BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist

ResolutionIf God does not exist then Objective Morality does not exist Burden of ProofPro will affirm the resolutionCon will oppose the resolutionDebate details4 Rounds8,000 Character limit72 Hours to respond1 Month voting periodNO VIDEO LINKS---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PROBLEMS ?If you have any problem with the debate please post in the comments section first so we can try to come to an agreement before starting.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------EXPECTATIONSIt is expected that both parties act in good faith, eg no semantics, no cheap shots.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Round 4Round 4 is the last round, no new arguments are to be made in round 4. Only rebuttals, counter arguments of the previous arguments, and summaries.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------DEFINITIONSDefinition of God = Its existence is uncaused, morally good, all powerful, all knowing, personal, the prime/first moverOpening Statement & What this debate is aboutObjective morality means a morality that exists independtly of personal belief, that is to say things are right and wrong regardless if any person believes in them or not. For example if it is the case that rape is objectively wrong, then even if everyone believed rape was ok, it would still be wrong, because the moral rightness or wrongness is not dependent on what a person believes is right or wrong.I would also point out by "person" I don't necessarily mean human, by person I mean anything with personhood or said to have personhood which includes Humans, angels, demons, faries even deities etc, as Wikipedia says.... "A person (plural: persons or people; from Latin: persona, meaning "mask")[1] is a human being, or an entity that has certain capacities or attributes associated with personhood" [1]Some have argued that the existence of God is logically necessary for objective morality to exist, that is to say if God does not exist then objective morality does not and cannot exist. But what reason is there to justify that the existence of objective morality is dependent on the existence of God ? Why can't objective morality exist absent God ?Until proven other wise, it is possible that objective morality can exist even if God does not exist. I look forward to Pros reply.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Metallica is better than rap

Final Round"You still have not told me why you believe rap is not trash you have only shown me songs and lyrics." Again, the purpose of this debate was about proving how metallica is better than rap, which you have FAILED to do. You made claims, with no supporting evidence, you even agreed in this last round that some rap songs are good. You did not prove how metallica was better than rap, just unsupported claims, I am pretty sure that I have won this debate, and next time when you make a debate, support your claims with evidence, from good sources.
Metallica is better than rap

Okay here is my evidence for why It is meaningless words that rhyme. For example lets take the rapper by the name of Lil Pump. The song Gucci Gang is basically a 2 minute song of him repeatedly saying Gucci Gang. The words are meaningless. Sure, some rap songs have a meaning behind them but seriously repeating Gucci Gang for 2 minutes straight is just terrible. Metallica talks about struggles that the band or the leader singer (James Hetfeild) struggled with. The song Master Of Puppets is about drug addiction. The song One is based on the book Johnny Got His Gun and tells about a wounded soldier during WW1. The song Blitzkreig talks about the WW11 strategy used by the Germans. Some Metallica songs refer to Satan and Satanism but so do rap songs too. Lil Uzi Vert (a famous rapper) his name is a word play off the name Lucifer. xxxtentacion has a song called I spoke to the devil in Miami. Are both these rappers supporting satanism too? I believe so. You still have not told me why you believe rap is not trash you have only shown me songs and lyrics.
Metallica is better than rap

None of the lyrics make sense. I don't care if there is cussing in any music but rap is just a bunch of meaningless words put together to rhyme. Showing me lyrics and a video isn't evidence that rap isn't trash you showed me a video and lyrics. The song One is about a soldier who has been wounded in war and the lyrics make sense, it actually tells a story. Here is a link to the song for you and lyrics down below I can't remember anything Can't tell if this is true or dream Deep down inside, I feel the scream This terrible silence stops with me Now that the war is through with me I'm waking up, I cannot see That there's not much left to me Nothing is real but pain now Hold my breath as I wish for death Oh, please God, wake me Back in the womb, it's much to real In pumps life that I must feel But can't look forward to reveal Look to the time when I lived Fed through the tube that sticks in me Just like a war time novelty Tied to machines that make me be Cut this shiit off from me Hold my breath as I wish for death Oh, please God, wake me Please God, wake me Now the world is gone, I'm just one Oh, God, help me Hold my breath as I wish for death Oh, please God, help me, help me Darkness imprisoning me All that I see absolute horror I cannot live, I cannot die Trapped in myself Body, my holding cell Land mine has taken my sight Taken my speech, taken my hearing Taken my arms, taken my legs Taken my soul Leaving me with a life in Hell Oh, please God, help me Help me Metallica has great guitar and has lyrics that make sense unlike rap. Sad to think that quality music like this is not very well known in younger generations today.
Greeks are better than romans

I give you points for the truth that the Romans were more organized, but we had strategy. 1: "Well, your teamline might be Ancient Greece- a better economy, warfare and trading system. Good morning chairman, adjudicator, fellow debators and of course, the audience. Today the affirmative/ negative team's team line will be that Ancient Greece was in many, if not all, ways better than Ancient Rome. Good things about Greece Had a better system of trading States more military trained in many states. Terrain prevented many wars arising (mountainous areas) Had a better strategic decision than many countries Bad things about Rome When it divided into Byzantine empire and the Western Roman empire Its army kept on slacking off Every now and then people would disapprove of their markets because of the crowdhttps://answers.yahoo.com...2: Looking simply at the arts, the Greeks put the Romans w-a-a-a-y in the shade. Every halfway decent Roman artist or poet stole at least half their technique from the Greeks. At least. 3: "In the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or "rule by the people." This system was comprised of three separate institutions: the ekklesia, a sovereign governing body that wrote laws and dictated foreign policy; the boule, a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes; and the dikasteria, the popular courts in which citizens argued cases before a group of lottery-selected jurors. Although this Athenian democracy would survive for only two centuries, Cleisthenes" invention was one of ancient Greece"s most enduring contributions to the modern world."http://www.history.com..." A little bit after that that popular government was introduced in Greece, it also appeared on the Italian Peninsula in the city of Rome. The Romans called their system a rēsp$3;blica, or republic, from the Latin rēs, meaning thing or affair, and p$3;blicus or p$3;blica, meaning public"thus, a republic was the thing that belonged to the Roman people, the populus romanus."http://www.britannica.com...4: Yes it was true that the Greeks didn't work well together, but in the need they started working together and we beat you Romans. Sum: why I should win. Also I have many resources. So it is you v.s. me and others. I have the strength of numbers and you are barely even attacking my answers whereas I am fully combating your answers. All of my previous arguments and resources stand tall and firm. Please side with me and vote Greek.
Greeks are better than romans

I give you points for the truth that the Romans were more organized, but we had strategy. 1: "Well, your teamline might be Ancient Greece- a better economy, warfare and trading system. Good morning chairman, adjudicator, fellow debators and of course, the audience. Today the affirmative/ negative team's team line will be that Ancient Greece was in many, if not all, ways better than Ancient Rome. Good things about Greece Had a better system of trading States more military trained in many states. Terrain prevented many wars arising (mountainous areas) Had a better strategic decision than many countries Bad things about Rome When it divided into Byzantine empire and the Western Roman empire Its army kept on slacking off Every now and then people would disapprove of their markets because of the crowd https://answers.yahoo.com... 2: Looking simply at the arts, the Greeks put the Romans w-a-a-a-y in the shade. Every halfway decent Roman artist or poet stole at least half their technique from the Greeks. At least. 3: "In the year 507 B.C., the Athenian leader Cleisthenes introduced a system of political reforms that he called demokratia, or "rule by the people." This system was comprised of three separate institutions: the ekklesia, a sovereign governing body that wrote laws and dictated foreign policy; the boule, a council of representatives from the ten Athenian tribes; and the dikasteria, the popular courts in which citizens argued cases before a group of lottery-selected jurors. Although this Athenian democracy would survive for only two centuries, Cleisthenes" invention was one of ancient Greece"s most enduring contributions to the modern world." http://www.history.com... " A little bit after that that popular government was introduced in Greece, it also appeared on the Italian Peninsula in the city of Rome. The Romans called their system a rēsp$3;blica, or republic, from the Latin rēs, meaning thing or affair, and p$3;blicus or p$3;blica, meaning public"thus, a republic was the thing that belonged to the Roman people, the populus romanus." http://www.britannica.com... 4: Yes it was true that the Greeks didn't work well together, but in the need they started working together and we beat you Romans.
Greeks are better than romans

FIrst you say that Athens is closer to America that is FALSE it is a common belief that the Greeks were the first to institute a democracy but in my opinion this mostly false because only the top 5% had the ability to vote would this not be an aristocracy? Where the romans had a republic they also had the exutive judicial and a legaslative branch guess who is a republic and has three branches of goverment the u.s. also after constinople they had many of the same beliefs as us Now why the romans were better they inspired the reininsaince more than the greeks which lead to the society we see today They built great buildings such as the aquaducts and collisium There army was much more organized Now for the biggy they were united unlike the greeks which had many differnt empires such as troy crete and athens which were constanltly fighting one another
We should euthanize people who breaks a bone

That sort of authoritarianism won't work in today's society and you seem to be glossing over the idea that humans have emotions. May I not be a jew, I still believe and I think you could ask this to the majority of the world. That breaking a bone does not constitute just giving up just because it'll cost money. You're going off of the idea that the family won't have health insurance when there are about 327 million people in the united states and the majority have it. Your argument goes into picking out individual circumstances that the average person wouldn't care about. Average in the sense of a healthy 14 year old falling off of his skateboard. I feel like this is just a meme debate I can't tell if you're serious. But no, maybe it's better to die if you're a peasant from Africa. But in America you could just go on a quick trip to another country and get your medical issues solved there. I'm with you on lower population but I'd rather it through natural means, like I would disagree to sending tons and tons of aid to countries in Africa when all they do is make 2-7 kids and then just feed them UN food. It's amazng that africa had a head start of nearly 2000 years yet is extremely behind. But anyways, I'm not sure where 1.8 billion dollars for a hip fracture is, a quick google shows me its much much less. I don't think there are solid gold hearts to transplant into you that cost that much. http://health.costhelper.com...
We should euthanize people who breaks a bone

Some rules: No ad hominhem keep it civil guys. Racism is discouraged in this debate Blacks or "African Americans" are allowed to accept this debate. Absolutely no Jews. If you are a Jew you immediately lose this debate and forfeit all your points. Try your hardest to debate. No plagiarism. If you plagiarize you forfeit all your points. Burden of proof will be shared between both Pro and Con To know you read the rules when you make a argument at the very top say this word Troll to make sure you read the rules. Well, it costs more money to heal and treat a broken bone, as I have mentioned in the previous round, than to euthanize. And also, if we euthanize people, there is less overpopulation and global warming, and also it reduces crime, especially among black people who live below the poverty line.
Should Cars be Banned

My final argument. Due to my opponent forfeiting each round, please vote pro. Two Words: Car Crashes. In 2002, 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents. 1 person dieing in a car accident is one too many. Imagine 42,815 deaths. Imagine the families of the dead ones. If cars are banned then car accidents will be a thing of the past. Death statistics will drop greatly. Even those who do not die in accidents, most of them are severely injured and makes it difficult to live. Cars should be banned.
We should have organic food in school

Now that we have seen what some of the pros of junk food are, we will move on to the cons of junk foods as part of the argument based on 'Junk food in schools pros and cons'. Here are some of the factors to consider. Unhealthy Ingredients Junk food facts tell us that these snacks are loaded with sodium, salts and sugar so that they can have a longer shelf life. All these ingredients are very harmful to the human body because they cannot be broken down and therefore they build deposits in the body. Along with that they also prevent the absorption of important minerals and nutrients in the body and therefore directly affect a persons immune system. Obesity One of the main effects of fast foods is that it leads to obesity. With the reduced physical activity in this day and age, these unhealthy snacks in school add to the problem even more. They do not allow the food to be broken down and therefore cause layers of fat to be deposited (fast food and child obesity). Along with that, junk foods normally use a lot of carbs which lead to more obesity. Other Health Issues Along with an increase in obesity, there are other effects of fast food on children that are noticed. There are several other health issues that begin to develop as well because there are not many nutrients that are being consumed. These include heart problems like high blood pressure, hormonal imbalance, liver and kidney problems and a weakened immune system. Affects Performance The sugar and sodium content starts off a very unhealthy cycle in a person's system. The minute he/she has a snack, there is a sudden burst of sugar and the person gets a spike of energy making him overactive and hyper. As the effects of the snack begin to fade, the person becomes sluggish and less aware. Until the time he takes another snack. Thus he begins to depend on the snacks to get energy boosts. This not only sets off a dependency on the snacks, but a non-availability of the same causes low energy levels, lack of concentration and lethargy. All of which have a direct effect on the student's performance. It is also argued that the younger kids in schools might not know the effects of consuming junk foods in high numbers and might continue to gorge on them because of their ready availability. Therefore it poses a threat to begin with. These were some of the important arguments that were put out as an important part of the topic 'junk food in schools pros and cons'. Based on both, one can now draw their own conclusions whether junk food should be allowed or banned in schools. But more than that, it becomes important that one provide kids with healthy and balanced foods and tells them of the disadvantages of consuming high doses of the junk food. When kids are educated, they will make healthier choices and will not be tempted to have junk food simply because it is available in the school premises. My Name Is Savanna Carter, This Is Why we should have organic food in schools, VOTE FOR CON SOURCES: http://myorganicday.com... http://www.livestrong.com...
If a crime fighting vigilante like Spiderman or Batman existed, He should be stopped.

Eh, We come to the end. I'll reiterate my arguments and add a few in a fashion. Video game physics make it pretty easy to wail on some guy in a video game, Without them always being crippled for life or killed. Normal people get a bit more sympathy than crazies, Terrorists, And criminals. In one of the comics, Spider Man comes across a movie set making a movie about him, But they refuse to sign the rights to him as Spider Man, Stating they need to know his secret identity. The police likely would also have difficulty accepting anything but complete control, Authority, And knowledge of Spider Mans identity. And with the number of corrupt cops one could meet, Spider Mans identity could leak easily. Super Heroes often have secret identities for reasons. To protect themselves and their ways of life, To protect their loved ones. Spider Man 'has joined the Avengers in some iterations. In many of the comics the government and private companies 'do seem to make it a point to lock up, Experiment upon, And target 'Supers. How much or little could be argued, But still I say it is there. This doesn't count as a source, It's just for fun if you like: YouTube The Stupendium Pictures of Spiderman
If a crime fighting vigilante like Spiderman or Batman existed, He should be stopped.

"Not everyone wants to give up their rights and freedom to the government or society. Not everyone wants to be a celebrity. " Spiderman already IS a celebrity. He's also got increased public interest because of the masked identity. He would probably have a brief flair in popularity if his identity was made known, But being a high school/college age student isn't as glamorous as being a millionaire, And he would probably fade to the background, Especially in the MCU, With all the "gods" and Hulks and aliens running around. However, There is something to be said about having a normal life as well. So if you're saying that he doesn't want Peter Parker to become a celebrity, I can understand that. I don't think he'd be giving up his rights and freedoms by joining the police force, Or some sort of special response team that is part of the government. And I think that he could arrange to still have a private persona, As long as his crimefighting alter ego is transparent with the public about his actions. Inhumane treatment? If the police or government have any bad intentions, His spidey sense should warn him. Also, To include Batman, Who we've rather accidentally excluded from the discussion, Batman would probably not be treated inhumanely, As there is no basis for it. And in the Marvel or DC universe, The world is a lot more tolerant of people's "differences. " You can't guarantee that he would be treated inhumanely. As long as he negotiated the terms of his involvement with the government carefully, And made sure that it got in the news so that they couldn't just make him disappear. While I agree that most people would take out a crime lord if they could, That doesn't make it the best choice. The best thing to do, Obviously, Is to prevent one from rising in the first place.
If a crime fighting vigilante like Spiderman or Batman existed, He should be stopped.

Not everyone wants to give up their rights and freedom to the government or society. Not everyone wants to be a celebrity. I don't think Parker has any 'good reason to believe he would only get good returns out of telling joining the police/military/government. Nor does everyone want to become a celebrity like Stark. How could he know that he would get humane treatment? Not be locked up, Treated as a monster, And so on? I imagine for many people, If they could arrest crime lords, They would.
If a crime fighting vigilante like Spiderman or Batman existed, He should be stopped.

I disagree. Many of those were not rhetorical from my perspective. At no point did I say that they shouldn't do good things. But MatPat made a lot of good points. And joining organizations like the Avengers and Justice League doesn't help in my opinion. The Avengers are affiliated with the government through SHIELD, But until the Sokovia Accords, None took any responsibility for their actions. I don't think the Justice League is tied to the government at all. "Would it not be worse if she could target Peter Parker personally? " I never said to to reveal his identity, Just work more openly with the police, Rather than catching criminals and leaving them for the police. I imagine that filing a report after Spiderman helps save the days takes much longer. And what about Tony Stark? He's very open about his identity, But Potts was never put in danger because of it. Sure, She was kidnapped by the "Mandarin" in Iron Man 3, But Killian already had a personal agenda against Tony, Not Iron Man. There's no written policy on crime lords, But I believe the unspoken rule is don't create a power vacuum. As for being to weak to arrest him, It's a) difficult to prove his involvement in crime, And b) he likely has forms of blackmail against people like the district attorney and the mayor.