BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Members of the US military are not heroes

Because someone or a group of people sometimes does heroic things does not make them a hero. To be a hero one would have to show the qualities of a hero more than just once in a while. It is not heroic to take orders from a corrupt government. It is not heroic to kill innocent people. The fact that sometimes lives are saved does not make the solider a hero. Furthermore, being publicly regarded as a hero creates problems as I have shown. The fact that people support the military more so than other government institutions is not noble but rather dangerous. People have a separation of the military from the government when they are the same. If murder and taking orders blindly creates accomplishment and takes courage, then sure I will concede the point. But it is not heroic, it is the opposite.
Members of the US military are not heroes

Once again, my opponent has placed examples as to why a soldier in the US military SHOULDN'T be considered heroes. This is not the point of the debate. The subject of the debate is that "Members of the US military ARE NOT heroes." I have already proven that members of the US military ARE heroes, whether my opponent thinks they should be or not, I decline to support that point any further. I extend previous points that show that a US militant is a hero. On my opponents debate, he digs his own grave in several places: "Do they fit an exact definition of a hero? Surely they do" "The ideas of doing heroic things and being adorned as a hero publicly must be separated" My opponent establishes in his own arguments that US militants fit the definition of a hero, thus making a US militant a hero. Closed. Doing heroic things must be separated from being publicly adorned as a hero? So then what should merit being adorned as a hero? Scraping by through high school and dropping out of college? Living an average live of doing nothing? My opponent has still failed to prove that US militants ARE NOT heroes, and has even provided evidence to the contrary.
Members of the US military are not heroes

The ideas of doing heroic things and being adorned as a hero publicly must be separated. Soldiers murder people worldwide based on the orders of politicians but one would not consider that heroic or courageous but indeed cowardly. The main considerations here are twofold: 1) By publicly adorning hero status on someone we "make them a hero" when they really shouldn't be regarded as such, as I previously argued. 2) The fact that one can act heroically in some situations without actually being a hero. The fact for example that Chris Kyle saved some lives of fellow US military member while simultaneously killing(by his account) over 160 people who were defending their homeland from attack cannot make him a hero. While some things the military does can be regarded as heroic the record is clear on the lack of heroism: 1) All soldiers have not lives up to their oaths and implement unconstitutional orders daily. 2) The killing of women and children in other lands. 3) The killing of Americans abroad 4) The lack of care to soldiers when they leave the military. 5) The indoctrination of false nationalism 6) A culture of collectivism 7) The fact that a standing army in and of itself is unconstitutional. 8) The military's glorification of combat and murder. 9) Blind allegiance to cause or nation without critical inquiry For all of the stated reason, regarding the military as heroes is dangerous and immoral.
Members of the US military are not heroes

In accordance with the rubric, I will not refute any of my opponent's arguments, and I will only state my main argument. By definition of a hero, "A person, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities," the American soldier, sailor, airman, or marine is a hero. The men and women who make it through basic training have already made many outstanding physical and mental achievements. Those who have participated in combat have taken those achievements to the next level, being an active part of the most powerful, most effective military in the world's history. Whether they shoot a weapon with precision under fire, whether they deploy their ordinance at the precise time, or whether they give the correct order under the correct circumstances, a US militant who is successful under stress has made an outstanding achievement. Many, if not most, United States militants have demonstrated extreme courage. Being able to function in the face of death, risking their lives for their morals is the definition of courage. Courage is, "the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty, danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery." [1] A soldier or other militant in combat faces more difficulty, danger, and pain while suppressing fear than most people in the world. The typical member of the United States military possesses noble qualities. In the Vietnam War alone, hundreds of men are recorded o have jumped on top of grenades, thus sacrificing their lives to save those around them. [2] If you do not consider sacrificing yourself to save those around you a noble action born of a noble quality, I think your sense of what is noble needs to be reevaluated. Finally, members of the United States military are admired for the qualities stated above. Polls show that people trust and admire their military more than any other US institution. [3] This is why our nation has such a high emphasis on thanking our veterans and why their are so many foundations (such as the POW MIA foundation) that are in place to support veterans and their families. This is not even a debate. Pro himself has provided a definition of a hero, I have provided examples that meet the criteria of a hero. The topic for this debate is not, "Members of the US military should not be considered heroes," but it is, "Members of the US military are not heroes." I have proven that a typical member of the US military is a hero, and that is all the debate asks for. Sources: [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.history.army.mil... [3] http://www.defense.gov...
Members of the US military are not heroes

Definition: Hero- A person, who is admired or idealized for courage, outstanding achievements, or noble qualities. Many well intended people who love their country join the military. They do this for a myriad of reasons among them are, patriotism, personal satisfaction, and to a certain extent for pay and benefits that are offered. If you look at the above definition someone could argue that one who is in or once served in the military could fit that definition. It does take a kind of courage to be in combat, within the context of the military and service many soldiers(used for brevity I know that there are airmen, marines, and sailors too) have great accomplishments. Also, we see that many people in the military do noble things from time to time such as save lives or provide food, or aid. Most would agree with what I have said above, so what is the problem? In in the past the military men and women were not regarded as heroes in the sense they are today. They were regarded just as noble people who served their country and communities. Regular folks, who did not ask for anything in return. By viewing the solider as a hero and publicly dawning this title on them problems arise: 1) It perpetuates the idea that the nation is under constant threat when empirical data says it is not so. Here's some limited data" http://www.reuters.com... http://www.breitbart.com... 2) It promotes a culture supporting war and aggression by the united states against other areas of the world. By promoting the military and military men and women as heroes it creates a pop culture around being and/or becoming a solider. It creates more willing participants to go to war. This will lead to more war and adventurism. 3) Adorning hero status on current soldiers reduces awareness of the issues of struggling veterans that have me let down by a government who sent them into perhaps unjustified battle in the first place. By placing emphasis on the "rah rah" good times of being behind the troops currently it does not slow down and takes resources and effort away from veterans who need mental health care, or regular health care or who are homeless. As Stephan Kinzer puts it "Cheering for them in public and saluting them in clich"-ridden speeches is a way to disguise the fact that our society callously discards many of them. Shocking rates of unemployment, mental illness, homelessness, addiction, and suicide among our veterans constitute a national disgrace. It is far easier, however, to spend a few seconds applauding a smiling soldier than to contemplate a troubled veteran left behind by an uncaring country." http://www.bostonglobe.com... As shown, military men and women are not to be regarded as heroes but rather everyday people who do a job. Do they fit an exact definition of a hero? Surely they do, but to call them heroes or publicly regard them as so is to take away from the peace of society, promote war, and allow for suffering.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

scientifically inexplicable, apparently supernatural things occur, but not to atheists. these are apparent miracles. please show something that happened to an atheist, that would have been called an apparent miracle had it happened to a religous person, because of its scientifically inexplicable nature. no semantics pleas what are thought of as miraculous events are heavily documented and readily available. there are tons of examples for theists, in previous debates i shown them. most credible people dont dispute hat things appear to be miracles, just that they claim there's alterative explanations. im not going to do a bunch of work to find them when it's readily available. . someone can see with no retinas even though this seems scientifically impossible etc, just to use an example. here here's another http://usatoday30.usatoday.com... the common objection of atheists and skeptics is that things just happen to occur by probability, that a genetic deviance, or random chance etc has caused it to happen to them. (that's how evolusion occurs, someone with a genetic deviance getting their genes prominent in the population) but I don't see these things happening to atheists. I see plenty of evidence from chrisitans and to a lesser extent other religious folks. but I don't see it from atheists etc, why is that? they might claim that it's just not as newsworthy or interpreted that way given the lack of religious context etc. but you'd think there's at least be noteworthy evidence, or something, at least, that shows it happens to atheists etc also, even if i acknowledged that they may occur, it would be extremely very small percentage wise. as of now i'd be happy with just couple or a few examples. ive shown some examples happening to theists, it shouldnt be hard to find some happening to atheists.
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

My plan was to show some examples of reasoning jumps in this round, but I’ve realized it’s a futile endeavor. The pro hasn’t addressed not even a single of my arguments. Rounds 1 and 2 constrained himself to the few sentences I explained there was little medical evidence, oblivious to the fact that I always followed this sentences by saying I was assuming everything as true. Instead of showing evidence, she copy and pasted more similar examples without addressing any of my points. I started the debate by saying that so as to approach this debate differently from her past ones. The point of this debate was showing that the situations considered miracles to theists, also happen to atheists. I presented the requested examples to get this issue out of the way. And move on to my inverse approach to her argument: to show how an atheist in the same situation considered miracle by a theist, would view the events. In no way I was asking trying to falsify the miracles, actually it was the total opposite, I was assuming the events as true and put an atheist in the theists shoes to show how he would view the events in another way and why it appears to my opponent that they don’t happen. Cutting the copy and paste from her sources, this is her actual responses: -‘i thank u for trying to use examples. i suppose id say the examples you use are not as strong as the examples theists could use. your examples invovle natural explanations. here's one that you cannot or have not shown to happen theists, or something like it...’ -‘medically documented of incurable illessness..... what more would you require of me? that is a sincere question, not rhetorical i will keep looking for studies and such, and may redebate you. if i deem it necesssay, if you do too good of a job as devil's advocate. at a certain point, it is more the profound skeptisicms of the person, who needs to see it with their own eyes. than it is the lack of documentation etc.’
scientifically inexplicable things occur that are apparently supernatural, but not to atheists

here is a list of incurable illnesses that have been cured, and medically documented... http://christiancadre.blogspot.com... lourdes is a religious place where many healings are said to occur. they have an organization set up to examine them (similar to the congregation for saints that the catholic church uses, but said to be even more rigorous) http://en.wikipedia.org... here is a list of incurable diseases, that were cured http://en.wikipedia.org... their criteria... For a cure to be recognised as medically inexplicable, certain facts require to be established: The original diagnosis must be verified and confirmed beyond doubt The diagnosis must be regarded as "incurable" with current means (although ongoing treatments do not disqualify the cure) The cure must happen in association with a visit to Lourdes, typically while in Lourdes or in the vicinity of the shrine itself (although drinking or bathing in the water are not required) The cure must be immediate (rapid resolution of symptoms and signs of the illness) The cure must be complete (with no residual impairment or deficit) The cure must be permanent (with no recurrence) The steps to verify the claims... Approximately 35 claims per year are brought to the attention of the Lourdes Medical Bureau. Most of these are dismissed quickly. Three to five each year are investigated more thoroughly, by drawing up a Medical Bureau, comprising any doctors who were present in Lourdes at the time the apparent cure took place (this is the rationale for all members to notify the bureau of their visits to Lourdes). The Medical Bureau investigates the claim, by examining the patient, the casenotes, and any test results (which can include biopsies, X-rays, CT scans, blood test results, and so on). If this conference decides that further investigation is warranted, the case is referred to the International Lourdes Medical Committee (abbreviated in French to CMIL), which is an international panel of about twenty experts in various medical disciplines and of different religious beliefs. CMIL meets annually. A full investigation requires that one of its members investigates every detail of the case in question, and immerses him/herself in the literature around that condition to ensure that up-to-date academic knowledge is applied to the decision. This investigator may also consult with other colleagues about the case. This information is presented at a CMIL meeting. Also present at the meeting are the head of the Lourdes Medical Bureau and the Bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes (currently this is Nicolas Brouwet). The cured subject is not normally present. -------------------------------- medically documented of incurable illessness..... what more would you require of me? that is a sincere question, not rhetorical i will keep looking for studies and such, and may redebate you. if i deem it necesssay, if you do too good of a job as devil's advocate. at a certain point, it is more the profound skeptisicms of the person, who needs to see it with their own eyes. than it is the lack of documentation etc.
Moral belief is not rational

Pro does no even attempt to address his question-begging, and I would draw readers' attention to that. If his argument begs the question we have no reason to accept it. "How is social behavior rational?" It's unclear exactly what pro WOULD consider rational at this point. Social behavior is rational because we are social animals and learning how to behave as such is conducive to survival. If pro does not consider this rational, I'm at a loss as to what would be. " Is Pro suggesting that learned behavior is intrinsically rational?" No. I'm suggesting that learned behavior is rational in the context of human beings being social creatures. Insofar as it helps us achieve the end of living together and thriving, it is rational. Insofar as Newtonian Physics give us a good approximation of how bodies fall to the ground, it is rational in the context of physics. "How does one require evidence for a belief?" You asserted it to be true. Regardless, here's how: I believe that black holes exist. No one has ever directly observed one so I cannot know it to be certain. But I can offer you evidence that they exist in the form of mathematical equations, implications of relativity, gravitational lensing, et cetera. "Con is appealing to majority by suggesting that societal belief makes something right or wrong." Pro misunderstands the argument. I have not appealed to a majority. I have pointed out that con's argument would result in an infinite regress. Moral behavior cannot just be taught as someone would have to be the first teacher. But how did they know how to be moral? "Belief in right and wrong is not rational; it is an appeal to some form of absolute." But take note: I have not suggested an absolute or even implied it. I've said that morality is social behavior. What's absolute about that? "Con is confusing the argument by concentrating almost exclusively on semantic aspects as opposed to addressing the actual claim concerning reason and moral belief." Pro seems hopelessly confused about his own resolution. This debate is largely one about language: what IS morality? Morality is X (definition). What IS rationality? Rationality is Y (definition). I have provided a good definition of morality. I have shown reasonably why it rational. Pro's argument begs the question and makes the criteria for rationality vague and overly broad (it's not clear what would be rational on pro's view). I'm out of room again, but I think I have successfully shown that moral belief is rational.
Moral belief is not rational

I'd like to draw readers' attention to the fact that pro's entire argument begs the question. He says I equate social behavior with morality - that's exactly right. That's what morality IS. The definition pro provided actually works in my favor: what is right or wrong in human behavior. We have good evolutionary evidence to suppose that what we call morality is ultimately just social behavior that human beings have learned in order to survive. But for pro to say, "I'm talking about morality, not social behavior" assumes that morality is something other than social behavior, which is to assume what he is setting out to prove (that morality is emotion-based as opposed to e.g. sociologically-based). If he wants to avoid begging the question he must either agree that morality is a social behavior or give us a positive argument for why that is not the case. Unless and until he does, his argument is circular and can be easily dismissed. Still, I'll touch on some finer points. "Human opinions are emotion-based, and moral belief is an aspect of opinions on behavior. If moral belief is not an emotional construct, than what is it?" Opinions are emotion-based? All of them? In my opinion the the universe had a beginning at the Big Bang. This can't be proven with certainty - I've formed an opinion based on the best scientific evidence. Is this emotion-based? Opinions can, of course, be based on fact and reason. As I've already said, moral beliefs are evolutionary social behaviors, not emotions. "Our morals are not our emotions; we must be taught to be moral" This is an extraordinary claim. One of the biggest debates in modern psychology is the nature-nurture argument. Pro provides no evidence whatever for believing that we must be taught to be moral. We know of no society that believes e.g. killing children for fun is morally right. How can it be that every society has come to the same basic conclusions about what is generally right and wrong if they all had to be taught? Who taught the first one? "Define wrong. What does that word mean? A belief of some absolute based on commonality or appeal to majority? Things can be healthy or unhealthy and beneficial to, and adverse to, health. But "wrong"? That word is emotion-based, not reason-based." "Wrong" means whatever we define it to mean. We define certainly socially disadvantageous behaviors as wrong - that's what it means. I'd ask pro to define 'health' and tell us how we know health is a good thing. It can't be reason-based - we only value health because we value our survival. But isn't that an emotional appeal? How can pure reason justify wanting to survive? Again I'm out of room but this should be enough for now.