BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Buddhism

Mmm...there's a slight confusion. You have explained why compassion is beneficial and then pointed out that those benefits contribute to happiness. That makes compassion a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for happiness, as was your opening point. You could get those same benefits through manipulation, for example, and whatever happiness comes from having the benefits. But I know from experience, and observation, that people are happy being compassionate for each other even BEFORE the benefits start to kick in. Their compassion itself is a happy experience, you might say. Now the CAUSE of that has nothing to do with benefits. The CAUSE is the structure of our brains. And the cause behind that is evolution. And evolution puts together some incredibly neat stuff, but we've matched and surpassed it (in many, but not all things) in 500 years of science what took better than a billion years of evolution. Give us another hundred or two and we'll get the rest. Evolution is just inherently not a great way to accomplish things, like happiness. The impressive thing about it is not how good of a designer it is, but how well it works, despite how BAD of a designer it is. Why claim that an intentional effort can never surpass natural selection of genetic mutation? Why claim that such an effort is inherently "emptier" than said mutation? But, hey, until we can do that, let compassion reign, eh?
Buddhism

I will start by addressing why happiness is produced when we feel compassion for others. All of us want to be free from pain and suffering and we want things like friends, family, and good health. If we are to be selfish, we will gain poor family interactions, lose friends, and our health will even suffer due to things like stress and even the possibility of a violent death. When we start to alieve even our own pain and suffering, we will start to be healthier, people may even start to like us more and our family will do better. Then when we start to take care of our families and friends they will start to be healthier and do better in other areas. Then we start doing so for aquantences, strangers, and even enemies. They will start being happier, friendlier, and more productive. Then when we have compassion for all these people they might start reciprocating, making us happier, healthier, and have more friends when we are in need. The reason compassion is successful, the best way to produce happiness, is because when we are more caring towards the world, the world will tend to reflect that. As people are more productive wealth increases. When people are more likely to step in for strangers conflict decreases. When people look out for one another problems are noticed quicker and are more likely to be fixed. The reason compassion is the best way to produce happiness, even if it is as you say "accidental," is because when people genuinely care about each other, especially beyond race and borders, there are more happiness opportunities to go around for everyone. Thus, I would argue, happiness is not just a mindset, but a shared experience that people can have with each other; and it can be just as simple as giving a warm smile to a stranger who is sad.
Buddhism

Pardon, but did you not define "most important" as "the thing in a human's life when fulfilled brings the most happiness?" I most certainly said that compassion will not produce the most happiness, which by your definition, is equivalent to saying that it's not the "most important" thing in human existence. I accept your evaluation of happiness as being more akin to eyesight than to legs. I might put them on a continuum from legs, to eyesight, to happiness, such that happiness is even further beyond our ability to hack than is eyesight. But the principle remains. Whether we happen to have the technology or not right now, some day we may. The "natural" way of producing happiness is a happy accident and is by its nature unlikely to be the BEST way of doing so. Now you mention empty happiness. I will introduce the concept of evolution. Once there was an organism with a capacity to affect the well-being of its fellows. It may or may not have done so, and was no happier either way. Then there was a mutation in the genes of a newborn member of its species. The mutation made the newborn act in odd ways. Its brain injected pleasure hormones into its system when it improved the well-being of its fellows. So it did that a lot, and was often in this weird new mutated brain state. Is this method of producing the "happiness" brain state inherently the best one? Why should it be? Someday we may have sufficient knowledge of the body to affect the structure of the brain, not on accident (as before), but on purpose, and do better on purpose what was once achieved by accident. Happiness may incidentally correlate with knowing we are in a good world right now. But the actual CAUSE of happiness is affecting brain states. Having a model of the world that says it's a good world may INDIRECTLY affect that brain state, but there may some day be a way to DIRECTLY affect that brain state. Or we may find better indirect ways to do so. Either way.
Buddhism

Very interesting argument, and one I didn't expect. First I would like to point out that you did not challenge happiness is the most important thing in human existence, so I am to believe you accept it as the case. We do have ways to improve things like eyesight and legs, but I would like to examine it. Legs can be replaced wheelchairs etc. and made obsolete cars, planes etc. But eyesight has not been replaced, just enhanced. So our sight is enhanced by telescopes, microscopes etc. but the basic function has not been replaced. Blind people have no use for that stuff and even letting them see still does not replace the basic function of sight. Maybe we can replace eyes one day for everyone, to see infered, etc. but sight is not replaced. I argue compassion is more like sight than legs. Caring about others is the best way to promote happiness, whether in petson, by phone, television or any other technology. Now you mention artificial happiness. I will introduce the Buddhist concept of emptiness. This concept says all phenomena are empty. So if I take a drug that makes me happy, maybe when I'm on the drug I will be happy. But lets say I miss a dose and become exceedingly unhappy. This is because I didn't really earn the happiness and am now suffering for pass misdeeds. However if I stop taking the drug and am still happy it is because I was sttl a good person on the drug. Actually I don't need the drug at all. This is because the drug is empty and I am the one behind the phenomena. If we do not develop compassion, we will fail to be happy because happiness stems from knowing we are in a good world. It is easy to be happy in heaven, but could you still maintain it in the Hell realms. It would be exceedingly difficult. So compassion creates a better world where everyone can be happy. If it is enhanced by brilliant people on television or talking to your family on the phone that is good. But if you watch junk or just yell at your family, maybe not so good.
Students should NOT have to stand for O Canada

Making the following assumptions: This refers to students who are Canadian citizens; Exceptions are made for those students who have any trouble standing - say, because of physical or mental disability, other health conditions, &c; This refers to the practice of schools playing O Canada every morning, and students being made to stand at attention and remain silent (or sing) for the length of the song. My rebuttal: "forcing them is could be a violation of multiple human rights including: Freedom of opinion or Freedom of religion" This is false. Canadian citizens are permitted to have any opinion about this issue - you specifically are probably a citizen (a guess on my part), and you won't be arrested for starting this debate, because you are free to have this opinion. Freedom of religion is an interesting point, but besides the fact that I don't know of a single religion that prohibits standing for the national anthem, I also feel that there should be limits on what constitutes freedom of religion. If there were no limits, some folk could use religion to excuse themselves from any and all citizen duties, such as taxpaying and law-abiding. My case: Students in schools should be made to stand for O Canada. Although I feel it would be unnecessary to punish students for not abiding by this, it should still exist as a rule in Canadian schools. I feel that there are certain duties that every citizen has to Canada and what it means. One of those is the respect and love of the nation. For that reason, the anthem is an important part of Canadian culture and citizen duty that must be kept fast.
No uniforms

I believe that not only schools should have uniforms, but everyone should wear specific clothing for specific groups and events. Uniforms, as the name suggests, imply a sense of uniformity in both the wearer and the bystander. A uniform creates a feeling of mutual reliance in a group. This can promote teamwork, friendship, and overall efficiency. Some people think wearing unique clothes is good, and in some situations, to a point, it is. When it becomes distracting, they've crossed the line.
No uniforms

I think that schools should not have uniforms. Kids need to express themselves with the clothes they ware. I think it is fun to pick out what you are doing to ware in the morning, try different outfits, and have fun. What are uniforms even for? They really don't do anything. Some people think it looks more presentable, not to me. I think it looks good, to be creative. Ware more colors, designs, patterns, sparkles, ect. If you think uniforms are better please comment and tell me why. Thanks for reading. Don't forget to tell me what you think:)
Gay Marriage Debate Framed Incorrectly

I will debate with what you said about how all marriage should be, "equal". This goes back to one simple argument. That argument is, can gay people be married. What people seem to grasp is that this is not a matter of religion, nor is it a matter of politics, rather it is a misconception. This is like a horse wanting to have the same snout as a pig for equality's sake. Marriage, whether you like it or not, is ideally based off the romantic and BIBLICAL relationship between one man, and one woman. Now, should gay people have equal rights, why not. If they want tax laws etc. to be the same, then let them it is a free country. However; they cannot be, "married", as marriage is of a strict definition. Gay people can become married at any point, they cannot; however marry each other. If they would like civil union, that is fine. Homosexuals are not being given second hand treatment, nor are they having their life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness taken away, they are simply being told that they cannot have an ideological union between one man and one woman, with two men or two women
Gay Marriage Debate Framed Incorrectly

The argument is flawed, Government should not dictate what is a religious compact. This extends to hand fasting, blood rites ect. True separation of church and state would be seen by removing the religious definition from government registry. True marriage equality would be equal protection under the law by redefining all government applied for marriages as civil unions regardless of gender. It infringes on the freedoms of people of faith to dictate what they should accept. It infringes on gay couples rights that government uses a standard that excludes them. Does it not make sense to remove a definition considered by people to have religious connotations from the government. Let people have the EQUALITY to define their own marriage? To appease the right restrict government's role in to only observe property rights and taxation? Conversely to all the Liberals and Progressives reading this, would it not be the ultimate separation of church and state to remove ANY religious connotations from the legal government recognized definitions? Hence Civil Unions for all.
Gay Marriage Debate Framed Incorrectly

First off, the Torah IS the Bible. The Bible is the completed Torah, but contains the same content at it's beginning. Second, gay marriage is not a political matter. You cannot change the definition. What if I said I wanted to have orange skin, therefore, we must change the definition of orange. Marriage IS religious. The family unit is the sole most important concept in any religion with the exception of the Deity, or deity themselves. Instead of legalizing gay marriage, which does not exist, why not simply allow them to have the tax benefits etc. and then call it a civil union. There is no such thing as a gay marriage, because marriage is an ideological union between one man and one woman. There is no reason for the definition of a word to be changed. As long as they have rights, there is no reason to change the meaning of a word that transcends any of our lifetimes, and was formed by religious scholars and God himself over the course of thousands of years.
Gay Marriage Debate Framed Incorrectly

Marriage had ideological roots far before the bible. Take the Torah for instance roughly predating the bible by 3000 years had the concept of matrimony. Also take Hinduism which existed roughly 1800 years before any biblical interpretation also having rites of matrimony. Anyways I digress the core arguments for Gay marriage have been lack of access to tax benefits, estate, and other provisions that are generally the sole territory of married couples. A few states that allow civil unions address all but the federal tax aspects of the argument. By removing any religious connotation and establishing all recognized government couplings as civil unions would that not achieve the desired result of equality? I did not once recommend that the religious definitions be redefined but the legal definitions recognized by local, state, and federal governments. This method would also ensure that religious freedoms are untouched having the government further removed in legislating that which it has no business doing so. I think the misconception is that there cannot be equality without infringing on religious beliefs.
islam is non sense

Clearly you have a knack for misunderstanding the Koran. God clearly says to give firmness to his believers and to punish the disbelievers. You think smiting fingertips of Disbelievers is cruel? And killing, bombing, raping of Muslims is what? Good? Your bringing up this point just shows your complete lack of knowledge of Islam. There is nothing barbaric about cutting off heads or fingertips because back then, swords were used to fight. This kind of punishment is otherwise strictly prohibited. Yet, according to you, Islam is "hatred" whereas, the nearly 1.6 billion Muslims in the world don't think so. So try to make your accusations well- founded.
islam is non sense

Islam is the religion of peace. Of love. How is it that the actions of Muslims give Islam a substandard reputation whereas, the actions of Jews for example the massacre in Gaza, Judaism's reputation isn't affected? Islam is the religion of extreme moderation, in believing the existence of God the Maintainer and the Sustainer of the Universe and his Prophets. Islam teaches that humans are born pure and sinless. God continuously reminds humans in the Koran that there are signs in nature for those who see. Islam is all about maintaining a just and peaceful society. Its about honesty love and respect. As for war, in Islam, War can only be fought in self defense. this current "jihad" is wrongly translated as a holy war. Islam forbids this. Yet, Islam is blamed. Indeed Islam is a seriously misunderstood religion. If it is "nonsense" then why is it perhaps, the most fastest growing religion in this world???
Dapl police; should they be using water canons in freezing temperatures for the protesters

I understand, but, they are fighting in what they believe. That pipe is going to carry 470,000 barrels of oil per day. (http://www.daplpipelinefacts.com...) They are afraid the pipe is going to break and poison their water. They are afraid that their children, their children's children, and themselves will develop many diseases like cancer, and will develop mental illnesses. (http://www.amfs.com...) Don't you see? They are fighting for their lives and their children's lives, that is reason enough for them to do this. Also, Prove to me they are being violent, thank you. Also, according to (http://www.duluthgov.info...), the purpose of the police is to "To ensure preservation of peace and public safety through the enforcement of local, state, and Federal laws, and by providing support and assistance during emergency or crisis situations." What they are doing is the opposite, like what I stated in argument 2. First of all, the pipeline is going through their reservation, in which they own. (http://usdakotawar.org...) So they are not trespassing, the pipeline is, that is another reason why they are protesting. A reminder, please find sources to back up your opinion.
Dapl police; should they be using water canons in freezing temperatures for the protesters

While I do agree it's not the most humane of measures, the police force has already devoted money and time into peacefully asking the protestors to co-operate. Some protestors even turned to violence in rejection of the pipeline, and police had to follow suite. These protestors pose a major safety risk of others around them, setting fires to 'warm themselves' and attempting to bash through police barricades. I've seen all over twitter cries to 'donate for a noble cause', that noble cause being saving the 'sacred water'. It's their problem if they wish to protest in near-freezing weather, and shouldn't be the problem of people living their lives. If people really cared about their safety, they would flee the scene when police told them to leave. Refusing to co-operate with the police is the same as refusing to pull over when a cop car tells you to. If not water, they would use 'rubber bullets', 'pepper spray', and eventually, armed force. While the results of spraying water may not be the safest of measures, it is already not safe to be outside in such weather in protest.
Dapl police; should they be using water canons in freezing temperatures for the protesters

Great, I can"t wait what you will have next, well, good luck. The use of water canons is inhumane, especially in freezing temperatures. The temperatures, according to this website (https://www.wunderground.com...). For 8 days from 11/24 to 11/30, (in Fahrenheit)the forecast was 40.5(4.722222) for the average high in those 8 days. The forecast average low was 25.5(-3.75). If we average the two numbers, we will get 32.875. If you want to check my math, you may. Since water freezes at about 32(0), these numbers are very close to this very special one. Remember they are using pressurized water which can go up to 145 psi(according to http://riotcannons.com...). Also, for that water to boil, is about 359(181)(http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com...). The boiling point for "normal water" to boil is 212(100(Why can"t we use Celsius other than Fahrenheit for standard, but whatever, off topic). The water to boil has surprisingly raised by 177(81). This indicates that it"s harder to boil this water, which also indicates that it"s colder, since the molecules are more pressured together, which means it turns a little more solid than its liquid form. (https://www.chem.purdue.edu...) At least it"s not hot water, like the experiment stated on MIT website (https://engineering.mit.edu...). Still, water that is colder than the "normal water". What will happen first is the person could go under cold shock, which isn"t the most pleasant type(http://www.coldwatersafety.org...). First you will lose the control of your breathing(which lasts between 2-3 minutes, if you want to get more into it, link above) Second threat, is heart and blood pressure problems. People who have problems with their heart, they are vulnerable to stroke or heart failure. Then the third is mental problems, which is when you start to panic. (link above for more info) Second is "physical capacitation", which is your muscles becoming weak because of the cold water, here are the symptoms(http://www.coldwatersafety.org...) . Third, is hypothermia. (http://www.coldwatersafety.org... - http://www.mayoclinic.org...) In mild hypothermia, you may feel nausea, fatigue, or low energy, but that is only a few. (For more, link above) For severe, you may have poor decision making, slurs of words, and clumsiness.(Much like alcohol) After that, is basically death. I can"t emphasize in that. You see the facts of what can happen to you if you are in freezing water. This is inhumane! And it"s only the start of winter, it may get even colder. People are going to die because of this. Luckily they wearing jackets. Here is a video of them doing it(http://www.pbs.org...) Like what I stated, I"m against the police using water canons in freezing weather, because it"s inhumane.
Dapl police; should they be using water canons in freezing temperatures for the protesters

Hello human, I see we are here to argue, here are the rules. You must have some facts behind your arguments. You must do it for passion, not for the pleasure of other's frustration. (trolls) Also, please be sensible when you do each argument, I don't want this to be insulting to me, or you. If you are in these rules, then lets begin, if not, then vote when I argue with another human. In the first round we will only be stating our stance in the argument. I stand for con.
Assisted Suicide Should Be Legalized.

"Perhaps you're correct that it would not suddenly make the ethical issues 'okay' but I think they could be overlooked" Overlooking ethical issues is a dangerous road. A very dangerous road. Killing someone is never in their best interest. "If the mind has logically--with no contributing forces--decided its ready to go than that decision should be allowed to the patient." The mind is incapable of deciding anything without contributing forces. I would also argue that depression is inherent in suicide. The person has decided that they would rather die than live. How could that be other than depression? Also, could you explain what you mean by a mother giving up her child? A mother giving up her child for adoption actually exemplifies the maternal instinct, as it is a decision that the child would be happier somewhere else and then putting the child's happiness above the mother's. I am arguing that it is morally wrong to commit suicide. I am then extending that argument to say that it is wrong to help someone do something that is morally wrong. Therefore, it is morally wrong to help someone commit suicide. Also, to say that you are not hurting anyone else in your actions is simply not true. The devastation that a suicide leaves behind makes it obvious that, yes, you are hurting other people.