on a small scale to have only voluntary relationships. If I and a friend move to a remote location and have a voluntary relationship and no others, then we only have voluntary relationships. Excellent job. I apologize for my haphazard approach. I procrastinated too much. I would love to revisit this debate with you or anyone else. Cheers!
Voluntaryism is correct.

I am going to spend this round defending my arguments I mad. I will first defend my economic arguments, then my political arguments.Firstly, my opponent claimed that taxes are a negative externality. This comes from a poor definition of the term externality. To use a strict definition, "A negative externality is a cost that is suffered by a third party as a result of an economic transaction."[1] Or, "third party (or spill-over) effects arising from the production and/or consumption of goods and services for which no appropriate compensation is paid."[2] Clearly, as taxpayers are the second party (the buyer), and compensation is given, they are not an externality. Similarly, disincentivization to work is done to the buyer, not the seller, and is a case of moral hazard, not externalities. The rest of my economic argument was not touched upon. Nor did my opponent answer my questions: one way to increase the 'average' welfare is to remove those who are below average, by selling those people. Eating family's starving children would also suffice, as Swift aptly noted. My opponent does not state his position on such actions. Nor does he explain how the costs of stopping a child from starving to death by taking a loaf of bread is larger than the benefit of saving a child's life. Both essential problems to his arguments: why is it that making all acts voluntary is more important than the happiness and welfare of children and others?My opponent, moreover, did not address my Hobbesian arguments. Firstly, reputation of power is a form of power, and as one cannot negotiate without bringing that reputation to the table, then all negotiations involve power. Moreover, eloquence is power, as there is a skill in public speaking and negotiating, as any debater knows. As such, some people will be able to get more out of the same trade than others, because they have more power when it comes to negotiation. These factors come together to arbitrarily favour one kind of person - one who is a naturally strong speaker and has a good or fearful reputation - over anyone who lacks the feared reputation or isn't a naturally strong speaker. Furthermore, even the world we live around isn't something we 'consent' to. We are hugely defined by our culture, something we have no choice in. If we are to be say all things must be voluntary, then even our relationship with society must be. Yet this is impossible. My Hobbesian case seeks to show that the concept, the ideal, of coercion-free societies is impossible, not just undesirable.All these arguments must addressed. I shall rebut my opponent's argument against positive liberty in my final round, and summarise the debate in it. I look forward to my opponent's concluding remarks.1 - http://www.economicsonline.co.uk...2 - http://tutor2u.net...
A theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions

I'll perhaps repeat myself a bit in the statements. Without authority, god, you say, truth isn't justified. In this sense, I can agree. If there's no authority behind truth, there is no obligation to follow it, it isn't justified that you habe to follow it. However, this situation doesn't create authority. My reflection about this is, that there is a truth, and is justified, but there is no obligation to follow the truth. However, I follow the truth as the truth establishes order. You say that it's God, the authority to justify the truth. Rather, I'd say, he's only the obligation to follow the truth. You spoke about the possibility that we could also be a brain in a jar etc.. I agree. You don't make any statement based on this reflection. However, I will write my idea to this. It could be possible that we aren't really here etc.. In this case, it's indifferent what we do, as we either don't influence anything or either we don't know at all how we influence something and we can't do much to influence "right". So we can't orientate our decisions on the possibilty and in the case that we really are here, etc. we can decide how we take influence on something, therefore we can only orientate on this possibility. I think you already think same about this as you too didn't speak about the possibility that we are being tricked. You also spoke about our purpose and meaning. These terms are very vague. I think we don't have a really reason to believe the truth, as I don't believe in the authority obligating me to do this. I can simply ignore the truth or value it. You said "If you apply Logic in its fullness, you will reach the Truth, which is true because of the Authority". I'd rather say "If you apply Logic in its fullness, you will reach the Truth, which is true because you have applied Logic in its fullness". I see a logical gap in your step from declaration of truth, authority and logic to the Holy Spirit, Father God and Jesus. Truth, authority and logic is rather general while the trinity is specific from a specific book of laws. I'm looking forward to read your considerations.
A theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions

I really like your thoughts, but I would just like to say that I believe in the Christian God specifically, and in Jesus. Pretty much it. Also, I feel like preservation and optimization of genes is indeed important, but without God what can we use to justify it? Furthermore, why are we even here? How do we know that this is the case? What if we are being tricked? Now, I know i sound like Renee Descartes, but bear with me. My Theory/Rant: Ok, so you and I have thought right? How do I know that you exist and aren't in my imagination only? heck, how do I know if Im not a brain in a jar, or a simulation? There are two possibilities, we don't actually exist, or we actually do exist. Ok, assuming we exist, in reality, what is our purpose, and how can we know it? My answer, is based on knowing the truth. I have a theory, that intertwines with Christian theology. True things exist right? Otherwise everything is false. The statement "This statement is false", would then be true, which is a contradiction. Therefore truth exists. Ok, if I make a statement, it should be true, but it may be false. Let's say I make a true statement. Let's say someone else makes a false statement. Who decides who is right? We need authority to do this. So we have truth, and we have an authority justifying that truth. So now we have a reason to believe the truth. I call that logic. Logic is the "Way", because it stems from the Word of the Authority, and is upheld by truth. If you apply Logic in its fullness, you will reach the Truth, which is true because of the Authority. Essentially, truth (Holy Spirit), stems from Authority (Father God), and Logic, (Jesus) is the ever present extension of authority, resounding and confirmed by the Truth. Logic is logical because authority is backing it. This is why we can make true statements. This is why we have a reason to believe them. This is how we know they are true. Truth, Authority, and Logic. Now in the Bible, Jesus is called Logos, and the Holy Spirit is called the spirit of truth at times. The father is also referred to as Power, which i call authority. Feel free to be skeptical. Next flow of ideas: If things have meaning, then truth exists. Things have meaning, so truth exists. In order for something to be true, it has to be justified, otherwise, everything can be true. Not everything is true, therefore justification, or authority behind truth must exist. If there is an ultimate power that sends and confirms truth, there is an obligation to follow the truth. Otherwise the authority isn"t authority. Now what path do we follow? To find truth, we must be logical. For me, that feels Christian. In regards to evolution and atheism, I can"t really accept these unless there is justification. Then i will believe it, but atheism is hard to believe, because there isn"t an authority imho. i would love feedback, and to hear your thoughts.
A theory that claims to contain the only values that really justify laws and actions

You provided a theory, and in this round I will critique it, and later flesh out my own. Thank you! Ok, so, things are inherently true or false, right or wrong, so there is no need for justification, except for human appeasement. I agree with your stations, except I want to add something. The values, or the need to do something imply an objective standard. As this standard must exist, we must have values. We justify these values with facts, but the values are self authenticating if true, and self refuting if false. We just don"t know until we justify them. You ask, "how should one make the step from unchangeable facts to moral obligations? " I answer, God. God is inherent in your theory, and in mine as well. We cannot avoid this question. Is there God? Ok you surmise that we have 5 legitimated values, and I"ll entertain that thought. ( ""Basic Value (for everyone on his own): Spread of own genetics But, we have also the unity of the species with the goal of making a genetic progress. Basic Value (for humanity): Genetic Progress of humanity"") But there is no justification for these values. I argue that the spread of genetics is not justified unless ordained by a standard, ie God. For example, "Go forth and multiply". You also sort of beg the question by saying unity of the species is a moral necessity. Who says? Can you justify that? Invoking evolution does not solve this problem, neither does it validate your theory. It just raises more questions. If I disturb the unity of my species, and the spread of genes, isn"t that just an evolutionary trend? Am I wrong to do that? What if cats evolve to be superior to humans, are humans "justified" any longer? I answer these questions with God, as I am a theist. However, do not mistake this for the God of the Gaps approach. It simply is an application of Occams razor. Lastly, I feel as though you presupposed science and evolution and you undercut philosophy. Philosophy is inherent in your theory, and in science. I am reluctant to base a theory around evolution, as it is not 100 percent proven or evidenced. My theory is one that progresses as i gain knowledge. Anything that is inconsistent with itself, and with known facts, is false. I look forward to hear your ideas.
It's pronounced "Rah-Men" noodles, not "Ray-men" noodles.

Thanks for accepting, although I wish you have waited until your first speech t In the Japanese language, there are 71 Hirigana and 71 Katakana[1]. These syllabary make up the sounds which exist in Japanese. Hirigana and Katakana are mirror characters, so there isn't any real distinction between the two except that Hirigana are use to make up native words, while Katana are used to make up foreign words. As the word 'Ramen' is a native word, we will be focusing on the Hirigana primarily in this debate. [1] http://www.realkana.com... Next, let it be established that Japanese vowels always make the same sounds[2]. That is A is pronounced 'ah', I is 'ee', U is 'oo' E is 'eh' and o is 'oh'. Therefore a completely phonetic pronunciation of the Japanese word Ramen is 'rah-men' I would like to leave the kana for Ramen here for reference, but unfortunately DDO doesn't support them. Here's a link to the word, it's towards the bottom of the page so just Ctrl+F and search 'ramen'. [2] http://www.netplaces.com... As the field of communication grows, accidentally communication poorly becomes more and more likely "[3] Within an educational setting, the role of sender/receiver and receiver/sender can change regularly and frequently between students, faculty, administrators, administrative staff, technical support staff, and academic advisors. Therefore, as communication increases, simultaneously there is a greater opportunity for the message to be lost in translation due to technical or semantic interference." [3] http://www.westga.edu... With communication already so shaky, it is inexcusable to communicate poorly on purpose. If, for example, I am aware that the word 'bienvenidos', Spanish for 'welcome' is pronounced 'bee-en-veh-nee-dohs' and instead go around saying 'bye-en-ven-nuh-doze' then I am intentionally teaching others to say bienvenidos word incorrectly. If then one who had learned this word incorrectly were try to communicate with a native speaker, the native speaker wouldn't know what they were saying and would not be able to communicate with them. Further, they would be inhibited or even discouraged in further efforts to learn the Spanish language. Finally, as an underview to preempt any 'is-ought' fallacies, just because something is done a certain way doesn't mean that it's the right way to do it. If a significant portion of people decided to start pronouncng the word 'Micheal' 'Mich-ee-ehl' instead of 'My-kull' that wouldn't mean that Micheal is pronounced 'Mich-ee-ehl'. It would mean that a lot of people where mispronouncing the word. It might become socially acceptable to pronounce Micheal 'Mich-ee-ehl' with so many people doing it, just as it has become acceptable to say 'Ray-Men' instead of 'Rah-Men' -- but it would still be wrong. And the fact that people were saying 'Mich-ee-ehl' instead of 'My-kull' wouldn't mean that Micheal is pronounced 'Mich-ee-ehl.
It's pronounced "Rah-Men" noodles, not "Ray-men" noodles.

This will be a short, fun little debate about the correct way to pronounce the following type of noodles: . http://justapinchassets.com... Living where I do, it's not at all uncommon for one to call this snack "Ray-men", and that really irks me. I understand the opposition's argument that the pronunciation is cultural, but even there it just sounds wrong. Debate will begin in round two. Round one is for acceptance. There are no rules which I expect to be kept rigidly, but I would appreciate it if whomever would accept this debate would keep the round light-hearted and entertaining. There will be 4,000 Characters per round, and each 'speech' will end with 3 to 5 questions that the opponent is expected to answer. Debaters are suggested focus on just 1 argument for the sake of quality of clash. If there are any questions, they should be asked in the comments prior to acceptance. The Con has no right to further clarify the term, or framework of the round upon acceptance. Any attempt to do so shall be seen as abuse and grounds for a forfeiture of all seven voters.
Kobe Bryant is the second best basketball player of all time.

Although we both forfeited a round, I had no idea that my opponent had forfeited also. my laptop has been broken for a while and I haven't been able to debate. Since I am currently using my mom's computer and I am supposed to be doing homework right now, I cannot debate this topic any longer. I would just like to thank my opponent for giving me my first debate. You have shown me that I have way more to learn in the art of debating. I was really beat badly in this debate, but I would like to once again, thank you for teaching me so much. I will be sure to take the skills I learned and use them in the future.
Kobe Bryant is the second best basketball player of all time.

Yes, my opponent has shown that I have contradicted myself plenty of times. With that being said, I only have one way to combat my opponents responses. Yes, I know we are all tired of these two being used in the same sentence, but it may be the reason I win this debate. The two people I am speaking of is.....Kobe and MJ. Now just watch this video. http://www.youtube.com... This shows how identical MJ and Kobe are. I am not calling Kobe better than MJ (That's a debate for another day) but what I am saying is that Kobe is the closest thing to MJ of all time. So, if my opponent is right in his quote, "This is a debate about the talents of basketball players, not their loyalty to teams." then let us compare skills. Magic Johnson was a very advanced player. It was pointed out to me as something I completely forgot in a comment on this debate by Loserboi by that Magic could play all 5 positions. However, I know as a Laker fan that the greatest Laker of all time, Kobe Bryant (opinion, but would be a great debate for me to do later on), is a much better player. You can't win a dunk contest and have more than 13 all star appearances if you are an average player. Larry Bird and Kareem's skills were great. Were they Jordan great? So if they are not, and Kobe and Jordan play the same style of ball, how could they be better than Kobe. As for Wilt, on paper, his skills were better than Kobe's, perhaps better than Mj's. However, this is where the whole generations thing comes up. If you compare the talent in the 60s and the talent now, now obviously wins (another debate topic for the future). Also, with no "3 in the Key", Wilt would obviously average that many boards. Before I finish and allow my opponent to completely murder me in this round (like he did in the last), I have a few questions to help me for the next round. 1. Who do YOU believe is the greatest Laker of all time? 2. Which players do you believe are better than Kobe? 3. Which NBA franchise is the greatest of all time? 4. Are we done using Bill Russell in the debate or did you just forget to include him?
Kobe Bryant is the second best basketball player of all time.

Hello, even though this is the first debate I have ever done, I don't want anyone to take it easy on me. For this debate, I would like to establish these guidelines: 1. No hateful or inappropriate language, please. 2. Grammar is not a big deal, but don't get carried away. 3. Lebron isn't up for discussion since he is still in his prime. We can all agree that Kobe is past his prime, right? 4. Let's have a good debate.
Kobe Bryant is the second best basketball player of all time.

Due to unfortunate circumstances this debate must come to an untimely end. I acknowledge that there is not that my opponent could have done. I would like to thank him for a fun, interesting debate and I think we should leave it up to voters to decide who won. Despite his attitude I think pro put forward some convincing points that would have benefited from being expanded upon further. I hope our paths cross again in the future and we can have a full debate.