BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Man is basically good.

Although the core beliefs of each religion may be slightly different, their set system of morals are often very similar. No murder, no theft, respect others, etc. Not much conflict there. :) Theft did not lead to the downfall of communism. However, if man was naturally good they would be less inclined to act in self-interest and focus on helping others as well. In such a case, communism would probably have potential to succeed. Thank you to my opponent for giving me a short, brief debate. :) I look forward to seeing the results.
Man is basically good.

REBUTTAL: First, one could very well argue that religious systems are the creation of a divine being, but one would be hard-pressed to explain why a deity created thousands of different, often conflicting, belief systems. If there is a deity, common sense would tell us that it is unlikely that he has authored more than a handful of religious systems, leaving thousands of other man-made systems to lend credence to my proposal. Second, the fact that man tends toward self-interest is what has contributed toward the historical failure of communism, not that man tends toward theft as Con suggests. Self-interest is not inherently bad or immoral. Self-interest contributes to the survival of the individual, which as I have demonstrated previously is good. IN CLOSING: I would like to thank Con for accepting this brief debate. She will have the last word. I hope you all have enjoyed reading, will carefully consider the strengths of the arguments herein, and will vote accordingly.
Man is basically good.

My opponent states that religious moral systems have sprung up as a result of man's good nature. One could argue that these systems aren't the creation of man, but the creation of a divine being. It's unlikely that man would have been able to create these system themselves. Also, without moral guidance, man could easily steal. Man can be greedy and desire more than they already have thus they would take it from somebody else. It's considered one of the many failure of political systems such as communism. Another factor to address is conflict. If man was naturally good wouldn't they not want to go to war? Humans are constantly fighting and often over little petty things. If man was good, wouldn't it be more nature to negotiate instead?
Man is basically good.

Responding to Con's contentions from the previous round, I have attempted to enumerate and restate them. As follows: I. Without moral guidance, humans are bound to commit immoral acts. I counter that it is in fact a testament to man's inherent goodness that moral guidance systems have sprung up in every time and culture throughout human history. From Confucius to Christ, each and every viable civilization has embraced a system of ethics delineating right from wrong behavior and has as a whole pursued the latter. Peoples that have not have, wittingly or otherwise, set up the conditions for their own destruction. II. Man often harms others in order to get what they need to survive. More often than not, such an act would be due to false data processing, such as "I'm not going to get caught," "His survival is meaningless to me," et cetera. When it is not, stealing in order to save one's own life could be argued simply to not be immoral in the first place.
Man is basically good.

My opponent proposes that acts such as lying, stealing, and murdering are immoral. This is correct. However, without some kind of moral guidance, humans are bound to commit these acts. Religion is a prime example, having several rules intended to keep people from committing these acts. The 10 commandments serves as one such moral code: http://www.allabouttruth.org... True believers won't break these rules as they'll have fear of being damned. National laws also serve as another guide. In most countries, including Canada, murders carries a maximum penalty: http://duhaime.org... Surely this prevents people from running crazy and slaughtering each other? My opponent also states that people will harm themselves when engaged in harmful behavior. However, when desperate, man will often harm others in order to get what they need to survive. Such examples of this could be a starving man stealing and making others starve.
Man is basically good.

In Round One, I put forward two opening arguments, which I will now elucidate: I. Bad or immoral behavior is the result of false or incomplete data. Immoral acts include lying, stealing, and murdering, to name a few of the more basic. Immoral acts are regarded as such because they stifle the survival potential of an individual, group, mankind, and even all life. When man is engaged in immoral behavior, he is therefore seeking to stifle his survival potential. Such is an irrational pursuit, therefore it must be the result of false or incomplete data or processing of data. II. When an individual is engaged in harmful behavior, he will attempt to sabotage himself. Consciously or otherwise, evil men almost universally find themselves stricken by accident, depression, illness, reckless behavior, or some other form of self-inflicted sabotage. This is because man is basically good and will, in lieu of changing his behavior outright, attempt to destroy himself.
Man is basically good.

Oooooo...more Devil's Advocacy for me! This should be amusing. ;) I'll like to thank my opponent for setting up this debate. I'll be arguing that humans in general, by nature are bad in counter of my opponent's argument that humans are good. Bad- "not good in any manner or degree.", "having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible." http://dictionary.reference.com... Immoral- "violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics." http://dictionary.reference.com... Nature- "the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person, animal, thing, or class by birth, origin, or constitution; native or inherent character.", "the instincts or inherent tendencies directing conduct." http://dictionary.reference.com... I look forward to my opponent's first argument. :)
Man is basically good.

"It's a wonder I haven't abandoned all my ideals, they seem so absurd and impractical. Yet I cling to them because I still believe, in spite of everything, that people are truly good at heart." - Anne Frank RESOLUTION: I affirm that the basic personality and intentions of the individual, toward himself and others, are good. DEFINITIONS: Man: "an individual human," "the human race" (1) Basically: "in fundamental disposition or nature" (2) Good: "virtuous, right, commendable," "kind, benevolent" (3) ARGUMENTS: I. Bad or immoral behavior is the result of false or incomplete data. II. When an individual is engaged in harmful behavior, he will attempt to sabotage himself. CITATIONS: 1. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Human rights are for psychos as well

Yes the system made these rights but then logically people adore the things they create no matter how stupid they are (example children). You claim that they are "inalienable" and then if I put you under the gun you will quote them at me but give a person power they will use it vindictivly. Your rules only make sense if you follow them, the idea contractinisum is you do this for gain, you lose the gain by breaking rules but if you label a rule as being linked to personhood you must respect it even when they break faith, your argument could be applied to say that if you disagree with society (over any issue this could be slavery, pedophilia, and other such abominations) if they are tried you can kill um, hello bob ewel.
Human rights are for psychos as well

The words discrimination and fair describing the same thing, is contradictory. And the right to not be dead and the right to decent living conditions (witch capitalism floats so it really doesn't matter). The main point is you're devaluing the rights of man for all time for a temporary shock to the population. It's simply not worth it. We need to punish these people yes remove them from power yes but wasting life and ruining our future is not equitable to the gain.
Human rights are for psychos as well

Oh man. Thank you. well, yes I agree. But it is not a human right to Live, it is a Right to live without being subjugated to harsh conditions correct? But No. Psychos are subject to complete discrimination. They are given fair trial. But vial fare trial, Human rights are scrapeable to make way for new order. Make an example of an indivual can prevent much worse things. The things being prevented are the Rights of the Un-accused.
Human rights are for psychos as well

1 clarification; by psychos I mean Hitler/Stalin like genocidal maniacs, and there followers, to reference the dark knight saga the sons of batman. 2 If you say that all people violate human rights lose there inalienable rights , witch is by definition contradictory, then you are a hypocrite, then under the assumption that you are democratically elected then the people by backing you and by not impeaching they are aiding and abetting the crime, thus you are guilty thus you are punished thus you are proposing martial law.
Human rights are for psychos as well

Human rights are Ideas credited to human's by humans, and are nothing more. Specifically Human rights are given by a governing authority. psychos human rights are limited tot he same rights as every one else. oh. okay. so technically yes. Human rights are for psych's as well. BUT, assuming that you are asserting, Psychos have freedom to express themselves however they choose: is factually wrong, As someone who is not a psycho can have freedom of religion and speech, A psycho can easily be breeching those laws by "doing the same thing" because a sane person CHOOSES to express themselves acceptably and within the confines of Law, while psychos are criminally negligent as a preference of expression.
Human rights are for psychos as well

If you denied all who revoked the basic rights of man the basic rights of man then, 1 you're being a hypocrite as you're doing just that, and 2 you leaving what these rights are to whom exactly? Yourself? Then hello Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin to the twenty first century and the internet. Stop and think if you deny the most basic of rights what makes you better then them, you devalue the idea of inalienable to mean for my people when convenvent.
YHWH's inescapable existence part 2

"I will post my source at the bottom" I don't think you understand my objection. It's so basic. Im not even going to waste my time. "reality-The world or the state of things as they actually exist I am in the state of things as they actually exist, therefore this is reality." A classic circular non-answer. "no X does not equal Z because YHWH exists." How do you know? "I'm not the only one who has to provide reasons, you do too. Why does YHWH have to exist for X to equal Z." My argument is not why he has to but why he does. "because the laws of physics are a constant, they never change" Why don't they change? "if god cannot create a rock big enough, then he has limited power. You said he cannot create a rock big enough, because he can lift any rock. Therefore he has limited power (if he exists)" No, I said ANY rock God creates he can lift. No MATTER how big the rock is God can lift it. What part of this don't you get?
YHWH's inescapable existence part 2

""yes at one point everyone thought the world was flat" How do you know?" I will post my source at the bottom "But that's what you need to establish. How do you know what you call "reality" is real? This is a circular answer." reality-The world or the state of things as they actually exist I am in the state of things as they actually exist, therefore this is reality. ""again X=Y Y=Z I can prove X=Z without god, but with the transitive property of equality" That's because YHWH exists. Like I said in our other debate. Proof assumes order. What's your account for that order?" no X does not equal Z because YHWH exists. I'm not the only one who has to provide reasons, you do too. Why does YHWH have to exist for X to equal Z. "Why does gravity hold day to day?" because the laws of physics are a constant, they never change ""1st sentence-I already adressed this I think 4 times now (this and 3 are the only parts where you even say anything that could prove his existence if it was true, but its not) 2nd-statements about what will happen if I reject the proof. Doesn't that belong outside of the proof? 3rd-already adressed 4th-already adressed but what does this have to do with gods existence" Not really see above" see above at what!? I fail to see what anything you have said disputes that. ""if he can't make a stone so big that he can't lift it then he has limited power. So even if he does exist you just told me that he is not all-powerful" When did I say this?" right here ->"Any rock God creates he can lift" if god cannot create a rock big enough, then he has limited power. You said he cannot create a rock big enough, because he can lift any rock. Therefore he has limited power (if he exists) overall in this debate: You brought no arguments. Only rebuttles. You broke 2 out of the 3 rules, and you didn't follow the debate structure. And you didn't give any proof while constantly asking me for proof. sources: [1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
YHWH's inescapable existence part 2

"yes at one point everyone thought the world was flat" How do you know? "no they are not, evolution has was more evidence than creation, and the big bang has way more to support it thanit being created in 7 days" Is the "evidence" conclusive? "no they are not, %63 of the country (u.s.a.) says evolution isn't real. Only the people that look at the facts believe it" What facts? "existence-Have objective reality or being, Be found, esp. in a particular place or situation I have all 3 of those qualities, so by the definition, I exist." But that's what you need to establish. How do you know what you call "reality" is real? This is a circular answer. "again X=Y Y=Z I can prove X=Z without god, but with the transitive property of equality" That's because YHWH exists. Like I said in our other debate. Proof assumes order. What's your account for that order? "It can account for why I am not floating away right now (gravity) It can acc- wait I just proved it can account for something so I have nothing else to say about this" Why does gravity hold day to day? "1st sentence-I already adressed this I think 4 times now (this and 3 are the only parts where you even say anything that could prove his existence if it was true, but its not) 2nd-statements about what will happen if I reject the proof. Doesn't that belong outside of the proof? 3rd-already adressed 4th-already adressed but what does this have to do with gods existence" Not really see above. "if he can't make a stone so big that he can't lift it then he has limited power. So even if he does exist you just told me that he is not all-powerful" When did I say this? I said any stone he creates he can lift. However, if you study that sentence you are trying to put in my mouth you would see that it agrees with me. Since the first negative negates the second and hence it becomes a positive.
YHWH's inescapable existence part 2

Where did the flowers come from? Must have been god. How did the universe start? Must have been god. But as we learned more and more we can fill the gap for god. Now we know that the earth is round, we evolved from apes, the universe started with a big bang, and alot more. At this point religion is denying proven science for superstition. At this point it is ridiculous to continue believing after science already proves otherwise. argument #2:there is no credible evidence for the existence of god (I am going to spend alot of time describing why you have the burden of proof) It doesn't matter what you say, you have the burden of proof not me. Due to the null hypothesis, the default position is that there is no connection between things on an experiment, or that a phenomena is not possible. So the default position is that YHWH does not exist. The burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove the current position wrong. Again due to the null hypothesis, we are the current position. So you have to prove the current position wrong, and in proving something wrong you need to have proof, therefore you have the burden of proof. And in you having the burden of proof, there is no proof (at least none so far that I have seen. If there is evidence that I am not aware of please tell me in round 3)that YHWH exists, therefore the position stands that YHWH is not real until proven otherwise. now I will state 2 arguments against common arguments for YHWH #1 cosmological argument I discredit this argument due to the last step the argument says. Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence. The universe has a beginning of its existence. The universe has a cause of its existence. This cause is god. This argument proves that the universe has a cause, not that god was the cause. #2 Argument from Coercion this states You must believe in God/Jesus. It's your only hope for salvation. We are all doomed if we don't accept Jesus as our personal savior. It says so in the Bible. If you want to live forever and avoid suffering, you must accept God. my problem with this is that it is not even an argument for god in my point of view. Because you need to believe the bible is true to accept this as an argument. and now a just for fun argument, But I still look forward to you debating this in round 3 #1 paradox argument this states can god make a rock so big that he cannot lift it? or can god commit suicide? there are many other variations, but the logic behind this is if god can then how can he be all-powerful? if he can't then he wasn't all-powerful to begin with was he? sources: [1]. http://en.wikipedia.org... [2]. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gangsta Rap as a positive social force

I accept. It will be my burden to prove that, "Gangsta Rap is not a positive social force."DefinitionsSocial - of or relating to human society, the interaction of the individual and the group, or the welfare of human beings as members of society[1]Gangsta Rap - rap music with lyrics explicitly portraying the violence and drug use of urban gang life and typically expressing hostility toward whites, women, and civil authority[2]My Case"Gangsta Rap," by it's very definition seems to contradict the idea that it can be a positive social force. My opponent needs to justify how a genre of music portraying violence and the use of drugs can possibly be seen as a positive social force. In a study conducted by the American Journal of Public Health, 522 single African American females were enrolled. Of those 522 that enrolled in the studies, 92.2% of them completed 12-month follow-up assessments. "Over the 12-month follow-up, 37.6% acquired a new sexually transmitted disease, 4.8% hit a teacher, 12.1% reported being arrested, 14.8% had sexual intercourse with someone other than their steady partner, 44.2% reported using drugs, and 44.4% consumed alcohol[3]." Based on these results, it's hardly logical that "gangsta rap" can be seen as anything but a negative social force. Pro's Case"Gangsta Rap should be permitted because banning it would mean the loss of more philanthropic activities."Like...?1. "There are gangsta rappers that promote philanthropy by incorporating life values in their rap songs that can help the youth."Life values like what? Can you provide examples? Do you have evidence to support the claim that their songs help the youth?2. "Gangsta Rappers use their success to make a difference by helping its community prevent poverty."First of all, I would like to see an example of this because you have so far failed to provide any. Secondly, this premise is irrelevant to the resolution. The resolution is referring specifically to "Gangsta Rap." The resolution does not read, "Gangsta rappers are a positive social force." This resolution is referring to the music itself, not the person behind the music. Lastly, and most importantly, this is a blatant compisition fallacy. What is true of the part is not necessarily true of the whole[4]. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources 1)http://www.merriam-webster.com...2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...3)http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...;4)Logic 101
the fact that Russia is a nuclear hellhole, does not make it a unlivable place.

Both of my opponents argument show no evidence and therefore, are just like forfeitures. Futhermore, Russia is clearly liveable as its population is at an astounding 142 Million and growing! http://en.wikipedia.org... Therefore, if 141 million people are living fine and well in Russia, it is absolutely livable. Also, while my opponent may use the classic "Chernobyl" argument in his situation, I would like to point out that in a report released by the International Nuclear Safety and Protection Agency on December 5, 2007 that nuclear radiation is eradicated in 15 years time, Chernobyl happened in 1986, making the nuclear waste gone by 2001. So that point is also moot as that was the only, I REPEAT ONLY, nuclear incident to involve the outside environment, in Russia. Therefore, I urge a PRO ballot
Moral Naturalism is more compelling than Moral Relativism

I would ask my opponent not to post arguments next round in order to make argumentation time even :)What my opponent had to do to win? My opponent maybe a little more polite than me I didn't tell him how to win as he did me. My opponent had to show that morals were more likely based in persons and relative than in natural facts. My opponent seems to attempt to justify in "the grounding problem" but he really never justifies his view. He poses problems to mine as i do to his, but I believe I better justified teleology than he justified he relativistic ethics. Teleology and Functions My opponent attacks the without personal being aspect of inherent teleology. But as I stated before its irrelavent whether personal being exists but there is no reason to presuppose athiesm over theism. My opponent seems to think that the end of function or the effect produced cannot be the purpose. We needn't make extra assumptions, we can simply assume in accordance with Okeam our friend that simply is the purpose. I am a simply at fault for my lack of time management.