BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

Hey, I'd like to debate. Just to clarify a few things: What do you mean by allowed? are you proposing a piece of legislature making the act of cops tasering you illegal if you refuse to get out of a vehicle? in your first speech, what do you mean by it should not be used to get corporation? did you mean cooperation? Do you agree that if tasers are not allowed, more deadly means of force such as guns should not be allowed? i will state my arguments in this speech, if you intended it only for acceptance, then just tell me and i'll forfeit a speech or whatever you want. First off: vehicle: A device or structure for transporting persons or things; a conveyance: a space vehicle-(http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) By this definition humans are vehicles, as they transport matter and also our "souls." It is physically impossible for ourselves to get out of our body, perhaps with the exception of death, which means that the resolution already is forced to either kill people, which is worse then tasering, or make exceptions, which is a reason that the judge should vote con against the resolution. Next: the pro's own speech conceeds that tasers should only be used if the cops are in immediate and direct physical harm.however there are cases where a criminal in a vehicle is armed and starts shooting at the cops. This is obviously a contradiction of the resolution and is another reason to vote con. Next: The pro gives no viable alternatives that satisfy their criteria of being nondeadly, or more harmful than tasers. Lifting criminals out of their vehicles seems absurd. if the police call for backup, that just means more tasers, once again, tasers are the least aggressive method of solving the problem in cases where the criminal is armed in a vehicle. Next: Tasers and other electrical weapons have proved extremely effective in even more dangerous situations, such as in warfare. the electrical railgun is capable of "ensuring wars with no casualties"-(http://www.navyleague.org...)
Cops should not be allowed to tasered you if you refuse to get out of a vehicle

Tasers should only be used to protect the police or the public if they are in immediate and direct physical harm (e.g. somebody raising a gun or fist to hit them). Instead they should physically lift the person out of the vehicle or call for backup to help if it is that important to move somebody. Non violence should not be met with violence. Just because it is not deadly force (most of the time) does not mean it should be used just to get corporation.
Objectivism fails to describe an adequate meta-ethical answer for the is-ought problem.

As requested, I will provide an oversight of which aspects of Rand's Objectivism I will be defending. I will also make the necessary clarification that I do not believe values are spirit-like objects or divine commands from God. [ Objectivism ] - Reality exists independent of consciousness - Individual persons are in contact with this reality through sensory perception - Humans can gain objective knowledge from perception through concept formation and inductive and deductive logic - The proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest - The only system consistent with this morality in respect for individual rights, embodied in pure laissez-faire capitalism [ Meta-Ethics ] The opposition to Objectivist meta-ethics is Moral Relativism. Individual relativism holds that individual people create their own moral standards. Cultural relativism maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one's society, and not simply in the preferences of individual people. On the contrary, I will be advocating for the position that there are in fact objective morals which are often skewed by various factors, including individual psychology, biology, one's up-bringing (culture), emotion, egoism, etc. As much as I love Nietzsche, I will have to disagree with moral skepticism. [ Is-Ought Problem ] Objectivism seems to solve the is-ought problem. The fact that a living entity IS determines what it OUGHT to do. An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means, and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism's life is its standard of value. What furthers an organism's life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil. An objective system of morality is both possible and necessary to protect rights. [ Conclusion ] The purpose of ethics is to provide a basis for morally condemning others; therefore, if it is possible for someone to act against the Objectivist ethics without the ethics providing a basis for condemning him, and that is an essential failure of the ethical system. With the parameters of this debate and and the meaning of objectivism defined, I stand in firm negation of the resolution. I'd like to wish TheSkeptic the best of luck -- I look forward to a great debate. [ Sources ] [1] . http://www.absoluteastronomy.com...(Ayn_Rand) [2] . http://www.objectivistcenter.org...
Objectivism fails to describe an adequate meta-ethical answer for the is-ought problem.

I have specifically made this a 4 round debate because of the following reasons: since there are some hefty terms included in my resolution, I will define and elaborate on them. Then, I would like for my opponent to give a defense of Rand's Objectivism in her first round - this is not so much because of laziness, but rather so I don't have to presuppose anything my opponent does not believe in. Unfortunately, I am not so well-versed in Objectivism as to know whether or not there are differing views about it; so as a precaution, I ask of my opponent to supply her defense of Objectivist meta-ethics. So as stated, I will define the terms I have used, await my opponent's argument, then continue on with this debate as a normal 3-Round debate would: ==================== Definitions of terms and phrases ==================== [Objectivism] [. http://www.aynrand.org...] To define Objectivism is quite hefty, but all I will say is that it's the philosophy developed by the Russian-American philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand. A good summarization of Objectivism by Ayn Rand herself can be found in the link supplied; I will thus using my arguments in conjunction with this idea/definition in mind. [Meta-ethics] [. http://www.iep.utm.edu...] "Metaethics investigates where our ethical principles come from, and what they mean. Are they merely social inventions? Do they involve more than expressions of our individual emotions? Metaethical answers to these questions focus on the issues of universal truths, the will of God, the role of reason in ethical judgments, and the meaning of ethical terms themselves. " [Is-Ought Problem] [. http://en.wikipedia.org...] "In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem (also known as Hume's guillotine) was articulated by David Hume, who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be, on the basis of statements about what is. However, there seems to be a significant difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive or normative statements (about what ought to be)" ==================== Conclusion ==================== I know theLwerd won't play semantics, but I just want to make it clear to avoid it. We all know what "fails" and "adequate. .. account" mean, to fiddle with their definition is to avoid the bigger problem at hand - Rand's philosophy. Also, I want to point out that I don't mean to argue here that the is-ought problem is still undefeated, but rather that the Objectivist position fails to answer it.
Macro-evolution is a Myth

Thanks for the debate.I will start giving "Myth" a complete meaning, using the same site you used as a source.Myth: "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon" [1]Why is important to describe this complete meaning? Because the resolution is more than just evolution not being true. And Pro is positive about this. Therefore he has the burden of proof.I will still provide arguments in favor of evolution in the next round.RebuttalPro only gave some "formula" of the same phenomenon which is evolution. Natural selection + Genetic Mutation creates diversity. Pro accepts this in this implying Micro evolution is true.Now the reason he differentiates those is that he doesn't believe there are transitions between species thanks to evolution.Because Pro doesn't give an argument about this, I will rebut the most common argument against it. That there are no intermediate species.This argument is fallacious because it considers every species already found is a finished species and not an intermediate species.And it will consider every species that will be found a finished species too.Some memorable examples are the Ambulocetus[2], Archeopteryx[3], Tiktaalik[4]. All those are considered transitional species between species we know and knew very well when those were found.Now, why does this confusion occur? Why does this fallacy is so popular? Because of the meaning of species.Species: "Biology . the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."When does a species change to another species? Is there a point where is in the middle of transition? It is similar to what happen with languages.Evolution of the languagesLatin languages like Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, French have a "common ancestor", Latin. [5] What is the intermediate language? Those intermediate languages are considered or Latin, or any of the early versions of the other languages. That's a problem with classification and how it can't evolve with what it is classifying.Some day Spanish will change too much that a person who speaks Spanish like it is now would not be able to speak with a person with the future Spanish, then it is not considered the same language anymore in the same way 2 animals are not considered from the same species if they can't breed with each other.It is important to note that this analogy works because reproduction, natural selection and mutations have analogous processes in language evolution. And because we can't notice the transition between one language to another, it doesn't mean they don't exist. They have been proved just like transitional species have been proved.It is simple, it is logical. Thanks.Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...2. http://dinosaurs.about.com...3. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...4. http://www.prehistoric-wildlife.com...5. http://webspace.ship.edu...
Macro-evolution is a Myth

RULES: "Logical and scientific evidences are totally welcome to be used"Round 1: Argument of Pro/ Rebuttal of ConRound 2: Rebuttal of Pro/ Argument of ConRound 3:Rebuttal of Pro/Rebuttal of ConRound 4: Conclusion. ( No more arguments nor rebuttals).Argument of Pro:Macro-evolution is a scientific hypothesis (i.e educated guess) and it is a myth (i.e. widely held but false belief or idea) because it wasn't proven. The fact of its veracity lies on the mechanisms of macro-evolution which is none except long time. Notice the difference between the mathematical formula of both biological evolution phases:Micro-evolution:Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation = Diversification and Speciation.Macro-evolution:Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation + very long time = Diversification and Speciation.NOTES:http://evolution.berkeley.edu...http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Macro-evolution is a Myth

Conclusions:1. Pro was not able to show reasons why the theory of evolution is a myth.2. Pro didn't obey his own rules. First he asked why I was not able to give any arguments for evolution in round 1. Then he posted more arguments in round 3. And then, after he forfeited round 4, he posted a comment about his last round, and his "final rebuttal". I will remind everyone Pro's rules at the start of this debate:Round 1: Argument of Pro/ Rebuttal of ConRound 2: Rebuttal of Pro/ Argument of ConRound 3: Rebuttal of Pro/Rebuttal of ConRound 4: Conclusion. ( No more arguments nor rebuttals).3. I rebutted every single of Pro's arguments and gave the appropriated sources. Then I gave arguments and sources that back up the theory of evolution.4. I explained the logic behind the theory, explained the most common misconceptions as well as the reasons of this misconceptions and showed the evidence that back up evolution.5. Pro didn't rebut most of my arguments. His arguments and responses were taken from this website: . http://science.howstuffworks.com...And he used the same website as his sources.6. He even claimed things in round 3 that I already rebutted or explained in round 1 and 2.7. I will quote and answer each of Pro's arguments and rebuttals of his last comment to remember everyone that I already answered most and where:"Micro-evolution procures speciation but macro-evolution is speciation above the species level. This is a well-known fact in the hypothesis of macro-evolution. "This doesn't make any sense. Species has a definition and I detailed the problems about the definition and the common understanding of speciation in rounds 1 and 2. "Mutations do occur but it is also a fact of science that they do more harm than good. "This is a source less claim that would not change the points given and accepted by Pro. Remember that mutations occur and are an explanation of "micro-evolution" too. This is accepted by Pro on his formula on round 1:Micro-evolution:Natural Selection + Genetic Mutation = Diversification and Speciation. "Con did not consider the logic that what he calls transitional forms appear not as a transitional fossils but as a "fully formed" creatures of the past. "This is false. I already explained the fallacy of this claim. Every fossil is a transitional species and a finished one. Transitional species are fully functional creatures. If they were not, that would not be a prove of evolution, that would be against evolution. This are explanation from round 1 and 2. "Science works on induction. The scientific predictions Con used as an argument is null and void because the mechanisms of macro-evolution remained unexplained. "Well, you can make your own conclusions. Thanks for the debate.
The Need For a Presient/ Prime Minister

well you made the assertion "the need for a president/Prime Minister" so i adress your question. And you state "i simply do not see why we should have main person in power" -if there is no main person in power who makes critical decisions that is affecting our nation as a whole? If it was everyone who going to make the decisions than that means everyone is the government. And than there is not citizen. but government. "Your argument doesn't really address my opinion. I am not for self-government. Also, you discussed things like "Who would declare war?" -i don't see how my argument doesn't really adress your opinion. i made the statement who would declare war because without someone as a main person in power than we makes such decision than? The need for "i simply do not see why we should have main person in power" is because the main person in power is suppose to make decisions on behalf of the people. Because not everyone is the government or in the government.you skip the part to read The need for a main person in power is becase ""Things will not really be efficient without an executive that has a certain amount of power," (edited that part) " but went on to "people like to have leaders to look up to." well if this statement "people like to have leaders to look up to is the need for a main person in power than."Now, this whole argument is a "burden of proof" on you why we shouldn't have a main person in power. After you answer this question i will debate further.
The Need For a Presient/ Prime Minister

Soooooo sosorry, I was writing my response and then I clicked review, but not submit *facepalm* Your argument doesn't really address my opinion. I am not for self-government. Also, you discussed things like "Who would declare war?" That does not address the question. Such duties would be given to someone else in the government. "People like to have leaders to look up to." does not justify anything. We should not make politics exiting simply because we feel like it. And the argument that some people wouldn't vote doesnt work because, to be honest, its not fair that someone who simply votes because it is exiting to vote for president has as much weight politically than someone who studies up on their politics.
Has the Final Fantasy franchise gotten worse over the years

I am almost going to take this as a concession, but he claims I have only looked at a small portion of the ratings. Essentially my adversary is saying that almost everyone hates the franchise now, so lets see how true this is. Lets look solely off of 14 Ign rating 8.6 [1] Meta Critc 83 score or 4/5 [2] Games Radar 4.5 out of 5 [3] Lets look at gamestop, one of the most widely used game stores in the world. The user rating for ff14 a realm reborn (remember this is by the users and not the store), rate it a 7.3/10 which is still a very very solid score, seeing as how the same scores were given to 9 and 7. This is not a rpg community or mmo community rating the games in this instance, it is the entire user base of game stop. A 7.7 is a really high score of approval. [4] In closing I have shot down almost all of my adversary's arguments. He loves the idea and holds to the fact that the franchise is in decline. I again disagree, we can not say it is declining. We can only say it is on a roller coaster ride with highs and lows. FF14 was def a high point as well. The franchise is not getting periodically worse as of late but actually improving since the release of 13-2. We have much hope for the franchise in the future as well. [1] http://www.ign.com... [2] http://www.metacritic.com... [3] http://www.gamesradar.com... [4] http://www.gamestop.com...
Has the Final Fantasy franchise gotten worse over the years

My contender has looked only at a very small portion of ratings, but not of those of the people. I understand the idea he tries to end with, as this being my own opinion, and I would at one point agree. but, if others agree with I am simply the one to reveal it. The proof is in the FAQ's, where the people get to speak. http://www.gamefaqs.com... http://www.1up.com... I as my contender has enjoyed many of the final fantasy's, and has been with them through the years, but as sad to say the franchise has fallen. I have enjoyed being a voice for the people, and thank you for debating with me.
Has the Final Fantasy franchise gotten worse over the years

My first approach will be the one that will be questioned by the business associates, how much money made for the games. http://www.vgchartz.com... This link will show a chart of different released final fantasy games and the profit made. Please note, that the titles released before 2001 hold the highest sales rates then those of now-a-days releases. As well as made more money and were sold at a lower price than today's 59.99-65.99 which gave more gamer's the ability to enjoy what final fantasy had to offer. The next would be the critiques viewpoint. http://www.wired.com... (new) http://www.metacritic.com... (old) The facts begin to add up as these well renounced critiques attack the new release finalfantasy compared to the almost godly admiration of such as final fantasy 7. One does not simply deny such numbers and it is almost a time of mourning at the fall of such a once magnificent tower of gaming has plummeted to only a 5.2 rating. If anything fails in my previous statements, please read the following link. http://www.destructoid.com... The statements of this critique is of a professional and overall level that exploits the weaknesses of ff13. I do not accept responsibility for any syntax errors in his statements, but agree with his findings. Final Fantasy has lost her sword, her armor, and her materia. She is only a frail peasant of her past goddess.
THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

In this round I'll be summarizing my main arguments in point form. -Article 9 is an infringement of Japan's sovereignty. -Article 9 was established by a foreign power, and hence is another infringement on Japan's sovereignty. -Japan has seen various belligerent organizations (ISIS as an example) over the past 70 years, therefore, the eventual dissolving of Article 9 is necessary for the national security of Japan, I thank Con for a strong and thought-provoking debate.
THBT Japan should remove Article 9 of its constitution.

I didn't know round two was for opening arguments, and I apologise to Pro as you are not going by standardised formatting. Yes, they, as an independent country, are unable to mobilise their army. However, it is vital to global peace that countries that once killed 9 million people, and to date, still do not admit to it's wrong doings. The very fact that Japan's current PM is still "imperialist" and never admitted to their wrong-doings just proves my point. Japan is mo longer a threat to countries in the Far East, and you talk as if it is a bad thing. Really, we deserve peace. It is a good thing that it is not returning to expansionist policies. This simply does not translate into damaging Japan's sovereignty. Also, I have said that it is not important if their sovereignty is damaged, and she deserves this punishment after what the country have done. I would like to clarify that by 'is not affected' I meant economically. Even you said that it is USUALLy a sovereign right of the country. In this case, Japan does, in fact, deserve this punishment because of what it have done and continue to try to do in the present. I would also like to clarify that from the way this debate is worded, it is not focused on Japan's interests. They say they gave up this right as a sovereign right meaning that they no longer recognise it as one, which means that they no longer recognise it as a sovereign right, which only supports my argument. You talk about having a different cultural mindset, but I beg to differ on this one. Germany condemns their actions and apologised for what the Nazi government have done. To date, Japan still denies of the death toll in the Chinese invasion and is still not matured enough for militarisation. In fact, I would argue that even the self-defence force should not be there. However, that is another debate for another time. Britain never killed as many people as Japan, and have indeed apologised multiple times for their sins and is no longer doing anything similar, or at least, no longer supporting these actions. Japan did not exactly have a different government and cultural mindset, therefore proving your argument irrelevant. I might not have made it clear enough, but their military would be way more powerful without this article, and their economy at this time is not exactly strong, but definitely, for a long time they have maintained a very good economy. I said they do not have enough self defence power for a fight against ISIS. This, therefore, does not contradict my first claim because at any given time it is important for us to be able to retain to security, and only at this time, does Japan have a poor economy. In fact we are talking about this right after Japan's GDP fell by one trillion US dollars. I know, the inflation argument, but one must remember that Japan's economy is not exactly healthy right now. I think history is sufficient information enough, and we must not risk global peace in a matter of coincidence.