BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice form a flawless basis for morality

Brief: The four primary virtues are the principles that I rely on to guide me in moral matters. I use them because they are flawless, timeless maxims that, if interpreted and followed correctly, will never lead me astray. All other principles, including the Ten Commandments, tertiary virtues like courage, honesty, loyalty, etc. and principles instilled by institutions to forward their goals are only conditionally useful and threaten to distract and detract from these true roots of morality. I will show that only the misinterpretation of these concepts can possibly lead to vice; there no less exists a perfect root of morality within them that can be exposed and utilized through study. I must defend all four of these contentions for victory: Contention 1: Prudence is an infallible, unambiguous virtue. Oxford Dictionary: Sound in judgment; careful, cautious. Some versions of the primary virtues use the term wisdom instead of prudence, as the terms are inextricably dependant. Wisdom produces better ends; for example, studies have shown that older elephant matriarchs and patriarchs are consistently able to distinguish between friends and foes more easily, and are much better at leading their herds to safety than are the younger elephants. Many human cultures, especially Asian ones, recognize and respect without question the life-long learning of their elders. Older individuals invariably always employ more caution and care in their actions, producing consistently sounder decisions. Prudence can never be shown to be flawed. Contention 2: Fortitude is an infallible, unambiguous virtue. Oxford Dictionary: Courage in trouble or pain. This is different than just plain courage; fortitude is courage as applied to adversity. Example: courage to play a practical joke on someone is not necessarily virtuous or moral. Courage, facing pain or adversity, is a different concept. Life could be described as simply a string of adversities, and fortitude allows us to overcome them and better ourselves. Often, bettering ourselves includes our moral state, thus strengthening our morality. Contention 3: Justice is an infallible, unambiguous virtue. Oxford Dictionary: Justness; fairness. To be fair and just is flawlessly moral. Life can produce situations which test your ideas of fairness, and different people may have different ideas of fair, but this is not to say that ultimate fairness does not exist. Con will no doubt have examples to test me on this concept next round ;-) Contention 4: Temperance is an infallible, unambiguous virtue. Oxford Dictionary: Moderation, esp. in eating or drinking; abstinence, esp total, from alcohol. This definition can obviously be extended to include any substances that can intoxicate you and hinder your mind state, thus hindering your moral judgment. Any time you drink or use drugs, you compromise your moral judgment. Urdang, Laurence. The American Century Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995
Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice form a flawless basis for morality

I would like to explore a topic that Rob1Billion and I began debating in the comments section of another debate. It is my belief that morality can not be reduced to a set of unambiguous laws. That is to say, we can not find a set of laws that will always yield the same results for moral questions as our intuition would give. My opponent will argue that the morality of an action depends on four unambiguous, unchanging qualities: Temperance, fortitude, prudence, and justice. I will let him explain in more detail.
I believe that God exists

Rebuttal(s): Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfill the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistomology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired.[1] Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations definitely does not equate to "no evidence." However, that does not intrinsically and/or scientifically prove God's existence either. The particular evidence he presented to establish the resolution that a monotheistic, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God in fact, exists is him being "healed" simultaneously by God after being diagnosed with an incurable disease. Then after extensive and intrusive testing, his doctor delivered the news that he had ulcerative colitis.[2] You have divulged tons of information about it. However, like my friend's ancestors quote: "If you will use alleged supernatural occurences material to the resolution, you still need to prove that that occurence ACTUALLY occured." You can not defend your position, for you can not present evidence proportional to your claim. Therefore, you lose. "Have you ever percepted your brain? No? Then according to the established laws of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, Science says you have no brain. So how should we trust your lectures? Faith correct? Exactly." Yes I have seen my brain in various scans/pictures, and I contend that science can easily demonstrate that I have a brain, and that no faith is required to belief that I have a brain. Faith, I think we agree based on what you've stated previously, is defined as the belief in something without any evidence. Logic, reason, skepticism, and the critical assessment and testing of falsifiable claims is what provides evidence and sufficient justification to believe any claim, including the claim that I do in fact have a brain. In order to move forward, we both need to reject the idea of hard solipsism, namely that one can only one's own mind is sure to exist, in other words nothing outside of the brain can be known to exist. If you do not accept this starting premise, we can't really have this debate, as you would be conceding that you would in fact be debating yourself inside your own mind, rather than another thinking human via the internet. Source(s): [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.patheos.com...
I believe that God exists

There are only 3 rounds. Therefore, we may have to continue via another debate (Unless you concede that you lose the debate). Presentation(s): Like SubjectiveMorality[1](Credibility issues) said, I simply do not hold the belief that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, monotheistic God exists until evidence proportional to the claim is presented, like alleged facts material to a case. For instance, there is a box. Some claim that the box contains something. However, we haven't opened the box yet. Therefore there is no sufficient justification to prove the claim. However, it is still possible. Heat is susceptible to the human body. It transmits energy. Therefore, it contains energy. According to its laws of conservation[2], it states that the total energy of an isolated system cannot change"it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but can change form, for instance chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite. A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings. Therefore, God didn't create energy. Therefore, he intrinsically (As a belief) doesn't exist. Source(s): [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
MOM is a wasteful mission and shall be called off.

for the first point put forward, NASA although adds a lot to the US Economy but what about other countries. Is NASA the only space agency? Talking about economy, does an increase in the economy reveal the human status of a nation. may be out of a population of 1000, 900 benefit, but what about the remaining 100. I think even my opponent will agree to the fact that these 100 people and their sustenance is far more important than the space missions, with no benefit at all. NASA may contribute a lot to the nation's economy bot what about the present status of people, not only in the US but outside as well. Rather than spending billions on missions can they not be donated for their benefit. Yes, you are absolutely right when you say that people will have to go to other planets to sustain their life, but, don't you think that the cost is going to be, so high that is far from the reach of commons; Forget about the poor. What will be the benefit to them, from these missions. Neither here, nor there....... the answer to the sub point 1 ALSO LIES IN THE VERY SAME POINT. what's the use of mining metals or other things, once we know the cost then is going to be far from the reach of commons or even the elite class. I think we shall first live in present rather than dreaming long about future. Definitely humans will not expand until they first sustain their very own present life.
MOM is a wasteful mission and shall be called off.

Contention 1: NASA makes a fortune while is paid pennies. NASA is given $17 billion per year while they add $180 billion to the US economy. That's a factor of over 100 times what they are paid. ( http://useconomy.about.com...) The only other department that is anywhere close to NASA is the Department of Agriculture which is $21 billion. Contention 2: What is MOM The MOM missions my opponent is speaking of is a mission that went to Mars and it maps the planet and uses it's sensors to find out resources and minerals on the planet. ( http://science.nasa.gov...) Now why is this important? Eventually the people of Earth will have to leave and colonize other planets or even mine them as Earth is currently running out of Rare Earth Metals. Subpoint 1: Rare Earth Metals 95% of the world's REMs belong to China and new Chinese regulations are driving prices of REMs up and China has even began to hold back their exports as they have already cut off all REM exports to Japan. ( http://www.forbes.com...) and ( http://www.business-standard.com...) Now what are REMs you may ask? REMs are what we use in current everday technology from your plasma screen TV and your cell phone to hybrid cars and military spy satellites. These raw minerals are key for future and modern technology. Subpoint 2: Colonizing Mars It's inevitable, humans have to expand or die. Many times throughout history our population has risen above a certain level and shortly afterwards the human race has met a massive die off. People have even began to adopt some extremes like those of the Georgia Guidestones where they want massive genocide to get the human population down. I appologize for the lack of holding as I did this argument on my phone.
MOM is a wasteful mission and shall be called off.

well, thanks for the acceptance. coming on to the arguments round, i'd like to substantiate my chosen point with an undeniable and an irrefutable fact which is of that of world poverty. when half of the world is living under the threats of problems like water and food scarcity, i firmly believe that rather than spending billions of rupees merely on a mission that will give us nothing is complete nonsense and a sheer wastage of money. these billions of rupees spent by NASA , ISRO or many other agencies if put to a good use, like the one stated above can really prove fruitful and help our world get relief from terrible conditions of poverty and further serve the humanity and lead to the development of this whole world. all these missions are undertaken for no good reason at all, specially the one of serving humanity.
Abortion after 3 months of the baby being concieved is immoral and wrong

" Your argument stating that intelligence and pain are what defines life is hugely flawed as we can adapt that in terms of adults and kill many who are in coma's etc ". As Ive already stated in the comment section, I believe that if the family orders the person in the coma to die than it would be morally justified to kill that person as they have no sentience and have no intelligence. " I am not forcing anyone to do anything by this, The forcible act was already done(rape), I am simply saying that you can't kill the child. " Yes you actually are as your forcing innocent women who were raped to under go a painful pregnancy and if at a young age could even lead to death. By your logic a 10 year old girl who was raped and was pregnant, Should have the kid anyways even though it would result in her and possibly the babies death. " Masturbation is not mass genocide as it is part of the man's body and individually a sperm cannot bring about a child. " With all do respect I don't think you even read my comment clearly and in fact you took me out of context. What I meant was that you said that at any stage during fetal development. Meaning that even a sperm that hasn't even reached the egg constitutes as immoral to abort the baby. Going by that logic, You must be against masturbation and using condoms. " I believe that life begins at conception this is the only viable option since choosing any stage of development would make it morally right to kill adults who don't have these characteristics(e. G. Patients on ventilators, Patients with mechanical Hearts). So sentience is far from what defines a human life" Once again you took be blatantly out of context. I did not say that sentience is the ONLY thing that constitutes as life, I said that if a being has no sentience OR intelligence than it is not alive therefore it would be morally justified to kill that being.
Abortion after 3 months of the baby being concieved is immoral and wrong

Your argument stating that intelligence and pain are what defines life is hugely flawed as we can adapt that in terms of adults and kill many who are in coma's etc. I believe that life begins at conception this is the only viable option since choosing any stage of development would make it morally right to kill adults who don't have these characteristics(e. G. Patients on ventilators, Patients with mechanical Hearts). So sentience is far from what defines a human life. On the case of rape, Rape makes up under 2% of actual abortions. Rape is a horrible act, But it doesn't justify for an equally horrible act which is abortion. I am not forcing anyone to do anything by this, The forcible act was already done(rape), I am simply saying that you can't kill the child. I am also pro-choice in the sense that I agree with four choices: Contraception, Adoption, Abstinence or motherhood. Masturbation is not mass genocide as it is part of the man's body and individually a sperm cannot bring about a child.
Abortion after 3 months of the baby being concieved is immoral and wrong

" abortion is wrong no matter what the stage of fetal development or the circumstances that brought about the child(e. G. Rape, Incest). " Forcing a women against her will to have a baby even if that women was 10 years old and was raped, Is immoral and wrong as it would probably lead to that 10 year old girl to die or suffer severe injury. " The ability to feel pain does not change the fact that it is a human life " Well before 3 months the baby isn't even alive so it can't even be considered a human life yet. By your logic are you against masturbation? Also if the baby has no intellect or pain it is probably not alive. Oh and for people who are unable to feel pain, They still are alive and have some sort of intelligence. And no I am not saying that mentally retarded people with no intellect can be killed, I am simply stating that if a being has no sentience, And no intelligence than it is morally justified to kill them.
Abortion after 3 months of the baby being concieved is immoral and wrong

I am pro-life and so I believe that abortion is wrong no matter what the stage of fetal development or the circumstances that brought about the child(e. G. Rape, Incest). The ability to feel pain does not change the fact that it is a human life. There are adults who are unable to feel pain because of damage to the nervous system, Does this mean that killing them is justified also?
Abortion after 3 months of the baby being concieved is immoral and wrong

Before 3 months the baby is NOT sentient meaning that the baby can feel no pain. Going off this I believe if you have an abortion before 3 months have passed, It is morally justified to get an abortion. However after the baby becomes sentient unless the women was raped and kidnapped for 3 months or longer, Killing the baby is immoral and a horrible thing to do.
Jesus is God, bible christians should believe

Jesus is not completely God here. He was the Son of God, not God himself. He is the human to be conceived of the holy spirit and never to sin. Jesus could still be alive today if He escaped His crucifixion. Notice I capitalize He and His referring to Jesus. No one else ever gets that honor besides God. Jesus is our Lord, He is our Savior, He is our Shepard, He is the Lamb of God. Jesus is not God, His Father in heaven (our Father) is God. Jesus always needed permission from God to perform miracles and if you look at any Bible God approves of Him at many times ex. Baptism, Transfiguration. The trinity shows the three parts of the divine things. Take the sun God is the orb, Jesus is the light, and the Holy Spirit is the warmth. Jesus is not God like God is not Jesus. Can you claim Jesus is a demigod okay. You can even say He is half alien, His father is not of this earth. Jesus is the ultimate perfect sacrifice given to cover all sins from all. Jesus basically eliminated Judaism. Jesus was not God, He was his holy son. A sinless man that had a connection with God like no one else ever will. I use the KJV for all my readings and researches. Only because it is a direct translation to English. Also is the Catholic Church uses it as long as most Protestants. Jesus said He was the Son of Man, Bringer of light. Never said He was actually God. "Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven." Matthew 26:64 KJV And always Linate always great to debate you! Thanks so much my Christian brother. And as always peace be with you always through our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
Jesus is God, bible christians should believe

Jesus never said he wasn't God. if we have letters from his closest followers that say he is, we should listen up. if we want to defer to the bible as true, we should listen up. if we want to given deferrence to the early church's views and on things like the Ariyan controversy, we should listen up. the father and son relationship isn't suppose to make sense. that's why the trinity is called a paradox. the son is god the father is god but the son is not the father, type stuff.
Jesus is God, bible christians should believe

Alright, you have one verse so far in the KJV that is still not a direct proposition that Jesus is God. The author of Hebrews is Paul of Tarsus. An amazing, hard working man driven with faith, but again never met Jesus personally. I have direct quotes supplying that He is not God by Jesus' words themselves. Jesus is the Son of God. A man without sin and through him and his sacrifice you and me will be together in the New Earth in the New Jerusalem. Jesus was not God himself because again before every miracle he performed He needed to pray to our Father in Heaven. Like said in the comments if He was God He would of praye to himself? That does not sound right. Jesus was divine no doubt but that is why there is a trinity. Father(God Almighty), Son(Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
Jesus is God, bible christians should believe

First off I need to know what Bible you are taking these quotes out from. Definitely not the KJV because and like most Bibles use the word Lord and Savior, not God and Savior. Also when Jesus asked his disciples who they thought He was Peter said "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God." Matthew 16:16 KJV Jesus always referred to Himself as the Son of Man. This is because He was only human, He only performed miracles under the permission and guidance of His Father (God). Jesus was the only human to not sin in God's eyes and the price of sin is death. The only way he could be killed is by execution under false pretenses that is what happened anyways. And of course we know He rose again to prove that He never sinned. Please supply the Bible you used please because their are hundreds and not all Christians follow all the Bibles out there. Thanks.
Jesus is God, bible christians should believe

Jesus is God. (God and man, actually) I admit I always hesitated to say he's God.. but I hesitated more to say he's not. most bible verses i saw were to arguable. then i saw some that weren't so arguable. and i'm one to give the bible the benefit of the doubt... so... I go with God... Romans 9:5 - ...Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen. Titus 2:13-15 - ...our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, Hebrews 1:8 - But about the Son he says, "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever" 2 Peter 1:1 - ...the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" at the beginning of the book of John... "In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us". Jesus became flesh and dwelt amoung us.. Jesus is the word. In John, Jesus at one point says "unless you believe that I AM he, you will surely perish in your sins". only God is ever referenced to as I AM, and Jesus and everyone else knew it.
can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? my answer - no.

My opponent has not refuted my contentions. Pro has made the argument that God cannot make a rock he cannot lift, without any evidence to support it, upon the assertion that it is contrary to his nature. It needs to be clarified how an omnipotent God cannot make a rock he cannot lift. If he can create souls he cannot save, why couldn’t he then create unliftable rocks? “The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. ”[1] God can even give man free will, and override it. If you’ve asked me to demonstrate that god can do things that god cannot do (or vise versa), I think I’ve done so. [1] . http://bible.cc...
can God make a rock so big he can't lift it? my answer - no.

I said God cannot make the rock. that means i am acknowledging there are things that God cannot do. for you to simply show more things God cannot do, is not being contrary to me, as is the purpose of debate. God is unlimited except so far as he does things that are contrary to his nature, to the laws of logic (making a square circule etc) etc. the examples you pointed out would be things that are of his nature. also i had been hoping to debate someone using more rote logic, not religious texts or religious ideas. religion is too all over the place. but oh well, it is what it is.