BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Avengers 2 (Pro) vs Star wars episode 6 version (con

Now my turn. There are currently no figures for Ultron's army. In episode 6, the empire had been destroyed, so there would be far lesser resources than mentioned. Vader and Palpatine died in this episode, so they are not counted. Thor's Asguardian army can go through the same route Thor went, and thus provide more reinforcements. Heroes like Luke Skywalker can be turned to our side by Loki's sceptre. J.A.R.V.I.S., Tony Stark's artificial intelligence theoretically should be able to easily hack the head of your robot armies, giving the Avengers a huge advantage. Shield operatives left can help in the procedure. If I am not mistaken, the Death Star was destroyed as well. House-Party protocol can allow us to reach your ships, although they are already hacked, and crush vital parts using Igor and Hulk Buster. Quicksilver can be brought in space using iron patriot suit or falcon's wings if Stark is too obstinate. Due to super speed, huge amounts of ammo/firepower would be wasted by the ships. In Avengers 1, a nuke warhead was launched. It is possible that Nick Fury still has control over many others, and thus can counter the ships. Scarlet Witch is rumored to have mind-controlling abilities, I NEED to watch Avengers 2. I fail to see how your computer-dependent army has a chance.
Avengers 2 (Pro) vs Star wars episode 6 version (con

You have the use the villains and heroes left in episode 6, in an all-out war of both movies. I am going to watch Avengers 2 today to strengthen my argument. In Avengers 2, we have Ultron's army and Iron man's house-party protocol, for it seems he has some suits left. We have 8 avengers now technically, because of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch. Asgardian armies can be called upon as they will use the route Thor used, and can probably mislead half the enemy to another place if he came in a portal. The Tesseract can be used for further purposes, and as a last resort a powerful explosive. Loki can turn Jedi's to our side. I am not taking in account Avengers 1's chitauri army. I am waiting for Con to state his resources, since I didn't watch episode 6.
Animal Testing should continue for medical research

I will present my arguments for animal testing and why it should be allowed for medical research. (Not cosmetic research. ) Argument 1: Many animal testing opponents say that it is cruel to animals that take part. Indeed it is in some cases, but no more so than the wild. An animal in the wild can die of disease, predators, habitat destruction, or a huge number of other ways. An animal in a lab may die, but when it does it has helped scientific progress and potentially saved human lives. Animals in labs suffer no more cruelty than the wild has to offer. Argument 2: All drugs intended to help animals have to go through animal testing. Treatments for common pet sicknesses have gone through animal testing as well as human drugs. Without animal research, the treatments that help animals would likely have not been created. The animals used in these sorts of tests benefited their kind through their use in research. Argument 3: Alternatives to animal testing exist, but are not yet reliable. The problem with using cells is obvious. Most bodily functions have different cells for their tasks. If we look at one cell we are only looking at one potentially affected area. Also, it fails to show how cells can react with other bodily mechanisms as part of a whole animal. Computer simulations are iffy because they rely on our knowledge of the animal and the substances in the drug. What is not coded into the computerized test is unable to be observed. Also, many alternatives are vastly more expensive or time-consuming than animal testing. I await my opponent’s response Sources: PETA . http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk...
The US should intervene in every conflict

Apologises if my argument was not clear enough. A person that commented in the comments section had a better understanding of what I was arguing. I would argue it does not self-refute. A} Was just the title of the debate and not a detailed representation of what I was arguing. That was found within the description. B} I never argued that the US should use only conflict to intervene in every conflict. I cited peace keeping missions as one possible intervention and that does not have to entail conflict. The mere presence of the mission can help keep the peace. D} I never argued. In fact I argued the opposite that there is no limit to responsibility and all conflicts are our responsibility and there should only be intervention where there is a reasonable chance to succeed.
The US should intervene in every conflict

A: The US(of A) should intervene in every conflict.B: USA should use conflict to intervene in every conflict.C: USA should limit the conflicts it intervenes with to the ones it will be most capable to successfully stop.D: USA should limit the conflicts it intervenes with to the ones where it has any responsibility in.C: (reached either by A+B alone, A+B+C, A+B+D or A+B+C+D) USA should intervene in its intervention as soon as physically possible to do so.Thus Pro's argument self refutes.
Firefox is better than IE

While I myself use Firefox more often than IE7, my reasons for doing so are rooted in bias towards the previous IE's. From the days when using IE6 meant you were just asking for a virus and/or spyware. I will now address each of your assertions. >>Firefox is more standards-compliant than IE7<< True words, though they are both quite compliant, at least when compared to IE6. Insofar as IE is still not compliant with standards, almost all web developers code write IE-specific code to ensure the same look on all browsers. The standards-noncompliance therefore does not matter to the end-user. Also, FF is not completely compliant with the standards either. Both require nonstandard code to display many pages correctly. Also, coders who aren't going to make their pages work in both browsers often will simply optimize for IE. This is because the market share of IE is much higher than that of FF. Thus, I would say that IE7's lack of standards-compliance hurts Firefox _at least_ as often as it hurts IE. >>Internet Explorer continues to not support the XHTML 1.1 standard<< http://blogs.msdn.com... that is the IE blog, in that entry is an explanation of why they are not complying to 1.1 standards in IE7. In case you don't read it, it says that they would have had compatibility issues with strict standards-compliance, due to the way the IE engine is run. However, almost all standardly-coded pages WILL display correctly, based on IE's focus on compatibility this time around. >>Firefox allows more methods of customization<< Elaborate, if you would. Extensions and themes, do you speak of? I'm not sure whether IE has themes or not, but it definitely has its own add-ons. >>Firefox is also more secure.<< I doubt that. While IE6 was less secure than Firefox hands-down, the majority of internet articles tend to not be capable of stating that one is better than the other when it comes to security. Now, I come to my offense. As it is, I've pretty much left it a tie between the two. Firefox has themes (I'm pretty sure IE doesn't), more coders make sure their stuff works in IE. But wait... there's more. ActiveX controls. These can be used to give pages abilities that other web browsers can't really live up to. The cold hard facts are that some sites use them, and only IE can utilize them. Also, IE7 by default has a much more minimalist interface - less space is taken by menus, allowing for more page to be viewed at once. Also, IE7 has an actual 'page zoom' feature. Hold ctrl and slide your mouse wheel in either of the two browsers: you'll notice that in FF, it merely changes the text size. Images and textboxes remain the same size, so the page often ends up looking far different than it was supposed to. IE has a much more compatible zooming feature - it actually zooms the view of the entire page. This means that people who need text enlarged also get to see the same amount of text in their textboxes, get to read the text on images that previously was also too small for them, etc. Firefox does not accommodate these needs.
Morality is an evolved social construct

Let's look at this from a secular standpoint. From a rational, deep-thinking standpoint. Someone is killed, who was not armed, and was not assaulting someone in some way. Without any of the complex bits of information, i.e. the murdered person's political, religious and other such beliefs. Not considering their race or location. If you are mentally fit, you will understand that what happened is, for all intents and purposes, bad. This is because you, through the intrinsic and unspoiled reasoning that your slowly develop from birth, have an ingrained ability to feel empathy. You know that you wouldn't have liked it if you had been killed, and could in some way contemplate hoiw you felt about it. You reason that other people are likely to dislike being killed also, and that other people consider other people being killed bad. Through our observations, we've found no reason to believe that single-celled euglenas have any sense of morality, or any ability to reason what is "good" or "bad." We can also observe that ants have no verifiable morality, and just blindly follow the pheremonic commands of the queen. Therefore, through, for lack of a better phrase, "connecting the dots," we can conclude that it is reasonable to believe that morality, in its observable state as we know it, is not present this low in the evolutionary chain. As we move up, however, we find that some animals bear remarkable parralels with our own idea of morality, including bonobos, african buffalo, dogs, etc. To quote Frans de Waal, one of the world's most respected and popular primatologists, on the subject of bonobos in particular, "The Bonobo is capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience, and sensitivity." Obviously, some animals have morality as we know it, and some do not. The fact that morality becomes more sharply defined and focused as we move up the evolutionary ladder, it is not unreasonable to conclude that morality is, indeed, an evolved social construct.
Morality is an evolved social construct

First of all, I would ask that my opponent refrain from resorting to simple slander, claiming everything I said to be "fallacious", and that I went on a "religious rant." I was merely trying to lay a simple outline on many of the videos and websites that I cited, and I'd appreciate that you didn't unnecessarily bad-mouth every point that I made, as there were points that weren't addressed. It isn't my fault that your connection does not permit the viewing of my cited videos, but rest assured that you would have some valid points to refute were you able to actually watch them. I don't see why you couldn't have looked at some of the cited articles on objective and evolved morality, though, as you didn't refute any of what any of the sites said. I'd also like to specifically ask that you, in the next round, explain how the "Battle at Kruger" video, depicting the aforementioned group of buffalo risking life and limb, which would go against survival instincts, in order to save a young calf from the jaws of a pride of lions, does not depict an evolved sense of morality and compassion in the minds of the buffalo. Rebuttals: "Actually, in many parts of the world, killing enemy civilians is morally acceptable." Well, not necessarily. In these parts of the world, it is asserted that enemy civilians are just "enemies" what I was referring to is that it is frowned upon if you were walk up to your neighbor and shoot them point-blank in the forehead. They were another member of your contingent of society, and you killed them without any reason whatsoever. That is what I asserted is frowned upon. Senseless cultural fratricide. "There are two problems with this reasoning: 1) It is not an argument, because the conclusion (we are the same) does not follow logically from the premise (that we often differ)" You make it sound as though I said that because they are different, we are similar. I obviously said nothing of the sort. What I said was that while the specific moral codes of one society may differ from another when it comes to complex issues, it is generally accepted that, for example, killing is bad, stealing is bad, sharing is good, compliments are nice, etc. Simple things that even a child can understand from the outset, if they are mentally fit, and not brainwashed. Summary: In a nutshell, what I'm saying is that once a societal structure enters the equation, evolution favors those who do not do negative things to others, as they will be more accepted socially, and more likely to live and procreate, so whatever genes affect their innate morality are indeed passed from one generation to another. Once again, I respectfully await my opponent's response.
Morality is an evolved social construct

http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... http://www.youtube.com... Thank you to my opponent for accepting this debate, and I hope we both emerge from this enlightened in some way. Arguments: The attached videos are all in a short series by YouTube user AronRa, as well as the full version of the video he references, explaining the evolution of moral constructs, and the basic things that we can all basically accept as moral absolutes. I wish to explain how morality is an evolved social instinct, biologically innate.[1] While the moral codes of different theological and societal groups may differ, there are certain simple morals that are inherently present [2] in the minds of all mentally fit humans, if they are not twisted by a morally corruptive upbringing. This view that I hold is supported by the fact that other forms of life that have grown to be considered social creatures are known to sometimes reject basic instincts for an obvious moral reason. Take the example in the "Battle at Kruger" video, where a group of buffalo risks taking on a pride of lions in order to save a single one of their young. Mentally capable creatures know innately about cause and effect, in the sense that doing things causes things. It is not a complex path to learn about the causes and effects of actions taken against other creatures, and act accordingly.[3] Religious moralities have come from the biased assumptions of the ancient mythmakers who invent the religions. Religions are born of an inability to explain, so it is easy for flawed morality to be asserted by religions born of a lack of knowledge, and then be implanted into the children of the next generation during the indoctrination process. My opponent argues that if morality were evolved, it would be coded into our genes, and be relatively similar throughout the world. Of course, in many ways it is. We find that all throughout the world, killing civilians is generall frowned upon, as well as stealing. The finer outcroppings of morality that differ, I argue, are the result of the indoctrinated beliefs I referenced earlier. I eagerly await my opponent's rebuttal, and hope that we can both get our points across clearly and eloquently. Source(s): [1] - http://webspace.ship.edu... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] - http://www.strongatheism.net...
Morality is an evolved social construct

My position is that morality can be explained by Darwinian evolution, in the sense that social animals who interacted in a positive way with others were favored above those who did not. My opponent will be debating that evolution is not evolved, and will likely suggest it is an absolute morality derived from religion. If so, I will debate that in the next round. Otherwise, I'd be interested to hear where they think morality comes from.
GodSands has Improperly Characterized Satanism

Pro says, "none of these practices are tenants of Satanism writ large, though they may be tenants of splinter sects." In truth all Satanists follow the teachings of the Satanic Bible, what makes each different is how they interpret it. This is just like how all Christians follow the teachings of the Bible, but each sect interprets it differently. The Satanic bible is a collection of many different books. In The Book of Lucifer, Section 6 it encourages people to have Satanic Sex, which include, but are not limited to BDSM, insest, homosexuality, and SEX ORGIES. In The Book of Belial, Section 4 it describes how to perform dark magic. In the same book, to perform some of the rituals, destruction of property is required. Destruction of property is usually referred to as setting the property on fire. Sex Orgies, Black Magic, and Destruction are the main sermonises of Satanism, which are all found in the Satanic Bible! ************************************* Pro says, "there is no connection between evolution and Satanism." even though according to the Darwin era Christian belief, evolution was a form of Satanism. The Christian definition of Satanism states: Satanism is anything that goes against the Bible (word of god). Evolution specifically contradicts the Book of Genesis, in where God creates everything in 6 days with 1 day of rest. So according to the definition of Satanism, Evolution can be included as a Satanic Belief. ************************************ Pro says, "there is no support for the notion that destructionism is a major tenant of LeVeyan Satanism." Arguing all points, here is what Anton Lavey says about those 11 rules: 1. Because Laveyan Satanism came out in 1966, during the sexual revolution, he says, "Satanism encourages any form of sexual expression you may desire." All of this can be found in the book he wrote called 'The Satanic Witch.' Any form of sexual expression does include Orgies. 2. Fact: Any magic and/or ritual performed to intentionality cause something bad is Dark Magic. Not all Black magic conjures up demons, that is why Laveyan Satanists still perform such rituals even though they don't believe in the devil. 3. 9 refers to not harming little children and 10 refers to not killing non-humans. ALL HUMANS ARE FAIR GAME. As you can see, all the support for destruction can be found later on in Anton Lavey's works. ******************************** Godsands has properly characterized all of Satanism. Thank you.
GodSands has Improperly Characterized Satanism

The proposition on offer is that Godsands has improperly characterized Satanism, thus sparking a slew of controversy and misinformation. The following is how he characterizes Satanism: ************************************** There is a satanic church which has many different sermonises. There are 3 main ones: Sex orgy Destruction Black magic practice. They think they know evolution is real and that we came from a swamp! They said it like this, "We are from a swamp of soot, and that we evolved from there." Satanist's: - Devil does not exist - there are not moral rules and no good or evil - there believe in evolution, but say it in vain - there is no God. ************************************ There are 2 types of Satanism: 1) Theistic Satanism 2) Atheistic Satanism Theistic Satanists believe that Satan exists and is actually a deity. Theistic satanists are not moral nihilists. Atheistic Satanists believe that neither God nor Satan exist. Atheistic Satanists are not moral nihilists. And since belief in evolution is not related to belief in God/Satan, the question of belief in evolution is immaterial. Sex orgies are not a tenant of satanism. Neither is property destruction. Likewise Black Magic. **************************** The Nine Satanic Statements (or tenants) of Atheistic LeVeyan Satanism: 1. Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence! 2. Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams! 3. Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit! 4. Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates! 5. Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek! 6. Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires! 7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all! 8. Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification! 9. Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as He has kept it in business all these years! ****************************** Satanism has been improperly characterized by our notoriously factually lacking Godsands. AFFIRMED.
Kira is better than L

Quite frankly L having everything planned perfectly was just unrealistic and provided several holes to the manga. So yes, if we are going to just pretend that it would make sense to hone in on Light Yagami so early in the investigation and really it was just lucky that his gut feeling was right. If we are going to ignore that there were never any other suspects. It was brought out earlier that Light had access to police records and used his father. Yes that certainly could have linked Light. However, when surveillance of his room failed wouldn't you broaden the search to perhaps hackers!? Do we forget that that is a legitamite crime? Now concerning morals that is certainly up for debate. Ohba (author of the manga) stated himself that Light was pretty much doomed to be corrupted the second he found the notebook. So would L have been safe had he found it first? Just because he didn't kill as many people as Light did he still denied basic human rights, simply on a smaller scale. Now I will be honest and I don't know all that much about Japanese law. Still, it seems confining Misa into a room where she is blindfolded and completely tied up is a violation of basic human rights. No trial. Also L had permission from Light's father to search the entire house, how did he get permission to search Misa's? Could he really have obtained a warrant that quickly? He also chained himself to Light. Throughout the series L himself made it clear he wanted to win. Evidently Justice comes at a cost, since innocent people were expendable if L wasn't being bothered by the Task Force not to. Light only killed criminals. And yes by his logic going against God is punishable by death. So it is inaccurate to say that L is morally superior, he just happened to be on the "good" side. Had he been Kira since he kept a cooler head he would have become God of the New World.A final point is the issue of Justice itself. At the end of it it said that the world was just as it was before Kira. Now to add to that, Yes criminals have the right to commit crimes. And most of the time with the right lawyers they avoid that Punishment. So with crime at an all time low, what exactly was the issue? Criminals don't get to kill murder and skill. The law works so that criminals do whatever they want and police have to follow and exact form of laws for anything to be "admissable" but then once the criminal is apprehended the law now caters to their will and works in their favor.