BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Altruism is part of our selfishness

Thank you for accepting, PowerPikachu21.Defining today's motion:1) If i could prove that there is an element of selfishness (no matter how small) in the acts of altruism, today's motion shall stand.2) In other words, if my opponent failed to exclude all elements of selfishness, he lost the arguments.That said, I would like to state my arguments in two main points - Unintentional selfishness and intentional selfishness (in altruism)A) Unintentional selfishness 1)While volunteers help the needy, they may not always think of their own profit - But they can gain feelings that profit one self - and hence according to definitions -"selfishness" 2)According to Maslow's hierarchy of needs, humans are in search for the following : (physiological - safety - love/belonging - esteem - selfactualization) Altruism can fulfill one's needs of esteem and selfactualization (as respect and a sense of satisfaction can be gained) 3)Therefore, as altruism can satisfy one's needs, it caontains profits to one's self, hence selfishnessB) Intentional selfishness 1)There are plenty of people (mostly celebrities) who use altruism as the act of gaining respect/social status from the public 2)For example :A charity created by Rosie O’Donnell, the For All Kids Foundation, doled out $2.9 million in grants last year. But it spent another $1.9 million on overhead 3)Another example: Oprah Winfreynonprofit, Oprah’s Angel Network, which is being shut down, gave away $8.6 million but had a higher-than-normal overhead rate of 37%.C) ConclusionToday i have told you the following two things with evidence:1)People profits one's self unintentional, subconciously being selfish.2)People can use altruism as a tool to benefit themselves conciously.sources:http://www.forbes.com... http://www.simplypsychology.org...
Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The Iliad by Homer.

Even assuming Hector's death was a *necessary* condition for Greek victory, it is not a *sufficient* one[1]. To compare it to a basketball game, suppose the captain of one team scores 30 points and makes numerous assists, but they still lose by 1. The captain of the second team, by contrast, sat out most of the game because of a personal feud with the coach and only scored 7 points. The second captain did, however, make the game winning shot. His game winner was *necessary* for victory, but it was not sufficient. Every point leading up to that shot was equally important. Moreover, even if we grant that the second captain is a better *player,* the first captain has done a great deal more for his team, though they ultimately lose. This comparison is not merely hypothetical. Indeed, CON has even conceded that Hector was the better "military" leader! What other area of leadership can we possibly be discussing given the context of the debate? Is Achilles a better choir leader? A better Boy Scout leader? If it is moral leadership, than clearly Hector excels. Achilles is vain, vindictive, and unforgiving. Prior to the battle on the ramparts, in Book I, Achilles asks Zeus to help Hector defeat his fellow Greeks![2] Any good he ultimately does for the Greek cause is motivated purely by his personal anger at the death of Patroclus. CON's schizophrenic criteria for a "good" leader ARE in conflict. Returning to the basketball analogy, a children's team coached by Larry Bird would still be crushed by an NBA team coached by Larry Flynt. It would be an absurd conclusion that the paraplegic publisher of Hustler was the better coach, yet it is the one we reach following my opponent's logic: the better leader is the one who wins. The resolution is strongly affirmed. Vote PRO. -- References -- 1. http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. http://www.uoregon.edu...
Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The Iliad by Homer.

Thanks the debate so far First I would question your truthfulness concerning your supposed knowledge of the Iliad. I have taken ancient Greek and have translated much of the Iliad. In the Homeric The Iliad (which was supposed to be the only source of evidence, which you have not used even once) there is no reference to the horse, meaning that any point that you may have made based upon it is not viable, and brings to question whether you read the book that we are discussing. Additionally, I do not know what point you were trying to make when you said "[I have read] The Odyssey, The Aeneid, and Metamorphoses" so have I, but it doesn't make me know the Iliad more in any significant way. Any one can say they read a book. Next you said that the war was never concluded, but as I said and you chose to ignore, in book 15 Zeus lays out what will happen in the war and states that the Greeks will win because Achilles came back into the war. Next, I do not know how doing what is best for the country and winning are contradictory, I was trying to imply that winning is doing the best for your country. Hector lost and brought ruin to Troy (Troy was fated to fall only after Hector is killed) while Achilles brought victory (I will say it again because you ignored it in my second argument, Troy fell because Achilles killed Hector) (see book 15!) Next, what you said with Hitler was clever, but ignored what I was saying. If you listened to my argument I said Hitler gained allot (like Hector when he almost defeats the Greeks) but loses it all in the end, making him the worse leader in the end (again like Hector). Finally, Achilles is a leader, as you would have known if you read the Iliad. (I'm sorry, but based upon your arguments you have given me no choice but to believe that you are lying) First of all he is known as the leader of the Myrmidons. Additionally, as can be seen in both book 22 and 23, he LEADS the Greeks to the very gates of Troy where he kills Hector
Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The Iliad by Homer.

My opponent owes me an apology for his ad hominem. I have indeed read The Iliad (prose, translated by E.V. Rieu, paperback, Penguin Classics Edition, 1950) as well as The Odyssey, The Aeneid, and Metamorphoses. I did not require a great deal of citations since my opponent provided me with the majority of the evidence I need. The conclusion involving the Trojan Horse IS found in certain versions of the Iliad, which, in any case, is irrelevant. If a good leader is the one who ultimately wins, then it cannot be said that either Hector or Achilles "won" since the war never concluded. Thus my opponent's argument, stemming from his definition, is moot. I am glad CON has decided to define leader, however, Achilles still fails to meet this since he does not command a group, organization or country. Even if, as CON claims, Agamemnon is not the "true" leader of the Greeks, it is not Achilles but the other, more dutiful heroes. CON gives two conflicting criteria for what constitutes a *good* leader. In his first round he states "a good leader will win, because...winning is all that matters," yet in round two, he claims "all that matters to the person leading is that they did better for their country." This demonstrates his failure to fulfill his prima facie burden as the instigator of the debate.[1] His Hitler comparison is also fallacious.[2] CON claims that Achilles turned the tide of war when the Greeks were on the verge of defeat, ignoring the fact that it was a combination of Achilles' childish behavior and Hector's heroic leadership that put them in this position to begin with. Conclusion: CON gives conflicting definitions of what constitutes a great leader. He takes issue with my definition of leader, yet fails to meet even his own. CON's answers to my contentions ultimately undermine his own case. -- References -- 1. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The Iliad by Homer.

There is one point that I would like to negate here at the beginning, ONLY the Iliad may be cited. Odysseus' plan is never mentioned, in fact, the book ends with Hector's death. Because of this, your last point is moot. Second, sorry to be a semantic, but I never said "military leadership." Hector trumps Achilles in military leadership but not as a leader. Leader: "leader noun 1 the person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country : the leader of a protest group." In the end, all that matters to the person leading is that they did better for their country. If we use your train of thought, then Hitler is one of the best leaders ever. He gained so much through cunning, and political stratagems. However, what did he do for Germany in the end? Almost nil. Achilles turned the tide of war when the Greeks were on the verge of defeat (see book: Battle on the ramparts) and from there led the Greeks to victory. Agamemnon was not the leader in the sense that he was the coward who constantly wished to turn tail and flee, Diomedes, the two Ajaxs and Achilles were the real leaders because they actually fought. Let me reiterate my points in case they were muddled: 1. Your point about Odysseus is not in the Iliad, in fact Zeus says in book 15 that Patrokles would die, then Achilles would be able to kill Hector and because of that the Greeks would capture Ilion. 2. A leader is only the figure head, and the best figure head will do what is best for his/her country, win, which Achilles did, and Hector did not. 3. Agamemnon was not the leader, in all but one of the books he shows himself to be a coward, the other heroes take up the mantel (such as in book 2 when Diomedes claims that if Agamemnon leaves he will fight with all who remain, this convinces Agamemnon to stay) Finally I want to say that you should not have accepted this debate. Not only have you demonstrated that you have not read the Iliad, but you have no direct references or quotes.
Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The Iliad by Homer.

Hopefully it will be a good one! Military leadership - the art of direct and indirect influence and the skill of creating the conditions for organizational success to accomplish missions effectively. [1] Achilles possesses none of these traits. Indeed, as my opponent rightly points out, "[Achilles] is a cry baby, he stays in a corner when Agamemnon steals his slave girl and causes countless deaths on the Greek side. " I add that Achilles refused to fight Hector when he issued a direct challenge to any Greek warrior who would accept; he was still nursing his hurt feelings *sniffle. * It was Ajax who ultimately accepted. Hector, by contrast, fits this description perfectly: "[He] wins people's hearts, he is brave, strong, he cares for his family, he protects his people, he leads his soldiers into battle. " All of these attributes contribute to his superior skill in leading his troops. My opponent uses a poor definition of leadership. The victor is not necessarily the better leader. Any number of factors which the leader has no control over ultimately affect the outcome of battle, such as terrain, equipment, size of force, weather, and simple luck. Moreover, Achilles was not in fact the leader of the Greeks. If anyone is to be compared with Hector, it is Agamemnon. The fact that Achilles killed Hector does not make him a better *leader,* but merely a better *warrior. * Finally, Achilles, did not *win* the war. What ultimately secured Greek victory was Odysseus' brilliant plan to infiltrate the city via the wooden horse. At this point, both Hector and Achilles were already dead. The resolution is affirmed. I eagerly await my opponent's response. -- References -- 1. Field Manual 22-100: Leadership and Command at Senior Levels, HQ, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C. , June 1987, p. 3.
Hector is a better leader than Achilles in the book The Iliad by Homer.

NOTE: Only The Iliad by Homer can be quoted in this argument! Hector and Achilles, the proud leaders of the Greeks and the Trojans dominate the battle field throughout The Iliad. Hector wins people's hearts, he is brave, strong, he cares for his family, he protects his people, he leads his soldiers into battle! Achilles, on the other hand, is a cry baby, he stays in a corner when Agamemnon steals his slave girl and causes countless deaths on the Greek side. How can one argue that Achilles is a better leader when he acts so childish? To provide a base to my argument i will bring in some examples: Caesar: he conquered much of Gaul and Alexander the Great: he defeated the mighty Persian empire. What do each of these leaders have in common? They won. A good leader will win, because at the end, winning is all that matters. ""You will wander the underworld blind, deaf, and dumb, and all the dead will know, "This is Hector, the fool who thought he killed Achilles."" As can be seen, Hector, the Trojans greatest hero, lost and brought only loss to the Trojans in the end. A great leader is one that is not idealized by people who care too much about 'kindness' and 'honour,' but the one who 'brings home the bread'
Not a true debate, just want a few questions answered

ok. then. lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololollololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololoolololollololoololololololololoolololololoolololoollololololololoolololololololololololololloololloloololololololololololololoololololoooololololololololololololololololololololololololollolololololololoolololol You're welcome.
Not a true debate, just want a few questions answered

A - RFD means "Reason For Decision" or why they voted the way that they did. B - You can't, sorry. We just hope that people are honest when they decide to weigh in on a topic. C - You could find their debates and do it to them, but please don't. Revenge isn't the way to go on this, just ask them to stop, or report them. VOTE CON. lol
Not a true debate, just want a few questions answered

i was wondering if someone could explain some of the slang used here. explain meaning a definition (if possible), a good vs bad view, and possibly an example. i don't care who the people vote for, it soesn't really matter. A- What is RFD? B- votebombs...how can you prove its not just how the person feels after a debate? C- is there a way to penalize bad sportsmanship, such as when a person claims they lost due to another perspn's grudge?
Should Separation of Church and State be more Heavily Enforced? (US)

This debate will include three rounds, which will be organized as the following: Round 1: Both sides will present their argument. Round 2: Both will respond to the others argument. Round 3: Present second argument. Round 4: Response to the opposing argument. Round 5: Both will leave concluding statements. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Beginning Argument: I believe that freedom in America is being slowly pulled back from the lack of attention to the separation of church and state. I have personally seen religion being inserted into places it does not belong, and used as arguments to oppose certain movements. Religion is beginning to see a decline, so I assume that this will pass eventually. Even so, it is clear that there are some with no concern for the rights of others, including other religious people, with trying to intrude on public buildings and government. First of all, there is the issue of having god in the money and the pledge. "In God We Trust" was added when "legislation passed in May 1908 made "In God We Trust" mandatory on all coins on which it had previously appeared." (1) An argument from tradition would not work here, especially since it was added much later. Not only that, but it was added to paper money in the years 1957 to 1966. In the year of 1954 the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge. (2) You may ask, "why is it so important to remove it? It's not that big of a deal..." It is very simple, it is in violation of the first amendment. I don't know if most remember this, but those amendments were to preserve the rights of everyone, not just a select group of people. If someone was parking in an illegal spot, they would be arrested. If someone was trespassing, even if they weren't hurting anyone, they would be arrested. Why is it that God gets a free pass for violating people's rights? To add to this, there are some who get so riled up for not being okay with god in the pledge. In my personal life i've been forced to say the pledge (even though it isn't required) and i've seen videos of people being kicked out of rooms for refusing to stand during the pledge. This may not be as dire as situations like police brutality and sexism, but it is still an issue that must be dealt with. Thank you for participating. Sites: 1) www.usmint.gov/about_the_mint/fun_facts/?action=fun_facts5 2) www.ushistory.org/documents/pledge.htm
Why the exploration of Mars is important for humankind.

First off, let me just say this is my first debate. Second, the title of the debate should not be "Why the exploration of mars is important for humankind." The "why" should be removed from the title because we are not explaining why it is important, we are debating whether or not it is important. Now let me just say that outer space would certainly be interesting for humanity to research. Exploring outer space can bring much knowledge to mankind. My reason for why we should not be exploring outer space is that, on earth we have pollution destroying the biosphere, environments are being destroyed, Europe being islamized, unemployment, and so on. While all this is happening, for governments to spend millions upon millions just to see the red rock of mars is just absurd. Let me give you an example mirroring the situation. Imagine a family is going camping. This family has a leaking roof. Is it better to run off on the trip, or to deal with the leak before going off on the trip? If this family goes on the trip and comes back without dealing with a leak, they will come back to a flooded home. Sure, going to Mars is important, but when compared to the polluted oceans and global warming, tornadoes, earthquakes, religious wars, unemployment and so on, I see Mars at the bottom of the list, meant to be dealt with when things are under control on earth. Sending your children to school is important, but not if they aren't being fed. The important issues must be dealt with first. What I see is scientists building space stations on mars and around the area, while earth dies. Earth is the only planet in this immediate solar system with the trees that can give us air. We should focus on earth.
Why the exploration of Mars is important for humankind.

People have continually explored beyond the planet Earth, and must continue to do so for the future, benefit and cooperation of all of humankind. The wealth of knowledge gained from past missions to outer space has drastically increased the understanding humans have of the world they live in and where they came from. New questions about outer space will continue to be raised, and as long as human exploration continues, these questions have the potential of being answered. For humanity to continue to survive for generations to come, the world must continue to work together with a common goal of exploring Mars and beyond the reaches of the solar system.
Aliens are real

1) The universe is absolutely massive (which in itself is an understatement) and that with every word I write it multiplies its size by a fucktillion. It is nigh impossible for there not to be a planet or planets with life that are not Earth. Aliens might perhaps nt be in out galaxy, or anywhere in the currently observable universe, but it would make no sense for aliens to be nonexistent.As Bill Nye put it in this tweet https://twitter.com...the universe is too vast for Earth to be the nly planet that has life. 2) There is already several planets that are theorized to once have supported life, or have the conditions which allow for it to support life. Mars is a bad example, although it has potential to support lifeforms that require water, since water had been observed there. Some planets that might support life similar to ours (carbon based and requiring water) are Proxima Centauri b, Gliese 667 Cc, and Kepler-442 b, among others that can be found in the link underneath:https://en.wikipedia.org...; 3) Aliens can exist without interacting with humans. Everyone constantly seems to think that aliens need to be humanoid or have extremely advaced technology in order to exist, but honestly that is not necesary. Aliens may live billions of lightyears away still in their version of the Jurassic Era and they still would exist. Saying "aliens can't exist because al sightings were false" does not mean that aliens do not exist: it only debunks the alleged 'sightings'. There might be real aliens out there wondering if there are other planets with life on them as well, the same way we wonder about it.
Aliens are real

1) Thinking of the past does not mean it will repeat in the future. Not only that, we can't apply human psychology to creatures that are not human, and that are not from Earth. As such, aliens may have no desire to massacre others, may do not have the desire to conquer planets, or may live on a planet that does not have the resources that would allow them to created advanced technology. Perhaps they just don't feel the need for it, and don't use the resources even f they have them! Also, who are you calling savages in this instance? The group of people who have been living on their land for centuries, who had morals and social structures and their own culture, or the greedy group of people who decided to mindlessly massacre the natives of the land? Not all 'advanced' civilizations are the same as white people. 2) The super advanced civilizations might have died out! Humans are pretty much killing themselves by killing their planet. We are also in a position where we have have no habitable planets around us (and making Mars vaguely habitable would take a lot of resources and time), and no technology to take us to a habitable planet. Even if the species has advanced technology, it might not be advanced enough. They might have died on their planet, or trying to get out of it. 3) I'm not certain what was the point of bringing up nanobots that self-replicate when we are talking about a sentient species made of flesh and bone that needs proper nourishment for their bodies to thrive. Nourishment which might not be found on other planets, or which is so scarce that no large numbers could have survived. They might be able to reproduce asexually and 'self-replicate' like so, but that does not diminish their need for nourishment that they might not have access to. 4) Human nature is not the only nature. Plenty other species do not show this kind of desire to conquer, although their brains are not evolved to have advanced intelligence. I also do not believe that it's human nature to conquer. Many human groups have not conquered anything and instead choose to stay on their territory. Conquering is more of a pride and greed type of thing. Unless you're a nihilist and believe that humans are destructive by nature, I don't think that this is an applicable train of thought. Aliens and alien life aren't exactly things we might be able to understand. Advanced civilizatins might have slower developmental processes, or they do not develop technology at all, or the technology they develop is different from ours and simply is not suited for space travel. Maybe their forms aren't like ours, and as such they have human-like intelligence and consciousness but not the bodies. Maybe there was never a need for an advanced civilization to develop. Maybe humans are the only advanced species, with the alien life being plants and lesser animals. Maybe there's some alien bacteria, maybe not. When I say aliens I don't exactly mean "humanoid extraterrestrial". I mean all life outside of Earth, because that's pretty much what aliens are. Thank you for debating with me! It's been fun :)