BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not get a challenger for this debate.

My opponent brings up DeCartes's "I think, therefore I am". And he says that nobody would think that they made up that quote. I absolutely agree with that statement, but that has nothing to do with the debate nor my arguments, as I was not advocating a point of view where we think we wrote the resolution. No, what I'm saying is that when we READ the resolution we look at the word "I", even though it was written by someone else, we put our respective sense of "me" into it. Regarding his analogy to DeCartes, I am not saying that we all think we wrote that quote when we say it. What my position as the PRO IS saying however, is that when we think about that quote, we don't think about DeCartes, we think about if we agree with it or not. When DeCartes's quote is used, it isn't always to refer to DeCartes. Usually it's used to refer to a different idea, or it's used to express a certain theme.
I will not get a challenger for this debate.

The 'I' in my debate topic clearly indicates me. I, leethal, am the one who began the debate. The debate topic, then, can be taken as a direct quote from me. When one reads Descartes' "I think, therefore I am", noone gets the silly notion that they came up with the quote. They recognise that for it to be written in the first place, someone else must have written it. So too should you have, and hence the 'I' in this debate's topic still, and forever will, clearly represent me, leethal, and my beliefs that I would in fact get an opponent for this debate. That said, my argument from Round 1 that your stance of 'Pro' in this debate is clearly incorrect, stands. I began the debate, hence the debate topic regards me and my beliefs, and therefore my stance is correct. Cheers for the quick debate.
I will not get a challenger for this debate.

My opponent is incorrect, as he hasn't ever said why the "I" in the resolution describes him. When I read the resolution to myself, I see a statement that is describing.....me! And I know for sure that I will not get a challenger for this debate because the two spots are already filled. Course, I'm not the only person in the world. There's all the people on debate.org as well, including you! And if you're not my opponent, then you can't vote CON under any circumstances, because you aren't getting a challenger for this debate. You're only a commenter and/or voter. You can't get challenged on this debate because I can't leave my spot and he can't leave his spot and we're both stuck here until the debate finishes.
Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

For moral culpability to exist, morality must also exist. Existence is defined as something that "objectively persists independent of one's presence." Thus according to the definition of existence, only objective facts exist. The materialist view of the world holds that only matter and energy exist in the universe. Since everyone holds different moralities, and morality is not a mathematical or scientific fact, it does not exist. Since morality does not exist, one cannot be morally responsible, and thus one cannot be morally culpable for their action or inaction. This is in line with moral nihilism. https://en.wikipedia.org... Hard determinism holds that free will and determinism are not compatible with each other Determinism is the belief that every event has resulted in another event, and only that event could occur. Thus, no matter what happens, the only possible course of events that are possible are the ones that have occurred, therefore, everything that has happened is indelible and ultimately a result of outside forces beyond one's own control. Since the universe is determined, free will is an illusion, and thus there is no moral responsibility, and by extension, an individual cannot be morally culpable https://en.wikipedia.org...
Inaction in the face of injustice makes an individual morally culpable.

Congratulations to That1User on making it to the final round of bsh1's Unique Topics tournament! I appreciate your patience in the delayed challenge, and I look forward to a very thought provoking discussion. As far as I can tell, the resolution is self-explanatory and the definitions are standard. I would like to disqualify the use of semantics. For example, a person being inactive due to physical or mental handicap is not sufficient. I expect my opponent and the audience to be fair in determining which arguments are intentionally rooted in semantics. Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns in the Comments Section, and we can outline any notable rules or clarifications per your Round 1 acceptance. I will begin the debate in Round 2. Thanks again and Good Luck!
Gay Marriage

Thanks to my opponent for his response. The "out of memory" error is back, so I don't know if it will affect my argument or not. Anyway, here are my rebuttals.--Rebuttal I, II, and IV--A. In my opponent's first argument, he states that the U.S is a Christian nation and they all oppose gay marriage. He also concedes to the point that the Bible may not be God's word. I will refute the Christian part first. If the U.S.A was founded by Christian people, why does the Constitution want equality between everyone? This would mean an Atheist is equal to a Christian, a sinner is equal to a priest, and so on. It may have been founded by Christian people, but they did not have strict Christian beliefs.B. Then, my opponent states that everyone in the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim category are against gay marriage, This is obviously not true. If the U.S.A is a "Christian Nation," as you said, there is no way that the MAJORITY of people would favor gay marriage (refer to my round 2 polls.) Oh, and guess what! 76% of Jewish Americans STRONGLY FAVOR gay marriage [1]. And Christians are SPLIT on gay marriage views also [1]. 56% of white Catholics also favor gay marriage.C. Next, my opponent states he isn't basing his views off of one religion, but rather every religion that does not like gay marriage. Correction: he is basing his gay marriage views off a single category of religion that opposes gay marriage. You concede that you don't even try to see it through the atheists' eyes, "normal" Jewish American eyes (refer to my B. poll), or any other religion that allows gay marriage. I can easily refute this by saying "there are dozens of religions and denominations that either allow gays or have nothing against them."D. Nothing to refute in his next words (he stated the things that have led up to his beliefs.)E. Last, my opponent states he doesn't trust science, so therefore my argument is false. Science has led us vaccines that have saved hundreds of millions of lives, showed us how cells reproduce and why we are still alive, what everything in the universe is made up of, etc. I'll let the voters decide on this one.Thanks to my opponent for a wonderful debate, and thank you for reading! Have a nice day![1] http://www.patheos.com...
Gay Marriage

" In my opponent's first argument, he states that a Bible verse makes gay marriage wrong. However, there is no proof that the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an is actually God's word. Therefore, it is not entirely reasonable to follow its teachings instead of a proven document made by the beliefs of people around the world (UDHR) or a legally-binded document about human rights (ICCPR) or a document that founded America (Constitution.)" There is no proof that it is Gods word, but the U.S. was founded a Christian Nation by Christian people, and there are more Jewish, Muslim, and Christian people on the planet than any other religion, and they all oppose gay marriage, (Im not sure about Hindus so im not going to claim anything about them) But Christianity has so many denominations, its obvious why its the worlds most popular religion. " Second, you can not base an entire law on a single religion. You must take everyone's opinion into account, such as the agnostics, liberals, atheists, etc. You are stating your evidence as an unproven document that not everyone even believes in. Therefore, without proof that the Bible is God's word, then your argument stands unproved."Im not basing it off of one religion, there are dozens of religions and denominations that oppose gay marriage. "First off, I am deeply sorry about your friend's experience. But surely you can not base a population of 9 million people [1] (9 million gays) on a single persons actions. There are very few gays that will even think about doing that. It is obvious that you fail to see gays as a whole, but rather see the whole gay community through one's spectacle. With an event like that, it is understandable, but you need to see the gay population as a whole." I wasn't trying to base the entire gay population off of that one person, I was just stating things that have happened in my life that have led up to my current opinion. "The remainder of my opponent's words are not really arguments, so I will refute them as one. His main point is that no gay could be born gay because God would not allow them to. However, there is scientific evidence (refer to my NatGeo study) that suggests that gays have very little control or no choice over their sexual orientation. Multiple twin studies also suggest this, as the twin of a gay brother/sister has a significantly higher chance of being gay [2]. Also, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against and not have equal rights? Why would anyone choose to be singled out in public?" If I trusted science, I wouldn't be anti-gay. http://www.centerforyouth.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gay Marriage

I see my opponent used mainly religious reasons, which I will refute. Sorry for my slow response, as I am in Arizona watching Spring Training. --Rebuttal I--A. In my opponent's first argument, he states that a Bible verse makes gay marriage wrong. However, there is no proof that the Bible, Torah, or Qur'an is actually God's word. Therefore, it is not entirely reasonable to follow its teachings instead of a proven document made by the beliefs of people around the world (UDHR) or a legally-binded document about human rights (ICCPR) or a document that founded America (Constitution. )B. Second, you can not base an entire law on a single religion. You must take everyone's opinion into account, such as the agnostics, liberals, atheists, etc. You are stating your evidence as an unproven document that not everyone even believes in. Therefore, without proof that the Bible is God's word, then your argument stands unproved. --Rebuttal II--A. First off, I am deeply sorry about your friend's experience. But surely you can not base a population of 9 million people [1] (9 million gays) on a single persons actions. There are very few gays that will even think about doing that. It is obvious that you fail to see gays as a whole, but rather see the whole gay community through one's spectacle. With an event like that, it is understandable, but you need to see the gay population as a whole. B. Despite this not exactly being an argument, I will try to refute it. If gays had equal rights, such as marriage, it would lower their chances of doing the action that you presented as they would already have their sexual needs satisfied, along with their needs of another gay person. Gays (at least the few that I've met) are very loving and loyal towards their partner and would never commit a deed like that. --Rebuttal III--A. The remainder of my opponent's words are not really arguments, so I will refute them as one. His main point is that no gay could be born gay because God would not allow them to. However, there is scientific evidence (refer to my NatGeo study) that suggests that gays have very little control or no choice over their sexual orientation. Multiple twin studies also suggest this, as the twin of a gay brother/sister has a significantly higher chance of being gay [2]. Also, why would anyone choose to be discriminated against and not have equal rights? Why would anyone choose to be singled out in public? B. I follow Jewish teachings, but follow them quite loosely so I don't become a slave. I choose what I believe in (gays should be allowed equal rights), but still follow morals. Instead of accepting the fact that God exists, I question his existence AND I question atheists. I guess you could call me Agnostic more than Jewish, even though I do follow the Jewish religion. Please note that this was just to answer my counterpart's questions. Thanks to my opponent for responding. I wish him luck and await his response! [1] . http://gaylife.about.com...[2] . http://www.nytimes.com...
Gay Marriage

Thank you for the response, and I again thank you for challenging me to this debate. My first point I would like to make is Leviticus 20:13 says "If a man lies (marries, has sexual intercourse with, etc.) a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have committed what is detestable, surely they be put to death, their blood on their own hands. That says a lot, it is what I base my "philosophy" on. My second point I would like to make, is one of the main reasons for my dislike toward gay people. My friend was sexually abused by a homosexual person severely, he was 13 at the time and now is going through some mental problems when it comes to going back to the place he was abused at (his karate dojo) But that's just one reason, there are many other reasons I will make later on in this debate. We are both Jewish but with with slight, well, major differences, I am Messianic Jewish while you ar Regular Jewish (I'mnot sure what denomination of Judaism you are, so that's why I put regular). A difference in our religions has one huge factor, I believe in hell while you do not (i believe) which is why you think that atheism is fine and Gay marriage, etc. but I do believe in a hell, which is why I dislike homosexuality and atheism. Now on to genetics, I know that homosexuality is not a genetic disorder, because my God would never let babies be born with such a terrible sin which will last their entire lives. P.S. I would just like to say that I am merely stating my reason for dislike, im not trying to post arguments or get in fights. I await my opponents response.
The Vampire Diaries Vs The Tomorrow People

Well to start with the vampire diaries is about a hole lot of vampires who have found a girl that they think they have know for centries but the thing is they haven't so they have become friends and that girl so to seem is dating a vampire so you see paronormal happens everyday vampires don't exist so why make so many shows about paronormal when that is a reglaur thing in the united states viampires arn't real so that makes the show more fun to watch .
The Vampire Diaries Vs The Tomorrow People

The Tomorrow People is about a show about the paranormal's with the three T's Being Metioned Which the three T's are Listed Below 1.Teleportation 2.Telepathy 3.Telekinesis Which are defined Below Teleportation-Is where an object or a person can disapperate and land in a whole different plac e Telepathy-Reading someone elses mind Telekinesis-Moving objects with your mind
Books disconect people from reality and internet and phones do not

OK my opponent didn't even talk about what i said! Lets start out with the fact that Socrates himself didn't even like writing and books! He is known for saying, "[Writing] will create forgetfulness in the learners souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves." plus books do make people antisocial because with a book you cannot actually talk to someone and read a book at the same time 1#. #2 with a phone there is something called text, talk, and face-time; all of which help to socialize you. with a book you cannot do this. My opponent stated that books help with stress but how did my original argument have anything to do with stress? That is right, NOTHING. But since you have to bring this up ill have my argument about stress! Lawson Health Research Institute"s Alexandre Legros said, "a very large piece of research" shows that the field coming from cell phones, "can alter brain activity and physical responses, opening the possibility for therapy" for people with neurological disorders. Also there was a study done on people exposed to electromagnetic field from phones and not 1 of them had a decline in their health! also history today said, "Roy Porter, in his Longman/History Today lecture, warns of the bad eyesight, poor posture, incomprehensible babblings, addled wits, depravity and worse that may befall those who immerse themselves too much in books." Furthermore fiction books do completely disconnect you from reality. If im reading about magic dragons and fairies is it going to help me tell reality from fiction? NO! I hope my opponent doesn't bring up some ridiculous point about something that i did not even bring up. My original post was about books disconnecting you from reality and making you antisocial.
Books disconect people from reality and internet and phones do not

I think that the idea that phones don't disconnect people from reality is pure unsupported opinion, in that they do quite the opposite. In everything from phone addiction to isolating people Socially. While a book does much to opsite in ways such as stress reduction. But let’s start with cell phone addiction. And yes you can be physically addicted to your cell phone. As James Roberts a marketing professor at baylor university explains that “Some cell phone users show the same symptoms that a drug addict might have [...] Certain people use smartphones to lift their moods. And is may take more and more time on those phones to provide the same level of enjoyment”(sciencenewsforstudents). Phone addiction is a physical change in the brain that’s seen by many drug addicts, only that your phone “has negative effects on closeness, connection, and conversation quality” as said by Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein in their research article (link below). While on the other hand a book has a much more positive effect on people, being that i can reduce stress that holds you back from the world. Psychologists from the University of Sussex conducted research showing that reading reduces your stress level “because the human mind has to concentrate on reading and the distraction eases the tensions in muscles and the heart.” And go on to say “that subjects only needed to read, silently, for six minutes to slow down the heart rate and ease tension in the muscles” (theargus.co). This is important in that stress as a whole as “The continuous presence of stress hormones in the body may alter the operation and structure of some aspects of the nervous system”(mentalhelp.net) as asid by HARRY MILLS, PH.D. https://www.mentalhelp.net... http://www.theargus.co.uk... (Andrew K. Przybylski and Netta Weinstein http://journals.sagepub.com... ) https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org... https://www.psychologytoday.com... http://www.psychguides.com...
a subjective moralist saying "X is immoral" is like me saying "the blue M&M is green"

when subjective moralists say "rape is immoral", all they mean is "i dislike rape" or "society dislikes rape" or something along those lines. this is like if i defined the word "green" to mean "a color that i like", and therefore i could hold up a blue M&M and say "this is green". it is very misleading to use that kind of terminology because the statement "X is Y" doesnt have any kind of subjective pronoun like "i" or "you". why dont you just call a spade a spade? if you dont like rape, just say you dont like it. do subjective moralists say misleading things like "rape is immoral" in order to purposefully hide their true position? or are they just too stupid to understand that it is an ambiguous and misleading statement? i often hear objective moralists saying that "subjective moralists" dont believe in right or wrong, but subjective moralists will deny that and say that they do consider some things to be subjectively right or wrong. what are these subjective moralists trying to prove? that they have preferences? that society has preferences? do they think that objective moralists are claiming that subjective moralists dont have preferences? of course they understand that you/society doesnt like certain actions, so stop pretending as though that is what moral objectivists are arguing.
a subjective moralist saying "X is immoral" is like me saying "the blue M&M is green"

My opponent has basically said again that subjectivists define morality (a social institution) differently is lie defining green (a physical fact) subjectively. The difference is one is based in human relation, the other is objective and independent of humans. This hasn't been addressed, and thus my case has not been addressed. What morality is varies from person to person, but colour does not. As such, there is no analogous link. The analogy fails and it does not matter.
a subjective moralist saying "X is immoral" is like me saying "the blue M&M is green"

you keep rejecting my subjective definition of green for the same reasons that i am rejecting your subjective definition of morality. this proves my point. you agree that by my definition of green, my statements are truei agree that by your definition of morality, your statements are true.you resent my definition of green, because you prefer an objective definition for greeni resent your definition of morality, because i prefer an objective definition of morality.by subjective definitions of morality, the reason charity might be moral is because people like charitable actions.by subjective definitions of greenness, the reason a blue M&M might be green is because people like the color blue.whether something qualifies as "moral" or not depends on if you define morality objectively or subjectivelywhether something qualifies as "green" or not depends on if you define greenness objectively or subjectively. you seem to even agree with that, but that is my whole point, it goes both waysbased on your objective definition of green, when would an M&M qualify as green? when it is yellow-blue.based on my subjective definition of green (a color society likes), when would an M&M qualify as green? when society likes the color of the M&M.based on an objective definition of morality, when would an action qualify as moral? when it objectively should be done.based on your subjective definition of morality, when would an action qualify as moral? when society likes the action.defining green subjectively is sufficiently analogous to defining morality subjectively. there would be less misunderstandings if people said "i dislike rape", instead of using the statement "rape is immoral" based on a subjective definition of "immoral", and if people said "i like the color of that blue M&M", instead of using the statement "that M&M is green" based on a subjective definition of "green"