BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bride kidnapping rape

In response to your first paragraph, your argument states that in most societies there are ideals and practices that people adhere. Am I correct? Well, I have not denied that statement at any point in round two. However, accepting practices and following practices does not necessarily mean they are moral. Yes, there are certain practices that are moral but that is not because they are accepted and practiced. Rather, it is because a universal standard of morality exists and this kidnapping the bride contradicts it. I never at any point in my argument stated that kidnapping was rape simply because it was immoral. I stated that accepting the practice of kidnapping does not necessarily make it moral. Kidnapping and rape are two separate categories. The reason I made any reference to that statement (aside from trying to refute your argument) is because accepting patriarchal standards and practices does not necessarily mean they are moral. My point in making this argument is to show that even if the kidnapping is a result of a patriarchal framework that does not mean that rape had not occurred. Furthermore, even in the case that the kidnapping is not immoral (hypothetically), it is immoral if it occurs without the consent from the bride. The same applies to rape, it is considered to be rape (and obviously immoral) if no consent is provided from both parties. You state that the decisions both males and females make in their society is because they are born into a society that already carries pre-existing notions of what morality exactly is, therefore, any decisions they make is limited to the context that they understand to be the truth. According to that statement we can make the inference that when a serial killer murders, he does so because that was all he was exposed to, that is the context he was limited, therefore, he should not be held responsible for his crimes. Am I wrong? I am simply applying the logic you have used in your second paragraph. However, just because that is the context the killer was limited to does not take away from the fact that he committed a murder and should be held responsible for his crimes. Again, there is a universal standard of morality and his crimes contradict that standard. In your following paragraph, I respond to your argument with statement thirteen and fourteen from round one. Rape is not only defined as immoral but also as "Ultimately, rape is defined by the victim"s non-consent (180.8.1)". In the video, the bride explicitly states that her dream was to become a lawyer and that she did not want to get married for another year and upon completion of her education (27:10)." Even if we remove morality from the context of rape, that does not diminish the act of rape in any way. My argument states that the husband ultimately commits the act of rape; it does not necessarily matter whether the notion of morality exists within that society. I have never at any point in my argument stated that rape occurs only when the notion of morality is accepted. The acts that the groom and his family commit might be a result of patriarchy but the bride does not at any point freely consent to the union.
Bride kidnapping rape

In line five of your standard form argument you state that the word "kidnapped" is used and not rape. However, words play an insignificant role to the act that is done. The word that is used does not necessarily take away from the action that occurred. You also state that "Kidnapping is an old tradition that those--men and women--living in rural communities throughout Kyrgystan accept and practice (23:17)" again, accepting and practicing a tradition does not necessarily mean the act is moral. Your next line states that the woman is never physically harmed by the men, however, as stated in my standard form, you will find that there rape comes in two forms, traditional and non-traditional (138.2-4). In non-traditional there is the possibility that the victim is not physically harmed and is at times forced to provide consent due to the lack of opportunity to escape the situation (150.2). Therefore, your arguments eight through eleven are invalid because in non-traditional rape women are often not given the opportunity to be able to run away from the scene. You state that "Therefore, woman is aware that she possesses the ability to make a meaningful choice in the situation (12:25)" however, this statement fails to recognize the fact that most rape cases take place under non-traditional circumstance; the ability to flee the scene is not available for you. In my argument, statement seven answers your arguments. Your following statement, 13, argues that the bride is aware of her implications of decision to accept or reject the scarf. Being aware of your implications does not necessarily imply that you can escape the marriage. If she would have decided to reject the scarf, they would continue to hold her down, as they have done for hours, until she would accept. As stated in my argument, statement two, the bride did in fact refuse her kidnappers physically. Whether or not the kidnappers used force is irrelevant since she was the victim who was kidnapped and forced into marriage. Again, my third statement explicitly answers the arguments that you laid out in the beginning of your argument (view my explanation above), "In cases of rape, resistance is evidence against the man it is evidence that the woman did not provide consent (164.4.3)." The bride did in fact physically resist her kidnappers. Even if she had not resisted, that does not diminish the act of rape (165.2.3-4). Therefore, your statement "Additionally, non-consensual force requires that the woman or victim risk bodily harm as an expression of her will to resist. (165.1) is invalid according to my argument. Your following argument number twenty is invalid according to the line of reasoning I provide above about the fact that bodily harm does not diminish the act of rape. Rather, the bride does not provide any form of consent for this union and the act of sex that follows after the union took place. As stated in my previous argument, the bride explicitly says how she wanted to wait until she was done with school before getting married, therefore, she had not given her consent for the union.
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

In brief, my opponent disregarded the observations; extend my first observation regarding the burden of proof. As of now, Pro has no ground in this debate, and has failed to do what he promised in the first round- "try to show that mind is responsible for neural activities that we can study inside the brain. " ==DEFENSE OF CON CASE== Though I only "quoted a part of a sentence", there is no reason to deny any of my argument. Here is a brief biography of Dr. Martin P. Paulus [1]. He is highly knowledgeable in the subject being debated, and there is no reason to reject him simply because I inadequately quoted him. Aside from that, it is generally scientifically accepted that the brain is split into many parts, the "conscious experience" being function controlled by a certain part. My opponent has not refuted the claim that a part cannot control the whole. He agrees with my analogy regarding the whole of my body, so there is no reason to deny to identical situations; part:whole::part:whole. Mind:Brain::Brain:Body. As of now, my case has not been directly refuted, and Pro has provided no case. Vote Con. ==SOURCES== [1] . http://psychiatry.ucsd.edu...
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

My opponent has contended that mind is a part of the brain and therefore it can't control the brain as parts cannot control the whole. However, my opponent has not presented any supportive evidence in support of his claim that mind is the part of the brain. He has only quoted a part of a sentence published in NY Times by Dr. Paulus which states "mind and body are integrated in the insula", which I don't think should be considered as evidence of his claim. So in absence of any supportive evidence presented by my opponent, I am free to disagree with his idea that mind is a part of the brain. In the end my opponent has stated "without my beating heart and my interconnected circular and neuro-muscular systems, my brain would not work". I don't disagree to that because it is a science fact the brain and the body cannot function disjunctively. But that tells nothing about the mind and therefore is irrelevant in the context of the debate, unless my opponent comes up with evidence that mind is either a part of the body or a part of the brain.
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

==DEFINITIONS== Mind: that which is responsible for one's thoughts and feelings; the seat of the faculty of reason [1] Brain: that part of the central nervous system that includes all the higher nervous centers [2] Control: power to direct or determine [3] ==OBSERVATIONS== 1) My opponent has the BOP (Burden Of Proof) in this round, as the instigator, for the pro advocacy, while I have the BOP for the con advocacy. Obviously. .. 2) As the first round has now passed, no new definitions can be added regarding the resolutions. ==ARGUMENTS== I present one argument for the round, that being: The mind is part of the brain According to Dr. Paulus who was quoted in the NY Times, "mind and body are integrated in the insula. It provides unprecedented insight into the anatomy of human emotions. " [4] The insula merely refers to the insular cortex, a region in the brain shown here [5]. I contend that, as a part, the mind cannot control the brain. Just as my arm or my brain cannot control me (alone), neither can a part of the brain control the whole thing. It seems wrong prima facie to say that my brain does not control me, but alas, without my beating heart and my interconnected circular and neuro-muscular systems, my brain would not work. Thank you, vote con. ==SOURCES== [1] . http://www.google.com... [2] . http://www.google.com... [3] . http://www.google.com... [4] . http://www.nytimes.com... [5] . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

Research in the field of cognitive neurology has shown that there are causal correlations between the neural activity of the brain and conscious experience of the mind. But which is the cause and which is the effect is not known as yet. I will try to show that mind is responsible for neural activities that we can study inside the brain. While my opponent has to proove that it is the other way round - i.e. neural activities control conscious experience.
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

I refuse to debate someone who has yet to refute my claim. Here is a copy-paste from my argument about the part-whole anatomy of the mind and brain. [QUOTE] According to Dr. Paulus who was quoted in the NY Times, "mind and body are integrated in the insula. It provides unprecedented insight into the anatomy of human emotions. " [4] The insula merely refers to the insular cortex, a region in the brain shown here [5]. I contend that, as a part, the mind cannot control the brain. Just as my arm or my brain cannot control me (alone), neither can a part of the brain control the whole thing. It seems wrong prima facie to say that my brain does not control me, but alas, without my beating heart and my interconnected circular and neuro-muscular systems, my brain would not work. [END QUOTE] I refuse to debate somebody who is so blatantly refusing to argue with me and simply throwing studies at three different debates that are different topics. See the comments section of Soumya's debate with LarztheLoser; he also complains about how his arguments are not responded to. This is a trend- my opponent throws random studies in random orders on 3 random debates, and expects them to be the only material in the round ALL WHILE claiming that his opponent has the burden of proof.
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

My opponent has finally provided an argument for his case; rather late in the round, if I may say so myself. ==DEFENSE OF CON CASE== To my opponent's dismay, he really has not refuted my case of part to whole. He may be confused because he is copy-pasting his arguments from his other two debates. Unfortunately, he may lose track, which is what seems to have happened in this case. Notice the studies and arguments he makes in these debates, and compare them to this one. . http://www.debate.org... . http://www.debate.org... Anyways, he still has yet to validly refute my claim that a part can not independently control the whole; I would contend that this proves his statement (A) false, rendering, by his standard, statement (B) true. ==REFUTATION OF PRO CASE== He consistently makes the observation that there are "causal correlations" between brain and mind; it would seem obvious, since the mind is integrated in the brain. But then, he provides a study by Dr. Pim van Lommel to prove that, in the case of a cardiac arrest, x number of patients had an NDE and y number had a core experience. The study also suggested that they were literally 'brain dead', and that, therefore, the mind can survive brain death. Consider the following responses: 1) The study he provides in argument doesn't explicitly say that mind controls the brain. 2) If the study was truly conclusive, 100% of patients would have experienced NDE's or CE's, as opposed to a percentage that represents less that half of the group. 3) Although there was no neural activity in the study, there was no indication to show that there was any activity in the mind.
Mind controls the brain, instead of being controlled by it

At the start of the round, he said that he will attempt to prove that the mind does in fact control the brain, and gave me the burden to prove the contrary. As I have been attempting to fulfill my part, he has yet to provide a pro case. All he has done is provide his opinion, some speculation from scientists proving that NO research has been done that is sufficient enough to prove either, and then said that I have the burden of proof in a debate in which he agreed that he does have an equal BOP. Let's address the round, now. ==BURDEN OF PROOF== My opponent, like I already mentioned, has yet to provide a pro case. At best, pro can hope for a tie; practically, I at least have some ground off of which the readers can vote. ==PSEUDO-PRO CASE== Here are a few quotes from my opponent's case that he hopes will win him the round. "What the mind can do when it reaches it highest points of consciousness is not known and needs to be studied further before coming to [a] conclusion" ". .. no physical science does accurately describe the functioning of mind" "Till date neuroscience has not been able to precisely describe mental activity in terms of the neural activity" "So my opponent's claim . .. will remain futile, unless he is able to describe exactly which part is independently responsible for conscious experience and how. " "In my opinion mind is an independent entity and cannot be described as the effect of any physical phenomena. " Basically, he debunks my attempt at creating a con world by proving that no science has ever found the subject possible to even STUDY, then says that I, a freshman in college, needs to surpass all of the neuroscientific research that has been done in the past century. Then, he proceeds to provide his OPINION on the subject and hopes that it will pass off as a valid claim. This will not win him the round in any way. ==DEFENSE OF CON CASE== Aside from the scientific speculation he has continued to hurl at me, he has yet to attack my very simple analogy that parts cannot control the whole. The mind, he has conceded, is a part of the brain, and I have provided sufficient warrants for parts being incapable of complete control over the whole. As he has yet to refute this, you can still safely vote con without having any problems. ==SUMMARY== My opponent has not made one single argument upholding his case; I have at least made an attempt to. He can't win the 3 points of "most convincing argument(s)" without having argued. He has provided no verifiable sources in the round, and, as for conduct, he has thrown me into a corner in which I have to fight my way out of a burden of proof that he never mentioned until I did. His debating style is not only unfair, it is illogical. Yet to argue aside from criticizing modern science of its insufficiency, pro cannot even hope to win any votes in this debate. I thank the readers for their time, but apologize for the lack of legitimate debate.
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: Justification for inequality

First of all hournebl gentleman you should never and never criticize God you know that if you do that you will go to hell ok now you say we should discriminate because gay ppl are not natural well gay ppl are not not natural beaux the west is messing with are gems young sir that makes us big gay so if you don't want to get big gay you should believe in za God alright Cruz he will protect you from za big gay, Well now that we've established a good argument we should've perhaps move on to the next point of yours you've stated on and on that religion is promoting discrmmentive behavior and beliefs are not responsible of that
The Problem With Faith: Religion Is Destroying Humanity: Justification for inequality

How can anyone go to hell if your god does not exist? Btw, It might be a little bit nice if you would not be a yeast infection resurrection and thus learn how to use an occasional period. You know, Its that little bitty dot that follows most sentences that you cannot even contemplate what either is? And btw, Since you show no morality towards those that are gay, It simply means that you are as immoral as your unproven god. Bye.
Wikipedia should be considered a viable source on DDO

I am re-launching this debate for all who are interested in accepting.This debate is currently impossible to accept. If you are interested, clarify so by either giving me a PM or saying so in the comments. This filter only exists to prohibit trolls from accepting. If someone somehow accepts this debate without my approval, it will result in a full forfeit.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------Debate Information:* My opponent can either A) choose to put forth an argument in round one, and forfeit his last round (only the words "no round as agreed" may be typed, anything else results in a full forfeit)B) use round one for acceptance* Burden of Proof will be shared. Con must prove why Wikipedia should not be considered a viable source on DDO (in other words, why it is illegitimate or unsuitable) and I, contrarily, must prove why it is viable.* Do not present new arguments in a round in which the opponent is unable to counter or rebut.Terms:* Viable - Capable of successful use, in this debate you can interpret it as meaning "satisfactory" or "sufficient".* Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia(©), owned by the Wikimedia foundationRules:* No trolling* Wikipedia refers to all active encyclopedic pages, not talk or discussion pages that are not live on the encyclopedia.* No harassment* Forfeiture results in an automatic concession of conduct points for either side Thanks and good luck!
The Existence of God

Let's get started. Spelling and grammar points go to Con due to Pro's inability to capitalize "Well", along with a few other grammatical errors. I will be arguing with Russell's Teacup in mind. This means that the burden of proof falls upon you to prove God, not on me to disprove Him. I will, however, in attempt not to sound like a complete smartass, provide arguments against this God as if Russell's Teacup was not in place. It was my mistake not to ask you about your views on evolution, as in do you deny it and is it relevant in this argument. Because of this, I will save any and all arguments on evolution until you have answered. As you are a Christian, I will be arguing against the Christian God. This omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient deity who is so great has absolutely no part in our daily lives. You may say that "miracles happen every day", but please, provide me with a single "miracle" that can be proven only with God. If this God cared so much for us, why couldn't he magically start helping those in need? God apparently loves everyone, and according to Lutheranism, all are equal in His eyes. Then why are some people able to live a 1% lifestyle, while thousands upon thousands of children are starving to death in countries rotten with poverty? Creating an unlimited water supply and food course doesn't seem that hard, considering that he apparently created everything. You'd think that where we are now, with people killing each other left and right over which religion is right, the real God would descend and make a stop to this brutal butchering. People have been killing each other for their beliefs for so long now, don't you think it's time for God to do something about this? Were I God, I wouldn't enjoy having my "perfect creations" killing each other for millennia one end. But enough speculation. What if God is just a guy who left humanity to tend for itself? I've still got a few things. Mainly, there is absolutely no need for God in any part of history, ever. Cosmic evolution works without God, our laws and theories work just fine without God, our timeline of everything works perfectly without a God ever needed to fill up the holes. Just because we have not yet come up with answers to a few questions, such as where the Big Bang came from, our scientific theories are no obsolete.
Why more gun laws are a bad idea.

'The majority of criminals who use violence obtain their guns illegally. You honestly think taking away the right to own firearm should stop people from owning guns' I never said it would stop people owning guns altogether, but it would severely reduce the amount of people (including criminals) who have them simply because it would be much more inconvenient to obtain one. A criminal does not care about abiding to laws, I agree with that, but as I said in round 3, criminalising gun ownership could mean that a criminal intent on using guns to murder could be caught as he purchases the firearms; thus preventing a massacre. Also, a criminal could very well not be bothered to go to the effort to obtain a gun and instead opt for a less dangerous weapon such as a knife. Whilst this might not prevent many individual murders, it would make massacres a whole lot harder to do. 'This puts guns in the hands of criminals and takes guns away from law abiding citizens who can no longer protect themselves.' Firstly, gun laws would not put more guns in the hands of criminals. How would it? Secondly, guns are not needed to protect oneself. Thirdly, if both the victim and the criminal had guns, the criminal would be more likely to use it (out of fear) as opposed to where the victim is harmless. 'Chicago- Chicago has the stricktest gun laws in the country yet they have an extremely high crime rate. If they have so many gun restrictions how could it be such a violent city? If the criminals saw all of these gun restrictions why would they obtain guns illegally, don't they know that's agianst the rules?' Correlation does not mean causation. Just because Chicago has a high crime rate and simultaneously has strict gun regulation does not mean that the latter causes the former. For all we know the strict gun regulations have reduced the crime rate from an even higher one. To propose a counter example, the United Kingdom has much stricter gun laws compared to the USA yet the USA's gun murder rate is 32 times that of the UK. This suggests that gun control reduces gun murders. In regards to the constitution, I do not see it as an unquestionable authority that should have the power to prevent regulation that could save peoples' lives.