BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Spartan society is a better society than the Athenian Society

Since the schedule has been mixed up, this final round will be rebudle and final statements I was merely pointing out that spartan warriors were the best warriors in all the ancient world, which is why the Spartans defeated the Athenians and crippled them. As a result of the Athenian defeat sparta crippled the Athenian navy by burning all but 6 navy vessels. No longer will the Athenians ever be a naval super power. Sparta has prevailed and defeated there long rival athens. The reasons they didn't take control over the Athenians is because they were important on trade. That is why they left the trade vessels. But the Spartans saved the Athenian society twice. One by not conquering them, second was the Persian-Greek war, where after the dearest at thermopoly spearheaded by the Spartans. Took out a large chunk of the Persian force. Nearly 30,000 Persians were slaughtered compared to the couple thousand the Greeks lost. The sheer pride and discipline it took would be unimaginable, to stand and fight there the numbers agianst you' knowing your going to die. The Spartans however were accompanied by a small group of other Greek soldiers, but surrendered after a little fighting. But after that when the Persians tried to conquer southern Greece. A Greek army, also led by the Spartans defeated the Persians and halted there campaign. My opponent refers to the Spartans as "uncivilized". Like they were barbarians who pillaged and raped whenever they felt like it. But the Spartans weren't that, they were protectors. They did what was good for the state. They put EVERYBODY through training, even the women knew how to fight. Uniting sparta as a common warrior society. But they weren't just military brutes. They were religious. They were very religious, that's the reason why we didn't help the Athenians at marathon because they had a festival. Even though Athens had a democracy. We'll I wouldn't even call it a democracy because 50% more or less couldn't vote ,women. Women had very little rights in Athens. They couldn't vote, they couldn't even play women roles in PLAYS. Spartan women that more rights than the male dominated society of Athens. "Sparta could not run itself correctly" Sparta was fine, is it wasn't it would have fell far sooner, and due to public problems not war. "Spartan military training used today? No." Though the training from 7 and birth are not practiced today. Special forces use some of the training very similar to the spartan training. "Athens philosophers stuff stuff stuff" Spartan society has philosophers too, Lycurgus of sparta was one of the many. Also, the philosophers you named such as Socrates praised spartan law. Another, Platonists, viewed sparta as an ideal state, free from the corruption of money, like the Athenians get handed everything to them on there own silver "Athenian mined" plater. Spartan society was an ideal state, it had a common religion a well defense that triumphed over Athens. And most importantly, values. I now leave my opponent to have his rebudle and final statement.
Spartan society is a better society than the Athenian Society

I will now respond to the contentions by my opponent. Basically the idea my opponent stuck to was the military one; that because there strengths was in the art of war that made them an all around superior society. This raises a few issues, however. If we take the idea that better army=better society, then we must submit that the Soviet Union was the BEST EVAR in terms of societal status. That is simply not true. Even if they were wholly dedicated to the army, a society needs more that just that. Athenians also win in literally every other department that a society can have. They were the center for emerging political ideas including democracy and new philosophical schools of thought including platonics and philosophers such as Aristotle, Socrates, Plato, and many others whose thought influences us today. They had new agricultural breakthroughs and was arguably the birthplace of medicine with Hippocrates. Do the military training styles of Sparta survive today? No. They died out when more civilized people saw the worth of people as more than a tool that could be tested and discarded if they were not physically fit. The Athenians also had one of the greatest naval fleets in the Aegean Sea. That was part of the reason why the invasion of Troy was such a success. If it was not for the fleet that the Athenians provided, they would have not made it there to begin with. Sparta could also not run itself correctly, let alone those they conquered. In the conquest of other city-states, they set up fragile support structures and inefficient reconstruction of those they conquered. The Spartan society also died out sooner, becoming an almost nonexistent state in 374BC after suffering defeat at the hands of Thebes in the Battle of Leuctra(1). Athens is still existent, while not in the same way, today as the capital of all of Greece. Overall, Greece has more qualities akin to what we see as a society. Sparta had a redeeming quality: there military. This is also countered by the great navy of the Athenians. I would like to apologize for the first forfeit and will concede all points of conduct for this debate. I await your response. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org...
Spartan society is a better society than the Athenian Society

Goog luck As we all the spartan society is based in the goal of making the toughest military in all of Greece. I for one admire there dedication and the hardcore goal to protect its city state and it's people. Right when Spartan baby's are born they bath them in wine to make sure there tough. After that a spartan elder examines the boy. If he is considered weak or born with a diformaty they left him in a valley where they let them starve or freeze to death. If he does pass the inspection, he is taken to a barracks at the age of 7. Where he will learn to become one of the best warriors in all the known world. Until they are 20 they are trained in harsh ways on other nation have done. They beat them, they whipped then to make them tough. They were not fed properly so they we're incurraged to steal,if they were harshly punished. Many died in the process of the spartan training (agoga) when they reached 20 years old. They underwent harshly test the required physical endurance. The ones who didn't die we're enlisted in the army. This is a hardcore warrior society even if they are weak in numbers they make up for it with experiance. The Athenians process: Random guy #1: hey can I join the army? Random Army Commander #1: sure
god doesn't exist

...So in conclusion dear voters, I believe that Agnosticism is the only possible route to take with a debate resolution so-worded. The concept of a God is the most abstract concept humans have ever imagined, and the absolute refutation of such a concept shall take evidence beyond that currently in the possession of our species. I believe that I have stated my argument clearly, and that my opponent has not been able to provide evidence to the contrary of my points. Now it is your turn; please vote for the better arguments. Have a nice day.
god doesn't exist

Good day again Sir/Madam! First of all, I feel that I need to point out that I am not, strictly speaking, on the theist side. I have not argued for the existence of a God. I have advocated the Agnostic view that any possible deity, and I stress POSSIBLE, is ultimately unknowable and non-interventionist, thus perfectly fitting the imperfect world that we have the fortune to inhabit. My argument has also provided unassailable evidence that the resolution in its current form: "God doesn't exist," is incorrect. Furthermore, you seem to hold the belief that as the apparent holder of a belief, the burden of proof lies upon my shoulders to defend such a belief. This may seem plausible to an atheist deriding an "illogical" religion, but let's put the argument in context: If a researcher were to "disprove" the theory of gravity, would it be the responsibility of the scientific establishment to defend it? Rather, it would be the researcher's responsibility to give evidence supporting his proof. This parallels our current debate. You, sir/ madam, deride the millennia-old idea of a deity with opinions formed only within the past few centuries, yet somehow believe the burden of proof falls upon me. Even if one were to take this absurd notion as law, it is clear that the belief in question is "God doesn't exist" and, you , sir/madam, are the holder of it! Therefore, I believe that I have adequately explained why "God doesn't exist" is unprovable, and that any last minute protestations about your own inadequately-worded resolution does not prove the contrary.
god doesn't exist

as someone said in the comments i should have name this argument prove god exists, not doing so was my downfall we atheists can not prove that he doesn't exist but we can disprove evidence. the fact of the matter is that neither side of the debate has solid evidence, but on the theist side it is technically your job to provide evidence that something exists as you believe in it on the opposing side i sit trying to disprove evidence. fro Example if i said dragons existed and you think there fake its my job to prove to you that they are real. in reality you know if they are or if they are not real but based on factual evidence and past experiences all you can do is deny them and disprove any evidence i have . im sorry fort he misconception that this argument has brought but in future arguments i will better label my debates. as i hope you will remember if you have to prove something that we do not know as factual evidence and the side disproving has to disprove evidence. in conclusion unless a god/ goddess appears in or world and announces him/herself we will never now if or not a god exists all we can do is use the factual evidence around us to decipher in our minds what to believe. But no matter what religion it is you don't see a god everyday so it's their job to prove that one exists, and the non believers to disprove claims and misconceptions.
god doesn't exist

Thank you for your first argument sir/madam; sorry I wasn't aware you wanted me to go first. Although stated clearly and eloquently, I believe your argument has one fatal flaw: it deals exclusively in the Christian faith. Your debate topic is stated to be "God doesn't exist." No specification is made as to whether this is the God of Abrahamic tradition (YHWH, Allah, etc.), Shiva, Jupiter, The Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. Your argument as it is stated only really supports the argument that the heavenly Father of Jesus did not create the Earth as we know it. Following this, your argument still does nothing to prove that a God (or Goddess, no sexism here) does not exist. Not all faiths view deities as interventionist beings that directly aid their followers. Some simply view God as a "celestial watchman" who views our lives for simple curiosity. Others, including scientists such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, view God as more of a metaphor for the entirety of nature and physics. Belief in personal Gods may be the belief of the majority, but it is not the only kind. In conclusion, I find Creationists and Religious Fanatics to be narrow-sighted and ridiculous. Only through rational thinking can the human race progress. However, I also believe that the concept of "God" in its broadest sense is something that can never fully be disproved. Thank you. Your turn!
god doesn't exist

i was really hoping for you to give an argument but ok, first let me say that the bible should not be used in this argument as it is completely inaccurate(if you want me to debate that ill start another debate) but for now i ll start with the creation of the universe.yes us atheists/scientists don't know how the universe started but if a gods hand was involved don't you think that humans would have better lives (starvation,poverty, and murder are all examples of a gods ignorance or non existence) but alone that is not proof as it is a claim the starting of a theory. Some evidence that i own in my library is Jesus's non existence/ non divine. during the time that he was supposedly living not one single document/letter was produced with Jesus mentioned in it. it wasn't until around 200 years later when the oldest known copy of the bible appeared that his name was mentioned. if there was a god surely he wouldn't let his son be unnoticed especially after what he supposedly did for us, not for 10 years and definitely not for 200.
media violence is having a negative effect on today's youth

That is true. But then again Music,Movies,Games,. Are entertainment. There not meant for kids to act on in real life. Everyone has free will. If they choose to act out on what they see in the game that is there choice. The games are not meant for them too. So it's Really them doing that to themselves. yeah the Games may contribute to them acting out. But at the end of they day it's THERE choice.
Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

Reality by definition cannot be make believe. Conceptuality by definition is make believe. Pro has no argument beyond Round 1. They simply propose something that by definition is undeniable, And then rest on their laurels. The basis of my argument from the start was the differentiation between the simplicity of reality and the futility of conceptuality. There is no purpose whatsoever in attempting to refute Pro's truism. I would simply be attempting to rewrite the English dictionary. Anyone can sit about, Compile a list and suggest that this is love and this is love and this is the best type of love. Similarly anyone can sit about and come up with the notion that, This is good but this is ultimate goodness. Oh! And let's call all this, Metaphysics. Ultimate good, Ultimate love and metaphysics are human contrivances, That occur nowhere other that inside the human brain. Therefore realistically it is ridiculous to suggest they have their origins "in the naturalistic evolutionary process" I have made no reference to naturalistic evolutionary processes whatsoever. This is to broad a subject to try and elucidate in this simple argument, Other than to say that current human physiology is probably the result of such processes. My argument rests on the assertion that there is a clear and real difference between physiological conceptuality and physiological reality. That is to say, The differentiation between, What is thought and said and what doesn't need to be thought and said. Pro makes the merest of references to religious concepts but does not relate them directly to their asserted philosophy. Using theological references to substantiate philosophical notions is extremely tenuous to say the least and inevitably opens up a whole new can of worms. As Pro does not attempt to clarify their theological standpoint I therefore can see no necessity in addressing this subject either. Similarly. Pro touches on the concept of morality, But fails to extend this idea. As a realist I will simply add morality to the list of brain held conceptualities, Along with good, Love and metaphysics. In conclusion: Pro makes a philosophical statement and opens with a good first round. I propose a philosophical counter argument which appears to stymie Pro completely. From there on in the main thrust of Pro's defence, Is their attempt to negate the validity of my position altogether, Rather than the extension and elaboration of their own position. I cannot deny a truism, But I can oppose a truism by proposing an alternative truism. I consider this to be a reasonable and valid approach to this debate, Given the nature of Pro's proposition.
Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

Since you already conceded that the Proposition is a truism [even though you meant only mine and others understanding of it] you surrendered the debate. It does no good to try to back-peddle and claim that your understanding was in reality and mine was in conceptualism. For to your understanding, Both are just make believe. It also does no good to deny that the historical 7 Types of Love do not exist. . . . . And in the same posting round. . . . Declare that these 7 terms are physiological reactions to stimuli. When one denies this Proposition, The only cover they have to take refuge in is Naturalistic Evolution. The problem in this is that the stimuli from metaphysical good and metaphysical love that causes theses certain physiological changes in the person, Contradict the Naturalistic Evolutionary mantra of 'survival of the fittest. ' Because 'Ultimate Love' and 'Ultimate Good' exist and we hold them up as examples, They had to have their origin outside the Naturalistic Evolutionary process.
Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

If we look at definition, Then your opening proposition is undeniably a truism. If we regard your second round, It is clear that you have misread and misunderstood a key statement of my opening gambit. And then disregarded all other content. A much used tactic on D. D. O. Reality versus conceptuality, Or vice versa. Example 1: There are no types of love, But there are physiological responses to individual situations, Which can be interpreted in as many ways as we care to imagine. Therefore: Creating a 7 article list falls way short of actual potential and merely panders to the human need to make lists and categorize thoughts. Example 2: Goodness is a mental contrivance, That has no bearing whatsoever on universal reality. There is no greater authority to judge human actions. Goodness, Love and metaphysics are simply the clicking and whirring of the brain. In base terms, Love is real. But the word love is an overused and misused representation of reality. Good and bad are assumed differences in human behaviour and human actions. Metaphysics is to much time on our hands. Wiling away the tedium of existence and coming up with pointless nonsense. Therefore: There are no such things as ultimate goodness, Ultimate love or metaphysics. Thereby: My truism is real and your truism is merely conceptual.
Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

You have already conceded to the Affirmative (Pro) of this DEBATE twice. Once in your first sentence and another in your second sentence. In your first sentence you stated that the proposition 'Ultimate Good and Ultimate Love Are Metaphysical' were a truism. A truism, According to Webster's Dictionary, Is (an undoubted or self evident truth; one too obvious to mention. ) This is a total surrender of the DEBATE. The second concession you made were to state that all concepts and reality (itself) were unknown. With this admission it makes one wonder why you even signed on to DEBATE. I am not going to add any more Affirmative (Pro) material in this session when there is no need to. I would hope that when another person in the future signs on to deny a proposion, That they do not start out in the Affirmative (Pro).
Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

"Ultimate good and ultimate love are metaphysical". A truism. In so much as all are concepts and reality is unknown. Brain held, Brain assimilated and brain generated information. All to be restored, Re-assimilated and regenerated over and over again. And death and all energy diminishes rapidly and cannot transcend it's conceptual sphere. And the universe is none the wiser. Maybe we think we are wiser, But wisdom is much the same as any other thought. And goodness and love are assumptions, Based on our responses to basic physiological processes. And metaphysics is something we dream up as we wile away the tedium of existence.
Ultimate good and Ultimate Love are metaphysical

When watching formal debates on the subject of morality, It is often asked by the one opposing Objective morality, To have the other debator to define what he/she means by 'good' or 'goodness'. The highest meaning of 'goodness' in the secular world is to contribute to the flurishing of a species. However, It is irresistible for the unbelieving to migrate into the metaphysical realm and attempt to place their moral flag there. The reason they feel the need to do this is because moral 'good' can only be secularly grounded in either Absolutes or Universal usage. In Absolutes, The prohibitions or prescriptions are not given the luxury of being determined to be bad or good determined by the situation. A violation is a violation no matter what the circumstance. Universalism is a morality that helps the the human community to keep functioning. Justice for the least of these in the human community is most often delayed till the afterlife. What we mean by 'goodness' in formal debates on morality is what the Philospher named Kant called; the 'Good Without Qualifications. He said that when this 'good' is found in a person, That it is not just good in relationship to the judgment of the person, But that it is good IN ITSELF. That it is intrinsic and not relative to our inclinations. This is really a roundabout way of saying that this element is metaphysical. The entire article 20th WPC Moral Goodness Alone Is 'Good Without Qualification' is a great read at www. Bu. Edu Ultimate Love, In the secular sense, Is traced back to instinct. The drive to save a mate. The drive to save one's offspring. The drive to take a certain mate for reproduction. Secularists have tried to portray that they have the technology to determine that love itself has been found to originate in the brain by means of brain scan images. These image results are of course the after-affects, (the element). . . . Not the agent. . . Love. USA Today June 25th 2016 published a helpful article titled: These Are the 7 Types of Love In this article they listed the 7 Greek words for the different kinds of Love. 1. Eros- sexual, Passionate 2. Philia- friendship, Goodwill 3. Ludus- fun, Playful, Flirting 4. Philautia- self love (can be negative or positive) 5. Storge- familial love, Between parents and children 6. Pragma- such as in arranged marriages 7. Agape- unselfish concern for the welfare of others Agape, The ultimate love, Is like the ultimate good. Both are impossible to isolate, But we know they both exist. 'He that loveth (agapao- to love much) not. . Knoweth not God, For God is love. ' (agape- unselfish concern for the welfare of others. ) 1 John 4:8. Notice how the Koine Greek of the New Testament makes distinctions for their different words in the passage. In summary, The simple word we use so often 'good' if pushed to it's highest meaning, Can only be found in the metaphysical realm. Likewise, The simple English word love, If pushed to it's highest meaning 'agape' can only be found in the metaphysical realm.
Should free public Wi-Fi offered in cities

Free public Wi-Fi should be offered in cities. Why you ask? First off, the city/cities could earn money from ads on websites. People could be constantly connected to the internet, removing some worry of missing things about work and school. Kids who have online homework don't need to worry about not getting homework complete because they don't have Wi-Fi, since it would be city-wide. Another way it could earn the city money, is that more people can start small businesses, which would cause them to pay more taxes, increasing the tax revenue. It also wouldn't cause any security risks, because people could still own a private router for there own homes, just placing the free public Wi-Fi as a secondary option for non-essential devices. It would be the same for things like large businesses, they would own there own routers.