BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Workaholism can't make society happy

Firstly, congratulations for formulating your first debate. What is happiness? There is no clear commitment therein as to what happiness is. By the Aristotelian description above, a pseudo definition can be derived as to what you are trying to claim. Happiness not so much a state of being but the measure by which one travels from from point A to point B. An example of the application of this definition would be, " My parents and I agree I need to go to college. " I can go to college and study what I want, or I can go study what would make parents pleased." At first glance via this application studying what one want's sounds like the path for happiness. The issue is, this approach when interrupting this has no set definition. Would studying a subject make him immediately happy? Would the happiness remain? What if satisfaction in ones work to please the desires of their parents leads to happiness? With the current definition, an actual debate cannot be derived. I would argue that happiness be redefined as to a state of being gained from one's actions. Ayn Rand said, "Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. " I would pose that happiness is an issue to be dealt with at an individual level. You post that individual actions can damage a collective unit. I concede that to be true. I argue if one does not follow desires and have personal hope in the actions they take, they can never be happy. If they can not be happy on a individual level, the collective unit formed is doomed to failure. The idea of loosing everything in a collective group from over working, isn't what leads to unhappiness, but is the unfortunate consequence of not reaching an individual level of happiness first. My response to your debate is as follows. You state that happiness can be found in the collective, I would restate one can be happy inside of a collective unit such as a family, and one could derive strength from a collective as well. Happiness is found by the individual and what the individual finds and strives for could be personal or could related to a collective it is impossible to know what would drive every single human. This said, some may become workaholics because a collective they are in is making life difficult to be happy in. This leading to the inevitable conclusion that the collective would fail. There has been no reason stated to lead one to believe the individual couldn't gain happiness, or in fact wouldn't have a better chance at it now. The BOP for that falls upon you, the affirmative "pro". I disagree with the statement that workaholics couldn't gain happiness. A workaholic could very well be happy.
Workaholism can't make society happy

This is my first debate. The first question i would like to ask is what makes people happy? What is happiness itself? Many philosohphers and scientists have been studying it for thousands of years. Aristotle once said, "Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human exitence?" In the 21st century for the majority of people reaching success in a workplace, being flush of money happen to become the main goal and the source of happiness. To achive money and success, many people seem to cross the line of hard working into workaholism, sacrificing their health and people whom they love for job. But do they become happy after losing people whom they love and destroying their health? I don't think so. Even though many people define happiness in terms of achieving success and financial and materialistic measures, i argue that there are more bad consiquenses of overworking such as destroction of family, destruction of health which finally leaves people unhappy.
Why would anyone want to believe in god? Count all the people god wants to murder

Ok, I don't have a link to share with anybody, simply because I just found this argument, and felt the need to defend the rights of God and all of His followers. Your first argument is a good one, the scriptures do say those exact words. However, I feel that they have a different context than what you suggest. Later, in the next scriptures, it was commanded that man was to bring treasures to the Lord (personally, I would too if it was our Heavenly Father). Wouldn't there work however, be an example of not keeping the Sabbath (Note which words I capitalize)? I have a link here that explains in some pretty good words, what I am trying to say. https://www.lds.org... I notice what you say about God wanting even His preachers, priests, and rabbis dead as well. In Mosiah 2:17, it was told that “when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God”. It would be insane for someone to think that God would not allow you to serve him because it was the Sabbath, since it is a day to worship him. Would going to Church count as breaking the Sabbath? Obviously not. In truth, He speaks of Spiritual death, and not receiving the blessing of the Celestial Kingdom after death. Not the end of their mortal life, but Spiritual life. In Deuteronomy 21, I believe that the rebellious sons are not the same type that we think of. Back then, a son was supposed to be working hard on whatever they were supposed to do. It was a very busy time back then. Slacking off was definitely not something that you would want to be caught doing. Or, rebellious sons were more violent, criminal like, and had to be dealt with. Nobody is on God’s checklist. He loves all of his children equally. I find your examples well chosen, and I have/had a hard time finding a scripture that countered what you said. God does not want any of us dead. He cares for us all, but we must know that punishment is not the same as hatred. I don’t YET have too many answers, I’m still trying to gather enough evidence. This is a bit off topic, but why do you harbor so much hatred towards Christ? I’m not trying to be insulting, I just want to understand why. I’m not saying you are right, I’m just saying that I’ll make my come-back in round 2. (Gosh that ending sounds bad)
Exam should not be banned

Imagine yourself dangling your own feet out of the window, preparing for suicide, or being very depressed after the exam. We totally disagree on today's motion, THBT Exams should not be banned. Exams Usually decide your everything. Sometimes, going to an exam means deciding on what your future would be and what your job will be, or what school or University you would go in. All this decision making is all compressed in an hour. This will create great stress for you. All that time is crammed up in an hour or two and all the revision is crammed up in the week before. Some people might say that we should have some stress but having too much stress especially before the exam will create deadly life problems. The stress is build up by the children's parents or their peers before and after an exam. After the exam, children would be worrying about being scolded by their parents and high school students would be worrying about not getting into a good university. All this pressure can create deadly problems and you certainly want to avoid it.
It is better to be paranoid than ignorant

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. Ignorance can be tied to apathy and the above poem shows the problem with this. Neomoller experienced firsthand what his ignorance had cost everyone around him. He sat idly by while the Nazis here making any excuse to take people away, by the time he started paying attention it was too late. In regards to the Weavers, if they had abided by the law, they wouldn't have gotten as much trouble initially. However, they would have had everything stripped away gradually. How it ended up just proves that Randy Weaver was correct about the corruption of the government, if he had simply complied he may never have known and so they would be allowed to take other people's freedom until it is too late. If the government had been as benign as an ignorant person would imagine they would not have reacted as they did even if the Weavers were being uncooperative. To deny that government corruption exists is to be ignorant. One example of such is the phone monitoring story I referenced previously. Most people go about their daily lives without a care in the world. Whenever bad things happen they just ignore it because it doesn't affect them. When freedoms are taken away it is a gradual process so people so often pay o attention. However, when a major event such as Ruby Ridge occurs it opens people's eyes. Most of the people in China are ignorant of what their government does, and unfortunately it is made even harder do to mass censorship. While my opponent keeps bringing up that paranoia is a fear of everything, I would like to remind him that ignorance is not caring or knowing about actual dangers. A big issue is that perfectly rational people can be labeled paranoid by others who are ignorant. While someone could be perfectly justified in their beliefs, society can paint them as paranoid. If it weren't for paranoid people we would never know about the Japanese internment camps, the mafia, MK Ultra and many other things once considered conspiracy theories. [1][2] I thank my opponent for debating me and look forward to his closing statements. 1 . http://conspiraciesthatweretrue.blogspot.com... 2 . http://www.sixwise.com...
It is better to be paranoid than ignorant

Take a real life case. In the mountains in Idaho in 1992 there lived a family who was paranoid and thought the government was after them. It turns out they were right. The case is called the Ruby Ridge incident. The FBI trespassed on their property withoutproper warrant and murdered the guy's son and wife, and while the wife was holding their baby none the less. They had been stockpiling firearms. If they hadn't been doing that it may not have caught the government's attention, but as American citizens it was their right. [1] . http://www.youtube.com... I will take my opponent's analogy and for the sake of argument take it at face value. "Bob's constantly imagines that people are out to get him so he closes himself off from all relationships" This may not be the ideal life but perhaps he prefers to be alone, not everyone is an extrovert. "He will not use a cell phone as the men in black monitor all frequencies. " Actually this fear would be justified. The FBI uses the built in microphone in cell phones to spy on people as well as monitoring phone calls and tracing people's locations. [2] [3] "He has to wear tinfoil underwear because the aliens are always sending out "semen waves" to destroy the ability of humans to procreate. " Sure a bit uncomfortable but again a personal choice as are most of your other examples. "He has to wear tinfoil underwear because the aliens are always sending out "semen waves" to destroy the ability of humans to procreate. " This could be annoying to others but they would just simply avoid him. "Frank world consists of his friends, his family and his associates at work and the real and objectives challenges they actually face on a day to day basis. He is rational, he is secure, he seeks out relationships and challenges so he can grow and mature as a person. " However, he is clueless of actual dangers around him and so is careless and risks the life of himself and his family if something bad were to happen because he didn't take the proper precautions. "In general, which individual is actually better prepared for the real world and the challenges so faced? " The paranoid man will be more prepared for any possible outcome while the ignorant man will be happy for the time being but be unprepared for disaster. I hope to hear the rebuttal and further debate. 1 . http://www.stormfront.org... 2 . http://michael.cervieri.com... 3 . http://blogs.abcnews.com...
It is better to be paranoid than ignorant

Resolution : It is better to be paranoid than ignorant Definitions ----------- Paranoid : 1) exhibiting undue suspicion, fear of persecution, etc [1] To be clear, paranoia is not a whimsical condition that one can sit back and observe and simply comment "oh, you so crazy". Paranoia is one step away from a complete psychotic break such as schizophrenia[2]. It is psychotic behavior, it is a medical disease[3]. It is a break from reality where one perceives dangers which are not actually present and shelters themselves from the world in expectation from these imagined consequences. Ignorant : 1) lack of knowledge of the thing specified [4] Pro's argument to support the resolution is simply : "if something bad does happen the ignorant man will be unprepared and so it will be the paranoid who survive" Note the assumption "does happen", but again paranoia is not about being prepared for what could happen, it about having extreme and irrational fears, it is about unwarranted beliefs of persecution - it is not about considered what could happen, it is about retreating to an irrational fantasy. What is the disadvantage of not knowing about something which does not exist or could not happen? Simply consider the following : Bob's constantly imagines that people are out to get him so he closes himself off from all relationships. He will not use a cell phone as the men in black monitor all frequencies. He has to wear tinfoil underwear because the aliens are always sending out "semen waves" to destroy the ability of humans to procreate. He will only eat tomatoes because all non-red non-vegetables non-round foods cause cancer. He will not use the letter "e" because the Illuminati added "e" to English as by saying "e" it puts the mind into a state which can be easily subject to "brain control". Bob also only walks forward on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, because by walking in reverse four days of the week he can stop the "aging rays" that Bigfoot emits. And finally, Bob will only speak in lyrics from "Friday" because that song is actually a magic chant which drives the Thetans from the body. Frank world consists of his friends, his family and his associates at work and the real and objectives challenges they actually face on a day to day basis. He is rational, he is secure, he seeks out relationships and challenges so he can grow and mature as a person. In general, which individual is actually better prepared for the real world and the challenges so faced? [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [3] http://my.clevelandclinic.org... [4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
It is better to be paranoid than ignorant

I will argue that it is better to be paranoid than ignorant. First I would like to clarify exactly what I mean. When I say paranoid I do not mean paranoid to the level of violence. i would also like to say that I agree with the idea that ignorance is bliss, but it is only temporary and actually more detrimental in the end. I will argue that someone who is paranoid is more preprepared than someone who is ignorant. That even if what they are afraid of never happens, however, if something bad does happen the ignorant man will be unprepared and so it will be the paranoid who survive. Thank you and I look forward to the debate.
Curvy models yes or no

There's a difference between curvy and fat. I don't believe that anyone really has an issue with curvy models, so I believe that you're referring to obese models. In regards to anorexia, it's a serious condition however obesity has killed approx 2000x more people the the past decade than anorexia. Only 4 famous models have passed away in the past decade due to anorexia as well. Believe it or not, standards of beauty won't change. Heavily obese women in general look worse than slim, more normal body types. You cannot change sexual attraction, if you're claiming you can then it's saying sexual preference is a choice. Women need to look up to slim, healthy women. We need not glorify obesity. If you're fat, you need to be healthier simple as that.
Curvy models yes or no

I agree on this topic. There are many reasons but I'll explain two reasons. First, curvy models look like very healthy. Most models do not eat much to make thin body figure. So, some model dies because of anorexia. Second, They can change the standards of beauty. Most of the people have standards of beauty which are thin and beautiful. So, most of the country will hire the curvy models. we can change the standards of beauty. Therefore, the curvy models are the real models, and I think they are good models who can bring us even friendliness. Thank you~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ban on Islam

I was wondering when you would go straight to insults. Let me repeat what I said. Some versions of Islam want honor killing, but most do not. There is a word in Islam called "Jihad." Jihad means "struggle", as in the spiritual struggle between good and evil in Islam. They see it as an inner war. However, extremists use this as a lousy excuse to be terrorists. Trust me, I have a real life friend who is Muslim. To assume that all Muslims are terrorists, would be like assuming all Christians are anti-vaxxers, or assuming that all buddhists are in favor of ethnic cleansing.
Ban on Islam

No. That's not what I said. First, I take back what I said about the Quran allowing honor killing. There are actually multiple versions of the Quran depending on the different types of Islam. There is Sunni, Shi'ite, and several other types of Islam. I'm convinced that most types of Islam do not allow honor killing, but only the very small types of Islam are the ones you need to worry about. ISIS, for example, is one of those extremist groups.
couples adopting overseas

I am totally with people who think that there is no problem on adopting children from other countries or with foreign countries adopting on ours. By adopting a kid from another country you can offer him or her more opportunities for a better life. For example better education, or a better and more safe surroundings than those which your own country can't or won't offer. Here you are giving another baby from your country or not to have a better chance at life, actually you should be thankful that a foreign couple is more willing to give a better life to this baby than one from your own country. This kid will now have the opportunity experience what having a family means or what being loved feels like. Wouldn't you want that for the kids of your country although they will end up on some other country, but still the well-being of the kid is more important. Another thing is that this decreases the amount of teen delinquents which turn out to be orphans. You save a child from a harsh destiny and from becoming a rebel or a delinquent. How does allowing couples adopting overseas help with this? Well, it helps because sometime during their time in the foster homes or orphanages kids go through a rough period and most of them end up doing bad things like crimes. Good luck!!! :D
Israel does not have the Right to Exist

My opponent states, "This debate is not focused on the more general topic of 'right to exist', but rather the more focused question of whether Israel has a right to exist. Pro's argument is not necessarily wrong, but it is applied in a manner that is inconsistent with this debate's topic." For some reason, my opponent believes that the meaning of a "right to exist" is irrelevant to this debate. But how can this be the case if what we are debating is a particular nation's right to exist. How can we ever know if a country has a right to exist if we do not even understand what it means to have a right to exist? In fact, in the contention, Israel does not have a right to exist, Israel is the subject and a "right to exist" is the predicate. By claiming that we do not have to look at the concept of a "right to exist" separately from Israel, we are in effect claiming that the predicate is included in the subject. With this logic, my opponent would in effect be defining the word "Israel" as something that "does not have a right to exist." The debate would be over by definition. This is clearly not the case, and my opponent clearly does not believe this to be the case. As such, we must analyze the concept of a "right to exist" independently of Israel before we can even begin to look at the relation between the two. Therefore, my argument that a "right to exist" is ontologically subjective is relevant to this debate. By showing this to be the case, I demonstrate that it cannot be proven that Israel does not have the right to exist. **Furthermore, as a kind of footnote, I'd like to note that a speech given in 1977 can have very little relevance to Israel's right to exist in 2010. Certainly my opponent agrees with me that a country's right to exist is not stable -- that it changes over time. Therefore, making claims about Israel's status in the year 2010 using information from 1977, or really from any time other than from analyzing the current global climate, only shows Israel's status in the past and not as it actually is now. As an example, note that initially the United States was British. Does this mean that the United States currently does not have a right to exist? That it should actually be English? Of course not. A country's status changes over time.
Israel does not have the Right to Exist

In his response, my opponent has introduced the notion of a right to exist as being ontologically subjective. As a result of this subjectivity, Pro concludes that there can be no absolute or concrete answer concerning this subject. I will now address this new concept: First, the concept of ontological subjectivity is not relevant to this argument. This debate is not focused on the more general topic of "right to exist", but rather the more focused question of whether Israel has a right to exist. Pro's argument is not necessarily wrong, but it is applied in a manner that is inconsistent with this debate's topic. Israel's right to exist is based on religious and historical ties to this particular area (see aforementioned Knesset quotation, which is the position taken by the government of Israel). The question, therefore, must address Israel's historical and religious ties to the land. Furthermore, Pro's inclusion of the quotation from The Rights of Man is interpreted incorrectly. "The fact therefore must be that the individuals themselves, each in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a contract with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist" [1] Paines's work describes the process by which a legitimate form of government arises. He argues that only through a contract (social contract) involving citizens does a government have a right to exist, or arise. The legitimacy of Israel's government is not the question at hand and the introduction of The Rights of Man does not address the question of whether a nation has a right to exist based on its religious and/or historical ties to a particular area. Having addressed Pro's response and clarified this argument, I now await for a response concerning bloodlines and historical ties. [1] http://en.wikisource.org...