BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

Thank you for answering back. My opponent wrote the following argument: " What about Hitler? Hitler was a Catholic, does that make him a good person since he believed in a God. A Moral is an opinion of what is good. You also contradicted yourself, He says that if one person decides what is right or wrong, then it is a dictatorship, therefore bad. According to you, one person (God) should decide what is right or wrong (AKA this is a dictatorship by his definition, which is wrong). Doesn't matter if its a person or a God who makes the rules, it would still be a dictatorship." I will now answer all of these points as they are given. 1. " What about Hitler? Hitler was a Catholic, does that make him a good person since he believed in a God." I'm not debating if believing in God or not makes you a good person, I'm debating if religious morals are better than atheist ones. I can say I am an atheist, and then go blow up a building. Does that act make Atheism bad? Of course no. It makes that one person bad. All cultures, ethnics, races, and countries have had bad people in it. The Bible obviously says that murder is wrong. 2. "A Moral is an opinion of what is good." To Christians, and other religions, their morals come from a set source. Secular views are different. Opinions can change through the years, so we can decide what is right to us. Now, this is where it gets bad. If we decide what is right and wrong for us, who can say differently. The school shooters decided that it was right what they did. People who cheat on their spouses can morally say it was right. How can we say that there is a right and wrong, if we draw the lines of correctness at our heels. 3. " You also contradicted yourself, He says that if one person decides what is right or wrong, then it is a dictatorship, therefore bad. According to you, one person (God) should decide what is right or wrong (AKA this is a dictatorship by his definition, which is wrong). Doesn't matter if its a person or a God who makes the rules, it would still be a dictatorship." This is wrong. You are putting God and people on the same level. God has been shown to have perfect morals, humans not so much. It is almost like saying that a judge and a prisoner have the same power, and that both of them can reside over a case. This is obviously absurd. God and humans do not have the same level of correctness about them. 4. For my final statement, look back to number two, as it will reveal my thoughts. Humans can not decide right and wrong since it will eventually get to the point when there will be no right and wrong.
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

What about Hitler? Hitler was a Catholic, does that make him a good person since he believed in a God. A Moral is an opinion of what is good. You also contradicted yourself, He says that if one person decides what is right or wrong, then it is a dictatorship, therefore bad. According to you, one person (God) should decide what is right or wrong (AKA this is a dictatorship by his definition, which is wrong). Doesn't matter if its a person or a God who makes the rules, it would still be a dictatorship.
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

Thank you for you post. I just added in the morals for the bible since you mentioned it in your first post. Also, you did not answer my comments on atheism, so I will expand my explanation of it. If atheists can decide their own morals, than there are no morals, just preferences. How can we say something is immoral if everyone gets their morals by themselves? We can't rely on a single person deciding, since that is kinda called a dictatorship and is frowned upon.majority can be messed up. We would have conflicting morals. Also, majorities can always be twisted around. Hitler technically had a majority by getting his own people in charge. Also, you imply since the people you mentioned achieved great things, it means they are morally correct. There have been many awful people who achieved things in his or her life.
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

You don't even need to mention the morals of the bible. Just say that the mere concept of not beliving in a deity = poor morals is ridiculous, not to mention that pro has no reasoning based upon it nor studies showing this. Here is a list of famous Atheists. [In no particular order] 1. Democritus 2. Diagoras of Melos 3. Epicurus 4. Theodorus 5. Andrew Carnegie 6. Ivan Pavlov 7. Sigmund Freud 8. Clarence Darrow 9. Richard Strauss 10. Katherine Hepburn 11. James D. Watson 12. Peter Higgs 13. Warren Buffet 14. Carl Sagan 15. George Carlin 16. Bruce Lee 17. Richard Dawkins 18. Stephen Hawkins 19. Brian Eno 20. Steve Wozniak 21. Jodie Foster 22. Russell T. Davies 23. Mark Zuckerberg 24. Sean Carroll 25. Chris Martin 26. Eva Green 27. James Cameron 28. Keira Knightley 29. Penn Jillette 30. Sarah Silverman 31. Jamie Hyneman 32. Helen Mirren
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

1. The bible contains many things that is not condoned by God due to the fact that it is both a religious book and a history one. I will start with the problems you have with it. A. Slavery- The idea of slavery in the bible is usually very twisted. We think of slavery as being very brutal and violent, but it wasn't always like this. In the bible, it tells slave owners to be kind to their slaves and not to be violent. Plus, being a slave in those days was just like being a lower class worker nowadays, if not better. Slaves in those days were given food, shelter, and yearly clothing for them and their families. It even shows that some of the slaves in those days chose to stay with their slave owners for life since it was promised to provide these needs. . http://www.bible-researcher.com... B. Rape- Some of the new versions that are awful ( cough cough NIV), it does actually let rapists off rather easily. However, if you look at good translation such as KJV, you see it is not the same. Deuteronomy 22:25 clearly says if a man rapes a woman, he alone shall die. C. Genocide- This comes from the old testament I assume when they were told to destroy the towns. Now, the definition of genocide is destroying an entire nation, race, or culture, so is this truly genocide which is done in the bible? The nation of Israel never destroyed a town that they did not fight, so this could easily be seen as acts of war to prevent future wars. They were in the wilderness for forty years, and they knew where their nation would be, so would you want forty years' worth of enemies coming back when your nation is settled? D. Stoning after divorce- I couldn't find any verses supporting this other than stoning if she had cheated. Sorry. 2. Romans 3- this verse does not say that lying is acceptable for God. Actually, it says the opposite. The verse you gave is Paul comparing goodness to evil. It even says in the eighth verse that should we do evil things for i think you look ugly and smell bad rewards? No, and that you will get your punishment. This is where the verse" there are none righteous, no not one" comes from. 3. 2 Corinthians 12:16- this verse does not support lying in teaching, but just that he had did something unexpected. If you look in the next few verses, you find that Paul had sent Titus and someone else to check up on them unexpectedly to make sure that they had not fallen into sin. Now, I will bring up problems I have with atheism morals. First off, I do believe that many atheist are nice people due to their consciousness, but their morals are not many times. 1. Without a God to give morals to you, how can you possibly decide what is moral. Do you choose them for yourself, or allow the majority of people choose. How is it that atheists get their morals. 2. If atheists choose their own morals, than they can easily make it comply with anything that they do. They can easily draw the lines of being moral at their heels. So, in their eyes, they can be moral in anything. I know it is rather short, but I will go much more in depth in future rounds after getting your ideas on the previous two. Thanks.
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

The Bible contains; -Slavery -Rape -Genocide -Stoning the women if divorce occurs "In the third chapter of Romans, Paul offers this astounding justification of falsehood: "For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" According to Paul, a man is not a sinner if he lies for the glory of God. In this matter the apostle to the Gentiles has the hearty concurrence of many modern preachers. In. II. Corinthians, 12, 16, Paul writes: "Being crafty, I caught you with guile" --that is to say deceit, falsehood. A book that upholds lying in this way, sets the example of falsehood by justifying it, and so makes itself the enemy of truth, Hence, as the Bible condones the use of falsehood in teaching, it is a dangerous moral guide." Most attacks are caused in the name of religion. I know many atheists, we are good people. Just because we don't believe in your God which there is no evidence for, doesn't make us bad. --source of quotation--- http://fundamentals-freethought.blogspot.com...
Modern Philosophy is useful outside of academia.

"Philosophy will be defined as reasoning about the nature of reality in the broadest sense possible. Philosophy entails the philosophy of physics, the philosophy of history, the philosophy of philosophy, the philosophy of religion, the philosophy of mind, the philosophy of ethics, the philosophy of art, the philosophy of language, etc. It's extremely extensive and broad, not just one subject." I'd still like you to elaborate on that if you've got the time. How exactly are those "philosophy of X" things useful? Aside from teaching you how to argue, that is.
Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment.

Hmmm... his account has been closed thus the forfeit. But as a debater, I can't just sit here and not argue SOMETHING. I'll sum up the round as to why the CON position has been proven more true than the PRO position. SUMMARY The round basically comes down to what is just and if the death penalty gives proper due. You must see the obvious argument that was PROVEN and then DROPPED that the death penalty costs more money. This argument can easily be linked to the society having to pay for the extreme appeal process. Thus, the society does not receive their due as far as the punishment of the death penalty is concerned. Furthermore, you must account for the innocent killed... He claims that about 5-7 innocent people are saved because of the death penalty. BUT what about all of the innocent people that are killed because of the death penalty? My evidence shows the EXTREMELY high percentage of innocent people put on death row (for various reasons)... However, this doesn't even account for all of the people not discovered. The number is unknown, and that in and of itself is wrong. All that I know is that it is MUCH more that 5-7 innocent people killed improperly from the death penalty. Finally, the punishment isn't proper. The only difference between the death penalty and life in prison (w/o parole) is that the people that receive capital punishment get an early ticket out of there with a pinch in the arm. BOTH of the punishments ensure that their life is essentially over, but the life in prison gives the criminal a chance to change their life so they can leave this earth "on a good note." Not to mention that rotting in prison actually gives him/her time to regret what they've done (some actually do turn around their life). The greatest suffering for the greatest crime that offers the greatest due is NOT the death penalty, but rather life in prison (w/o parole), so please vote CON! Thanks even though your account is closed!
Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment.

Resolved: The Death Penalty is a just punishment. Definitions: Death Penalty: The execution of a criminal for a capital crime. Just: Giving each their due Punishment: the infliction of a negative for the breaking of the law or for a right violation. Contentions: I. The Death Penalty is the only true proportionate punishment for killers. Killers take away the greatest right, the right to life. When this is violated, no earthly punishment is great enough to "balance the scale of justice" according to Kant. The only way to keep the scale equal is to kill the killer. You can also use Kant's universality argument, in that if the killer universalizes his action of killing, then the state is giving him what he wants and deserves, death. The killer must be held to equal worth the the victim. By letting him live, you are placing the life of the criminal over that of the victim. What type of society is that?? II. The Death Penalty is utilitarian. A) Deterrence. The death penalty deters, meaning it stops future crimes. You are protecting more innocents. According to a Harvard Study, the death penalty saves 7-8 innocent people per year. The obligation of the state is to p[protect society, and they can do this by the death Penalty. So, society as well as the criminal is getting its due. B) Incapacitation. The Death Penalty makes sure the same criminal does not commit the same crime, either in-jail or out of jail. Again, more people are protected. III. Self-Defense Theory. The State is the embodiment of society. An individual has the right to kill an attacker to protect his/her own life. The State has the same right. It's justified in killing a criminal to protect itself from harm. Easy enough -- Self-Defense.
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

"Since round 2-4 count as 3 rounds, I have not broken any rules at all."Yes, my opponent has. I specified the FIRST 3 rounds. I also specified that the fourth round will be a round for Pro's arguments, not questions."Why did you create an account on DDO?"I enjoy debating, and so I like the idea of a site oriented around debating."When did you?"I will assume that this is asking when I created an account. I do not remember exactly."Do you have any relatives?"Probably."Any pets?"Probably not, assuming that the question is asking if I have any pets."Are you a robot?"Probably not."Are you a Star Wars fan?"I do like the Original Star Wars Trilogy. I am probably not a mechanical fan though."Do you have anything valuable Star Wars related?"I cannot think of anything Star Wars related that I have at the time of this writing. It is possible that at some time I will realize that I do, or will gain something valuable and Star Wars related."Are you sure you're not a robot?"Technically no, as I cannot be sure of anything except for my own thoughts. It is possible that the reality I perceive is an illusion."Are you good at debating?"I believe so."How old are you REALLY?"I am probably approximately 14.5 years old.
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

Since round 2-4 count as 3 rounds, I have not broken any rules at all. Why did you create an account on DDO? When did you? Do you have any relatives? Any pets? Are you a robot? Are you a Star Wars fan? Do you have anything valuable Star Wars related? Are you sure you're not a robot? Are you good at debating? How old are you REALLY?
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

My opponent will ask me 10 questions per round for the first 3 rounds. I will answer each question. In the 4th round, Con will argue that I have made contradictions, and will have to specify as many contradictions as possible within the word limit. I will then have to argue that what he claims are contradictions are not, while in the 5th round he will defend his claims of contradiction against my rebuttals.
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

"Sorry about the rules, but you need to be more specific, like say "this round ISNT acceptance" maybe I would have known."I am sorry about any misunderstandings. I was under the impression that it would be understood that the first 3 rounds would be the first 3 rounds of the debate, not simply the first 3 argument rounds. "My opponent says he is not a robot. That's exactly what a robot would say."To the contrary, I said I was probably not a robot. I admitted to not being certain one way or the other. "Also, you should never gibve out your real age, no matter how many times people ask you."This isn't a contradiction."He also says that he doesn't know any good rappers o DDO, well, there's Mikal, 9SpaceKing, me, and alot more. Heck, even Airmax, the moderator does some rapping from time to time."I am aware of the existence of all listed here, however I was unaware that they were rappers. However, this is not a contradiction."My opponent clearly has alot of problems with this debate. I believe I have named his contradictions. I await my opponents rebuttals."My opponent has misunderstood the purpose of this debate. He has not shown my answers to be contradictory, he has only tried to show them to be inaccurate. There is a difference.
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

Sorry about the rules, but you need to be more specific, like say "this round ISNT acceptance" maybe I would have known. My opponent says he is not a robot. That's exactly what a robot would say. To actually prove to me, type in the code on this website on the next argument: 11395-type-in-this-code-to-prove-you-re-not-a-robot Also, you should never gibve out your real age, no matter how many times people ask you. He also says that he doesn't know any good rappers o DDO, well, there's Mikal, 9SpaceKing, me, and alot more. Heck, even Airmax, the moderator does some rapping from time to time. My opponent clearly has alot of problems with this debate. I believe I have named his contradictions. I await my opponents rebuttals.
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

I would like to remind my opponent that he is to start arguing in this round."How do you know your not a robot?"Given that I already stated that I am only probably not a robot, the question makes no sense."Do you like waffles?"I like some types of waffles, but not others."Who do you think the best rapper on DDO is?"To my knowledge, I don't know of any rappers on DDO."Do you think I'm a good debater?"I have no opinion on the matter as I haven't seen any of your other debates."Are you a Sonic the Hedgehog fan?"No."Would you be mad if I broke into your house and stole your valuable Star Wars memorabillia?"Probably."Am I a robot?"Probably not."Which sex are you?"Probably male."Wanna hear a dirty joke?"No."Are you a Atheist? [sic]"I am *an* atheist.
The answers I have given to my opponent's questions are contradictory

How do you know your not a robot? Do you like waffles? Who do you think the best rapper on DDO is? Do you think I'm a good debater? Are you a Sonic the Hedgehog fan? Would you be mad if I broke into your house and stole your valuable Star Wars memorabillia? Am I a robot? Which sex are you? Wanna hear a dirty joke? Are you a Atheist?
aliens

(I assume you a trolling). This is an extraordinary claim and you have provided no actual evidence for it. Remember the amount of evidence that is required to dismiss an idea is equivalent to the evidence presented therefore when a proposition has no evidence presented in its favour it can be dismissed with none in its opposition. But since you have presented evidence in the form of a person who's existence only you can vouch for I call my witness, the invisible ghost who cannot lie and he says there is no such thing as aliens.
Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.

*facepalm* Well, now the debate's over. Pro made one post, which I rebuted, and for the rest of the time he forfeited by letting the time run out. I think the winner is clear. Remember when you're voting that you're no supposed to vote for who you agree with. Vote for who debated the best. Since I've already rebutted and everything, I have nothing else to say. I guess I'm not arguing in the final round after all.
Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.

Resolved: Abortion is a morally permissible tool for women under the age of twenty one. Abortion: The deliberate termination of a human pregnancyMorally Permissible: Meets a baseline requirement for morality. In other words, the act may not be the best course of action, but is simply not immoral. Today I am going to value utilitarianism as causing the most good in the world should be the inherent goal of any tool that affects human life. We should judge what causes the most good by the quality of life. It is important to properly understand the resolution: It states that abortion is immoral for those over the age of twenty one.This is important to realize as at the age of 21, the judgmental portion of the human brain is almost done developing and therefore the adult should have proper judgment before putting herself into a situation where an abortion would be required unless in a situation where wrong was done to her (I.E rape).Abortion would prevent life from being put into a bad situation. Imagine this, a sixteen year old just got pregnant. She is failing most of her classes and has grim prospects of ever achieving a life on her own (without help from an agency). If the baby were to be put into a poor life like this, would it be worth it? Is it moral to put someone into a bad situation? I think not. I believe that these people should not be allowed to have children unless they are in a special situation where care will be provided. In most situations, it is not. Now some may say then to put the baby up for adoption yet most mothers will not (less than 3% of white unmarried women and less than 2% of black unmarried women).Finally, it is important to realize that most abortions take place in the first trimester in which a child has no cognitive thoughts therefore is not civilized and is not even considered a moral agent. Women have the rights to their bodies. Vote Aff
Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.

This shall be run like a normal LD Debate Round 2) Constructive with neg's first rebuttle at end of constructive Round 3) Aff and Neg rebuttle Round 4) Aff's final rebuttle, Neg cannot rebut anything. They must either just say vote neg, or not say anything. Resolved: Abortion is a moral for women under the age of twenty one.
Gun Rights & Control

I am not all the way against guns, but favor gun safety legislation, because gun violence is a right to life issue. Human beings have the right to live, and that oiutweighs your alleged right to shoot someone. Gun for mentally healthy non-felons are for hunting food, and for protection of self or others only. No you do not have the right to an automatic rifle unless you are a military sniper. It is ironic when so called p[rolifers refuse to support gun safety legislation which would save human lives. Peace.