BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is nature worth more attention than technology

I will keep my comments for this round short given that Pro forfeited the last round. Final remarks and statements by Con. Pro provides some claims and reasons for why nature is worth more attention than technology. However, they exclusively rely on inferences that Con does not accept as valid inferences. Here is Pro’s final statement from the third round: “ 7.) I would just like to end my argument with this. If people were to hate nature than why do they build parks in the cities, why do we put flowers in our house, why is it considered more romantic to bring flowers to a girl instead of a new phone if people really do prefer technology.” The inference drawn is that because people in some instances incorporate nature into their lives, especially where they could have selected a technology in its place, then it necessarily follows that people in general believe nature is worth more attention than technology. While Con does not accept this as a valid form of argumentation, this may not be the view of voters, therefore I will adopt it to make one final argument similar to others made in Round 3. Because Pro uses the internet, is a member of DDO, and has a computer-based device, and consume electricity then Pro supports Con’s position that technology is worth more attention than nature. My evidence for this claim come from facts I can assume about Pro’s life. First, Pro has to use the internet otherwise it would be impossible to have this debate. Second, because Pro is a member of DDO and has not stated to belong to a debating society, then I will assume Pro prefers an internet debating forum over one where two human exchange ideas in nature. I used the word computer-based technology because this must be the case (laptop, desktop, cellphone, IPad, IPhone, Surface, etc.). Finally, Pro must have access to electricity of some kind. Therefore, all of these things lead Con to assume that in reality, Pro accepts Con’s position. Voters should take into consideration the following: BOP for this debate = 100% Pro’s Con was the only side to provide claims backed up my evidence, cited in footnotes. Pro did not rebut Con’s definition of technology to rebut any claims (which are Con’s central arguments) in Round 3.
Is nature worth more attention than technology

Yes I am new and thanks. Good luck to you too. I never understood how can people ignore all of the complexity and beauty in nature. I mean why would someone willingly spend their time rather on a piece of tech than outside with people. So many opportunities are missed because of that. Now I understand why people think so highly of technology. I mean it surely makes our lives easier but the easy way isn't always the best way. But on the other hand when people stay away from nature for a long time they start craving for it. They need it because we are a part of it. For example people who live in cities always like to go to nature for holidays to relax. And just by taking this common phrase to go in nature to relax.... it shows that people prefer nature over technology, because if it was the other way around people wouldn't go hiking, climbing, cycling, ..... But it is hard for most of the people to resist the easy way of living that technology offers. Technology supports our laziness. And I think that this is the only reason people like it... and if you look deep into every persons heart I'm sure that they would prefer living their lives in some hut in forest by the lake without any worries, to rooms full of computers, televisions and other technologies.
Is nature worth more attention than technology

Nowadays people spend so much time in devotion to technology (our little creation) but we often forget that nature is the one making our lives possible. She is the one that gives us unlimited supply of air and oxygen and she never demands nothing in return. Now imagine yourself creating something and than just giving it for free even though the users of your product harm you over and over again and never even thank you. I don't believe that you would last long. But we have to change our ways because otherwise nature will turn her back on us eventually. Sooner or later she will have enough of us treating her this way and when that day comes people will regret their actions but it will be too late. Sadly it is in our nature to miss things only when we lose them.
Why debate God's existence since faith is required

The reason for debating the subject based around faith is that faith is not good justification for belief. That's what my "off topic rambling" was about. To show that faith can go anywhere. The point of faith is to get people to believe what you can't prove. Once someone says 'no, I can't prove it' then the claim should be thrown away or at least researched without a bias. But it should not be accepted until proven.
Why debate God's existence since faith is required

I posed my statement the way I had because of many atheists have done exactly what you say they do not & in the manner in which I previously stated. You may have a different brand or purist idea of what an atheist should be, but in my experience, & it's extensive in this area, most are as I relayed. I must ask where you got your definition of faith of "blindly accepting ...." As far as all the definitions I have heard or researched, they all prey much state, "trusting or believing in something you cannot explicitly or definitively prove." I know of know of no person that blindly follows anything other than kids doing what parents telling them & that can be going to bed at a certain time or eating certain vegetables. That being said, we all have to have some evidence in something we are about to believe in. What is evidence to some, may be silliness to others. I do not mean we see a shooting star & therefore it's aliens from outer space either. That's not evidence because it can me proven to be false & therefore the 'evidence' is not really evidence. So, let's get back to faith ..... faith in anything. You already have claimed victory with your "If you can't defend your reason for belief, then your belief basically falls flat." Please define "reason for belief.' It seems as though you want a reason that you already have defined within your own parameters, which may be just a little short sighted. Why not let's see what else we have faith in every single day of our lives? Let's go by the definition of faith of academia accepts, which is trusting or believing in something you cannot explicitly or definitively prove & not the "follow blindly" one you gave OK? Or do you say that we do everything we do in this world only after we have all the facts & therefore do not need 'faith' in doing anything? I'm not trying to go off course or trying to act stupid here. I believe it's a misconception of what faith is more than anything else. If I went with your definition, I would certainly accept faith as silliness & anytime that faith is used in any context, we would know that what followed has no credence whatsoever.
Why debate God's existence since faith is required

Atheists do not claim there is no god. They reject the claim that others have made. Atheists debate not just the existence of a god or gods, they debate that faith is a good reason to believe something. The definition of faith is to blindly accept something that lacks evidence. This proposes a problem: anyone can make a claim and follow it up with "you just need faith" and have whatever claim that is be acceptable. Atheists want you to defend your position and your claim. If you can't, then they have no reason to accept any god or any faith based subject. They certainly have no reason to accept your claim over someone else's. If you can't defend your reason for belief, then your belief basically falls flat.
Why debate God's existence since faith is required

Atheists want to say there is no God only to tell believers that instead of proving there is no God, it is incumbent upon the believer to prove there is God, even though the atheist initiates the claim. One has to back up a claim initiated by themselves rather than twisting it around. (There is an current example of this on this site). Believers should know it takes faith to believe in God & it puzzles me as to how they can accept such a challenge, knowing it is impossible to prove. So why is this such a popular discussion topic knowing how it's going to turn out? I will use faith as a means to prove it exists in our everyday life and not only when it comes to believing in God. The opposition can explain why an argument is necessary when faith is involved. The opposition can be a believer or not because it's puzzling either way.
Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

Your argument seems extremely weak when the best point you can make is referring to some internet law and not any actual evidence. I researched Godwin's law and found some quite interesting things about it. First, Godwin himself says "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness to history, then go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump. Or other politicians. Second, Godwin's law is not a real law, just a saying and/or a tradition, one I do not follow at all, along with your other so-called "internet laws." I'm trying to have a meaningful debate where the opponent makes a far better argument than some silly internet tradition! Your internet laws are not internet laws, in the meaningful discussion I am trying to have, I want to be presented with actual counterarguments, not excuses for not debating through "internet laws! Debates do not end when internet laws are violated, debates end (at least they should end by MY laws) when one person has either won over the audience, the majority of the audience, or the opponent. If you want to take the coward's way out by proclaiming "Godwin's law" instead of having an actual debate, then be my guest! I have never in my life debated or even heard of these nonsensical internet laws! They seem good for a fun game "Gee, let's see how long we can debate without violating any internet laws", but when it comes to real debating, then I want a real debater with real reasons for their argument. If that is your sole argument, then I believe we are indeed finished, and by my laws (which say that these internet laws aren't worth nil when it comes to debating) , I will proclaim myself the winner, since you appear to have no better argument.
Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

Godwin's Law refers to all internet conversations, and it's awesome if you're on the right side of it. Your example is a bit propaganda-ish. You make person B call it in a way that violates the Law of Exclamation, while simultaneously making sure that person A is innocent under Quirk's Exception. Realistically, conversations probably look like this: A: Trump is Hitler. He's trying to kill all the Muslims and start another Holocaust. B: Godwin's Law A: What? Lmao, that thing is fake, get your jokes out of here. Did I mention that trying to discredit Godwin's Law is a good sign of it's breakage? Anyway, as you can see, A actually attempts to prove the comparison and/or utilize the reference. Because he tried to follow through with it, he wouldn't be held under Quirk's Exception. And B called it without violating any other internet laws. I'd like to recognize that our own exchange was more similar to my example than yours. Anyway, thanks for disagreeing with me. It reinvigorates the debate on a different topic.
Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

Ok, first off, with your "Godwin's law", do you know if it refers to topics where Hitler and the Nazis is the original subject of the conversation? Because It would be ridiculous If a conversation went like this: Guy A: Gee, Adolf Hitler was a mean guy. Guy B: THIS DISCUSSION IS TOO LONG!!!! YOU HAVE NO SENSE OF PORPORTION, MAN!!!! LOOOOSSSSEEERRRR!!!! Guy A: Uhh.... Wacko Plus, I'm not just comparing abortion to the Nazis to show abortion is evil!!! I'm actually comparing the similarities between the two! Like I've said in my first post: First, between the Nazi's attempt to justify their murder by dehumanizing their target, and Liberals claiming that unborn children aren't human (which of course they are) as one of their main justifications for their malicious deeds. Second, how Hitler used his wave of propaganda and control of the media to spread his ideals around, likewise Liberals use their almost complete control of the media to broadcast their ideas into the general population. Third, the Nazi's targeted killing of a specific population, With pro-abortionists also targeting a specific population. Personally, I think you ramble on more than I do. Overall, I just find the "Godwin's law" thing just ridiculous.
Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

Reminds me of when Gary was talking about taxes. One of the reporters asked really technical questions, and Gary expressed how he 'didn't want to get into the weeds here'. Ugh, where is that video? Can't find it now.But yeah, I'm vehemently against abortion. But I'm also againt Reductio Ad Hitlerum, which is the new internet term I never knew existed until moments ago, meaning that one compares Hitler to something as to make it bad.So now I'm going to use it everywhere to make more people dislike it. :)Also, really interesting point: you violated Godwin's Law. So I win the debate.Godwin's law is the theory that basically says: "as a web discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Nazis or Hitler approaches one."This can be used diagnostically: whenever a discussion compares someone else to Hitler, that discussion is too long, and whoever did it has no sense of proportion. The discussion/debate should be ended in favor of the more rational person. Therefore, I win from post one?Yeah, I overthink stuff when I'm bored.Anyway, next time don't make debates this long. I'm going to have to fill all that space with legitimate thought on stuff.
Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

Interesting. When I made my argument, I was just pointing out the similarities of the two. I never considered deeply thinking about it and intensely studying the details. Maybe I should've just said abortion is similar instead of identical to Nazi ideologies. Personally, you may be thinking this through a little too seriously (I really don't think that's a bad thing, I do that sometimes too) Judging by your arguments, I'm assuming we're both against abortion?
Liberials are identical to Nazis when it comes to the issue of abortion

Abortion is clearly a Nazi's idea. How does no one see the similarities between Hitler's discrimination of the Jews and abortion? Both Liberals and Nazis discriminated their target group of people. Both pathetically attempt to justify their evil mass killings by dehumanizing their targets solely because they don't look the same way they do. Nazis brainwashed their population into agreeing with their sick ideals using their control of the media. Liberals use their hold on the media to do the exact same thing. Nazis appeared to be the good guys to the starving, homeless population of Germany. Liberals appear to be the good guys to the general public of the United States! Liberals and Nazis both are against religious arguments because their compassionate, selfless nature goes against their selfish whims. Liberals are Nazis when it comes to abortion! (Well, except in the case of defending the mother's life, I could see someone with wholeheartedly good intentions supporting that)
Were the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally justifiable

Thank you for bringing this topic to my attention. Let us begin. First, I negate your reasoning for your argument. "I believe that the atomic bombings were not justifiable because no one has the right to go destroy something that's not theirs." Wow. I would be more concerned if it was morally justifiable if the bombings took thousands of lives, not property damage. And don't get me started on destroying stuff that isn't theirs. You remember Pearl Harbor? Yeah, I think you do. They started it, so we ended it. If you knew your history, you would know that America has asked Japan many times to surrender and prevent further bloodshed. World War Two was already bringing the world down to its knees. And Japan wouldn't surrender. Hirohito was hell bent on even sacrificing every last one of his own to achieve his own end, and for what? Just to show the world Japan doesn't run? I respect Japan, and I love their culture, but everyone needs to back down at some point. These bombings may not have been the best choice, but they were the necessary choice.
Destiny will die out by June...

I totaly understand your side but you must understand GTAV and Destiny are two very different games also this argument cannot be based on facts its a total matter of opinion there are already people who are tired Destiny because they got to lvl 20 and said "There is nothing to do after lvl 20." While these same people have GTAV and have done everything but still say that it is the best game and it wont get old so in my opinion Destiny will not "die out" by June.
Destiny will die out by June...

This game has gotten SO much attention this month, by this summer the hype will die out and this game will turn out like GTA V. GTA received a lot of positive feedback from the gaming community, much like Destiny. But as time passed on, GTA flooded with mods and glitches because children whined about not making money "fast". Rockstar's response was to ban and or penalize those responsible. As a result, they added cash cards. You can buy cash cards with USD for in-game GTA-Dollars. This has caused GTA to have players with TOO MUCH money for TOO LITTLE skill or patience. This is how I predict Destiny to turn out.
Was Medea responsible for her actions

1. According to Aristotle, Anger is "A reaction to a slighting intended with the pleasure of fantasy of revenge." 2. Revenge- to punish someone for wronging you. 3. In order for a person to be responsible, that person must be able to think clearly. 4. Emotions can cloud a person"s judgment and prevent them from thinking clearly. 5. If the actions of another lead a person to a conclusion they would not have come to otherwise, than that person cannot be considered responsible for that decision. 6. Anger has greatly infected Medea"s mind, making it hard for her to make a choice, and making her judgment unclear. 7. Medea"s current situation, has put her under a lot of pressure, and prevented her from thinking rationally. 8. On top of that Medea says that she does not want to let her enemies go unpunished, indicating hat she is thinking about them while making this decision. 9. While there may not be one single factor, the combination of things happening to Medea, have caused her to have trouble making a decision. 10. Therefore, while we both agree that she has given into her anger, and she is indecisive. Medea is ultimately not responsible for her actions; due to her anger clouding her judgment, and the pressure from outside sources making it almost impossible to pick the right choice in this situation.
Was Medea responsible for her actions

5. But even though she did not make the decision herself, she was aware of the consequences and the decisions that were to be made, so therefore she would be responsible for her actions. 6. I agree 7. I agree but even so in the current situation, her so called irrational wouldn"t be irrational if she was able to think about the consequences. 9. Even though she does say that anger is the master of her plans, and she wants her enemies to go unpunished, and they play some role in the situation doesn"t mean that it was the anger that caused her to act out on them.
Was Medea responsible for her actions

5. As we both agreed upon, in order for a person to be responsible they must be thinking clearly. If Medea was not thinking clearly, than it was due to outside forces infecting her judgment, she did not make the decision by herself; therefore she is not responsible for it. 6. I agree she cannot make a choice, due to her anger being uncontrollable in it"s current state. She also cannot make a choice, because the situation she is in has prevented her from having one clear option. 7. No her uncontrollable anger, her general indecisive take on the situation, and the pressure from her enemies; make her act with an irrational mind. 8. Maybe they weren"t the only factors on the choice, but she states that anger is the master of her plans, and that she cannot let her enemies go unpunished, so they must play a decent role in the situation.
Was Medea responsible for her actions

5. Even though the decision may have been made with out a sound mind and judgment doesn"t mean that the person isn"t responsible for what he or she does. 6. I agree that she does give into her anger but she also waxes and wanes on her decisions as if she can"t make a choice 7. Although, there is some indication that her enemies should go unpunished, it doesn"t mean that she acts out with an irrational mind. 9. Even though he had some influence on the matter it doesn"t mean that her decisions were completely based off of her anger and vengeance.
Was Medea responsible for her actions

5. Just because a person is aware of the decision he or she makes, does not mean that that decision was made with a sound mind and judgment. 6. Who is to say that Medea did not give into her anger? 7. Her decision is clearly influenced by her enemies, she says that she does not want her enemies to go unpunished, which is indication that they did have something to do with her ultimate decision. 9. Her flipping back and fourth shows how indecisive the situation with her husband has made her, and if her husbands actions are making her think a certain way, is it not safe to say that he has some sort of influence on her choice?
Was Medea responsible for her actions

1. Yes, I agree with this because it is Aristotle"s definition of anger. 2. I agree because this is a definition of revenge. 3. I agree 4. I agree 5. I disagree because although pressure outside sources can influence the decisions doesn't make the person unaware of their actions. 6. I disagree because one would have to give into anger in order to be clouded by one"s judgment and act upon the emotions. 7. I disagree because Medea is aware of the fact that she is going to be sacrificed by her enemies but it doesn't mean that it gets in the way of her decisions. 8. I agree with this because she has decisions based on the emotions of anger and revenge. 9. I disagree because she is only thinking out of her love for her children but due to the fact of the abandonment of her husband she thinks two different ways. 10. Therefore, Medea is responsible for her actions because she is aware of the emotions being expressed and acts upon it. Non- Controversial: 1,2,3,4,8 Premise 1 is a definition of anger. Premise 2 is a definition of revenge. Premise 3 are the factors that are incorporated in being responsible. Premise 4 talks about how emotions can cloud one"s judgment. Premise 8 is thinking of her enemies while making a decision. Controversial: 5,6,7,9 Premise 5 is how pressure can affect a decision but doesn't affect the action. Premise 6 is one has to give into anger to be clouded by judgment. Premise 7 is that Medea is aware of what is around but that doesn't affect her decisions. Premise 9 is about how her mind is split into two types of decisions based on a series of events.