BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for owning slaves.

Jefferson was definitely a hypocrite for owning slaves because he dedicated his life in the pursuit of freedom for himself and his peers. He fought for liberty but denied so many that basic human right. He says all men are created equal but felt entitled to dominate and subordinate others. Hypocrisy. His very words" all men are created equal and endowed with the right to liberty pursue their happiness. " By owning slaves he propagated a system that directly contradicted his beliefs and took great measures in proving black men inferior scientifically by measuring their skulls. Jefferson like other slave owners considered slaves " investments " not as people. Just because Jefferson blamed the system of slavery on his government doesn't mean his part in slavery in America is diminished . Jefferson prioritized his own freedom not freedom for all. He treated slaves like slaves property and investment , basically like a currency . Jefferson was a hypocrite because he only spouted political propaganda and never was not living true to his word.
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for owning slaves.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, owned slaves. That is an unfortunate, historical fact. And this fact has led many, throughout history, to label Jefferson as a "hypocrite." I disagree. Jefferson was as much trapped by the culture he lived in, as were the slaves he "owned." Indeed, Jefferson's words paved the way for individual freedom and the eventual freedom of the slaves. Calling him a hypocrite is not only unfair, it is factually wrong.
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for owning slaves.

I'm sorry my opponent hasn't found time to continue our debate; I understand the pressing issues of life and hope to see you in future debates. :-) But as this topic is as important today as it was over 200 years ago, I hope all will continue reading. Although my country's founding was a collective effort of many great, and uniquely talented men, few stand out as much as Jefferson. If there were a single character that described the "American philosophy," it would be Thomas Jefferson-- flawed, but committed to the goal of human freedom. If he were a "hypocrite," then indeed, America is the greatest hypocrisy of all times. Rest assured, that is not the case. "... a conflict wherein the sacred side is gaining daily recruits from the influx into office of young men grown and growing up. These have sucked in the principles of liberty as it were with their mother"s milk, and it is to them I look with anxiety to turn the fate of this question. --- Thomas Jefferson Aug. 7, 1785 (1) We can argue the reasons why Jefferson continued to own slaves. But there can be no argument that he never supported the "peculiar institution." He understood the contradiction between the values that founded the country and slavery, and he knew it could not continue. His decision to free or not free his own slaves would have been based on the current realities of 18th Century America: would emancipation had helped his slaves, or perhaps Jefferson included himself into "the greater number, who have not the courage to divest their families of a property which however keeps their consciences inquiet"? The reasoning for such a decision, and whether it was driven by hypocrisy, is beyond my telepathic abilities. The fact is that those words penned by Jefferson, those beloved "inalienable rights" of Man, have been the inspiration for millions of humans, Black, White, Hispanic, and Asians, who have confronted tyranny. They have been the "mother's milk" for great men as Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King; and the poison for despotic murderous regimes. They were the words by which Jefferson devoted much of his life. A flawed human existence? Perhaps. But having unquestionable intellect, surely Jefferson understood the ramifications of his words. And at every opportunity, he embraced them. We should all be as hypocritical.
Thomas Jefferson was a hypocrite for owning slaves.

I see that abdully runs late... I hope you don't mind if I continue... I can understand the apparent contradiction many see, when they read about Thomas Jefferson. And this is not to dismiss the horror and injustice of slavery, to which Jefferson was a part. However, it is unfair to judge whether he was hypocritical based on today's view of slavery. Slavery in America pre-dates Jefferson by a century and was well established long before he owned a slave. If we are to judge him, it should be within that historical context. Without a doubt, had Jefferson insisted on emancipation prior to writing the Declaration of Independence, or if he insisted that it contained language that would free the slaves, the Declaration would have never been signed by the other Southern colonies. Furthermore, had he insisted on it during his Presidency, the newly formed government would have quickly fallen apart, and those words "...that All Men are created equal...." would have been nothing more than a trivia question in British history class. But still, the question remains, and it is one that I often ponder--- "Why didn't Jefferson free his own slaves?" To us, the decision should be a simple one. However, when we apply modern views of morality on previous times we tend to see things in terms of "right" and "wrong." And as today's society is profoundly different from Jefferson's, what is "wrong" today, may not have been the rule of the society then. The "contradiction" of Jefferson's words versus his actions is a topic many historians have tried to explain. The following reasons to consider are available at Monticello.org, the historical organization that manages Jefferson's former home: -- the economic value of his human property (at certain times, his slaves were mortgaged and thus could not be freed or sold) -- his lifelong view that emancipation had to go hand-in-hand with expatriation of the freed slaves -- his paternalistic belief that slaves were incapable of supporting themselves in freedom and his fear they would become burden to society -- his belief in gradual measures operating through the legal processes of government -- and, after 1806, a state law that required freed slaves to leave Virginia within a year. Jefferson wrote that this law did not "permit" Virginians to free their slaves; he apparently thought that, for an enslaved African American, slavery was preferable to freedom far from one's home and family. Source: http://www.monticello.org... None of this would serve as an excuse today.... but that is based on today's morality; not 18th Century America. Jefferson did what he could within the context of his time. Reportedly, he treated his slaves relatively well: like the kinder Plantation owners of the day, Jefferson allowed slaves to rest on Sundays; he allowed time off for a couple of holidays during the year; he even paid some slaves for "extra" work; and he did whatever he could to keep slave families intact-- not splitting them up, and allowing them to marry. Although we may scoff at these "kindnesses" today, at the time, they were considered fair and generous.
Debater's Choice

"" What my opponent is asking me to do is akin to asking me to prove 1 + 1 = 2"" Well sine you didn"t/couldn"t do it I have found you the proof. However you still fail to give any objective proof for your Theorem. The proof starts from the Peano Postulates, which define the natural numbers N. N is the smallest set satisfying these postulates: P1. 1 is in N. P2. If x is in N, then its "successor" x' is in N. P3. There is no x such that x' = 1. P4. If x isn't 1, then there is a y in N such that y' = x. P5. If S is a subset of N, 1 is in S, and the implication (x in S => x' in S) holds, then S = N. Then you have to define addition recursively: Def: Let a and b be in N. If b = 1, then define a + b = a' (using P1 and P2). If b isn't 1, then let c' = b, with c in N (using P4), and define a + b = (a + c)'. Then you have to define 2: Def: 2 = 1' 2 is in N by P1, P2, and the definition of 2. Theorem: 1 + 1 = 2 Proof: Use the first part of the definition of + with a = b = 1. Then 1 + 1 = 1' = 2 Q. E. D My opponents assertion that "", the theorem still stands as hypothetically correct. There appears to be no way to prove it wrong. "" 400 years ago it was accepted that the earth was the centre of the universe , my opponents ""logic"" if applied to this situation would be Just because there was no way to prove otherwise our plant was the center of the universe this has subsequently been proven to be false. This therefore shows just because I do not have the means to prove, using evidence his argument is false it does not mean it is true. He has provided no evidence to show that it is true but merely made assumptions such as the ones made 400 years ago. Back to the debate at hand which again you fail to provide any relevant evidence to suggest there is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century. I fact you even support my argument "" On a personal, subjective viewpoint, I actually agree with my opponent"" We live in the real world not the hypothetical therefore the debates should refer to only the real world. You accept my statement that the death penalty lowers murder rates "" It has been statistically proven that societal units that implement the death penalty have lower rates of murder"" so we are both in agreement it has a positive effect on society as a whole and therefore by your own admission "" There is a place for the death penalty in the 21st century"". To summaries I will repeat what I asked in my previous round to you the reader. If you were the parent of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings would you like to pay to keep your sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison? If the answer is no you accept "" There is a place for the death penalty in the 21st century"" and are therefore compelled to vote con. Thankyou for a great debate.
Debater's Choice

"" This is the ultimate final factor in the theorem which, when fulfilled, will, according to the theorem, prove the necessity of capital punishment. The following statements stand: 1. There should be no penalties at all due to a lack of proper justification(s) 2. There should be no death penalty."" To sum your argument up. It is your opinion that there is no justified reason to lock away a rapist, murder, child killer under any circumstances. I am sorry but I don"t feel I need to provide justification or proof why we should lock away these types of people. Given you have ""yet to provide compelling objective reason(s)"" why we should let them walk our streets. "" In light of an inability to provide proper objective justifications, I will now return to the original notion"" I would like to remind my opponent the original notion was "There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century'. You have not provide any substantial reasons why the death penalty is no longer relevant in the 21st century instead you have been on some rant about what is the meaning of life." I believe my opponent to have misconstrued the entirety" of the argument. I am sorry I failed to provide sources in my previous round but I would like point out so did you here is a sources showing the murder rate in the uk and how it has risen since the abolition of the death penalty (1965) www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03805.pdf .Here is a news article highlighting the discrepancy. http://abclocal.go.com.... To some up my opponent has failed to provide compelling evidence why child murderer or mass killer such as the man who committed the Boston bombings should not face the death penalty. In fact he suggests that there is no reason to keep them locked up and they should be allowed to mix with the general public. I find this impossible to accept. On a purely personal view point why should the farther of the 8 year old boy killed in the Boston bombings have to pay to keep his sons murder fed, clothed, warmed , entertained and safe in prison?. I really don"t think that there is a justified reason for this. I accept the death penalty should not be used in all crimes but sometimes anything other than the death penalty is not enough.
Debater's Choice

The argument is titled "There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century' I am going to argue there is strong evidence to support the death penalty. Numerous studies have been conducted showing a direct correlation between homicide rates and death penalty enforcement. The studies clearly show that when the death penalty is removed the murder rate goes up. A prime example is that of the uk. In 1965 when the death penalty was removed murder rate in the uk increased and is still to the current day far higher than it was in 1965 when the death penalty was removed. Take for example the Boston bombings why should the farther of the 8 year old child killed have to pay for his sons murder to be kept in prison for the rest of his life paying for his food , clothes, heating , and people to guard him to make sure he does not get back into the community and kill again. You advance the notion "" punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity"" but fail to meet the burden of proof thus making the argument redundant. "" I contend against the necessity of this peace, happiness and well-being. What objective reason is there for humanity's survival? Do any of the categories of crime really matter?"" Just because this is your view does not mean it is a universal fact and again you fail to meet the Burdon of proof. You have therefore put forward two of your own opinions without proof or reason other than ""this is what you think therefore it must be so"" to back them up factually .
Debater's Choice

As according to my opponent, my side of the resolution is: "there should be no death penalty," In fact, let me take this further and declare that there should be no penalty at all whatsoever. I contend that moral apathy is the correct ideological position and that, under moral apathy, the necessity of anything, including the death penalty, is not adequately justified. How do you justify necessity? My answer is that you can't. Let's look at the inadequacy this way: First, I advance that the goal behind society's system of laws and punishments is to enhance a metaphysical quantization of peace, happiness and well-being of humanity. Second, I contend against the necessity of this peace, happiness and well-being. What objective reason is there for humanity's survival? Do any of the categories of crime really matter? The answer, I believe, is that there are no objective reasons for the existence of life or humanity. We just are, and that's all there is to the question. Our petty prioritizations of life, humanity, the environment, order, peace and well-being, when applied to an infinite moral regress, fall under an astounding lack of justification. Simply put, there is no objective reason for anything. There are subsequently no reason to indict/punish criminals for the maintenance of peace; there are no compelling reasons for the maintenance of peace (or even life, for that matter). If my opponent cannot name a compelling objective reason for existence, then PRO's premise, that there should be no penalties (including the death penalty), stand. I'm even going to go one step further and declare that any justification CON may elicit can only be appeals to the human's evolutionary instincts of survival (peaceful coexistence falls under this) and reproduction; emotional appeals. Ultimately, there is no reason for anything at all since objectivity doesn't exist.
Debater's Choice

The position you basically want me to take is that there should be no death penalty, anywhere, anytime at all no matter the circumstances. I don't like it, but I will take it. Your position, if I have this correctly, is: The death penalty should be allowed implementation in certain circumstances. I expect objective reasoning and a good, well thought-out case. You can either make a few clarifications and start immediately (you'll also have to leave round 5 empty so that both you and I have the same number of rounds in total) or you can simply submit clarifications or acceptance of clarifications and have me start. Precautions: If CON trolls me for not defining the words within the resolution & my interpretation (such as making DNA -> Demonic Nambian Antelopes in a debate pertaining to DNA), then I expect a full 7-point vote from you, the voter.
Debater's Choice

Rules: 1. If you accept this debate, you are to accept and follow the following rules: 2. Failure to comply will result in a automatic win for me. Voters please keep this in mind. 3. You may come up with any reasonable debate topic. You can be either PRO or CON, I don't care. My standards are somewhat lax; just don't throw me an extremely difficult or impossible position (i. e. Prove the color purple to not be the color purple). Don't make me prove God's existence, it may seem viable, but I feel unable to do so without stealing other people's arguments. 4. I am entitled to an automatic win if you troll this debate. (Example of troll debates can be found here: . http://www.debate.org...) 5. If I don't agree to take up your resolution in round 2 (not very likely if you are reasonable), then the debate will be tied and we'll leave it at that. 6. Round 1&2 are for the establishment of some resolution, definitions and clarifications. 7. I retain the right to call 'troll' throughout the entire debate, effectively securing my 7 point victory. My troll-calling judgment will, however, be gauged by voters. If the voters decide I am calling troll unfairly, then a 7 point victory will go toward my opponent. Voters please be as objective as possible. Please make sure you have relatively decent debate credentials/potentials ('Confidence is key' -Willy Wonka). Again, my standards are pretty lax so don't be shy. You could have low ELO and still be a shining star. The only condition being that you don't end up forfeiting like I've seen others do (my last debater's choice was a disaster). Be prepared to spend a decent amount of time constructing arguments and rebuttals. This includes, but is not limited to, research, logical musings, etc. I really do mean it when I'm asking for a debater of decent quality. Please be relatively certain of your debate prowess (this is a very important criterion. ) .. .. .
Logical absolutes are dependent on god

I will attempt defend the position that logical absolutes depend on the existence of god. Logical absolutes include- law of noncontradiction, law of identity,the law of excluded middle 1st round will be arguments, 2nd,3rd will also be arguments but in each round the debater will be able to ask 2 questions that must be answered in the opponents next round. 4th round will be arguments and answering of last questions. 5th round no new arguments just conclusions. Burden of Proof will be shared. Define God- Transcendent being, who exists outside time and space. Ok, I will start, Logical absolutes exist anything that exists must be physical or conceptual logical absolutes are not physical Therefore they are conceptual. concept: http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... 1. A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. 2. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. By definition a concept must come from a mind. Logical absolutes transcend the human mind and cannot come from human minds. Since human minds are different and these logical absolutes are true at any time or space. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true. http://carm.org...... Therefore the logical absolutes must come from a transcendent mind, and that mind is what we have defined as god. In order for my opponent to even start to make an argument he cannot just assume logic, as an atheist my opponent has no reason for logic so he can't use logic, his own position is self refuting.
Logical absolutes are dependent on god

After challenging me to debate the merits of TAG, Pro has yet again failed to properly engage with the debate, forfeiting this last round after 2 rounds of relatively little substance. Obviously, as a result, the unanswered criticisms I made of TAG yet again go completely ignored, and thus refute TAG so far. Pro has been online regularly in the past 3 days, so I find it hard to believe it a time issue, or unforeseen circumstance. In any event, the result is that 6 of the criticisms of TAG I made in R1 will not be responded to until (at least) R4.Extend all arguments.
Logical absolutes are dependent on god

Now I will go over some of the problems I have with his rebuttals. My opponent is trying to create a difference in Logical absolutes and doesn't really do a very good job. As even in his case a square circle would not exist. I am not talking about the symbols, even without a human mind the square circle would not exist. An example would be a ball would still be a sphere without human minds. It may not be called such, but it would not be a square shape also. So, his differentiation is meaningless. Now, onto his attacks on god. Since god is transcendent and all powerful he is making claims god can not be this or that. This is simply limiting god. He is the creator of logic. My opponent is limiting it to one set of logic. What may be logical to you, does not mean god has to hold by it. . God does not hold to our standards of logic, he has can do as he pleases. He is also saying god can not exist and not exist. That is smply an assertion, but why would a god want to not exist, it just doesn't make any sense, it isn't that he wouldn't be capable. It just would be why would a being choose not to exist. It is like choosing to kill yourself a sane being does not want that and god does not want that. Next, I want to go into my opponent saying that TAG is an argument to prove logical absolutes exist. No, it is saying because logical absolutes exist, and then going on to show how there must be a god. Logical absolutes are a given at this point, elephants non elephants did not exist before humans and so on. And since that is a concept that requires a mind, and the laws are transcendent. That mind must be transcendent and as we defined god he is that transcendent mind. I now want to go into my opponents argument is faulty to begin with. As an atheist he has no basis to use logic whatsoever. He just tries to use logic to attack my argument. He has no idea where logic came from and can not even prove it exists? So my questions to my opponent are: 1. Where does logic come from? 2. Name something that is neither physical or conceptual?
It is most probable that a god exists.

Ave!God is a maximally great being, and by definition, you cannot conceive of anything greater than god.'Most probable' simply means that it is more possible than its negation. If the theist side's arguments are more plausible than their refutations, then god most probably exists.Exists means to be a part of reality.For rules, I think we should just follow general ideas of DDO conduct. Sources are not needed for this debate, but they can be included. Burden of proof is on myself.Vale!