BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Government is immoral

Firstly I would like to congratulate Pro on a very well thought-out and convincing argument. Pro has given me a list of questions, however I feel that it is more appropriate to answer these in Round 3, as rebuttals rather than my own argument. Please note that any capitalisation I use in this debate is strictly for emphasis and does not represent anger, shouting, sarcasm or anything of the sort. I would argue that government is not inherently immoral, though of course I am not stating that all government is moral. My first point is that government is a system that can be used to significantly help the populace of a given nation. It allows for greater efficiency, allowing pooled resources to be accrued and easily channelled into the most important uses. To expect the people to do this alone is folly; the amount of time and effort it would take them to collaborate in such a manner would lead to ineffective implementation and general inefficiency in the system. I would ask Pro how he expects anything to get properly done on a State level without SOME FORM of government. I would say that assisting the people in having a more efficient society would create a better life for them and is therefore completely moral. I would also point out that the redistribution of wealth is often viewed as immoral, however I do not agree. I will elaborate on this in the rebuttals round. I would also argue that government is moral because it is implemented by the will of the people. It is an INCREDIBLE minority of people who have advocated the complete removal of government; the will of these anarchist groups should not overcome the vast majority of people who support a government. The fact that the people being governed support having a government makes it legitimate and moral; to remove all government would in fact be an infringement on the will of the people and thereby immoral. Democratic government is even more legitimate, and therefore more moral, as the people directly choose to be governed, choose who they are governed by, and choose how they personally are represented in that system of government. Finally; government can be seen in every species to ever exist throughout history. Naturally, all creatures are inclined to create a system of superiors and inferiors. This would suggest that there is some quality to government which provides a distinct survival and development advantage. To take this advantage away from people, forcing them to become more isolated and independent, would be completely immoral. People are meant to work together; we intrinsically make bonds with other human beings. To force people to live in a society where there are no opportunities to do so, because it would be too inefficient, is utterly immoral. Government is moral because it is inherently wanted, and thus taking it away is immoral, in fact, it's theft.
In today's world, the benefits of religion outweigh its detriments

Is religion a boon or bane to society? This has been a controversial topic, and there are merits to both sides of the argument. Nevertheless, in this debate, I shall endeavour to demonstrate that the benefits of religion today outweigh its detriments. We will not argue about if God EXISTS or not, but the role in which Religion it's self has helped/hampered the World today. Benefits- Something that is advantageous or good; an advantage. Religion- A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. I wish to define the parameters of the debate, so as to forestall any unnecessary argument over issues tangential to the motion. First of all, the accuracy or reliability of the doctrines of any particular religion is not under contention here. This debate is devoted to examining the impacts of religious beliefs, regardless of their truth or falsity. Secondly, it should be emphasised that this debate is focused on today's world. For the purposes of this debate, however, I shall focus more on the Judaeo-Christian religions due our greater familiarity with it and also because of the higher amount of research conducted into the effects of religion in the West. Round 1 for acceptance. Other two rounds are for arguements. No samantics No FF
Re-upload: God is illogical

Hi omar2345, Thanks for your interest in this debate topic. It is a very interesting topic. On Omniscience: I agree, God is all-knowing, God wants everyone to choose life, And God gives everyone free will. You argue this is illogical. I don"t see why. A parent can want their child to make a good choice, Allow them to make the choice, And know they will not make the good choice. I do not see the formal tension. It sounds like good parenting, Though leading to sad results. The parent is unwilling to take the child"s free will away, But they keep hoping they will make a wise choice. On Omnipotence: I agree, God is all-powerful, And is at "peak power". But, This doesn"t take away purpose. I agree that the journey to self-actualization gives great purpose. But, Being in a state of self-actualization also brings great purpose. If the destination were purposeless, The journey itself would soon be purposeless, As you would be going nowhere important. So, The destination of 'peak performance' better have purpose itself. The purpose of being in one's ideal state is to live and do as you are now able to do. Consider an analogy: a child is learning to build, First using lego, Then blocks, And finally goes to university and becomes a great architect. He has arrived at perfection. Now he is able to build at peak performance, That is the meaning, Which he obviously takes great joy in, Or he would never have tried to build in the first place. Or, To use your example of science: it is meaningful to try to learn the mysteries of the universe through the scientific method. But, It is also meaningful to simply understand these truths, And to apply these truths to developing technology. Or, Returning to the case of God, Part of God's peak performance is to bestow love on His creation. The creation is not for His amusement, But for God to bestow love onto those who want it. On omnipresence: I agree, God is "omni-present", But that really just means that God is all-knowing. Perception perceives percepts purportedly caused by an external physical world. God is not physical, So it is no surprise that perception does not perceive God. The mind apprehends abstract objects, Such as numbers, Moral values, Logic, Ideas and God. So, We should expect the mind to apprehend God, Not the senses to perceive God. You may object: if X cannot be perceived, It doesn"t exist. Well, That is an old argument. The external world is not directly perceived, But we assume it exists. Other minds are not directly perceived, But we assume they exist. Numbers, Moral values, Laws of logic, Are all not perceivable by the senses, But we presume they exist. The past, The future cannot be perceived by five senses, But they exist. Our own minds are not perceived by our perceptions, But we presume we exist. So, Presumably that isn't your argument. Anyway, I look forward to hearing your replies and clarifications, So I can understand you better.
Hunting should be Outlawed

"Animals have no entitlement to any moral considerations, Therefore hunting is a fair, Moral, And justified activity. "Where is your backing? Why do you say that animals have no rights or moral value? Let's say that you are not religious. From your perspective, Humans are just more advanced animals. Perhaps you justify our killing of animals based on the fact that animals kill other animals. However, It is considered morally wrong to kill other humans. Why do we have a system of morals? Let's assume that you consider this to be a distinction between human and animal. Our developed morals state that we should not kill our own kind needlessly. But why only our kind? Morals are not objective throughout the human race or history, So you can't say that it's because humans are the only ones who share our morals. Children, Especially infants, Have no sense of right or wrong, But we consider it to be wrong to kill them. In fact, Many animals show an equivalent intellect to 3-year-old child. There is absolutely no justification to your claim that "animals have no entitlement to any moral considerations. "If you are religious, It is equally unclear. Several religions hold certain animals, Or even all, To be sacred. Christians, As a prevalent religion that I have a more full understanding of, Rather than relying on the Internet, Will be my focus. Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, In our likeness, And let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, Over the livestock, Over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. "According to this, Humans are masters over all the animals. It specifically says "masters over. " A good master does not needlessly send their subjects to death for sport. It also purposefully makes a distinction between "livestock" and "all the creatures that move along the ground. " This suggests that certain animals were set aside for eating and others were not. Depending on your own viewpoint, Please take your evidence from one of these two arguments and disregard the other.
A Triune Godhead is more likely revealed by the Bible than a single God entity

Argumentation will start in round two. Please just accept and clarify in round 1. I will start my positive argument in round two. Round one will be definition and acceptance only. Triune Godhead = One God in Essence, Three Persons in Corporate Unity. Single God Entity = Only the Father is God both in Person and Essence. The Bible will be both the Protestant and Catholic Bible. Con will work to reaveal a single God. Pro will work to reveal a Triune God. A non-Christian or non-orthodox may accept this debate but they will have to work within the two differing viewpoints among Christianity and its non-orthodox sects. Please no "pink unicorns" and such. Avanti !
Michigan is better than *insert state/small country*

Mountians North Carolina has a wild range of mountanins, including the Smokies, Blue Ridge and the Alleganneies. Mount Mitchell is the largest mountian in the eastern U.S exending up to 6,089 feet tall. Grandfather Mountain Was said to be the tallest Mountain in the east till a UNC professer provided him wrong. North Carolina's west is a hiker's paradise and a fishermans haven. s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="450" height="310" /> Smoky Mountians http://www.travelnc.org... Grandfather Mountainhttp://patrickdowning.wordpress.com... Mount Mitchell Beaches North Carolina has a good varity of beaches that will definaly keep you and your family entiretained in the Summer heat. The Outer Banks continues to be the most popular vacation destanation and is ranked number third for being the East Coast best Vacation destionaton in 2012. Lighthouses dot the coast, Cape Hatterase Light is the largest brick lighthouse in North America. In the Southern Outer Banks Pirtate Black Beard blunged vessels in the Sounds. The Wright Brothers also flew their plane on Kitty Hawk's sand dunes. So all I can say is that Summer is around the corner so come on down to the Tar Heel State! s://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="522" height="286" /> Nags Head Beaches http://www.nagsheadbeachinn.com... Cape Hatterase Lighthouse http://www.outerbanks.org... Wild Ponys have been on Corrola since the Euorpeans came.http://buckislandouterbanks.com... Swamps and Wetlands.Just like any Southern State, Swamps dominate the piedmont and eastern reigon. Major swamps include the Green, Croatian, Palmetto, and the Great Dismal swamp. These swamps include lot of diveristy of live including Alligators, Cottonmouths, Cypresses, Mosses, and longleaf pine. Lots of people visit the swamps for recreational uses like fishing, hunting, boating and hicking. These swamps will burn annually to help the growth of the plants, but that doesn't keep the travlers aways. Great Dismal Swamp http://www.travelet.com... Pametto Swamphttp://mkircus2.blogspot.com...
Michigan is better than *insert state/small country*

CASE 1: The Beauty of MichiganThe West Coast: A land of beaches, harbors and sand dunes.The west coast is a beautiful land, full of beaches, sand dunes, and wealthy harbor towns. The Beaches-------------------------Michigan is full of beaches. Tons at that. In the summer, you can find many people hanging out by Lake Michigan, where the waves roar up to 10 feet high. The west coast beaches are also known for their specifically grainy sand, and you can often see fishing boats in the distance. Michigan is often called the third coast due the states magnificent coastlines. http://www.destination360.com... http://blog.mlive.com... http://www.michigan.org...The Harbors-------------------Michigan's west coast has some of the richest harbor cities. Centers of fishing, clamming, and other water based buissnesses. Rich mansions line the coast, as the overseers of great fishing empires. http://www.holidayvacationrental.com... https://www.google.com...The Sand Dunes --------------------------Michigan has some of the biggest sand dunes in America. Mountains of sand and fossilized rocks, which make the Michigan tourism industry much money. The sand dunes have sprung up huge tour buissnesses, that involve roller coaster like rides over the dunes. The sand dunes are truly something to expierience. http://www.dirtwheelsmag.com... http://www.sweetlittleschnoodlesofmichigan.com...The Isles: Michigans Islands and WaterfallsThe Islands----------------------------The thing most people don't realize about the great lakes, is that their home to over 35,000 islands. No joke, and most of them belong to Michigan. Huge islands like Beaver and Mackinaw, where old french fortresses reside, are home to 1000's of residents. Michigans tens of thousands isles are a beautiful haven, and a minauture carribean. http://www.aerialgraphics.com... http://www.classicsailcharters.net... http://www.flickr.com...The Waterfalls---------------------Micigan has over 200 named waterfalls, and 100's more un-named. Some are extremely large and impresive. They are ussally coupled with state parks, so there beauty is preserved. http://www.fishweb.com... http://www.gowaterfalling.com... http://www.kgcphoto.com...The Upper Peninsula: A land of mountains, forests, and wildlife.Mountains---------------------The upper peninsula is jammed full of huge mountain ranges. They tower above the small towns and mines that dominate the peninsula. Surrounded by desolate forest, the mountains of the north are untouched. http://porcupinemountains.com... http://www.examiner.com... Forests and Wildlife-----------------------------Michigan is home to great forests and wildlife. Bears, cougars, wolves. Michigan is home to many rare and vunerable wildlife. Coupled with expansive forests, Michigan is the hunters paradise. http://www.triangleh.net... http://msue.anr.msu.edu... http://www.worldclassoutdoors.com...That concludes my case 1 arguments, and next round, I will discuss michigans many cities, towns, and villages.
Michigan is better than *insert state/small country*

Alright, that's the name of the game. Tell me your. .. .- State- Small Country (population under 15 million)- Foreign Federal State (Population under 15 million)- Foreign Administrative District ( population under 15 million)I will choose one from the comments, and debate that Michigan tops it. The debate should be set up as a photo journal, so pictures should accompany every argument. LOTS OF PICTURES.
Michigan is better than *insert state/small country*

Cities Charotte is the largest and most populated city in the state. Charotte has cool history being founded on gold near by, but their has been no gold since the 1700's found yet. Charotte is the states sports cities and contains most of the states large businesse.http://carolinahomes4sale.com... Raleigh is the states capital that sits in the largest resarch park in the world! The triangle connects the college cities of Raleigh, Chapel Hill and Durham. Great hostpitals and food are everywhere in the city and in Raleigh. Chapel Hill is a college city in the triangle and is home to the first public collage in the United States. With a population more then 57,000 the city has opened its doors right after the Revolutionary War.
Michigan is better than *insert state/small country*

Case 2: The Cities Its quite obvious that Detroit has been on the wrong end of a lot of jokes, but I will debunk a few myths. First of all, you will not get shot going through detroit. Most people within the city drive there to work. Second, the city is not a trash heap. You will walk through and find many tidy and clean streets. Third, the city is not falling a part. It has rapidly growing real estate, and a emerging economy.http://opportunitydetroit.com... s://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com...; alt="" />Grand Rapids, Michigans second largest city, is a extremely wealthy west coast town, with plenty of things to do and see. Great cereal companies like Kelloggs have brought much wealth to the city, and it is the buissness hub for western michigan suburbs.http://grcity.us... Ann arbor is another great Michigan city. It is a college town, so its filled with sports bars and good food. The proxmity of the stadium, coupled with the abnormal population, makes the city full of excitement. Not to mention all the great ethnic and foreign restaurants you'll find.http://www.a2gov.org...
Playing violent video games make people more violent.

Although my opponent shows a few observations about studies conducted which says violent video games has no effect on people, I gave the top 25 studies that dates back 30 years which is many cases showed after playing violent video games, people became more violent. Shows that not everyone reacts to the things the same way. One reaction to something says that everyone should react the same way to it? I beg to differ. I was exposed math, I became enthusiastic about learning math, and wanted to learn more on it. Yet others felt like math was dull and boring. To a certain point after learning math they felt it rendered useless. I on the other hand was taking college credited courses in math in high school. The point being is that not everyone reacts the same way to the same things. There are plenty of life examples that prove that theory. Just think about that before you decide to vote. Think about one thing that you were exposed to that led to other things and what made you not react the same way on other things. At some point to some degree if more than one study shows that after playing violent video games made some teenagers become more violent but not all studies. Then I prove my theory that violent video games can lead to people being violent. I'm not saying all, but in these rare cases of people that have it proves everything I been saying this whole debate. There are many different things in this world that influence people. Often musicians influence what people wear and how they act bringing in new terms etc. Along with many different things that comes from gamers terms. "GoML" If you are a gamer you should know exactly what that stands for. So I ask you, did I not prove it with previous studies and research that violent video games can lead to people acting out more violently? I believe I did. Checkmate. Even though it doesn't effect the mass the same way, it hit impact on few people and influenced them to do so. Brings me back to what I said before. Musicians often are influenced to become musicians through others in the past or present. But not everyone that's a music junkie suddenly wants to become a musician. Point being said is that not everyone that listens with a lot of music, wants to become a musician themselves, but there are a select few of the mass that wanted to and did. Many other prime examples such as actors and athletes. So in terms, I rest my case. I will message you tips on how to "hold more water" with you debate to make it stronger. Although it was a pretty decent debate in your case. No problem on accepting.
Playing violent video games make people more violent.

1. One person acts this way while playing it so the other must act the same way while playing it. Is basically what comes from that. 2. According to this study your saying involved in school shootings and not exactly the shooters themselves. This could be 41 people that were there for it happening. Also here is a thing about that. One thing that few of these people have in common was they were addicted to violent video games. But just because one massacre didn't involve violent video games mean the others didn't as well? The thing about this is that of course not all massacre's and shootings happen over violent video games. We all know that. In fact the number one reason why school shootings happen is becausethe shooter has been being bullied. But if we talk about the shootings and massacres there is a chain of them that the shooter was addicted to violent video games. 3. Ever occurred that these people with mental stability lost themselves in a violent video game and therefore acted out a deep dark fantasy as I pointed out in round one. Saying more than less they shouldn't have been playing these video games to begin with. 4. But some studies as I shown in round one that some teens that played violent video games started acting more aggressively. It might not explain it for everyone but it does explain for the few that due. It would become something that is sub conscious then wouldn't it? Something your doing while not realize it. People have the same emotion to music. Happy song make you happy. Sad song makes you sad. Dancing song might fill your adrenaline fire you up. There are opera that are suppose to make people fall asleep and it does. So nothing could be triggered playing violent video games all of a sudden? 5. But if one whom get's so lost in a violent video game loses between what is real and what is fake and what is right and what is wrong then how do you know their actions afterwards. You don't. You can't predict how far it could be taken. Someone addicted to sports isn't going to become an athlete. Someone addicted to music isn't going to become a musician. Someone addicted to cars isn't going to become a mechanic or something that has to do with cars at least. So someone addicted to violent video games might be triggered to violence. I'll be glad to help after this debate.