BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
free will does not exist

2) I believe that humans have the ability to think outside of emotion and want and have the ability to think, weigh pros and cons, and that the decision is decided by what seems to be the best option. For example, I thought about the pros and cons of taking this debate. While I have a desire to engage in philosophical, scientific, and religious debates, I do believe that this is still free will Because of the following: A) The desire was not based on emotions, but on an interest to learn. B) Even if my desire to debate these things is not part of free will, I still had to choose among the various debates to accept this one. I weighed the pros of entering this debate (it will enlighten me in a philosophical manner, I will be able to understand others views, and I will find personal satisfaction with it, etc. vs I could lose, destroying my percentage, I do not have readily made arguments and the time is limited, so it will take up essential time and energy, and there is a possibility of me losing interest and grudgingly finishing the debate based on my own pride. ) I chose this debate because the pros outweighed the cons based on things that mattered to me. I personally hold that the following is more important than the cons of this debate: BA) I find it important to enlighten oneself, BB) understand another's views, BC) and enjoy a happy life based on self-satisfaction, which is greater than my need for prideful victory. 3) Even when it comes to basic needs such as food and water, people, especially religious people, have been known to forgo these basic needs almost to the point of death. This is most certainly not a predetermined action or decision on any part of nature.
The death of god.

As listed in comments, I apologized for thinking I saw ThebigB as Atheist, rather than Agnostic. This however does nothing to change my argument. I would like to start this final round with that, I noticed in your profile under beliefs you list, "I really careless. I am not a religious man nor do i see a real point to it. " I respect your opinion but that begs the question as to why you would start such a religious debate. Anyway. . You misunderstood my original statement. "I do not off myself because God says not too. " This can be read two ways, I should have clarified. Let me rephrase it to, the reason I do not off myself has nothing to do with God not wanting me too. " Make sense now? This crushes the religious escape. "we are a pimple on the back of the universes smallest amoeba compared to the Universe as a whole. We are nothing special at all" Your putting the universe into perspective. . good! I like that. Just because we are not in the center of the Milky Way, does not mean we are not at the direct center of the Universe. Think of the entire universe as the size of a dinner plate, I bet we are at the center. How's that for a perspective? The fact that we are minuscule in size compared to the size of the universe is irrelevant. Compared to a human, an atom is minuscule. .. . does that make it any less important? No. Your stages of the magic circle are respectively bogus. I call it Cheerleader Syndrome. Ignorance is bliss. Why? I too was at the stage of "Play the game anyway" going through life as such is silly. What knocked some sense into me is the worldwide debate of evolution. Evolution requires its own debate, but for the sake of this argument, I don't believe in Macro Evolution insofar as that we came from a common ancestor of apes. This leads me to believe in special creation. I believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus tells us to follow himself in life. THAT is life's meaning, to strive to be perfect like him. I believe humans are sinners. We ALL have bad thoughts, we have all lied, cheated, stolen. I believe we require redemption. And I close with this quote. .. [People say] "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God. " That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the devil of Hell. You must take your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon, or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. —From Mere Christianity , C. S. Lewis (1898–1963), Professor of Medieval and Renaissance English Literature, Cambridge University, England I appreciate you taking the time to have this debate with me, being the first debate for both of us, and I am more than happy to continue speaking about this with you.
The death of god.

However, in your profile you are listed as Atheist. Therefore, YOU do not have the "religion escape." So my question stands, why don't you off yourself?" It does not say Atheist. Or at least its not supposed to. I am agnostic, I do not have religion nor do I hate others who do. Now to return your arguments. 1. Why do I continue to live? Simple. Because I enjoy life, I want to see it all and continue on my path of happiness until I die. You say that you continue to live because you love life and living. This is what I have been saying. The Overman is that. He knows life has no meaning but continues to live. 2. As for who you are debating that would be me. My evidence and arguments simply come from Nietzsche. You also state that because God says not to kill yourself you do not. This only furthers my argument that you, and others, take religion as their reason to live. You may live because you value life, which makes you like an Overman, however you also live because God says you should. As I said earlier it is the idea of god. An all knowing, loving, and omnipotent being. You dropped this argument so I will return it. In a new scientific world of discovery and the knowledge that we are a pimple on the back of the universes smallest amoeba compared to the Universe as a whole. We are nothing special at all. That is what leads to my nihilism argument. When you realize this and that you have nothing to live for but continue living you become the Overman. Also when you enter a "Magic Circle." The game of golf has this. People play by the rules and you are in the "Circle" when you stop playing by the rules you leave the "magic circle". The "magic circle" is another escape to the meaninglessness of life. When you play a game it gives meaning by trying to win. When you leave the circle you realize that nothing has really changed. However you continue playing making you an Overman. Now to the stages I said earlier: 1. Realize that life has no meaning. I believe you are almost here. 2. Enter a games "magic circle" 3. Dissolve said "circle" 4. Play the game anyway. This is where I am at. 5. Appreciate the analogy between the two and create yourself as a work of art greatness of life. These steps show what make an Overman. If you do not see yourself at 1. then you are most likely at the god belief faze where life is giving meaning in DEATH. In other words you must die to achieve any hope of meaning for your life. Until then Living has no meaning. I eagerly await your response.
The death of god.

ThebigB, I beg you to read my first post once again. I am not asking the majority of the public the questions. I am asking YOU the questions. You say. .. "You wish for my rebuttal? Very well. First the reason behind not killing yourself: Because you have the religion escape, as i said in my argument. People turn to god" However, in your profile you are listed as Atheist. Therefore, YOU do not have the "religion escape. " So my question stands, why don't you off yourself? If you want to call my reason for MY not killing myself the "religion escape" that's fine. Call it what you want. It does not excuse you from answering the question you being Atheist. By the way which are you, Absolute Atheist? Deist? Pragmatist? Iconoclast? Etc. Now, to explain in more depth your religion escape idea, the reason I do not off myself is NOT due to my religion, it is due to common sense and rational thinking on my part. I do not off myself because God says not too, which would be your definition of "religious escape. " I however, do not off myself because I believe LIFE HAS MEANING. I believe we are here to learn and experience as much as we can until the time of our death, period. THAT has NOTHING to do with religion. The fact that I believe God says not too only further instills the fact that I shouldn't. Now, do you want me to debate you or Nietzsche? I understand his idea. I give you an alternate idea. FSM. . http://www.venganza.org... I give you this example because it is in direct opposition to my faith, making it strong. It, is an idea. .. just like Nietzsche's. Do you also believe it to be true? "The Overman is a being who cares only for everything. He hates none, and loves all, he cares for" all, and "helps all. The overman is the stage at which man becomes god. All caring and all loving. One who lives simply to live and enjoy the wonders of life. " Sounds like Jesus Christ to me. Are you saying your as much as Jesus Christ? I wish I could be the same, I certainly strive to. "A reason to live? None. God and an afterlife is not necessary for an Overman. He simply lives with the knowledge that it has no meaning and that he will continue to love despite that fact. " I wish the best of love and luck to Overmans, and Atheists in the search for truth. My original argument still stands, and I await your response.
The death of god.

"Why not off myself right now? Why continue to live this meaningless life? I pose these questions to hopefully show you that life has a meaning. So tell me, if life as you see it has no meaning, why don't you off yourself right now? Do I want you to commit suicide? No, I believe life has value. Why would life have value if it were meaningless? I am sure you can find a hundred philosophical answers to this question. Therefore, the question stands, does the value of life give meaning to life?" You wish for my rebuttal? Very well. First the reason behind not killing yourself: Because you have the religion escape, as i said in my argument. People turn to god (and yes i use both God and god i am sorry if i was confusing i mean them both as god for all religions) for the escape from no meaning. An afterlife gives us meaning so that we can go on. However the value of life does not, in itself, give meaning to life. I give you more of my afformentiond writer. Nietzche saw that a god-based system was devoid of meaning. He thought that the idea of an all-powerful, all loving, and all knowing being was not a strong enough view for people in the new western scientific world view. The scientific view tell us that Humans are not so great. We are not the center of the universe. We are one planet revolving around one star that is one of billions of others. The overman: a being that trancends the accepted value system and goes on to create his own values. " Let us therefore limit ourselves to the purification of our opinions and valuations and to the creation of our opinions and valuations and to the creation of our own new tables of what is good. We however want to become those we are- human beings who are new, unique, incomparable, who give themselves laws, who created themselves." Nietzsche. These new humans who "give themselves laws" and "create themselves" are Overmen. The Overman is a being who cares only for everything. He hates none, and loves all, he cares for none, but helps all. The overman is the stage at which man becomes god. All caring and all loving. One who lives simply to live and enjoy the wonders of life. A reason to live? None. God and an afterlife is not necessary for an Overman. He simply lives with the knowledge that it has no meaning and that he will continue to love despite that fact. I now GRATEFULLY await your response. Thank you for taking me up on this
The death of god.

My form of debating sucks, and I debate things in a different way, enjoy. "First to start i offer the idea of nihilism. The idea that life has no meaning. " That's a great idea, too bad I don't agree with it. Why not off myself right now? Why continue to live this meaningless life? I pose these questions to hopefully show you that life has a meaning. So tell me, if life as you see it has no meaning, why don't you off yourself right now? Do I want you to commit suicide? No, I believe life has value. Why would life have value if it were meaningless? I am sure you can find a hundred philosophical answers to this question. Therefore, the question stands, does the value of life give meaning to life? I think it does. I can also think of many other examples that give meaning to life. I'll wait for your rebuttals. "Overman" Another great idea, there are millions of great ideas. Not all great ideas are true. "What I am saying is that the idea of God is dead in a modern society today. It has no matter anymore. " Wrong. First off you need to define the God you speak of. Second, by the way you type "God" I am going to assume you are referring to the Christian God. Number of Christians in the world - Approx 2.1 BILLION - not counting the other religions with deities. (1) Now I will acknowledge the topic of this debate. "The death of god. " In this topic you choose to spell it as "god" so in turn I'm assuming? You mean a "god" other than the Christian God? That would conflict with the way you describe it in your argument. I would like to avoid semantics here. .. but jeez. As for my rebuttal. .. . I believe in God. The Christian God. Why? ****Because I believe in afterlife**** and I believe in Jesus Christ. I live in America and own an iphone. .. therefore. . As you can see, the "idea of god" which I will change to "idea of God" exists in me. And I live in a "modern society. " (1) . http://www.adherents.com...
The death of god.

First to start i offer the idea of nihilism. The idea that life has no meaning. "A man finds himself, to his great astonishment, suddenly existing, after thousands and thousands of years of non-existence. He lives for a little while and then again comes an equally long period when he must exist no more" From Arthur Schopenhauer. This is just one of the many examples of the way Schopenhauer's writing can put things in perspective. Like a fickle flam, our existence is small and insignificant in the eyes of the universe. A bit hash, I know, but it's a good way to understand Nihilism. There are many ways to respond to nihilism religion is one of them. Friedrich Nietzsche saw nihilism as a stage that could be overcome. He thought that a god-based value system was, at its foundation, devoid of meaning. He introduced the "death of god" which is the Idea of god. Nietzsche was deeply aware of the implications of the human predicament. One way to respond would be religion. However Nietzche believed that people taking this route would are only clinging to to an idea that has lost force. "Before God! But now this God has died. You higher men, this god was your greatest danger. It is only since he lies in his tomb that you have been resurrected. Only now the great noon comes; only now the higher man becomes lord. God Died, now we want the Overman to live. " Now i present the steps to become overman. 1. Realize that life is meaningless. 2. Enter a "magic circle" 3. Dissovle said circle. 4. Continue bieng in said circle create your self as Art. 5. Appreciate the analogy between The circle and Life. Now make yourself in everday life Art. What I am saying is that the idea of God is dead in a modern society today. It has no matter anymore. Howver peolle who realise this and continue with regular life become an overman because they blieve that they are still happy and without the need for such things. I believe this is true can you argue? I hope so. I want to enjoy this debate.
Resolved: Military Conscription is unjust.

I see your reasoning on why you don't need a case, and i did not mean that you have to prove all the situations wher people claim it is unjust wrong, just that you need reasons why it is just, just because you can prove that it doesn't equate with slavery doesn't prove that it is just. My opponents main rebuttal of my case is based around the fact that "Soldiers are clearly not always considered property, even if drafted into service." I'll keep this short and simple, the negative says, "It does put the 'right to life' into some jeopardy, but my opponent is assuming, in his rhetoric, that every soldier sacrifices his life, which is patently untrue." I am not at all assuming that every solider sacrifices his life at all, what I'm saying is that if a government has the power to take someones life and put it in a situation where they do not know if they will come back alive or not, then they are obviously in control of that persons life. Can you say, "I'm forcing you to put your life in danger and possibly die, but I'm not treating you as my property, I'm just using you in the way I want to?" No. If they can do that as a government, then they are treating their people as property, clean and simple. Another thing that my opponent brought up is that the wealthy have no want to be enlisted in the army, they can do better elsewhere. Do we want people fighting for our nations defense who have absolutely no reason to be there? Like I said earlier, that rich person could be doing better things that will also better their nation, such as creating jobs for people or making advances in technology or whatever else their skilled in doing. My opponents case regarding the resolution mainly revolves around one thing, and that is, "As I stated before, either you protect the state or the state will be demolished by a competing state, which inherently leads to less protection of rights. Hence, conscription is justified to preserve a legitimate state in times of military need." So are you saying that we should take away the peoples right to choose, which i personally believe is the most important right that a human being can have, to protect his other rights? No. As I have clearly outlined in my case my opponents rebuttal of my case is void and I have negated their advocacy. What more reason do you need to believe the truth? Military Conscription is Unjust. Therefore I strongly urge to vote affirmative. Thank You
utopia is not only attainable if we loose individuality

Before my counter arguments I would ask my opponent in his own words to define a hive mind. My first counter argument is against the point that we can attain a utopian society just by not being selfish and focusing on our existence. Even if we focus on our existence, cures wouldn't necessarily come for things like cancer, and people will still mourn the deaths of people close to them. And if there is still illnesses in the world, then it's not utopian/perfect. And going with what the resolution says, it says we can attain a utopia without losing individuality, but what if selfishness is the only thing that makes a person unique, and if you took that away, you would be taking his whole individuality. Also, what if for someone, a perfect world is one with a god. This isn't really selfish, but a belief. And I don't know how someone would make god possible because I think by definition you can't.
Manchester united is better than Chelsea; and they will be champions

Pro asserts that Manchester United has large amounts of money but does not give any sources. Manchester United actually has debts above 716.5 million pounds which is just over a billion dollars[1]. This has affected their ability to invest new players[2]. Christiano Ronaldo may not be the only player in the Man Utd but as I said he was arguably the best and his loss has affected Man Utd. This season they were beaten once by Chelsea and drew their other match and Chelsea is currently ahead of Manchester United. [1]http://www.guardian.co.uk... [2]http://www.guardian.co.uk...
Manchester united is better than Chelsea; and they will be champions

Seems like an interesting topic so I'll be playing Devil's Advocate here. My opponent made only three arguments: 1- Players 2- Money 3- Beating Chelsea many times previously. First of all, in the beginning of this season Manchester United lost Christiano Ronaldo. Christiano Ronadlo was arguably Manchester United's best player.[1] After he left Manchester United failed to perform as well as they had in previous seasons. This season, Manchester United lost both their league matches against Chelsea and managed a draw in the community shield. How many times Manchester United beat chelsea before this season counts for nothing seeing their performance after Christiano Ronaldo left. Also quickly, Having more money doesn't make a club better. [1]http://y2u.co.uk...
I will not contradict myself

1. "Yes, it is good that capitalism "gives us more of what we want," except that it doesn't "give" us anything; we earn it." But the drunk man "earned" his drink and he wants it, yet you still think it would be irresponsible for the bartender to give him another drink. So adding the caveat of "earning" doesn't seem to remedy the situation. 2. Abortion "'Yet you also don't think first trimester abortions are murder.' Uncited and untrue. The entire attempt to put together a contradiciton falls apart." Citation: "'Q1: Does aborting a first trimester fetus carry the same moral weight as ending the life of a teenage girl?' No."
I will not contradict myself

My opponent has pointed out contradictions. I get this round to defend myself. My opponent gets a final chance to point out any flaws in my defense, and I get a final chance to counter those. 1. Justification for capitalism I agree that consumer satisfaction makes capitalism great. However, that alone is not enough. Capitalism also requires that in order to get something, you must do something else in return, as part of a trade. As I answered, wanting something is not in itself a justification for getting it, but wanting something and doing something that the person who already has it is willing to give it up for, is. Yes, it is good that capitalism "gives us more of what we want," except that it doesn't "give" us anything; we earn it. 2. Philosophy of mind I answered completely agnostically to the first two of those questions. I didn't take functionalist views or physical views into consideration much; I decided that there was a chance for each of those to be true. Therefore, my decision would have to be based on the chances, risks, and so forth. There is no contradiction, just the speculation that one may perhaps exist. 3. Abortion "Yet you also don't think first trimester abortions are murder." Uncited and untrue. The entire attempt to put together a contradiciton falls apart. 4. Mayor decisions In the first question, my plan would involve saving 200 people, with no chance of saving everybody. I decided not to go with my plan. In the second question, my plan would involve a chance to save everybody, but a higher chance of not saving anybody. I decided to go with my plan. In both cases, I decided to go with the risky plan. My reasoning was that 600 alive people would be much happier than 200 alive people mourning the loss of 400 others. In conclusion, I have not contradicted myself. Good luck, GreatDebateMate.