BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
islam is the true religion

//if you were to get kidnapped who would you hope for you to save you// My parents....... //you would feel lonely so if there is no creater of this earth// I suggest you don't tell someone how they would feel. I assure you there is no creator of the earth and I am not lonely. //and it is an coincdent then it is a oincident that you got kinapped leaning to noone to help you.// What? Well it may or may not be a coincident that I got kidnapped but that has nothing to do with god... //it is a coincident that i am using this word.// False. You obviously planned this out thus you using a word is NOT a coincident. //don't you think that if someone wasto come to you and say that this car is a coincident. you would think that man is either dumb or is not listening to the fact.// ummmmmm it seems you do not know the definition of coincident. A coincident is as follows: "Occupying the same area in space or happening at the same time:"[1] I think what you mean to say is that "this car came into existence our of nothing." If a man were to say that I would say, "according to quantum mechanics that is possible but the improbability outweighs it." //if you wre to look at a house. it is well structured and everything is put into exact place. sure the house must have a creater.// True. //but something that is as difficult as earth has to have a creater. you say that it is nature but dont you think nature must have a creator.// This is false. Saying this you ignore the facts about how planets are formed. You are like the man in the story you told a moment ago. But you also have completely ignored the evolution argument and thus I win on that alone. //just beccause man cannot create adrop of water it doesnt mean that the water has no creator/ *facepalm* I never said that. The thing is we have a perfect understanding of how water forms. //How came, if earth just happened in a big bang in space, that earth has gravity but space does not?/ Space does have gravity. It just a very small amount due to the very small amount of matter in it (virtual particles) Also, the earth did not happen via a Big Bang, you are mixing up the earth and the universe. You are asking me to prove X painted Y. I cannot prove to you that Leo painted the Mona Lisa but if you look at all the facts and come to a conclusion for your self you can see... You want me to prove gravity? Ok, stand up. Are you on your feet? Now jump in the air. Wait.....wait...wait.. BAM! Your feet have hit the ground. That is due to the Earth's gravitational pull. Do I really need to explain why you should vote Con? Grammar, spelling, dropped arguments, no original arguments ect.... [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
islam is the true religion

if you were to get kidnapped who would you hope for you to save you. you would feel lonely so if there is no creater of this earth and it is an coincdent then it is a oincident that you got kinapped leaning to noone to help you. it is a coincident that i am using this word. don't you think that if someone wasto come to you and say that this car is a coincident. you would think that man is either dumb or is not listening to the fact. if you wre to look at a house. it is well structured and everything is put into exact place. sure the house must have a creater. but something that is as difficult as earth has to have a creater. you say that it is nature but dont you think nature must have a creator. just beccause man cannot create adrop of water it doesnt mean that the water has no creator. the creator is there with many signs to us but people are just too blind to see it. how can a blind man put a jigsaw puzzle altogether perfectly in one go? How came, if earth just happened in a big bang in space, that earth has gravity but space does not? Prove to me that leanardo painted the mona lisa. i want a proof, i think that that painting just happen over the blue... i wnat you to prove to me everything happened in coincidence.... proove to me that gravity exists. i dont belive gravity exict... prove it to me!
islam is the true religion

I do not say we come from apes, I say we come from a common ancestor. First off, some scientists long ago in a galaxy far far away noticed the minute differences in the chromosome numbers of apes and humans. (apes having 24 pairs in egg and sperm and humans having 23) This discovery led people to think that they might be closely related and one of the chromosomes fused hence our 23 pairs. And now we know, without a doubt, that this is the case and this clearly points towards common accestory. http://www.youtube.com... http://www.gate.net... This is just one piece of evidence out of much much more but as to not go over kill on this I will simply leave this for my opponent to try to refute or explain away. I await my opponent's responses on this debate as well as our other.
Objectify Morality

I will argue that morality is subjective but the way that you worded the question is interesting. You said, "can we objectify morality" which is technically correct. You can try to make anything objective but that does not make it objective. I will simplify the question: Is morality objective? My answer is no. The reason is that morality is trying to tangibly measure how "good" something is. What is "good" though? Is helping humanity "good"? To understand this question, we must first analyze what is "good." Good is the idea that our actions have more meaning than simply the outcome. Good is that our actions have a certain validity and meet a certain credential under a moral code. But what is "good"? Good is good and good helps others but what is "good"? I think that good is a word that we use to try to assign a higher power to how we act. Let me present an elementary example of this using children. Johnny stole a cookie from the cookie jar. So, his mom tells him that it is not good that he stole the cookie. Obviously, if he takes the cookie, that means that others cannot have it, but how do we know that it is not "good"? I think the idea that morality even exists is crazy because there is no objective morality. We try to make morality that benefits the most amount of people and we try to do it in the most systematic way possible but what makes it correct? For round 2, I will respond to your position and defend mine and I look forward to the remainder of this debate. Good luck.
Objectify Morality

Can you objectify morality? Please forgive my apparent lack of education. I have had a difficult time being around people. I reserve the right to change my mind when presented with new information based reason and logic. I will create a logic step attempting to prove the objectivity of morality. I have been searching for truth my entire life. I guess I'm just a kid trying to find his way in the world. I have always been trying to find the answer to "When should we act on what we know and don't know?" This is a question in which the answer implies why we do things, in addition to what we should and should not do. Much of my argument will be based on inductive reasoning. Humanity will become extinct, whether it's tomorrow or the at end of time. Wouldn't an ultimate goal of anyone who is logical be to push that specific point of time into the future as much as possible? The Objectivity of Morality: What is right and wrong is what one should or should not do. "The sole meaning of life is serving Humanity." -Leo Tolstoy It is right to follow the sole meaning of life. The only way to serve Humanity is maintaining its existence. Therefore, it is right for Humanity to survive. Thus it is wrong for Humanity to become extinct. You should not maliciously or apathetically end humanity. I would also put forth the laws of causality. Everything that is literally happening right now has a literal reason in which to why it happened. Thus, if we accept that there will be a point in time or at the end of time that humanity will become no more, then it would imply that every action we take now until then would cause such an event. Isn't the right thing to do for every logical person is to try not to come to that point in time? This conceptual thinking solidifies the purpose of any educational institution. This does not imply, however, that every educational institution is conducive to maintaining humanity's survival. Please understand I am trying to bring a new perspective to the world. I understand humanity still has a long way to go before accepting a person like me, however, I will still endeavor to save it. I assure you there is much further discussion needed for this topic. Please understand that you should probably not debate if you can't suppress your ego. Hopefully, your ego would allow the possibility that Man hasn't discovered this until now, thus implying that the reason why this was discovered, in accordance to causality, was all the knowledge that humanity has learned so far has finally made this result. I also need full credit, regardless of how inelegant I am. I do need help creating a passable argument in which the world can accept.
when in conflict, the letter of the law ought to take priority over the spirit of the law.

I negate the topic "When in conflict, the letter of the law ought to take priority over the spirit of the law." I'd like to do a classic Lincoln-Douglas debate. Please signpost (Make sure you address the arguments you're arguing against) and have a value and criterion in your case. With that, I open the floor to the affirmative. Thanks; I look forward to a good debate!
Complete Equality of all People is Impossible

Equality is defined as "as great as; the same as". I believe that all people could be equal if they all died. While this is not desirable, we would all be equal. When all people are dead, then they all are experiencing the same thing: nothing. Dead people are equal in: -Income -Standard of Living -Emotions -Wealth -Power We can conclude from this that the complete equality of all people is possible in the case of mass extermination.
Evolution

Okay now I obviously don't know if you are playing devil's advocate and sounding really stupid or just are really stupid. However, I'm not going to lose my debate just because an idiot is making stupid statements. Lets go." I like my opponent to explain the ice age, where all life was frozen for many years breaking your claim." Actually, you have it all wrong. Jus because the Earth is freezing doesn't mean that evolution isn't happening with the species in the ice age. You also include no links supporting it. Please check the facts. " I strongly suggest you establish a case for me to refute. Silly to think that a baby chick can evolve without the right earth conditions (incubator or mama chicken/nest=earth in correct conditions for life."Yes it can. Evolutions is a series of mutations in the DNA. Like it or not, evolution is still happening even in humans! It shows that in the past, women with very low fat could ovulate, but now they can't! (1)" Does this prove man came from maggots, that evolved into monkeys, that turned into men?"That isn't even any proof......."Anyone with God given common sense know women have all the Pus_y/power and half the money at all times proves that we did not evolve. Evolution forgot to tell the countries that degrade women and make them slaves that man has evolved."I think you have more of a problem with modern ethics and morals my friend."Because we have different races of people. However you need to explain the Jew, who evolved around a designer called God! Where did he Jew and the Nation of God = Israel come from?"Israelites are a race that wondered and came up with the idea of god. I believe in god. You can believe Adam and Eve never happened and believe in what I believe."Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe?"Of course it does."So why did one Nation Under God Evolve better and faster than Godless Nations?"My god, YOU DON"T HAVE TO BELIEVE IN ADAM AND EVE TO BE CHRISTIAN!Ladies and Gentleman, I have proved:Evolution did indeed happen, proved with many links and arguments my opponent didn't even try to rebut.I have destroyed Con's evidence and case-like arguments which were off target and stupid.Con has no links supporting nearly anything he has to say. Thank you for reading! Vote Pro!1. http://content.time.com...
Evolution

I strongly suggest you establish a case for me to refute. Silly to think that a baby chick can evolve without the right earth conditions (incubator or mama chicken/nest=earth in correct conditions for life. Does this prove man came from maggots, that evolved into monkeys, that turned into men? Anyone with God given common sense know women have all the Pus_y/power and half the money at all times proves that we did not evolve. Evolution forgot to tell the countries that degrade women and make them slaves that man has evolved. http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com... Because we have different races of people. However you need to explain the Jew, who evolved around a designer called God! Where did he Jew and the Nation of God = Israel come from? Creation or Evolution - Does It Really Matter What You Believe? http://www.google.com... So why did one Nation Under God Evolve better and faster than Godless Nations? http://www.google.com... http://www.google.com...
Evolution

I refute my opponent's claim that living beings are changing. I will admit that l all living beings have a common desiginer called God. The claim a bunch of skulls and brain pictures put together by men mean nothing at all. That only proves a common designer again. I like my opponent to explain the ice age, where all life was frozen for many years breaking your claim. My opponent posted: "Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better"I assert that nothing was changing during the ice age. . http://www.google.com... . http://www.google.com... . http://www.google.com...
Evolution

DEFINITION:Evolution Definitions:a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better Case 1: Proving EvolutionFirst, I would like to prove how evolution is real. In a shocking discovery, we share 98.6% of our DNA with an ape. (1) if you click into link, you can barely tell the ape and human chromosome apart! Yet, when you compare it to a mouse's chromosomes, you can clearly see the difference. This proves that the ape and humans are greatly related. This proves evolution. Still not satisfied? Well, we should prove evolution using man's best friend. It is proven we share 5% of our genome sequence with dogs and mouse. (2) this again proves evolution. Even dogs and mice have a scientific similarity! Here you can see the images of the human, mouse, and ape chromosomes. As you can see, this points towards evolution, as you can barely see the difference between the human and ape chromosome, but you can clearly see the difference between the mouse and the human. Here you can see the similarities of our brain. However, you will see our brain is considerably larger. This gives us the power to communicate and give us a sense of right and wrong. Here you may see how the skulls start out with a little similarities, but then has a bigger and bigger resemblance Here you can see the beginnings and current human skulls. When you look at the first one, you see it is very different. It then gradually evolves into the human skull we know today.1.http://www.amnh.org...2.http://news.nationalgeographic.com...
Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist

My opponent starts attacking my arguments by saying that I am "ignoring a very basic fact of life which is that" some people have advantages over others (paraphrased). This is not true; I even stated my position on the topic: even though social empiricism does have an aspect of "aristocratic elitism," social empiricism is not entirely "aristocratic elitist. "My opponent's argument is that "the aristocratic elite can clean up facts, take advantage of how investigators won't investigate facts everywhere, and discourage facts from being investigated where they exist. " However, as I pointed out earlier, this does not distinguish between aristocratic elites and meritocratic elites. Meritocratic elites are, by my opponent's definition, the people who rose into a high socioeconomic class from a low class and became elites rather than being born as elites. Meritocratic elites can clean up facts also, they can also take advantage of how investigators won't investigate facts everywhere, and meritocratic elites can discourage facts from being investigated where they exist. All of these forms of corruption require money, but both meritocratic elites who already earned their status and aristocratic elites who were born into their status or both capable of using these forms of corruption. Since my opponent's argument is nonunique to aristocratic elite, his claim that "social empirism is aristocratically elitist" is false.
Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist

My opponent is ignoring a very basic fact of life which is that different people are born into different times, places, and relationships. This doesn't deny social mobility, but rather recognizes that aristocratic elites can abuse the populace before mobility is achieved. For example, if someone is working on a project that would lead to future success and social status, but an aristocratic elite comes along and abuses someone, then that elite can use social empiricism to get away with that abuse. The aristocratic elite can clean up facts, take advantage of how investigators won't investigate facts everywhere, and discourage facts from being investigated where they exist. Likewise, the aristocratic elite can take advantage of how the victim doesn't necessarily know where the facts exist that could prove guilt, and take advantage of how due to the victim's inferior social status, one is more vulnerable to trauma. Therefore, the abuse could literally force the victim to forget the facts that happened. Meritocracy can lead to mobility, but only if meritocrats are free to pursue success that leads to social status. In a socially empiricist society, that freedom is not guaranteed.
Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist

Since my opponent is the instigator, the burden of proof falls on him. Therefore, in order to win this debate, I only have to point out flaws in his argument. His argument: "The problem with empiricism is it ignores the innate inequality of people's access to facts. People can only experience what we have access to. On top of that, it ignores the innate inequality of people's ability to record facts. Even if someone accesses facts, those experiences are only used to model society if they are presented in the course of modeling society. " The problem with this argument is that it does not distinguish between "aristocratically elitism" and "meritocratic elitism. " As such, my opponent is rejecting that some amount of socioeconomic mobility even exists. While elites often have an advantage in "social empiricism," my opponent makes the "Unwarranted Assumption Fallacy. " He incorrectly assumes that all elites are "aristocratic elites" who were "endowed upon birth" and that "meritocratic elites" do not exist, and his argument is based on this assumption. Therefore, here is my position on the topic: even though social empiricism does have an aspect of "aristocratic elitism," social empiricism is not entirely "aristocratic elitist. "
Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist

Before starting, let me clarify that "aristocratic elitism" refers to social status which is endowed upon birth. This is in contrast to meritocratic elitism which refers to social status that is developed after birth. The nature of social empiricism understands that evidence should be used to model how people get along. We learn about facts from experience, and make decisions based on those experiences. The problem with empiricism is it ignores the innate inequality of people's access to facts. People can only experience what we have access to. On top of that, it ignores the innate inequality of people's ability to record facts. Even if someone accesses facts, those experiences are only used to model society if they are presented in the course of modeling society. For example, let us consider an evidence focused model of criminal justice. In this model, people are only held guilty based on the evidence at stake, and we assess that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem here is that elites in society can exploit how the populace does not necessarily have the ability to access and present facts in a court of law. Aside from affording a lawyer and understanding due process within a courtroom, elites have more permission, familiarity, and resources to access areas in society where facts exist than the populace. Likewise, elites have more gathering and preserving mechanisms at stake to hold onto and protect facts that they have access to. In turn, elites can get away with two things: 1) plausible deniability in the way of abusing the populace while the populace can't hold elites responsible for their actions, and 2) provoking the populace into retaliation such that it can access and present facts about the populace's reactions while the populace can't access and present facts about elites' original actions. Hence, we see how social empiricism is aristocratically elitist. It exploits the inequality to access and record facts.
Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist

On the last round of this debate, my opponent states, "The argument at hand is. .. whether there is equal opportunity for, and vulnerability to, eploitation. " This is not what the topic is about; the topic is whether or not "Social Empiricism Is Aristocratically Elitist" (since that is, literally, the topic's title). My opponent tries to turn this debate into something that it is not in order to win the round; he attempts to force me to argue that "aristocratic elites" and "the general populace" (people who were not born with status) have "equal opportunity. " This is obviously not true; of course some people are born with advantages as we do not live in a perfectly egalitarian society. However, this framework should be dropped because it is abusive and not what the topic is about. I am going to restate my position again: even though social empiricism does have an aspect of "aristocratic elitism," social empiricism is not entirely "aristocratic elitist. "My opponent essentially forfeitted this debate when he admitted, "Yes, others[, more specifically, meritocratic elites] can exploit social empiricism. ""Aristocratically elitist" does not accurately describe social empiricism when "meritocratic elites" are just as capable and likely to exploit social empiricism. However, both my opponent and I agree that social empiricism is elitist but not necessarily aristocratically elitist. My opponent argues that aristocratic elites are more likely to exploit social empiricism than meritocratic elites because they "already have more permission, familiarity, and resources to access areas in society where facts exist. "However, my opponent provides no warrant for this claim. My opponent still has the burden of proof, yet he does not provide any evidence that this claim is true. Meritocrats who earned permission, familiarity, and resources have just as much permission, familiarity, and resources as aristocrats who were born with these.