BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans are inherently good.

Alright, I will jump straight into rebuttals. "Ok, my bad, I misinterpreted your statement. But just because a person is a good person that doesn't mean they can't do wrong things. My statement, Humans are inherently good, does in now way mean that humans can never do bad" Alright, but to assume that something is good, it means that the good out weighs that bad. But there is no real way to determine this, therefor we can't say that humans are inherently good. "There are thousands of cops and soldiers who dedicate their lives, and in many cases give them up, to protect their family and country. These people kill, hurt, break up families and ruin certain peoples lives. Are they bad people?" Right, but do you know who kills these good people? Bad people. "No, he was protecting himself and the general public. Just because a person kills another person, depending on the circumstances, does not make them a bad person, it only makes them a good person who's done bad things." If a person kills another person to protect, then it is not a bad action. He did a good thing. But just because I do a good thing does not make me a good person. "Shoplifting. Ok to use your statistic (every 1 in 11) that means that there are 10 in every eleven who don't shoplift, or in other words 270 million people who don't shoplift. Thats far greater odds. The majority of the population you are speaking of don't shoplift" Once again, all it takes is one bad berry. in this case, it's about 10% of the population. Which is massive when you have to say about 30 million people have admitted. Now let's really think about it, how many people lied? I would imagine it would be around 60-70% of people. "ike I said earlier, the vast majority of people do not go around harming people simply because they can. The percentage of people who intentionally cause suffering on other people simply because they want to is very small. " 10% is not small at all. Imagine if 10% of the population died. Then that number would be massive. It's the same number, the result of the action was just much greater. "To put it another way, when a baby is born it has done no wrong and so according to your logic is a good person. So as soon as that kid grows up and steals a quarter from their moms purse or blames a broken toy on their younger sibling they are a bad person." Your initial statement is false. In order to be a good or a bad person, you have to do something. Those actions determine if your a good or bad person. The rest of the argument, you just talked about how individual people can be good, but that's irrelevant. You agree that humans are inherently good. You basically believe that regardless of actions, people are good, and you said several times that people can be bad. People can only be good through actions, and therefor, they are not "inherently good". Thanks
Humans are inherently good.

Okay, I'll jump right into rebuttals "All right, first things first. I would like to point out that at no point did I say humans can do no wrong." I never said you did. That was my argument. By stating that humans are inherently good, then by definition you must believe that humans are incapable of doing wrong. Regardless of pressure, like you stated, doing bad things qualifies you as a bad person. If someone tell you to kill someone, and you do because "you were pressured into it", are you still a murderer? Of course! "To use your example, if given the option to kill or be killed many people would choose to kill. However, this does not mean that if given the option to kill or just sit there and do nothing they will choose to kill. Humans do bad things due to situational pressure, i.e. they become a serial killer because they are mentally unstable or they become a thief because they have no job and need money. " People would obviously kill, however the completely non-selfish move would be to kill yourself. If you chose to kill the other person, your not abnormal, no one would kill themselves. This is clear proof that humans are not inherently good. Irregardless, you you are a serial killer, you are not inherently good. Also, just because you kill, you are not mentally unstable. "There are of coarse examples of people doing bad things simply because they can, however these people make up a small portion of our society and the majority of people just don't go around harming others. Like you said some people do good things in order to profit from it. " Do they really? According to http://www.shopliftingprevention.org..., "There are approximately 27 million shoplifters (or 1 in 11 people) in our nation today. More than 10 million people have been caught shoplifting in the last five years." That is a lot of people. But we all have done it at one point. It's human nature. Therefor, we are not inherently good. Also, I'm not sure pecan pie you agreed with my last point, it strengthened my argument. A lot of people only do good things when profit is involved. Kindness is not their first motive unless money is involved. " This profit can be just making the person feel better, as long as they deem that reward worth the cost of helping another person. Humans naturally want to do whats best for themselves, and helping other people often brings greater fulfillment then harming people. Therefore, humans naturally do good in order to profit both themselves and the recipient." Have you seen the real world? It's nothing like you describe it to be. Wealthy people steal from others, only to benefit themselves. Some charities are only started because of tax breaks. You really have no evidence backing up this claim, except for the faulty information you provided. Overall, people aren't inherently good. There not inherently anything. There are good people, and there are bad people. But just because someone is human does not make them good. Therefore, my side of the argument is the correct side.
Humans are inherently good.

All right, first things first. I would like to point out that at no point did I say humans can do no wrong. I said humans naturally do good. What I mean to say by this is that we are naturally good and do bad things due to situational pressure. To use your example, if given the option to kill or be killed many people would choose to kill. However, this does not mean that if given the option to kill or just sit there and do nothing they will choose to kill. Humans do bad things due to situational pressure, i.e. they become a serial killer because they are mentally unstable or they become a thief because they have no job and need money. There are of coarse examples of people doing bad things simply because they can, however these people make up a small portion of our society and the majority of people just don't go around harming others. Like you said some people do good things in order to profit from it. This can also be said about doing bad things. This profit can be just making the person feel better, as long as they deem that reward worth the cost of helping another person. Humans naturally want to do whats best for themselves, and helping other people often brings greater fulfillment then harming people. Therefore, humans naturally do good in order to profit both themselves and the recipient.
Humans are inherently good.

Sure! Alright, I'll start with my argument, then I'll do rebuttals next round. Inherent: "existing in something as a permanent, essential, or characteristic attribute." Good: "that which is morally right; righteousness." According to the definitions given, you believe that humans have characteristics that are morally right. Therefor, you also believe that humans can do no wrong, assuming if you don't do good things, then you must do bad things. No one can just be 50/50 100% of the time. You must at one point either do the right thing, or do the bad thing. I'd like to argue that it is simple human nature to want whats best for yourself, and then to worry about the next person. In a situation where you had to either kill yourself or a random stranger, who would you choose? While today society has somewhat made it the expectation that occasionally you will do good things, most of the time when people do good things, they are also in some way benefited. For example, Nike does breast cancer awareness and then donates proceeds. The amount they are actually given is pennies on the dollar. Humanity started in an anarchy-type situation, therefor we naturally have corresponding instincts. Thanks, I am finished.
Humans are inherently good.

Wow! that was quick. Thank you for accepting this debate. All right, to begin. lets define good. the dictionary defines good as "to be desired or approved of", "having the qualities required for a particular role", "possessing or displaying moral virtue". Humans are naturally good. Whether or not you believe we evolved from apes or that we where created by God, human nature is to form society. We are social beings, we could not exist the way we do if it weren't for this fact. Because of the fact that we require these levels of social interaction we need to be in essence good. Willing to share, to help others and to contribute to the greater good. We need to abide by the same rules, to respect one another and to come to each others aid. If we did not then humanity and society would descend into chaos and anarchy. As a whole human kind needs to be good in order to exist the way we do.
3 divided by 0 equals 3.

"okay I divide the 12 sodas by no friends, they are still on my table, but according to you the disappear, how is that? who is drinking them" Apparently opponent totally neglects what I stated in the previous round. I had explicitly stated: "However, you cannot split 12 sodas amongst 0 people and get 12. You (the one dividing) are not a part of the problem. You do not still have the sodas, because you are trying to divide them amongst the people. You cannot divide 12 sodas amongst zero people. 12/0 = undefined." This sentence counter's opponent's sentence. No, they don't disappear, they just aren't divisible amongst 0 people. Therefore 12 sodas divided amongst 0 people is an undefined answer. Opponent still has nothing for his argument, and I still have all of my other reasons. So opponent has contributed literally nothing this round except text, his time, and his (wasted) effort. Good luck in the next argument.
3 divided by 0 equals 3.

Thank you for agreeing. I would like to state acceptance is simply traditional, and please don't refer to me as "m8", as it shows bad spelling and I am not your "m8", and in fact I am your opponent. Let's start out with this analogy. You have 12 sodas. You want to divide those 12 sodas amongst three friends. 12/3 = 4, so each person gets four sodas. Now let's try it in this case: You have 12 sodas, and you want to divide those sodas amongst zero friends. 12/0 = undefined, since you cannot divide sodas (or any object, for that matter) amongst zero people. You can split 0 sodas amongst 12 people and get 0. However, you cannot split 12 sodas amongst 0 people and get 12. You (the one dividing) are not a part of the problem. You do not still have the sodas, because you are trying to divide them amongst the people. You cannot divide 12 sodas amongst zero people. 12/0 = undefined. Looking forward to opponent's argument.
The reason for poverty in third world countries are rich countries exploiting

So lets agree to limiting the historical examples to the 20th century onward. Theodor Roosevelt defined the role of developing countries best, that the responsibility of 3rd world nations is to supply labor and raw materials for Western nations to consume. This has pretty much been the case and the US has taken military action (in Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, Indonesia) to ensure that this status quo is upheld. This is why most manufactured goods have little 'Made in Vietnam' or 'Made in El Salvador' marking on them. Many countries' foreign policy has been very linked with their economic growth from the time of the cold war and into today. Conflicts have actually been started"primarily during the cold war"in south American and Indochina due to CIA plotted coups of democratically elected leaders. The reason behind this was that their domestic economic policies would not cater to the rapid globalization undergoing in the US and other western nations' economies. This economic shift in many 3rd world countries devastated their populations. South Americans began only growing cash crops for export to the global markets leading to huge famine. In Chile the US actually installed the Fascist dictator Augusto Pinochet after a CIA involved military coup overthrew the democratically elected leader. What this does to the workforce, both domestically and internationally is worse. Businesses who lobby for what is known as free trade agreements effectively allows them take the production jobs to countries overseas. The reason they would want to do this is that the US workforce have conditions. These being a certain number of hours worked a week, compensation for workplace accidents you get the picture. Now if these companies want to do business overseas? thats fine. If they want to take jobs away from their own country? Ok lets say thats fine. If they want to exploit the workforce over there too, ok lets for arguments say ok thats ok too. BUT AT LEAST the government should not subsidize after all this. But yet they do. It would be somewhat redeeming if these businesses could sell their products there, but the population is generally too poor because of them that it would be unprofitable. Why can't south Americans make clothing and food for themselves, and eastern Asians raise their standard of living before manufacturing microchips and LCDs? The answer is that colonial empires may have fallen, but they were replaced by economic globalization.
Android is better than iOS.

*This debate was previously posted but I was disappointed at my opponent. This debate is impossible to accept. Please post in the comments if you wish to be my opponent.* In this debate, I will be arguing that the Google Android OS (Version 5.1 Lollipop) is better than Apple's iOS (Version 8.1.3). Any opponent is allowed to enter. Definitions: Android: Android 5.1 Stock, without any TouchWiz, Sense or other features. better than: More powerful and able to do more things. iOS: iOS 8.1.3. Apps from the Play Store or App Store are allowed provided they are free. First round is acceptance only. Second, third and fourth rounds follow conventional debate rules (argument, argument+rebuttal, argument+rebuttal).
Android is better than iOS.

P1: Android is much less secure than iOS.Since Android applications are not vetted centrally, no one prevents malicious software from being distributed and infecting Android phones. [1] Because of this vunerabililty, approximately 170,000 pieces of malicious software exist for Android. [2]This is not the case with iOS, since Apple must approve all new applications that are uploaded onto the app store. [3][1] http://www.sophos.com...[2] http://www.tipsotricks.com...[3] https://en.wikipedia.org...P2: iOS is much more memory efficient [and therefore faster].iOS software is written in Objective-C, a compiled programming language that does not have to perform garbage collection. [1] This essentially means that much less RAM is needed to provide equivelant performance on Android as it uses Java, an interpreted language, with much more need for garbage collection. It is estimated that an Android phone would require 3GB of RAM in order to match an iOS phone, in performance terms, with only 1GB of RAM.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.redmondpie.com...
Animal Rights Ought to be recognized in society

Resolved: Animal Rights Ought To Be Recognised In Society Rules Round 1 is acceptance No trollingNo forfeiture The Burden Of Proof is shared To accept you must be older than 13To accept you must also have completed 40 debatesYou must have an elo above 3000 otherwiseDefinitions Animal Rights: the rights of animals to live free from human exploitation and abuse. Animal: a living organism which feeds on organic matter, typically having specialized sense organs and nervous system and able to respond rapidly to stimuli. (excluding insects, humans and bacterial life). Recognised: acknowledgedSociety: a community
Pokemon in real life would be bad.

I will be touching on the three points you have brought up but i will be going backwards. Let us start with economy. You touch up on how we wouldn't need humans if we had Pokemon right? You say with Pokemon jobs will not be needed. Well Pokemon don't just jump in your pocket and them be your eternity life friend. You need many different types of Pokemon, You need the scientists that create them, Test them, And make them stable. And what about the Pokemon schools? We need people to teach trainers to handle Pokemon, Trust them, Use them in the right situation. And seeing that the world of Pokemon if centered around...Well, Pokemon, You will need lots of those people. And you said without jobs we would have no money meaning no food right? Well have you ever tried fishing in Pokemon or watched the anime? Its no suprise to find out that people in Pokemon eat them Pokemon around them. In many different episodes of the anime you can clearly see people eating magicarps. Go fishing for a magicarp and then make your charizard fry it up, Thats dinner! I doubt there would be any way to go hungry. Crime. Now your saying gangs like in Pokemon are going to be using Pokemon to cause harm with these Pokemon on their sides? Now these are random gangs on the street. If gang leaders can have a giant turtle on their sides think about our law enforcement? We would have army's of men and Pokemon trained to fight any bad. Including gangs and people trying to cause harm. Irresponsible kids, Your saying the kids would have no education of anything besides Pokemon because of them only going to schools for Pokemon. Well we are not talking about our people jumping into their world, We are taking the Pokemon to our world. So just because Pokemon are here it does not mean our normal schools would go away. Meaning people still get their education. Also, If people are going to school for Pokemon they are going to need to know its a hard thing to handle and they could cause harm, That is why in the Pokemon world not everyone you see is a trainer with a Pokemon. They are not going to straight up give you a Pokemon. With these factors in place i doubt someone will start burning down a city because if the people in the Pokemon world even had a slight thought they were a bad kid, They would not even have a chance at getting a Pokemon.
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Pascal's Wager is simply a hypothetical view of the Theist vs. Atheist debate. It isn't a "fairy tale", but is a simplified version of a Theist's point of view on the matter. Both sides might disagree on reality, but it is "worth a chance" that the Theistic position is right. If your wrong, you don't lose anything anyway. Using an analogy like you are doing misses the point of Pascal's Wager. If you dislike it, then give a logical reason for how it is wrong. Not an irrelevant analogy in order to attack it. Truthfully, if you want to refute Pascal's Wager, don't use some irrelevant hypothetical attack. I want to know, what part of Pascal's Wager is incorrect?
pascals wager is a fairy tale

so tell me why you didnt jump? do you like to fall and snap your neck? better jump for me just 1 time man or it might happen just becasue i said it.. this is pascals.. total non sense you dont go to hell if you believe... you might not snap your neck because i mentioned it, if you jump no difference is it not possible that i am right? and that you might fall and snap your neck, just jump 1 time for me real fast man dont worry about it
pascals wager is a fairy tale

Sadly, you misunderstand Atheism. Atheism depends on philosophical beliefs too. The believe in Logic, reality, morality, induction, Naturalism, and believe that theism is wrong. Atheism isn't some "neutral" position. It is just as dependent on faith as theism, if not more. And again you use an analogy. Your analogy fails, because it isn't relevant. People aren't going to hid in a cushioned room just because they are afraid of death. Possibility is real. I agree with you. But why is Pascal's Wager wrong? Please, please stop using those examples.
eagles should be forced to wearr shoes

-"I negate on the grounds that such an action would clearly violate the Eagle Code put forth by Desmond Long Talon IV in 1654. The code clearly states that:..."- i would like to ask my opponent to give me a link to this, you know.. for possible proof?..- -but why would i deny that this is truth? for no other reason but the fact that the book is a myth.. only i posses the real Eagle Code.- -"...any bird of prey...is his own bird...(this part undecipherable) and is immune to the influence of the grounded. Let us keep our talons sharp and shiny in the sky... unobstructed by the claw-coverings of the grounded."- *coughbscough* -"Eagles will never be subdued by us pitiful humans"- if we can tame the mighty walrus then the eagle will be nothing.- -"Sippy cups are irrelevant"- No sir YOU are irrelevent. -I await my opponents response-
eagles should be forced to wearr shoes

I negate on the grounds that such an action would clearly violate the Eagle Code put forth by Desmond Long Talon IV in 1654. The code clearly states that: ". .. any bird of prey. .. is his own bird. .. (this part undecipherable) and is immune to the influence of the grounded. Let us keep our talons sharp and shiny in the sky. .. unobstructed by the claw-coverings of the grounded. " In addition, such a resolution is impossible to achieve. Eagles will never be subdued by us pitiful humans, as they are far to evasive and numerous. Sippy cups are irrelevant.
eagles should be forced to wearr shoes

As we all know eagles are majestic birds that like to eat tiny useless creatures when possible.. they also like to eat food from useless garbage. (also churn butter in tibet) [1] Eagles need to be forced to wear shoes because of the fact that they can use there talons to squeeze the life out of an elephant.. thats to powerful.. putting shoes on them would solve this problem... I have also found through extensive research that eagles like to use those retarted sippy cups.. unacceptable? yeBUT putting shoes on the eagles would also have its bennifits.. the birds would be able to more comfortably perch themselves onto any ledge. it would also give them something new to talk about. Well after putting out my thoughts i await my opponents. [1] http://api.ning.com...*OAogAxtira2fN8j-gZl53rJYEDt2ds8I6e7mL7fO9B3Bs8YXgLVaIYkDeh0YLXGoSMCxd8ibmal*QioRW3B5D72XA9/template.png
eagles should be forced to wearr shoes

Clearly, Eagles do not have a need for the internet. Why then would they post it online? It is a sacred tradition passed down by each generation. My opponent can clearly not possess the code since it is but an oral tradition. Do not believe his lies. I am sorry to hear that my opponent is sick with coughing symptoms. I am not irrelevant as I am the contender. Such an important role in a debate is certainly not irrelevant. If I were, this would not be a real debate. (Is it anyway?) I urge a NEG vote.
The Legalization of Marijuana

I will be debating against the legalization or Marijuana in both medical and social use. Marijuana should not be legalized. Many people who do Marijuana do it to get a "high. " Many people also believe no harm can come from Marijuana, but Marijuana effects the nervous system and can negatively effect your brain. Things such as short term memory loss, slowed down reflexes, loss of brain cells, etc are all negative outcomes of the use of marijuana.