BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
"subjective morality" is substatively no different than moral nihilism

Again, my opponent ignores descriptivist moral subjectivism, a distinct branch of moral subjectivism claiming a positive fact that people have different morality through and through. Some dispute whether this is true, such as Seen claiming all cultures have an underpinning moral structure. However, it is certainly a branch of moral subjectivism, and denying its existence does not strengthen an argument, it is just dropping the issue. Moreover, again, my opponent confuses emotivism with the theories. Subjectivists can claim something is immoral FOR ANY REASON and not just a dislike of an action. They might argue an act is moral if it follows what the sovereign says, making morality subjective yet not based on the self, yet alone your emotion. And finally, there clearly is difference with my opponent's analogy. Bob will worship the universe, Ian probably will not. This is substantial difference straight away. My opponent is caught up in ignoring my case and digging themselves into a hole.
Can water flow uphill (not using propulsion or inertia)

I think the crux lf this debate is whether or not capillary action constitutes an external force, but I think it's clear that it absolutely does- the Van der Waals intermolecular forces only exist in the presence of some kind of capillary tube or absorbsion medium- the water will never spontaneously flow upwards without being acted upon by a capillary tube. Hence, the capillary tube is using forces to act upon the water, and hence the movement is not spontaneous, and is the result of propulsion.This differs from Pro's example of oil and water separating, as that is an example of a spontaneous process- the water and oil will spontaneously separate without being acted upon by an external force. This is, however, not the case for water supposedly flowing uphill- it does not happen spontaneously, and requires propulsion.
Can water flow uphill (not using propulsion or inertia)

Thank you for accepting the challenge and providing a concise well thought out argument. I look forward to seeing what the voters decide regarding this debate. You provided an additional definition for "flow" in your argument, saying that the motion of capillary action did not fit under that definition, or the other one, for that matter. You said, "The key is in the word spontaneous, in that if capillary action is acting upon something, that thing has not spontaneously moved in the resulting manner, as it has been acted upon by an external force." I do not believe that this is accurate, however. On the contrary, the water that is flowing uphill based on the principle of capillary action is doing so based on its own properties and NOT being acted upon any force but itself. Capillary action is not "acting upon" the water as an external force, but as a force based on the properties of the water itself. The force is not external. Thus this type of motion fits under your definition. I believe that it also fits under my definition. I think that your definition of propulsion ("The act of driving or pushing forward") is a good one. However, like I said above, the water experiencing capillary motion is not being propelled by an external force, but by itself. This is in much the same way as water and oil separate automatically when stirred, independent of any external forces, even gravity. Water and oil will even separate in microgravity, though not at top and bottom. By this, I mean that water and oil are still immiscible, even in space; they do not form a homogenous mixture.
Can water flow uphill (not using propulsion or inertia)

The example of capillary action does indeed show water rising upwards throughout a container. However, this does not meet my own definition of "flow", which would be something along the lines of:"To spontaneously move from one place to another in a liquid or gaseous state". The key is in the word spontaneous, in that if capillary action is acting upon something, that thing has not spontaneously moved in the resulting manner, as it has been acted upon by an external force.Another way to ressolve this while keeping to Pro's definition is to consider capillary action to be an example of propulsion. Propulsion is defined as:"the action of driving or pushing forward"According to source 1.Capillary action uses Van der Waals (see source 2) intermolecular forces (see source 3) to drive a liquid in any given direction. This makes it an example of propulsion, and so not an example of water flowing uphill without using propulsion, as the motion requires.Sources:1: https://uk.search.yahoo.com...2: https://en.wikipedia.org...3: https://en.wikipedia.org...
Can water flow uphill (not using propulsion or inertia)

Hello Queen Daisy, I look forward to this debate with you, and may the best argument win! According to google dictionary, flow is defined as, "{to} move along or out steadily and continuously in a current or stream. I believe that water CAN flow uphill based on the principle of capillary action [1]. This phenomenon can be seen in an oil lamp with a wick. When a dry wick is placed in the oil, the oil will flow up the wick. Admittedly, oil is not water, but if you try this effect using water instead it will work too. This can also be observed with an absorbent paper towel or rag. if one holds the rag at an incline, with the bottom of the item in a stream of water (maybe from a faucet), The water will slowly make its way up the incline, thereby proving that water can flow uphill. I look forward yo reading your response! Have a great day, Subdeo Sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Can water flow uphill (not using propulsion or inertia)

This is intended to be a very short debate. I am arguing that water CAN flow uphill, contrary to popular theory. First round is acceptance and rules only. After that, we will just argue back and forth without any particular rules regarding the usage for the rounds. My last attempt at this debate was forfeited by my opponent. If you want to accept this debate, don't forfeit! I look forward to this debate with you! Good luck!
Hell is immoral and unjustified.

Introduction/rules There are usually 4 different main views of hell that the majority of Christians believe, being: A. Everlasting conscious torment B. Everlasting metaphorical mental pain from the separation of God C. Annihilationsim (soul is destroyed in hell) D. Universalism (everybody gets to heaven eventually after purgatory or hell) I am not here to refute the last three, but instead I will be arguing against A) which is the traditional dominating view of hell that asserts that souls who do not accept Jesus Christ will go to hell where they are given everlasting conscious torment. I will be arguing that this is unjust and immoral. Rounds: Round 1 will be acceptance and any courtesies either wishes to administer. Round 2 will be opening arguments Round 3 will be rebuttals and whatever new arguments either side wishes to add Round 4 will be a conclusion, each side summing up their arguments for their position. No new arguments may be given With that out of the way, I wish to say that I am looking forward to debating whoever will accept this challenge. I look forward to trying to understand your reasoning for your position, and I hope you will understand my own.
Tic_Tac_To

I would like to personally thank you for this invigorating debate. Now, if you will indulge me, I shall use my remaining three hundred fifty four characters for waxing rhetoric. The battlefield was like a strong and proud army. The assault began in the North-west, when the barbarians came bearing the emblem 'O'. The righteous elven front took the center and proceeded to hold off the advancing front. Alas, it ended with a draw, and many spilt their blood over this petty dispute on both sides.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

My opponent has not read the terms of my resolution, as posted in Round one. The resolution is as follows:"In elementary level arithmetic, two plus two equals four (2+2=4)."The key term here is "Elementary Level Arithmetic." My opponent argues that 2+2 does not equal 4 in all scales of measurement, which is completely true, and I'm not arguing against that. The only thing I am arguing is that in the math your learn in first grade, 2+2=4. That said, my opponent has not refuted my mathematical proof in Round 2, which means I win this debate. But if that's not enough, imagine this:The second successor of zero added to the second successor of zero will equal the fourth successor of zero. Picture it this way: zero is nothing. We represent nothing with this symbol--- 0. One more unit than nothing can be known as the successor of zero (or, S(0) or even better, 1.) Following the pattern, the next unit is S(S(0) or, 2. Essentially, all that has to be proven is that S(S(0) + S(S(0) = S(S(S(S(0). You don't need to be an expert mathematician that when you take two of the letter "S" and add them to two more of the letter "S", you get four of the letter "S."In elementary level arithmetic, we express this as 2+2=4.ConclusionBecause my opponent has disregarded my Round 2 arguments, because his new argument goes outside the terms of my resolution, and through the new reasoning I have presented, you can see that the only reasonable vote is in favor of Pro.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

Two plus two does not equal four in all 4 scales of measurement. Two plus two only equal four when using the interval and ratio categories. The nominal category just names or classifies, and the ordinal scale is pretty much the same as the nominal scale, except it ranks as well. Therefore two plus two does not necessarily exist on either scale, let alone equal four. And, where laws of physics differ, 2+2 may very well equal 0.
Two Plus Two Equals Four

This should, however, only have an effect on the conduct point, and not the argument points. That said, let's continue.2+2 is both greater than or equal to and less than or equal to 4. Integers are an infinite group relating to addition. Since 2 is an integer, 2+2 must also be an integer. Now pretend that 2 + 2 < 4. We have 2 > 0. Adding two to both sides, we get 2+2 > 0+2. Since 0 is the identity element for addition, we have 2 + 2 > 2. So 2<2+2<4. Thus, 2+2 equals three, right? However, accrording to Fermat's Little Theorem[1], 2+2 cannot be a prime integer. Three, however, is a prime number. So by Fermat's Little Theorem, 2+2 must be greater than or equal to 4. So now, all we have to do is prove that 2+2 is not greater than four. Now, think of a as the solution of 2+2=a. Thus, a-2=2+0. According to Segal's Lemma[2], this cannot allow a to be greater than four. Thus, 2+2 is less than or equal to four, and since we walready have that 2+2 is greater than or equal to four. ..2+2=4.2+2 is an integer, and "fish" is not an integer. My opponent makes the claim that 2+2 = fish. Mathematically (as stated as the basis for the resolution), 2+2 cannot equal "fish" because 2+2, as stated, must be an integer. and "fish" is not an integer. Thus, only a pro vote can be warranted. Sources[1] . http://mathworld.wolfram.com...;[2] . http://www.cs.yale.edu...
Abortion should be outlawed

Hello Retrospace18 Since you didn't post your argument, mine will be short. First, in your argument you said that you think I don't know anything about child bearing, well your wrong. I know enough that a child or offspring isn't formed until the sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell. You need to find your facts. Second, is about girls of young age getting abortions. I'm saying that that is the parents fault for not paying enough attemtion to their kids. THey need to be more into the kid's lives, finding out who their daughter is hanging around and what is she doing. Please continue to debate.
Abortion should be outlawed

Hello Retrospace18, Let me comment on yout argument: 1)You say that I'm against birth control pills and condoms, because they are killing a baby. That is absaluty wrong. First I wished more people used condoms to stop the spread of AIDS. Also, a offspring isn't formed until the male's sperm fertilizes the egg cell. So, I'm killing sperm because it is in the condom? You have millions of sperm cells that are made plus died every day and they last only a couple of days. Another thing, a man will always be reproductive and a women won't. 2) "Most abortions are in the first 7 weeks of pregnecy and the baby looks like a blob." So are you saying it is okay to kill a baby, because it doesn't look like one? That is just wrong. WHat if our camera aren;t strong enough to depict parts of the body? If we do get a stronger camera and that happens then is it still okay? 3)I would be gald to answer your question on when the women gets pregnet from rape and every time the baby kicks, she'll think of it. I would like to know how she got raped. The only thing I can think of is a guy whos is drunk or high pulls a knife to her neck in a bar or in the city. How would know one no about it and try to stop it? My point with 1.2% of abortions are with kids who are under 15. My point is that is the parents fault. I know of some girls a couple grades higher than mine (around 15 16 years old) are experimenting with their boyfriend. The parents know about this, and are putting her on a brith contol pill. The 1.2% of teens have parents who don'tpay attention. They need to pay attention to their kids. That is a goes with your stat about 80% of pregnet teens dropout. If their parents paid more attention to their kids it wouldn't happen. Here is my propsed penelty if a man gets a woman(s) pregnet after a rape. -A normal jail time plus 5 to 10 months more -Can not get married again -Placed on the sex offender list -Pay a woman(s) all money lost due to they pregnecy plus $20,000 I know you say that "money won't fix emotional pains" and "what if the raper doesn't have any money?" My response to that is the man is a convicted felen and shouldn't do it, so it is his problem if he doesn't have money, he needs to pay her. Also, you liberals(I'm assuming you are one due to your stance on the issues) think that money does solve everything. For example: a person gets into a car accident. They don't get a scratch on them, but they'll sue for millions of dollars(that is a whole nother issue). Sorry for being late, I've been busy.
Abortion should be outlawed

Abortion should be outlawed. It is just disgusting how a women can kill their offspring just because she had "sexy time" wrong. I don't want to hear the argument, "what if she got raped." If she did get raped she should have the baby and the raped pay all losses to the women. Now when she has the baby, alls you have to do is to bring it to a orphanage or a firehouse. How much can that cost you, if you bring it there on the way home from the hospital. Also, 1.2% of abortions are with girls who are 15 years oldo. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, that is the parents fault for the girl getting pregnant. They should've been paying attention to what she is doing, and who she is hanging around. Another thing, if you do bring up rape, that man should be fully prosecouted first. Then he should be fined the amount of money the women lost, so their is no need for abortion.
the spiderman movies could happen

My opponent has the BOP in this debate. While I content that science fiction is often 'plausible', in this case there is no reason to believe that the major facets of the Spider man universe are at all possible. Some guy getting bitten buy a spider and then becoming some super human with super powers and such is not possible at all. My opponent has made no arguments supporting the idea that such a thing is even plausible. I'd like to think my opponent for this debate, and anyone who read it.
the spiderman movies could happen

There is no reason to believe that human-animal hybrids are possible, and even if they were, that super human powers would be attained by this combination. If some kind of nuclear spider were to bite a human, most scientists would say that the person who was bitten would probably die. While some of the villains in the movies have some sort of scientific basis for them, it is science "fiction" for a reason. Most of these comic book type stories fall out of the realm of plausibility and could not actually happen.
the spiderman movies could happen

i believe that there is no magic or goblins or fairies or any stuff like that in these movies. evreting in them can be achieved though science. maybe not with todays technology but perhaps our great great grand children can be truthful when saying" im going to be spiderman when i grow up. i was also looking for a fast debate to pass the time and i decided to invit a friend to it and you were the only one online so, i challenged you. good luck.
Substance Dualism is true

"Substance dualists typically argue that the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects: size, shape, location, solidity, motion, adherence to the laws of physics, and so on. Substance dualists fall into several camps depending upon how they think mind and body are related. Interactionists believe that minds and bodies causally affect one another" [. http://www.iep.utm.edu...] Pro's burden of proof is to affirm that substance dualism is probably true.
Might makes right

Creating a simulation of a universe does not count as mastering the speed of light. Could the creators of the simulation FIFA 2013 be considered the professional footbal players they simulated? No. They have not mastered actual footbal. They do not actually play it in the field. They just created a non-real image of people playing footbal. A simulation is not same as reality, no matter how realistic it may be. My point that there are physical limits to what can be achieved with power still stands. Thus power is not the means to every end. Might does not make right.
Might makes right

The Con's last line of defense lies in a universal exception, no pun intended. It is possible to reach the speed of light, given enough power. There is a popular theory circulating amongst scientists and philosophers that universe might well be a computer simulation. The theory runs along the logic that if a species of intelligent beings becomes advanced enough and powerful enough, they could create a simulation complex enough to simulate a universe. In such a complex simulation, there is the possibility that intelligent life will manifest itself in the simulation and will, in turn, become advanced and powerful enough to create its own simulated universe. And thus, each universe would produce a series of nested universes, whose number would eventually eclipse that of the original non-simulated universes. Thus the theory goes that if there are more simulated universes and original universes, then it is more likely that we live in a simulation than not. For hypothetical purposes, we can assume the above to be true. Since the speed of light was created and achieved in such a simulated universe, therefore it is possible, that given enough power, humans (or any intelligent species for that matter) could create simulation universes in which we achieve and/or create the speed of light. Power can solve any problem. Might has the ability to be means towards any end. The PRO has proved that might makes right.
Might makes right

There certainly must be a situation in which power is not a possible mean to an end.Feats that require unlimited energy, or at least energy levels that are impossible for humans to achieve, cannot be done through power alone.It is impossible to travel at the speed of light, regardless of power, since accelerating mass to such a speed would require near-infinite energy, and such energy can not possibly be realistically generated no matter how much power one individual may have.
Might makes right

While I dislike nitpicking semantics, I will argue that yes, every end is the product of at least two people.In order for one to be stuck in the wilderness, it means that one has to exist. For one to exists neccessitates that at least two people worked together, and in doing so achieved the end result of producing the individual who is now lost in the woods.On that note, I would rather we stuck to whether or not power has the ability to bring about any end.The Con argues that there are always alternatives to power. This is true. There are always alternatives. My argument is not that power is the only way, but rather that there is always the possibility of using power as a means to any end.No matter which situation one might find oneself in, more power can always be the answer. I do not argue that it is the only means to all ends, but that is is a means to any end. For the Con to win, the con must argue that there are situations in which power is not an option at all.
Might makes right

The basis of the Pro arguement is that people need to work together to achieve any end. This is an absolute, and as such is simply false. There are bound to be exceptions.It's not that every single thing needs the teamwork of at least two people. There are plenty of things that can be done by one's self.Imagine one is stuck in deep wilderness. There is nothing and no-one from outside society that could influence what happens. Everything you do is up to you and you alone. On achieving ends.Power, or potential physical power is not neccessary in order to get a group to come together to achieve and end. The biggest single argument for the con is democracy. Instead of the biggest stick running things, each person most suited for their task is elected by everyone else to complete it, in order for the end to be achieved. The best organizer is the one elected to be in charge.
Might makes right

I would like to start by slightly amending the con's definition. Rather than might meaning physical violence, let might mean "potentential physical power".Moving into my argumentsPotential physical power is the means to any end for the reasons that:To achieve end results, people need to work together. The most efficient methods of having people work together areA. RespectB. LoveC. FearA. Power, and the proper of use of it, inspires respect in the people surrounding the self. This is cognitive control over people. They know and understand your power, and they admire the way you use it. They determine you to be a "just leader" and agree to work towards your common ends.B. Love is not conscious, but rather is a deep unconscious feeling of attatchment. This attatchment can form from both psychological and physical influences. Power is means success. People are magnetically attracted to success by habit of evolution, that successful people are more fit, and therefore make better mates and produce better offspring. Powerful people often have power of life and death other their subjects. Primates are known to be subject to psychologica phenomena in which individuals who are subbordinate to one who holds power of life and death over them become and object of attatchment and even veneration. One such example is Stockhold Syndrome. A second example is the attachment people feel for their Significant Other even when in an abusive relationship. My third example is the popularity of the worship of "Gods". That people have a deep unconscious veneration for beings that hold absolute power over their lives. Generally, such Gods are angry and vengeful. The people who invent these Gods are not masochists, they are just like most humans, who desire a greater force to guide them. The Abrahamic Gods are a good example. For Jews, Christrians and Muslims, "God" is source of divine punishment and retribution, with endless suffering that awaits those who do not follow scripture. And yet, most (if not all) Jews, Christians and Muslims claim to "love God".C. For those who do not come to love or respect their leader, fear can, at least temporarily, riegn in those of lesser power who fear injury and demise lest they should disobey.