BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One should not feel sorry for those who are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks

My opponent asks how feeling sorry for someone can lead to a conflict on interest. It is easy. By feeling sorry for someone, you obtain a negative feeling. One feels bad for punishing a child. However, if one does not feel sorry for one's action, one will be more willing to punish the child. Also feeling sorry for a child is not equivalent to not caring about the child. My opponent conceded that we should feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden. However, he believes that we should feel sorry for Osama since he "knew better". This again begs the question: How do we know that an arrogant, control freak doesn't know better? It is hypocritical for my opponent to not feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden but feel sorry for a narcisstic, arrogant control freak. Both did acts of harm. Osama Bin Laden probably actually believed he was doing the right thing due to religion. A narcissistic, arrogant control freak has no such excuse. Social rejection is also a great tool for change. Since people are motivated to be around others, since we are social creatures, it would breed change. People who do not feel sorry are more likely to speak their mind against them. The control freak would then learn his way and likely change his pattern. The arrogant person is also suffering from necessary pain. In conclusion, justice says we should punish those who do wrong. Feeling sorry for those whose only blame is themselves are unworthy of sorrow. Sorrow should be more devoted to those more deserving of it
One should not feel sorry for those who are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks

My Arguments: "A mother cannot truly punish the child, if she feels sorry for a child. This can lead to conflict of interests. How can one truly punish somebody if he/she feels sorry. This would only be a weakness the child can exploit." My opponent is confusing weakness with feeling sorry for someone. How does it lead to conflict of interests? On one hand, she loves the child (doesn't want him to get hurt) and on the other hand she is doing what is right (preventing his downfall). Moreover, someone who doesn't care about the child will not try as hard as a person who cares to correct the child. "If one feels sorry for the person, one cannot truly punish the person and will be prone to weakness." That is completely groundless. OP Arguments: "Just because one is ignorant doesn't mean one should feel sorry for this person" It is not a duty but on balance the ignorant person is suffering a lot of unnecessary pain and so should be felt sorry for. "Furthermore, should one feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden if he didn't know better? No." I think Osama did know better but if he didn't, why shouldn't we feel sorry for him? "If you show that you don't like them, they are more likely to change their patterns. " Unfounded. Showing dislike only begs for more dislike while feeling sorry is a great tool to open their eyes and have them see their foolish behavior.
One should not feel sorry for those who are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks

My opponent argues that: "A mother may beat her child but she can still feel sorry for him. After all, he didn't know any better." I would like to note that beating a child is proven to be an ineffective way to correct child behavior, and often makes the child more violent and have greater problems. Instead, using forms of guilt are better forms of punishment. A mother cannot truly punish the child, if she feels sorry for a child. This can lead to conflict of interests. How can one truly punish somebody if he/she feels sorry. This would only be a weakness the child can exploit. 2. Feeling sorry reinforces behavior I explained how it reinforces the behavior. If one feels sorry for the person, one cannot truly punish the person and will be prone to weakness. 3. same as above. Counterarguments: 1. Just because one is ignorant doesn't mean one should feel sorry for this person. It also begs the question "did the person really know better?" The person might have known better, but did the action anyways just to reward his/her pleasure. Furthermore, should one feel sorry for Osama Bin Laden if he didn't know better? No. 2. If you show that you don't like them, they are more likely to change their patterns. If you show you feel sorry for them, your weakness will be exploited.
One should not feel sorry for those who are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks

My Opponents Arguments: 1. One will not change without pressure "This involves punishing those whom are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks." A mother may beat her child but she can still feel sorry for him. After all, he didn't know any better. 2. Feeling sorry reinforces behavior "Feeling sorry for a person who is narcissistic, arrogant, control freak will only reinforce and reward such behavior." Unfounded and I am about to argue otherwise. 3. Justice Refer to number one. My Arguments: 1. The person doesn't know better We know that what he is doing is wrong and we know that he will suffer for it. So, what causes him to do these things? Ignorance and ignorance ought to be felt sorry for. 2. Feeling sorry is healing Feeling sorry for someone shows them that what they're doing is silly while fighting back only shows that you don't like them.
One should not feel sorry for those who are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks

I agree with CON's definition. Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate. Those whom are narcissistic, arrogant and control freaks are unlikely to change their ways unless a certain type of pressure is used that will cause them to change their ways. This involves punishing those whom are narcissistic, arrogant, control freaks. Both common sense and psychology dictates this. B.F. Skinner showed that people will discontinue actions if they are punished for them and will continue certain actions if the actions are reinforced. It is also in our basic biological nature to punish "cheaters" or those people who harm others. This is also supported through use of game theory. In a prisoner dilemma type game, the best strategy is to use a tic-for-tac strategy. In other words, punish bad behavior and reward good behavior. This creates optimal socially beneficial behavior that benefits both parties Feeling sorry for a person who is narcissistic, arrogant, control freak will only reinforce and reward such behavior. Instead, it is best not to feel sorry for that person. This person does not deserve mercy. Each person is accountable for his or her actions and should receive rightful justice for such actions. This is the only merciful form of justice and leads to optimal social outcomes.
Should Girls Be in Guys Sports

'It's not like any guy is going to purposely touch us', think again. I was in the swimming team at my school and one girl would always touch me and look at my boner when it showed trough the swimming suit. She seduced me and I could not resist and I touched her too. So if girls dare to do stuff, we guys also will. And not all girls know how to keep themselves safe, a lot of them get hurt just because they don't properly run. Anyway I agree that you girls should play any sports you want but not with guys.
Should Girls Be in Guys Sports

It's not like any guy is going to purposely touch us. We are stronger then what you guys think. Then again you guys just try to keep us safe but we know how to keep ourselves safe. It's you guys that need to be more safe, maybe you guys should be the ones to play the safe sports. When women are passionate enough (especially sports) WE WILL GET MAD OR ANGRY! It's the same thing as you guys when it comes to girls.
Should Girls Be in Guys Sports

Really, your going to bring body parts into this? We are stuck being on the sidelines and being mangers. Some girls are tougher then you think. I play tackle with my brother and I win. I play with my uncles in baseball and I do pretty well! This is like when they weren't allowed women to vote. We can't play guy sports because we are just as athletic as men. You guys think we are fragile but sometimes I think men are fragile.
Should Girls Be in Guys Sports

Oh come on, you really want to play FOOTBALL with guys? Most guys have greater strength and speed then girls and if they tackle you, you will get seriously hurt. And girls can play soccer, basketball, there is even hockey, but only a girl team. If you want to mix guys and girls in the same sport it will get ugly. Also, there is a lot of tackling and bodies will touch... would you like a guy to touch your boobs or slam in your butt?
Open Challenge - 4 Topics

First I would like to lay out some definitions and rules:1. BoP is 50-502. No rebuttals in round 2 (Would give me an extra rebuttal round)Violent video games:Video games with the rating "M" on the ESRB scale, and a description including at least one of the following:Intense ViolenceFantasy ViolenceViolent ReferencesChildren:Anyone under the age of 18I wish the best of luck to my opponent!
Open Challenge - 4 Topics

Below are 4 topics. I'd like to have a good debate with someone on one of these topics. This topic has been designed to be impossible to accept for the moment but if you are somehow capable of accepting it by meeting the unlikely criteria, please don't do so. If you are interested, post in the comments along with your preference for topic(s) and I'll invite someone to start the debate who seems like they'll be an interesting opponent. In each case with the below I will be Pro. The Topics are1) The UK should renationalise its railways.2) Violent videogames have a negative social outcome on children.3) Western nations should suppost a boycott of Israel.4) A discrimination-based wage gap exists in the USA.
Geocentrism

The Earth can be shown to move by observing its rotation- as it rotates, different areas are illuminated by the Sun and this causes night and day. Hence, the existence of night and day demonstrates that the Earth is moving. See source 3 for more.The Earth can also be shown to have its centre of momentum frame (explained simply in Source 1 and in mathematics on page 8 of source 2) to be moving, which is what is usually meant by something "moving". This is done by observing the seasons- the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted at a slight angle, and so as the Earth orbits around the sun, different parts of the Earth experience different amounts of daylight at different points in the cycle. Hence, the seasons demonstrate that the Earth orbits the Sun (and that the Earth's axis of rotation is tilted). See sources 4 and 5.Hence, the Earth is moving, and orbits the sun. My case rests.Sources:[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]: http://users.physics.harvard.edu...[3]: http://sciencing.com...[4]: http://www.weatherquestions.com...[5]:
The Bible does not favor a pre-tribulation rapture

For this debate, the Bible contains the standard 66 books used by most Protestants. Pre-tribulation rapture is the belief that Messiah will remove all His followers from the earth just before the prophetic time of tribulation. This interpretation is portrayed in the "Left Behind" series of books, some of which became movies. 2000 Elo is required to vote using the "select winner" system. Con will contend that the Bible clearly teaches a pre-tribulation rapture. As Pro, I will contend that this interpretation is not as well supported as contrary interpretations.
Does Discrimination Still Exist in America

Hello and let me thank you for this debate, as it draws to a close. Firstly I would like to clarify that those race statistics do in fact support the idea of no equality, as they clarify that whites and blacks are not equal in ability. I'd also like to say that in the first paragraph, albeit I worded myself poorly, what I was getting at was that those groups not only view others as weaker in some areas, but attack them for it. Women do fight for men's attention, of course. But they do not fight in the same way. Men attract women by who is the most courageous and strong; who is the "alpha male". Men are not typically attracted to strong women, and instead favour them to be coy, submissive, caring. That's nature. Going back to the race statistics, where they tie into discrimination is that they counter the definition of it. At the start of this debate you said that discrimination was prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment, and that racial discrimination is the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. However prejudice is described as preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience. Yet, if there are statistics and facts to back up a viewpoint that blacks are not equal to whites, I would say it's based on reason/experience. How does equality tie into discrimination? Well, if a certain group is not treated equally, that would pass for discrimination. But if they're in-equal, why should they be treated the same way? Such a thought process would be like saying a bulldog has equal chances to a greyhound in a race, or that a greyhound has equal chances in a fight as a bulldog. All dogs are dogs, sure, but not all dogs have the same characteristics; they have breeds. Lastly I would like to clear up that end part on your reply, about transgenders not being allowed in the military. This was far from discriminatory. The purpose that this ban was passed was because transgender individuals require external supplements, such as hormone therapy or oestrogen, in order to transition. As this is interfering with the notion that soldiers, on duty, always have to be ready and alert if a firefight were to start or a gas attack were to hit, it is thus a detriment to the military. It's for the same reason that those with conditions requiring medication - for example, ADD - are not allowed into service.
Does Discrimination Still Exist in America

Thank you for responding and I apologize for the long wait. Now you wanted to counter that hate groups exist simply off of being more able is a falsehood. But in the same paragraph you then go on to say that they exist because they believe that another group is weaker, unworthy, or otherwise bad. Remember I said hate groups exist because they believe they are better to another group, which is basically what you agreed with. You have also presented facts that most men, biologically are stronger than women. If you said it to a women as this statement it would not be discrimination I agree. But you argue that men being bigger fight for women. Is it not in our society the same when women fight other women for the same reason. Your race statistics while eye opening did not support your argument that there is no such thing as equality. Nor does it have very much to do with discrimination. And if it's true that equality may not be a thing that exist, to discriminate is to act on a prejudice. Which is what this debate is about. Not whether there is actual prejudice in the world but whether there is discrimination. For instance the government banning transgenders for being in the military. NOt trying to start any political arguments but that is just one of the the points I'd like to make.
Does Discrimination Still Exist in America

I believe that there still is discrimination in America today. Definition of discrimination 1a : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment racial discrimination : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually This however does not include just race. It would include ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation and other types of discrimination. People who argue that there isn't usually only tend to see only one side of discrimination (usually race). Please argue back and tell me why you don't think there is discrimination in America.
Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

Pro says "Again if we look at the actual statement, nowhere does it say that logic is absolute" I refer Pro to http://carm.org.... From the Carm website link "Logical absolutes are conceptual by nature, are not dependent on space, time, physical properties, or human nature. They are not the product of the physical universe (space, time, matter), because if the physical universe were to disappear, logical absolutes would still be true" Clearly the basis of this Tag argument, is that logic is absolute. I have not heard of any TAG argument that claims that logic is not absolute. Pro says "The TAG is not saying that logic is absolute and God is subject to it, but actually it is saying God is absolute and logic is "subject" to Him" Nope, if God isn't subject to logic then logic is not absolute. Also if logic did not apply to God that means God could exist and not exist, and God could be God while at the same time not being God. If you want to argue the position that logic is not absolute and God is not subject to logic, go for it.
Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

Thank You Illegal combatant for clearing things up. I will now address the Con's "Contradiction" "If logic is so absolute as stated in this argument,then God is subject to it, if God is not subject to it, then its not so absolute after all, if logic is different than God, then we have another uncaused eternal something that exists along side God, poly theism anyone ? if logic is the same as God, then God has been redefined." Again if we look at the actual statement, nowhere does it say that logic is abosolute. As a matter of fact it goes on to say that God is absolute not logic. "If there is no god, knowledge is not possible." My opponent in his new statement #1 misinterpreted the actual statement. "If there is no god, knowledge is not possible." (Actual Statement) "Knowledge of logic is only possible if God exists" (con's interpretation of the statement) At a quick glance these two statements seem to match perfectly together however, if we look at the statement closely, Con's interpretation is the inverse of the actual statement. The inverse is only true when the converse of the statement is true. So let's take a look at the converse: "If knowledge is not possible, there is no god" and we know that this is wrong because even if logic does not exist God still exist. Since the converse of the information is false therefore the inverse of the statement is as well, thus making the con's interpretation invalid; The TAG is not saying that logic is absolute and God is subject to it, but actually it is saying God is absolute and logic is "subject" to Him.
Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

In light of Pros comments I will use a new argument for TAG 1) Knowledge of logic is only possible if God exists 2) Knowledge of logic is possible 3) Therefore God exists My objection is still the same, It is argued in the TAG that the logic laws listed are absolute, that is to say they are true in all possible worlds, and exist regardless if anyone believes in them or not, even in the absence of a physical reality (transcendent), thus making these things we call logical laws existent without anything else needed for their existence that is to say they exist necessarily, or as I put it they exist because they exist (even if Pro doesn't like that phrase) If logic is so absolute as stated in this argument, then God is subject to it, if God is not subject to it, then its not so absolute after all, if logic is different than God, then we have another uncaused eternal something that exists along side God, poly theism anyone ? if logic is the same as God, then God has been redefined. I look forward to Pros response.
Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

First to clear things up TAG states that Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality). If there is no god, knowledge is not possible. Therefore God exists. (Source:. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Now I will address the "contradiction" that my opponent laid out. Quote from my opponent: "But notice the contradiction, these logic laws exist because they exist, yet according to the first premise of the TAG they are dependent on God for their existence. " TAG states that kowldege is possible* not that it exists** through God, and no where does it say "it exists because it exsists. " This would be like saying blue is blue because it is blue. (Please provide more logical reasoning than this. ) Rather, it says that since knowledge is possible or can be achievable, and that knowledge comes from God, God exists. Nowhere does it say that if God is not real, logic is not real. *Possible:something that can be done **Exist: have being or reality (source: Google search) Good luck
Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

I will be the Con, and seek to show that the TAG argument is flawed My opponent will be the Pro, and seek to defend the TAG and show that it is not flawed. The TAG argument is........... 1) If God doesn't exist, the laws of logic would not exist. 2) The laws of logic do exist. 3) Therefore, God exists. Definitions TAG = Transcendental Argument for God Abstract object - is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing (as an idea, or abstraction) Laws of logic - (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity Exist - to have actual being; be God = God of classical theism, All knowing, All powerful, All Good, Eternal, Un-created, Non-contingent, etc Opening argument against Tag.......... It is argued in the TAG that the logic laws listed are absolute, that is to say they are true in all possible worlds, and exist regardless if anyone believes in them or not, even in the absence of a physical reality (transcendent), thus making these things we call logical laws existent without anything else needed for their existence, that is too say they exist because they exist. With this in mind I will attack the first premise of the TAG which states "1) If God doesn't exist, the laws of logic would not exist." Lets go into a bit more detail on this first premise. By saying "1) If God doesn't exist, the laws of logic would not exist. This premise is saying that its IMPOSSIBLE for the laws of logic to exist absent Gods' existence. 1) If God doesn't exist, the laws of logic would not exist = In the absence of God, the laws of logic would not exist. This makes the laws of logic contingent on Gods existence. But notice the contradiction, these logic laws exist because they exist, yet according to the first premise of the TAG they are dependent on God for their existence. The TAG advocate has 2 options, either claim that the laws of logic are not "absolute", that is to say there are exceptions to the rule, or equate God with the laws of logic, which redefines God as not the classical God of theism, either way the TAG is shown flawed. I look forward to Pros reply.
Transcendental Argument for Gods' existence

This is the last round of the long debate. I would like to thank all of you who kept up with this argument till the end. My opponent tells me that he was five minutes overdue in his argument, so I will not make new argument but just conclude. However, seeing that we have three days to make an argument, I should get the point in conduct because we were given equal time and yet my opponent failed to post all of his argument as to me who did. Conclusion: Whether or not my opponent was delayed or not, my opponent fails to give a better reason for why such an absolute transcendent logic in our universe exists. He wanted to argue that logic exists because it exists, but that does not work for it is just like saying God exists because he exists. My opponent made good statements, but failed to back them up with proof, therefore making the statements invalid. From the start I defended my statements and backed them up with multiple sources. My opponent sourced only one site for this whole debate but I sourced four. Furthermore, I had the better argument and have pointed out that the TAG arguments is not flawed. Judges, I ask you to vote for Pro. Thank you.