BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Pedophiles Should Be Electronically Tagged

The flaws in my opponent's argumentation basically come down to one fatal error that will cause him to be evaporated.The basis of his argumentation comes down to constant surveillance is bad and wrong. However, his folly is obvious and duly noted for the thoughtpolice to come and take care of him later tonight. But while he is still here, maybe I could talk some sense into him so that when he is brought to the Ministry of Peace and ends up confessing for all of his crimes, he will do so quickly and with minimal suffering.Constant surveillance is a good thing in any form it comes by. Dissenters need to be punished for their misdoings and brought to justice, and the best way to catch them every time is to strictly enforce constant surveillance upon not just pedophiles, but the everyday citizen.My opponent may stand up and say "He's a dictator! He's a tyrant! He's evil!" This will only worsen his sentance and his punishment once he is finally arrested by the thoughtpolice, but perhaps I can dissuade him of the notion, so when he is finally brought to his knees, it will be with him shouting confessions and offering redemption. That is a goal truly worth striving for, and it will be my main goal in this debate.Many months I spent looking for the answers I desperately craved, crawling through the desolate ruins of foreign lands like "Barns and Noble" and "Half-Priced Books", hacking my way through the vicious jungles of the Amazon.com, until I finally found it. I found the ultimate prophesy, one the foretold of this debate and of the inevitable outcome. The prophesy was entitled "1984", and it was by a man who went by the false-name George Orwell. At first, I couldn't possibly believe what I was reading, what was being fed to the inner lobes of my unworthy brain. A totalitarian government where the people were HAPPY? They were cheering? This couldn't possibly be true! But, alas, my eyes have been truly opened to the truth. The clouds that cloud clouded eyes have been lifted, and now I see all as the legendary Eric Blair did, and now I truly understand. The only way to find true happiness in life is under the banner of Big Brother! I will not hide from the truth any longer! Long live Big Brother! Down with Goldstein and the Eurasian pigs!With this, I will conclude the first part of my attempt to redeem my unfortunate opponent before he is taken away and forever lost.
you care more about debate.org than me.

You don't look bad in any debate you have been in, as a matter of fact they have all revolved around you looking good, which you have said yourself that you encourage. Furthermore anything negative would by default fall upon Bsergent because thats just the natural way of things. Also don't tell me i sound like a psycho, you of all people should know what happens when you call Jack Bauer names. You are right, this is why there should be a messaging system and this debates intent is only to reinforce that idea. You are a terrorist.
you care more about debate.org than me.

You can't use this website to threaten me because I wont debate you over something that is going to make me look even worse! Watch all the porn you want, I encourage it as you know. You also can't blame me for being on here while at work. I can't hang out with you while I'm working! Additionally, you sound like a psycho. Oh, and you're emo. Oh, and I love you and I take everything I said above back, cause you're cute. But seriously, no more stupid debates unless they're hilarious. This is why there should be a way to message people, or a screening process for debates.
Faith Is Immoral

This is a great argument, Pro. In many situations I would agree with you. However, I do have a couple of contentions to lay out. I will list these in point form and elaborate further on.Rebuttal one: Although faith is a form of belief, it is not always necessarily a choice.Rebuttal two: Not all faith-based beliefs inspire actions with negative effects on the self and/or others.Conclusion: A person who does not choose faith does not control their belief and therefore would be helpless to prevent any negative consequences of their faith-inspired actions. Morality is not applicable in this situation. Similarly, a person whose faith-inspired actions do not negatively effect themselves or others is not being immoral. If both of these situations exist in the real world, Pro's blanket assertion that faith is immoral would be proven false.Now, to get into the meat of this discussion, I agree that faith is a form of believe. However, there are many examples of people living in every country and continent who have faith without choosing to do so. To start with an extreme example, an indigenous tribe of people in Africa with little to no contact with individuals outside of their group would have no comparison to look to. If their ancestors believed in a deity and children were taught about this from a young age, they would have no opportunity to question or challenge that belief because there would be no reason to in their closed society. Those people do not choose to believe in their faith but are not even aware of any alternatives. Similarly, a child of a home-schooling Christian family, whose parents only allowed consumption of Christian media and interaction with other Christian friends, would have as much reason to challenge or disbelieve in their faith as people who lived before Galilleo had of their belief that the Earth was the centre of the universe.Holding a belief without the knowledge that there are any alternatives cannot be a moral or immoral act, as morality requires a conscious action.Finally, there are many faiths that do not inspire actions which negatively effect themselves or others. There is a faith element in Buddhims for example (a relgion practiced by over 300 million people around the world). However, due to the teachings of Buddha and the focus on positive morality, there is no example of Buddhist faith driving harmful/immoral actions.The existence of the people I have described above show that faith is not inherently immoral. In some cases, morality does not apply, while in others faith seems to have a positive effect on the morality of a person.Thank you and I look forward t your response, Pro.
Faith Is Immoral

Thank you Chipped Cup for accepting the Con position. My argument goes as follows: Premise 1: Faith is a form of belief Premise 2: Beliefs inform our actions Premise 3: Baseless actions can have negative effects that are preventable Premise 4: Effecting people negatively, especially when it is preventable, is immoral Conclusion: Faith is immoral As the first premise was agreed to before the debate I wont spend much time discussing it. However, I will take a moment to point out the core difference between faith and other forms of belief. Namely, that faith is a choice. It is something you choose to accept. However, belief in general is different. It is something that happens to you. I cannot choose to believe that there is a million dollars in my bank account. If I could, I would go to the ATM right now and be in for a belief shattering experience. The second premises is fairly straight forward. Our beliefs are the gate keepers of our actions. They directly inform how we behave. And how we behave matters because simply having good intentions is not enough. Because intentions are only as good as the information upon which they are based. And faith is the worst possible system for getting good information. If we want to know what is out on the horizon we DON'T pick up a kaleidoscope - we pick up a telescope. Likewise, if we want to make good determinations about reality we DON'T use faith - we use reason. For premises three and four I will use the example of a commercial pilot. Before the pilot ever starts his engines he does an inspection of his entire plane and follows a check list to make sure everything is in working order. It is the pilots duty to see to it that the well being of their passengers is looked after. Simply having faith that the plane is in good working condition is not enough. Likewise, just having faith that our actions will have positive results on the people around us is not enough. We all have a moral obligation to only believe things that are true. Because believing things that are false can have severely negative effects on the people around us. And, as faith is belief without good reason, it follows that faith can have severely negative effects on the people around us . . . which is immoral. If beliefs inform our actions and we want our actions to be moral than if fallows that our beliefs need to be true. Well, I think there is more than enough to start us out here. I look forward to response.
The government must fund education

While he insulted me, throughout round three, he failed to explain why the funding of education must be by government and not privately-run corporations.Pro proved education to be valuable to a society to a great extent but never once achieved even an ounce of explanation as to why it must be publicly funded as opposed to privatised...I feel very insulted by his round three attack on me and personally don't feel as if he gave my round two much thought before gargling up 16 sources about education and nothing to do with government funding whatsoever and hoping to get an easy sources points vote...I don't understand how I construed his arguments or 'fogged' over what he really was trying to say. Pro simply explained why education is valuable, not why the government must fund it.It is for that simple reason that I feel as if I have successfully won this debate. I feel the pro was arguing education's value alone whilst not appreciating that this can be achieved through privatisation.In conclusion, education can be privatised and Pro has failed to give sufficient justification for mandatory government funding of it.
The government must fund education

Although I believe that education is a fundamental right, and as so it must be provided by the state, I will argue from a different angle. I would like to debate on the economic benefits of education for the society, that is, I will argue that education has a great number of positive externalities. This means that when someone is educated, it benefits others around him, and the society as a whole, which means that higher levels of education spending are socially desirable. First of all, let's consider the productivity gain for the country. Workers with higher levels of education are more capable and efficient, making less mistakes and creating more value overall[1][2]. Higher levels of investment in education have been proven to lead to higher levels of GDP per capita, higher life expectancy and lower child mortality[3][4]. This is to be expected, as higher investments in education are certain to result in a higher number of capable professionals, not only industry workers, but also physicians, engineers, lawyers, managers, etc. And in the present world, the main resource for anything is human capital. In the age of knowledge, it is essential to have the best professionals in order to succeed. And this can only be achieved through education. Another benefit refers to civic engagement and democracy. For democracy to be feasible, it is needed that the people meet certain level of literacy and knowledge, and preferably that citizens share some basic values. Good education contributes to both factors, helping to build an stable and democratic society, while teaching children how to participate in its political life[5]. The third point I would like to cover is the effect of education on crime rates. It has been proven that schooling significantly reduces criminality, with a 1% increase in high school completion rate implying in estimated $1.4 billion reduced costs from crime per year in the United States[6]. There are several reasons for that, but the main one is that by raising earnings, education raises the opportunity cost of crime and the cost of time of time spent in prison. Furthermore, education changes individuals perception on discount rates, making them more patient and risk averse, which also reduces their propensity to commit crimes. Finally, a crime life is most times initiated during teenage years. If children and teenagers stay in school, the opportunities to start a crime career are much scarcer. For these reasons, I believe the social return brought by education justifies fully its public funding. Investment in education, when well structured, makes citizens lives better in many aspects and aids the country economic progress. By guaranteeing that everyone has access to quality education, government ensures that the nation will enjoy social stability and economic growth that would be unattainable otherwise. References [1] http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz... [2] http://www.cid.harvard.edu... [3] http://www2.unescobkk.org... [4] http://www.gsdrc.org... [5] http://journal.apee.org... [6] http://emlab.berkeley.edu...
The government must fund education

Hello, in this debate I will argue that it is good for the society that the government funds education for those who cannot afford it. Con will argue that it is not the government function to do so, or that it is not good for society that he does. Clarifications: I am not necessarily discussing public schools, which is a posterior debate, this debate is only whether there must be public funds for education. Burden of Proof is shared, both sides have to make a point. Secular discussion, please. No citing the bible or saying that something is the will of God. I am looking forward to meet an opponent (probably libertarian or anarchist) who has good arguments on the subject. If something is not clear, please ask in the comment section.
Afraid of TROLLS? this is just a bunch of electrons on your screen. They might eat you? lol!

It honestly took me a second to decipher what that last argument was all about, and to be honest, I would expect better results from a "forty one" year old. This argument has been, by my terms, a mere squabble in which I have tried my best to keep the conversation on track. It seems I have failed to even keep a decent conversation. The first round was very promising, with a lot of points to be argued, but in the second round the entire debate lost steam. I hope to win my first debate, and hope for many more interesting debates in the near future.
Afraid of TROLLS? this is just a bunch of electrons on your screen. They might eat you? lol!

I see you have added a most realistic pic to your honest and true profile, sir judge. From your wordsmanship, I would suspect no less arrogance out of ye then your own belief that you are the hammer of justice, which can never be manmadem, according to Darwin and God. 3 The only thing I won't do is hurt people, but comiitteds as you will depict me as your truth, which is a lie. winning the argument here, would be no validation of reality, derrrrrr, Yerrrrr hawner?!?!?1?!?1
Afraid of TROLLS? this is just a bunch of electrons on your screen. They might eat you? lol!

Honestly, I wouldn't call your counter argument a counter argument at all, I would call it a last resort. Which is a pity because we still have more rounds to go. The fact is, trolls are the pests of the internet, and it's fine to be angry with them. What I think (and do note me being politically incorrect here), is that you are one of the people that loves to hide, and watch as the trolls engage in trolling. That grabs at any one shots that he thinks will hurt a person over the internet. That is why you can't win this argument. And I'm duly sorry, but that rampage you called an "argument" , seemed like your very last card.
Afraid of TROLLS? this is just a bunch of electrons on your screen. They might eat you? lol!

Trolling is an art form? Well then! That is truly encouraging as I thought I was wasting my time, but maybe someday my words will ring true with future generations. Thanks for the compliment! I totally disagree with your definition however. Your definition reeks of feminism, psychology and political correctness, all of which are tools of tyranny in the new age. Tyrannical tools of people that do not have confidence in themselves, except in their ability to make a bunch of money by convicting trolls, and depend on folks like you to defend them with accusations like "your comments made so and so kill themselves, you must pay with your life." You are not who you say you are, so why should anyone trust you?
Afraid of TROLLS? this is just a bunch of electrons on your screen. They might eat you? lol!

Ah, trolling. It is an art of irritating and openly mocking and making/doing derogatory things to another person, usually online. Offline, I would call this a lesser form of bullying, and the same rules apply to online. And if we were to sum this up to bullying (and or cyberbullying). We could assume that the same actions have the same results. Now, I'm not saying that it would happen quickly, all I'm saying is that suicide rates due to cyber bullying is at an all time high. One troll won't do it, but with the number of people out there saying mean things over the internet, one troll is not the only troll you will encounter. These trolls sometimes don't. Stop at that, either. Below I have posted a link to a youtube channel called "VideoGames". He is known for his crazy trolling reactions, and has gotten people kicked out of servers and off of games. https://m.youtube.com... And look? Do you see the subscriber count? Two million. Two million people that think that racial slurs, slander, and vulgar language are hilarious! Something to be laughed about! Something that they should try themselves! Any one of these children could be the one that pushes another helpless kid over the edge. And they don't stop there. They think that these reactions are funny, so they keep going. They carry on doing what they watched, and by doing so, they hurt more and more kids. They get more and more kids involved, they start the trolling in their area. In conclusion, the 21st century is a digital age, and nowadays, the simple computer virus is not the only thing that you should watch out for on the internet.
Belief in God is subjective.

I think perhaps this format, a debate, furthermore one that calls specifically for a winner or loser, can in a way inhibit the ability of the participants from developing the idea further truly open meaningful way. That said I appreciate your ability to propose questions about your own insights or "arguments" in a way that depends the conversation, seemingly unaffected by the possible out come of winning or losing. I hope I can bring something meaningful to the opposing view, while still matching your unaffected demeanor. I do also believe senses can augmented, but I am not sure if this leads to an explanation for or against the existence of another sense. The statement "a non believer could have their eyes opened and become a believer, or a believer can have their eyes opened and become a non believer." Your use of the "eyes opened" analogy, instead of opened/closed for both experiences Is really key for me. What is "right" also deserves some discussion. I do not find all religions to be similar, as we are proposing them to be with the use of the idea of a "god sense" or lack there of. Under the concept each religion may indeed need it's own sense or multiple senses existing for monotheistic, polytheistic and all the subsequent denominations. This does not disprove the idea but does further complicate it. With an issue involving more complication, I would assert a reasonable argument for it's existence requires more evidence. I love the simulation argument presented by Nick Bostrom. I suppose he would say that the "god sense" has so many variables by design because it is part of our particular simulations objective to find out which religion or lack of would take over, or even just to study the possibility of it, and in the real world such a strange idea never existed. This could account for the elusiveness of the cause and effect entire topic. It isn't meant to exist in reality. I'm running out of room but I look forward to your thoughts.
Belief in God is subjective.

Well I dnt recall seeing this argument anywhere but its not too foriegn to believe I'm the first to think of it. But I did come to the idea on my own, so thank you. And thank you as well for raising some interesting questions. The second had occured to me and I have 2 ideas. Firstly I believe that senses can be augmented. Like glasses or a hearing aid. A person might for instance, forgive the analogy, have their eyes opened. Now this can work both ways. Either a non-believer can have their eyes opened and become a believer or, a believer can have their eyes opened and become a non-believer. The problem is both cant be right. A prrson who sees cant stop believing in rainbows even after going blind......still working on this one. As for genetic its like intelligence. The smartest people can have quite ordinary parents or kids. And surroundings determine our reality. Someone growing up in a muslim home in a muslim society might be prone to certain beliefs. Having a muslim mother and a christian father I was exposed to both. Similarly things and people I have come into contact with have altered my perceptions. Is intelligence a factor? I dnt know. All I know for now is this bares further consideration. That is the point of this debate. Gotta go but looking forward to chatting further.
Belief in God is subjective.

That makes things much more clear thank you. I think there are a few key differences in explaining a sensory function and process in which we understand a lot about, than explaining people's ability to believe in god and not to believe. I love the playing with the idea of there being a predetermined genetic reason and in such a way there could be a gradient, depending on the prominence of the trait. From radicals or evangelicals all the way to agnostics and militant atheists. I also have some ideas on how we can shine a light on it's falsehood. Given consistent and substantiated data, a persons belief in a god and the severity of that belief is very much tied to their socioeconomic factors, birthplace, parents belief, and level of education. Unless you can prove that this same genetic trait or 6 sense also caused these or was a result of a persons socioeconomic standing, birthplace, education level, IQ, and parental beliefs I do not see a case to be made for this notion. In fact quite the opposite. Another large wrench in the gears for your proposal is explained in this example, you have two people, both would have this sense, both are religious because of it, but one is Jewish and the other is a Muslim. Though they are both persons of faith, I imagine explaining ones faith to another would be similar to your analogy about the blind man. Another problem area is people who all of a sudden convert to a religion or leave a religion. How would you explain the behavior of this 6 sense in this situations. From your side any evidence to support this theory may be of use to both of us. Please if you can in your rebuttals list some substantiated facts for your position. As intriguing as it is, and again seriously kudos for having a creatively philosophical mind to think of such a question. I am assuming the idea was your originally.