BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheist, are under Gods wrath, no attempts should be made to convert them.

This debate is to believers, and holds that the atheist is not to be pursued for conversion. This is based on empirical evidence of the scriptures instructions. For centuries the Christians wastes countless, hours, days weeks, months and years in attempts to convert an atheist, when multiple unbelievers, might have been saved, by the same believer had they not wasted time with an atheist. As believers know time grows short and time is of the essense, must get the word out to those who "can" be saved. It is the goal of this debate to enlighten the Christian to renew the spreading of the gospel to the seeking, and not the cursed, allowing for greater salvation to the masses. Does this mean that no sharing of the gospel is permitted to the atheist? Certainly not, however it should only come in an answer to a question of the atheist. Questions which insist upon evidence being provided should therefore be ignored completely as evidence has been readily provided by God, and God requires the atheist to First seek Him (God). Only after this will God Himself, provide the way towards salvation. Debates therefore should be limited to acceptance by those seeking a greater knowledge of God and scriptural clarification thus the requirements that no atheist may accept your debates is crucial. All other debates should be limited to believers, who have conflicts in doctrines, secondary to immaturity, False doctrine, misleading doctrines of man, Biblical illiteracy. Examples would be nontrinitarians, traditionalists, the religious and such. To long has the Religious boards been allowed to be hijacked by the Atheist. Please review the debates on http://www.debate.org...... and http://www.debate.org...... (For familiarization purposes only) Questions regarding the above past debates may be asked in the comments section of THIS new debate area. Rule 1. No atheist or unbeliever may accept this debate, as you have no knowledge of the subject matter. Rule 2. Only Christians may accept this particular debate, as it is Christian specific, meaning the Bible IS the required text, and no advanced knowledge of Biblical text is necessary or required for this debate as the seeking Christian shall be lead to scriptures that discuss this topic. Rule 3. No Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness may accept this debate, as they do not use the Bible! They created their own which is in direct violation of scripture. Rule 4. No cults of any kind may accept this debate. Rule 5. No Religion outside Christianity may accept this debate as they have no knowledge of the God of THE BIBLE (King James Bible - those Bibles found on the website Biblegateway.com are acceptable). Rule 6. New Testament believers only! Rule 7. 3 rounds acceptance 1st, then arguments.
Miley Cyrus

If she is as bad of a role model as you say, then the millions of girls that look up to her can find a new one. We all know she is simply another breast-fed by Michael Eisner, bubblegum-pop light as a feather mass consumption of idiocy model, right? Or do we? Why is she a bad role model? What specifically has she done? Has she committed any felonies? Does she smoke crack? Does she abuse little children? First, the debate is started under the assumption that "Don't Break my Heart, Jr." is a role-model. Can you please clarify the difference between a "good role model" and a "bad one"? What values/criteria do you assign to good and bad, respectively? How do your personal ethics, which you are judging one person with and projecting onto "millions of girls," affect your point of view? Second, this person is young, attractive (I use that word loosely, I'm sure she is to some), talented (even more loosely), and successful. For our culture of consumption that worships exploited barely-there teenyboppers who "live on the wild side," I can see no better role-model. This is America: the market provides what people want. They wanted, and still want, this young lady, evidently. Britt
Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

I suppose I shall address each of the points that my opponent claims to be positive about market economics. 1. Respect for private property We do need to define what we mean by private property, if you mean where someone owns property for their own house, that can still take place under socialism. Communism has the complete abolition of all private property, whereas socialism only makes it that businesses are democratically controlled and worker-owned. So, if you mean private property as in privately-owned businesses, then yes, socialism gets rid of that form of private property as businesses would be owned by the workers. The reason why I would argue that this type of private property is detrimental to society, is because it grants someone to have a position above us in a sort of hierarchy. It gives certain people illegitimate power by giving one person control over capital while giving all the workers the shaft. It gives one person power to kick any one worker out for any reason, and abuse of power does and can happen under market economics. 2. Competition in every trade, amongst many businesses While competition has resulted in a lot of advancement, it is also being detrimental to humanity. For example, there is a rising superbug bacteria problem due to the over-prescription of antibiotics. ( https://www.cdc.gov... ) Since pharmaceutical companies are competing with one another, instead of working together cooperatively, and they are controlled by one or a few people who are only interested in profit, they go for the short-term profit method of selling as many antibiotics as possible. Because it's more profitable to sell the antibiotics rather than try to come up with a solution to the rising superbug bacterial problem, it is exacerbating the problem since very few companies are wanting to spend the money to solve the problem until it's too late, since other companies are still selling antibiotics. ( go to after 9:58 is the relevant parts of this video: ) In addition, for the few companies that are trying to solve the problem, they are doing it alone rather than working with each other which means it will take longer to get it solved. 3. A limited government, there to ensure honest practice and the safety of establishments. I have no objections to this. I'm what you call a libertarian socialist, so I believe in limited government, or even no government at all, as well. Socialism doesn't necessarily have big government.
Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

My choice of an alternative economy is market economics, as laid out by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, Friedmanism. Unfortunately there are not many nations that practice this economic system, in fact there are only 2 that do today and 3 in all of world history, thos are Switzerland, Japan, and the United States during the 40's, 50', early 60's, and the Western United states from 1865 to the early 1900's. This system has 3 charactaristics which distinct itself from other systems:1. A respect for private property. 2. Competition in every trade, amongst many buisnesses. 3. A limited goveronment, there to ensure honest practice and the safety of establishments.
Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

The problem is, the workers themselves could have decided to build that extra factory. There is literally no need for someone at the top to decide these things. (S)He's just there to make a profit off of other people's work. That's what I consider to be wrong under capitalism or market economics. Can you explain how the one at the top of a business isn't just making profit off of the other people's work, and how they are actually needed? Bolivia: Yes, I suppose that's true, but it was still more than what was going on when they had an economy closer to market economics. As for Yugoslavia, while they didn't grow as much as some countries like Germany or Japan, they did still grow at a good rate, 6.1% on average as I pointed out. That is much better than what the US and UK are currently growing at. Both are barely mustering 2% and throughout the past 30 years, it was rare they had above 6% growth. ( https://www.google.com... ) I would argue that the benefits of not having someone at the top of a business, taking profits away from the workers, outweigh the downsides. Sure, it may be the case that socialism causes good growth, but less growth potential than under capitalism, but capitalism and market economics seems to have a much larger variation. Some nations will grow at a very slow rate, while others boom and take off. Socialism looks like it would make it more steady(at a pretty good level of growth, rather than a small amount of growth or a large amount of growth) if we look at the examples of each socialist nations presented, and others. I would rather take the steady 5-6% growth than risk potentially having much less than that in order to try to have a booming economy. In addition, I would rather have options to work with other people who also own the company like I do, rather than work under someone who takes part of the profits of the company. I didn't try to imply they would only seek after benefiting the wealthy, but rather that there is more incentive for workers to develop a solution than for a wealthy person at the top. Yes, that is one incentive for someone at the top to develop a solution: to sell to all levels of income, but the poor have that incentive too, but also have the incentive for themselves since they are poor or middle class themselves.
Socialism is better than your choice of an alternative economy

OWNERSHIP OVER THE MEANS OF PRODUCTIONAssuming we lived in a Socialist structure, I should be able to dith the collectivist workplace and produce my own stuff, and set the price for my own goods that I produced, and I wouldn't be "oppressing" anyone by doing that. Now in regards to your comparison to Feudalism, there is 1 massive diffrence between feudalism and capitalism; in feudalism the land is granted to lords and barons by a king, whilst in capitalism it is earned by hard work. If I build a factory which doubles the productive powers of labor, then it would not be unfair to expect fromm the workers a portion of what more was added to their produce. Without that we would still have a middle ages leven means of production where every single person would have to be a farmer just to survive, as opposed to today where California alone produces enough food to feed the world. BOLIVIABolivia is a very small economy, so what you would call "massive growth," coould mean that the Bolivian government built 1 working factory a year. If your GDP is 100$, then earning an extra 10$ isn't considered "massive growth." Besides, Yugoslavia didn't grow that much: Compare it to Japan, it's economy stagnated for 20 years after a very slow growth. MORE NONSENSE"The rich are more likely to be able to afford a solution to the problem if the superbug issue escalated, so they are not interested in developing a solution for everybody so long as they can afford it."You seem to think that the corporations will only cater to the rich when developing drugs, but they actually make money off of selling them to everyone, or as many people as they can.
no home work for midle schoolers

I can see from the way you made this debate that you are in middle school and you hate homework. I agree to accept this debate and straighten you out. I will probably win. First, as I'm sure you know, school is a foundation constructed to turn you into a valuable member of society. You should enjoy it because soon you'll be sitting in a cubicle all day, and you'll be eligible to go to prison, and you'll have to obey the whims of everybody. Your world is actually much better than adult life, but you don't know it, because your brain isn't fully developed and you have a poor perception of the world around you. Second, you should be glad to receive a free education. It's provided free from the government so you can become a person. You should be happy that you don't live in 1900, where child labor was a harsh reality and school was only allowed to rich kids. You should also enjoy free school because soon you'll be going off to college, where six months can cost five thousand dollars. I hope you've saved up, or you're screwed. School is a valuable asset to your life and your brain. Don't take it for granted and use it wisely. Elementary school has homework, so there's no reason why you shouldn't have to do homework. there's nothing wrong with homework. It allows you to think about the accumulation of knowledge even when you're not sitting in a desk. Homework feeds your brain on the go, like a granola bar, and you can do it with much more freedom than an assignment at school. You can do it at the park, on the beach, and so on. It helps your brain a lot, and reinforces what you've been taught. You also get kicked out if you don't do it. That seems like a pretty good reason. I look forward to your next argument.
the golden rule in application is not clear

My opponent has stopped arguing against the golden rule at all, and continue to strawman it. Their argument is simply an attack on ethics in general. My opponent asks "Which of these situations is more ethical?" and expects the Golden Rule to give an obvious, objective, and morally correct answer in every situation. Otherwise, according to my opponent, the Golden Rule is unclear. Unfortunately, this not what clear means. My opponent says the Golden Rule is meant to be subjective. This is correct. There is no objective code in the Golden Rule. Does this make its application unclear? Absolutely not. I will explain prioritization with an analogy: Bob has $1. Bob wants ice cream. He goes to the ice cream stand, and inside he sees two things he wants: an ice cream sandwich and a chocolate dipped cone. They are $1 each. He cannot buy both, so he must ascertain which is more important to him to have. He chooses the sandwich. Such is subjective morality in these cases. With the Golden Rule, one must consider what is most important that they be treated like. It is not objectively moral, like my opponent seems to want, but it is a very clear guideline on subjective morals. If Bob cannot decide which is more important to him, the problem lies with his decision-making skills and not the Golden Rule, as the Golden Rule has told him what to do. My opponent seems not to believe in human ability to combine situations. Bob would not be ignoring one issue or the other, but combining them in order to formulate a decision based on all available information. Bob would then choose what he would want done to him. Therefore, my opponent straw mans the Golden Rule, provides incorrect standards for it to reach (objective moral effectiveness rather than clarity) and fails to construct a valid argument. The Golden Rule sets clear guidelines for how to treat others, and a few "ethical dilemmas" do not disparage its effectiveness. The Golden Rule is clear, concise, and subjectively effective. Thank you for the argument.
the golden rule in application is not clear

con says "this answer can be ascertained by prioritization' but doesn't really explain what that means. his whole arguement on those points hinges on this ambiguous point. all con is really able to say is that the golden rule can provide some very general guiding rules. we first have to assume that we should approach it subjectively, which is debateble, instead of looking for an outside standard. but after that, so what gives? does Bob intervene or not? if you say yes he should, then he's placing his own view of cocaine over John's, or at least his own view of whether it's debateable over John's. and, Bob is ignoring the prospect that he could ahve deferred to John given John views it as debateable, and Bob would want left along on things he views as debateable. given it's a tough call, Bob might want some outside standard to help guide him. but given it seem like th golden rule is meant to be subjective, he's left with a decision with no way of knowing hte best way to approach it.
the golden rule in application is not clear

Thanks for the argument. It has become quite clear through this debate that by "clarity" my opponent means "moral effectiveness". The Golden Rule provides a fairly subjective moral guideline, and my opponent has conceded that the Golden Rule gives moral guidelines. This debate really comes down to the rigidness of these guidelines. The Golden Rule is fairly simple in definition: Treat Others as You Wish to be Treated. This comes down to placing yourself in the position of the other person. I'll take my opponent's example. Bob places himself in John's position, feeling what he would if he was John. This is called empathy, the basic idea shown in the Golden Rule. Bob imagines himself in a situation where something was debatably ok to him, as it is to John (I'm assuming he knows John's position on cocaine). Bob then imagines himself doing cocaine. Does his desire to allow free thought outweigh his desire to help a friend in need? Most often, this answer can be ascertained by prioritization. My opponent straw mans the Golden Rule, really placing an attack on ethics in general. It is hard to ascertain the truth of the matter in many ethical situations, especially those concerning subjective morals. However, this does not make the Golden Rule unclear. My opponent underestimates the power of human reason and in prioritizing their morals. Most often, ethical dilemmas rise from studying others' behavior and then passing judgements. The Golden Rule is actually more clear than many forms of ethics, as it puts us the shoes of the judged. Therefore, the Golden Rule, in application, is very clear, especially by ethical standards.
the golden rule in application is not clear

con first argues the golden rule is clear, but he is only referring in that instance that the rule is stated clearly. i agree with that. that's why i said 'in application' in the opening statement, it's not clear. con does a lot of 'it's clear but what you do is ask how you would want to be treated'. it's self evident but doesn't really get into how to choose the right approach of various ones, such as the ones i listed above. maybe instead of disorganized mess of ideas as i gave in the opening post, i will give a hypothetical. for example. John is doing cocaine, and only dabbles in it and views it as nondebateably harmless in the bigger picture. Bob thinks any cocaine use is going too far, and is not debatable to say otherwise. Bob personally would want someone to invervene if he was doing cocaine. on the other hand, Bob also would want people to respect his wishes on things he sees as debateably okay or nondebateable. does Bob intervene, based on the fact that he'd want intervened with on cocaine use, especially given he personally sees it as undebateably not okay? or does he respect John's wishes given John must at least view cocaine use as at least debateably to nondebateably okay? reliance on the golden rule doesn't really direct how to approach it. it admittedly gives you food for thought and directs you in a laudable way in general, but how to respond isn't so clear cut.
the golden rule in application is not clear

The golden rule is an extremely clear cut statement. Since my opponent has not provided a definition of "clear", I will. Clear - easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. [1] This definition is an unsubjective one. My opponent claims that because they do not understand the boundaries of the Golden Rule, it is not clear. This is a subjective way of looking at it. If I can prove that it is easy to understand the Golden Rule, I win this debate. My opponent, in this debate, claims that if the Golden Rule has a subjective nature, it is unclear. They, in essence, say that the Golden Rule is based on a subjective interpretation of objective moral codes. If we cannot interpret moral codes correctly, or do not know whether to intervene, the rule is "confusing". However, my opponent misunderstands and overthinks what the Golden Rule is. The Golden Rule, in essence, is an empathy technique [2]. It is not intended as a direct moral code by which people can interpret. It gets people to consider the needs of others by using the thing they most understand, themself. It is a guideline rather than a code. The premise is clear-cut. Only treat others how you want to be treated. Basically, and quite simply, if you would like to be treated a certain way, then treat others that way. The situations presented by my opponent can be much more easily solved by the Golden Rule than other forms of ethics. No objective codes need be consulted, one does not need to overthink the Golden Rule and wonder if they should intervene or not. If one is using the Golden Rule as their ethical guide, there is only one question they need ask themself: "If I was that person, how would I want to be treated?" For instance, if Person A would like Person B else to step in and intervene if they took drugs, then, using the Golden Rule, they should intervene if Person B was taking them. My opponent entangles the Rule with other codes of ethics, and then claims it is unclear. I ask my opponent to consider only the rule, and nothing else. The Golden Rule itself is in no way confusing, and is probably the simplest and clearest way to deal with ethics. Is it always correct? Probably not, it is subjective. But does subjectivity make it an unclear rule? No. It is effective in what it does, providing empathy. Therefore the Golden Rule is easy to perceive: one can easily perceive treating others how they wish to be treated. It is easy to understand: just think about how you wish to be treated. It is also easy to interpret, unless you do not understand how you wish to be treated, which, honestly, is not a problem with the Golden Rule itself, but a psychological problem. Therefore its entire premise is clear, and so the Golden Rule is clear. [1] http://www.google.com... definition [2] http://www.emotionalcompetency.com... Thanks, and back to you.