BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The right to suicide

It is okay to overall feel, but it hurts. So what do I do when counsling and meds dont work? suicide. http://www.bing.com... Okay, so we know what we are doing. We are stopping the pain. We might not want to die ,but we are doing it for a reason. We arent forcing anybody else to do it. If they do, its on them, its their life they have the right to do what they want to themselves. To ourselves. http://www.antipsychiatry.org... Death shares with birth a unique status. Every human being in society will die. So why not when we chose to? IT IS OUR LIVES.
The right to suicide

It is not wrong to feel depressed, unhappy, out of control, lost, or scared. It is not wrong to feel paralyzed in a bad situation or hopeless about the future. It is not wrong to have fleeting thoughts that things would be so much easier, if only you were not here. Feeling this way does not make you a person of weak character. Everyone deals with pain differently, and one person may come away with more intense emotions about a situation than another. Suicide is FOREVER. You do not get to wake up. You do not get a second chance. You will not be able to say, "Wait, I want to stay." There is no turning back. Think about the situation in grisly fact. Someone will have to find your body, and most likely it will be someone who loves and cares for you. They will bear this in their memory for the rest of their lives. If you kill yourself at someone else"s hand, such as laying in front of a car or train or forcing a police officer to kill you, know that these people will bear the brunt of the emotional turmoil and will always wish that it could have been different. There may be people standing on the sidelines, knowing that you are in pain and wishing that they could help you. These people will suffer forever in guilt, wondering if there was more they could have done or said to change your mind. They will blame themselves. The repercussions go far beyond this. Friends or family members may grow so despondent that they, in turn, take their own lives. Most newspapers will not even mention your name after death by suicide.
Anti-Theism is flawed.

I am arguing against the idea of Anti-Theism, or Atheist being superior to any other religion. My opponent shall make a case defending Anti-Theism. Definitions: Anti-Theism is the belief that Atheism is superior to other religions, or other religions are detrimental to mankind. Atheist are people who don't believe in god. Religions are the belief systems that people follow. (I'm counting Atheism and Agnosticism as religions.) Round 1 is for accepting the challenge. Round 2 is where the debating begins.
"Blanket" law requiring a set minimum wage should be abolished.

1st round for establishing debate outline and acceptance. Resolved: "Minimum wage (lets just restrict this to the U.S.) should not be required/enforced by law. OR "Blanket" law requiring a set minimum wage should be abolished." (latter wording is as stated in title - either works) Burden of Proof, Pro: to argue that the cons of a legal requirement of a minimum wage for jobs across the board outweigh the (if any) pros. Burden of Proof, Con: to demonstrate that the pros of a legal requirement of a minimum wage for all jobs outweigh the (again, if any) cons. 5 rounds (4 for arguing), 8000-character argument max, 72 hours to argue, 10-day voting period. Sources must be posted in round. No plagiarism. May the best debater have the truth on their side, and may the truth win out :)
Determinism is true

On the top part of your text about you bringng it up and that had an "effect" on me. YES! Yes it did, but I still have the choice wether I want to correct myself in order for ou to be happy, or me to leave it as it is irrelevant. I chose to to change it. I was influenced yes but I still chose to correct it. "What my opponent is doing is "Determinism+". Essentially, things are determined BUT there's also a middle man which allows what is determined to happen, but can stop the determined from happening. Except what is determined happens anyway. In other words, the middle man is pointless, trivial, and an unncessary addition." If it is an unnecessary addition of this "middle man" then there would be no free will I.e. no choice for you to make. For an example, I want a kebab tonight, the shop is 2 hours away, I am hungry. Now I am influenced to go because I am hungry but it is my choice to go because I might not want to do the 2 hours journey to get there. Therefore I must have a choice i.e. free will, in wanting to go because I am hungry or not wanting to go because it's to far. The "middle man" that you said above is no unnessecary because if it was not there (as mentioned above) you wouldn't have a choice, you wouldn't need to think over things twice, because if you think it is right the first time, then why "double check" it? Because you want to make sure right? Thats your choice, you can choose to believe it is right the fist time, or you can choose to check it again to make sure it is right and maybe correct it. Put it this way, on this website when debating with someone, once you have written your part it then says at the bottom left "review" It then takes you to another screen where it THEN gives you the choice to read it over again before pubishing it. If there was no need for free will i.e. choice then there would be no need for this feature i.e. the "middle man".
Determinism is true

Before i forget: I am going to just make a point: My opponent has changed from "999%" to "99%" on his statistics. Why? It was because I brought it up: that is the cause. To say it was him is to say that if I did not bring it up, he would have changed it anyway. Is it rational to say that my influence did nothing? Of course not. Now, look at the exact wording. It is irrational to claim it would be phrased in this exact way if I did not hold any influence.Determinism is an explanation of what we choose to do. It explains how our choice is due to events outside of our control. What my opponent is doing is "Determinism+". Essentially, things are determined BUT there's also a middle man which allows what is determined to happen, but can stop the determined from happening. Except what is determined happens anyway. In other words, the middle man is pointless, trivial, and an unncessary addition. Further, this was responded to in my final argument: determined events are necessary: one does not do the opposite. "You could not step twice into the same river", in the words of Heraclitus. You cannot do the opposite of the determined: that is irrational.My opponent has given no compelling case for libertarianism. He has given examples of humans doing things, and said they have free will. I, essentially, and riposting with "no they don't". I defend this assertion, though, with behaviourism, and other arguments. Please, take this into account when voting.Also:
Determinism is true

Why do you not believe that this 1% of influence does not exist? Let me make it so you will accept it or should I say more influenced to accept it. 99% and 1% of influence now. Happy? Good :) The fact again that you said above that determinism out rules free will i.e. a choice and now you say that determinisim is the event leading upto the choice is ver mis-leading. If your going to argue then stick with what you are saying. Dont give me fancy exampes when I can destroy them. Your example of a student buying paste because he/she is poor is an event yes, and yes he bought the pasta because he was poor yes! But he also had a say in the matter of buying it, you didn't mention that this student could have thought about not buying the pasta this is the same for the rich student. If they dont have thoughts then no you dont have free will. If you have not thought about what you are doing RIGHT now then you dont have free will, which is impossible. Everyone is given free will, it is then upto them what they do with this. They can chose how to run their lives, wether they become a good or bad person. They are influenced in life yes! But they also have the choice to remove them from that part. e.g If a child is getting involved in the wrong crowd and they are about to rob a place. The child wouldn't want to be there and starts to have second thoughts i.e Free will i.e choice! You have a choice what you do in your life and based around that choice is the influence but when it comes down to what you actally do is down to what you want to do and not what society tells (influences) you to do!
Determinism is true

Due to two people requesting this, I'm opening up with a picture.My opponent's argument rests on the 1% to the 999% (which is a severely bad mathematical error but whatever) being free will. However, I am unfortunate in not receiving any reason to believe this 1% exists. Determinism is an explanation for why your choices are made. A student will buy pasta because it is cheap, and they are poor. Another student may have a billion pound grant and buy gold encrusted bread because they are rich and want to show off. These all promote deterministic views of the world.What made me do this debate?A determinist would say: preceding events. These would include my (and your) personality, scientific discovery bringing technology in the world to give the ability to do so, and other events. The idea of there being no influence is simply preposterous: society promotes rational discourse, which for one is influence. You can't argue this topicThis is the problem: free will is something we think is "obvious" or "definite" or similar. The problem is, when we rationally discuss it, we lack arguments for it.
Determinism is true

As I dont like to write out a lot I'll say this in the most simple way as I can. If for example are influenced to get off this debate, and I influence you 999% to do something else, there is that 1% to not go and do something else and stay on here. You now have the choice to stay here or to go off and do something else. Because I have influenced you 999% to do something else statistics would show that you would MOST likely go and do something else, BUT you can chose not to. They dont say "The choice is your's" for nothing. You have the choice in everyday life, You can choose not to goto work but you know if you dont then you increase the chances of loosing your job, so therefore you choose to goto work. You choose to use the bathroom at certain time. You can hold it in and ait 2-4 more hours or you can go now and not return untill aother 10-11 hours (roughly) You have the choice at every point of your day wether you like it or not. Detrminisim says that everything is followed upon something i.e. this happens because this happened. But that must have happened cause you yourself had an effect upon it, i.e. you choose to do part of the equation to lead upto the final conclusion. You can post as many examples as you want, the fact of the matter is you had the choice to make this debate, I didnt influence you nor did anyone else. You CHOOSE to do this debate and I chose to accept it. You can't argue this topic. Yes everything happenes because of what happened in the past BUT you had an effect on it i.e. you had a CHOICE at some part for it to evolve into your personality today.
Determinism is true

Determination is true yes BUT it is not why we do things. It leads up to why we do things. I.e. I am influenced to do something but at the end of the day I choose to do it or not. If I dont have free will then there is no reason for me to live as if I cant choose to do something then I cannot think for myself. If I am hungry then I naturally want to go and eat. I have been influenced to eat BUT I can choose if want to eat. If I dont eat then I will die slowly ut if I doeat then I will natuarlly live longer. (just an example dont forget) If you was influenced in determinisim and didn't choose when you ahd the choice then you're not very bright. How ever if you was influenced to believe in determinism and at the point of choosing and you chose not to believe then there you have it in a nut shell. Everyone has free will. It says in the bible numerous times where it is mentioned. Leviticus 22:29 And when you offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving to the LORD, offer it of your own free will. Mentioned free will. Why would it mention it f what your saying it doesn't exist?
Determinism is true

The debate is simple: any specifics can be discussed in comments. First round is for acceptance. My opponent must defend libertarianism. Burden of Proof is shared. DefinitionsDeterminism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs. (. http://www.informationphilosopher.com...)Libertarianism is the philosophical idea that free will is purely, inevitably orchestrated by individual's free will.
Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

I think it is unethical because you are restricting a person's freedom of speech. An employee of a company should be able to criticize the company they work for. Is it ethical to not let your employees to criticize their company? You are saying that it is ethical to punish a member for breaking the rules when they exercise their freedom of speech. Punishing them for exercising their freedom of speech is not inhibiting it because those people are still able to say those things. In order to really inhibit their freedom of speech, an organization would have to monitor what their employees post on social media sites or not even allow them onto those sites and far as I am concerned that is not ethical.
Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

Every agreement or contract has an exchange of terms. When an artist signs to a record label, they agree to keep a certain public image. It is an unspoken agreement that, when you work for a corporation or business, you will convey an image of positivity and appealing quality towards the business. It's more unethical to speak against something that you willingly participate in than it is to protect your organization's public image. A company or organization will never be able to satisfy the entire public, so should they be held accountable when they disband a member who is staining their image to the public? If so, then anyone who defends their honor is in the wrong. Many of these organizations have a code of ethics, and agree that they are aware that breaking these ethics are grounds for termination. So this person willingly joins a group, consenting to the inhibition of their speech, break this rule by speaking negative propaganda against the organization, and they are punished by termination from the group. In what way shape or form is that scenario unethical except for a person failing to live up to their agreement?
Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

Government is something that everyone has to participate in, and by your definition of organization is not included in this discussion. Those people still have the freedom of speech just not as much as we do. That is not ethically right though. Do you think that its ethically right for the Islamic government to kill anyone who ridicules or doesn't obey the Quran? No. That is not ethically right.Back to organizations, there is no time an organization to ethically inhibit their freedom of speech. When a person criticizes the company they work for, should they be fired? I don't think so. The company should learn from what that person says, take it into consideration, and then improve their company. They should talk to that person and try to fix the solution, not fire them on the spot. It's not ethical to fire a person because they criticized the company.
Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

My opponent claims that causing a consequence is not inhibit free speech. Does that mean if the government made it punishable by death to speak against it that we still have free speech? The fear of punishment is exactly how someone inhibits another person's free speech. My opponent is also unclear when they state their example of inhibiting free speech, then claiming that it is only an example of punishment. Punishment is how any restriction is enforced. If a restriction is placed on someone's speech based on their organization, the punishment would enforce this restriction and inhibit their freedom of speech. Freedom of speech implies that you will face no consequences for voicing your opinion. My opponent confuses this will free will. While a person in a Middle Eastern country can choose to speak out against their nation, they will face severe punishment for it. That is not free speech.
Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

First of all, that's not inhibiting a members free speech. That's punishing them for their actions. Inhibiting someone's free speech would be like if a person went on twitter and ranted about their job at Walmart and then Walmart reports them and gets that tweet taken down. That person has the right to say whatever they want, and while they might get fired or suspended for it, that's just paying the consequence for what they did and how they went against their contract.
Organizations Can Ethically Inhibit the Free Speech of Their Members

This topic came to my mind when I was playing the game Minecraft with a friend of mine. The server had a rule around the topic of political opinions. My friend got into an argument and began to state his political opinion, in which he got banned for. My first point is that these groups are optional. You are not required by any law or force to join and participate in them. Much like teachers aren't permitted to swear on the job, an organization can set rules and standards for its members to meet. Let's look at a sports team in a school, for example. Athletes agree to a Code of Conduct in which anything they say or post to media can be judged by the ethics committee and possibly result in termination from the group. If a school, or even professional, athlete were to post, say a racist rant for example, they could be terminate or suspended for violation of the ethics of the organization.
Biblical Creation

Since there are many issues concerning this topic I will address three. I propose that the Earth is not 4.5 billion years old but closer to 6,000. 1.) Helium and argon diffusion rates of zircon crystals found within Precambrian granite rocks most strongly points to an Earth ~6,000 years old. 2.) Life cannot come from non-living materials as per the law of biogenesis. Experiments since the time of Louis Pasteur until the present have shown that it is impossible to get even the necessary amino acids to form from "early Earth" conditions. DNA, RNA and the cell structure itself are necessary for life to exist and therefore must have been created thus refuting abiogenesis. 3.) Mutations as means for evolution has been falsified as observations of bacteria, which have very fast reproduction and life cycles, have demonstrated that the types of mutations necessary for gain-of-information changes do not take place. Bacteria may be able to adapt and become resistant to penicillin or develop the ability to metabolize citrate, but these types of changes can be attributed either to a loss-of-information change or a turning on of a certain part of the gene that was previously turned off. Even Richard Lenski, of Michigan State University, had given up hope on observing evolution in the lab and instead focused on computer modelling rather than bacterial experimentation. Bacteria was expected to be a great example of "evolution in action" but fell short of its promises. The latest findings on E. coli's metabolism of citrate do not show any form of evolution either, as the citric acid, tricarboxcylic acid cycle, generates and utilizes citrate in its normal oxidative metabolism of glucose and other carbohydrates. Also, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell. So evolution is impossible and thus the hypothesis that all creatures were formed as original "kinds," and as natural selection and speciation took place, all the variations of animals we see today came about, is vindicated. I know I am not addressing many things but I feel these three are strong enough to stand on for now.
Biblical Creation

I would like to kick a dead horse and argue the truth of biblical creation which in my view entails a literal six day creation approximately 6,000 years ago. I am preparing for some upcoming debates and I would appreciate anyone's time given to debate this topic. I stand on the Bible, but would like the challenger to argue against the science claims only, not that I am not willing and able to answer theological questions, but I would simply like to focus on the science (i.e. do mutations produce the type of change necessary for macro-evolution?).
Life does not have a satisfactory "meaning" under an atheist perspective.

My opponent again insists that the purpose of species is to live on and evolve. However, this too is meaningless. The purpose of life cannot be to avoid death or to advance itself, just as the purpose of the NRA cannot be to keep the NRA alive or to grow the NRA. While it is necessary for the NRA to stay alive to meet its purpose, the NRA's purpose is not to stay alive. My opponent has argued that life is significant because life remembers dead living things. However, after long enough, all things are forgotten. Though man has written epitaphs upon the graves of many Egyptians, still today we still do not know what many of these old epitaphs mean. Language evolves over time as well. After long enough, writing is also lost and the writings of the most influential writers will be extinguished as they are replaced by the memory of new ones. Who were the great philosophers before 4000 years B. C. ? After long enough years, everything is forgotten. And again, life cannot have a purpose in its being significant to itself. This too is meaningless, as what we choose to do only has an effect in the short run. In the long run, such as millions of years, the decisions a small dinosaur made do not matter to society millions of years later. Ultimately, species still evolve to their optimum adaptation to a climate and geography. It is only a matter of time. Such decisions are insignificant in the long run. "I don't understand where people get this notion that you *must* have a higher purpose to life to be able to live it. " Well, to be able to live and to have something motivating one to live are not the psychological equivalents of purpose. In response to my logic that accidents cannot have a purpose, my opponent claims that atheism allows one to live as one pleases, and therefore one has purpose. However, in the long run of things, all pursuits of man are meaningless. What we do now has no purpose. What we do to live has no purpose. And accidents cannot have purpose. Does making a snowman give one purpose? Such a pursuit is also meaningless, as what we do during our lives may produce us pleasure, but such things ultimately die away. So, we are forced to conclude that from an atheist perspective, there is no great purpose of life.