BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moral belief is not rational

Con: "Certainly our attitudes ABOUT morality are emotion-based"But this does not mean moral belief ITSELF is an emotional construct." Human opinions are emotion-based, and moral belief is an aspect of opinions on behavior. If moral belief is not an emotional construct, than what is it? Con: "To believe in morality is to do no more than accept an empirical fact about ourselves: we are moral agents." We are animals that experience emotions. Our morals are not our emotions; we must be taught to be moral. Are we born with a concept of right and wrong, or are we born with emotional aspects which such concepts, when taught to us, appeal to? If purely rational, we would have a system of rational response to what is perceived as destructive behavior, not moral beliefs concerning the nature of behavior. Con: "We may have disputes about the specifics of morality, but in general everyone knows things like murder, rape, and perjury are wrong." Define wrong. What does that word mean? A belief of some absolute based on commonality or appeal to majority? Things can be healthy or unhealthy and beneficial to, and adverse to, health. But "wrong"? That word is emotion-based, not reason-based. Con: ""evolutionary biology gives us a good, factual, non-emotional grounding for morality. That evolution has instilled in us certain social behaviors that we know call morality is pretty much universally accepted"" Evolutionary biology has given us emotional grounding with which we have developed moral belief. And social behaviors are not called morality. Morality is not a behavior but a belief concerning behavior. Con: "In other words, our systems of morality make good evolutionary sense"It is clear, then, that moral belief has strong grounding in evolution, and is therefore not based in emotion alone. Therefore, it is as rational to believe in morality as it is to believe in language or the survival instinct." The evolution of human social habits and behavior, and subsequently the formation of governmental rules and laws stems directly from the impact of our collective desires and emotion-based beliefs. It is rational to follow a rule or law if one wants to remain socially functional, but this does not make the belief in doing so a rational thing; the desire to remain socially functional is not rational, and the belief that one "should" do so is irrational. I think that Con is incorrectly equating moral belief with social behavior. Con: "It is just as reasonable to pursue happiness as it is to eat: we are fulfilling a desire." I think Con is misunderstanding the fact that humans can use reason to articulate arguments concerning emotional positions and formulate systems that govern behavior according to emotional motivations, while the motivations are not rational, nor are beliefs concerning behavior. Human ethical systems have been rationally developed, but this does not make the beliefs associated with those systems rational.
Moral belief is not rational

I'm going to argue that moral belief is rational. I will now build a case of my own and then, when pro replies, I'll address his or her comments. First, I believe pro is confused when he says, "The motivation of moral belief is emotion..." Certainly our attitudes ABOUT morality are emotion-based; when we discuss morality ("That was absolutely horrible, I can't believe she did that," and so on), there is a lot of emotion involved, to be sure. But this does not mean moral belief ITSELF is an emotional construct. To believe in morality is to do no more than accept an empirical fact about ourselves: we are moral agents. We have concepts of right and wrong. We may have disputes about the specifics of morality, but in general everyone knows things like murder, rape, and perjury are wrong. Those who do not are rightly labeled as deviant. But pro may argue that this empirical fact is a fact about our emotion-based beliefs - that is, morality is just an emotional construct ingrained in us over the years by society. But the problem with this is that evolutionary biology gives us a good, factual, non-emotional grounding for morality. That evolution has instilled in us certain social behaviors that we know call morality is pretty much universally accepted, but I'll just cite one example to make my point. Douglas Allchin of the University of Minnesota writes: "As genetic behavior, moral outcomes are explained alternately by kin selection or reciprocity. As a psychological motive or intent, morality is explained by open learning systems shaped by emotion and reasoning from experience. As a social system, morality is explained by mutual accountability among individuals or by selective interaction based on social information. Processes at each level provide a context in which the others function." In other words, our systems of morality make good evolutionary sense. We help people because we used to live in close communities and they were likely to return the favor. We don't murder because we don't want to be murdered. We don't lie because it's hard to live together as a community if everyone does - and so on. It is clear, then, that moral belief has strong grounding in evolution, and is therefore not based in emotion alone. Therefore, it is as rational to believe in morality as it is to believe in language or the survival instinct. Pro also says, "Without emotional motivation one would not seek pleasure, and would only avoid pain through learned response (i.e., habit) or reflex." Not at all. What we call happiness is a chemical reaction occurring in the brain. This reaction helps motivate us to do things and thus helps us survive. Seeking happiness is, by definition, an emotional venture (since we categorize happiness as such), but that does not mean it is not based in reason. It is just as reasonable to pursue happiness as it is to eat: we are fulfilling a desire. I'm out of room now, so I'll wait for pro's reply
Moral belief is not rational

I am using definitions from Merriam-Webster; Moral- concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior Belief- a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true Rational- based on facts or reason and not on emotions or feelings Argument: The motivation of moral belief is emotional (love, compassion, sympathy, empathy, fear, anger, etc.). The emotional spectrum includes desires; the desire to fit in, to be healthy, to be perceived as right or righteous, as well the desire to express an opinion concerning the behavior of others. Without emotional motivation one would not seek pleasure, and would only avoid pain through learned response (i.e., habit) or reflex. And without emotional motivation one would have no need, nor could one have a desire to relate to human behavior in terms of right or wrong actions. One would simply perceive behavior as being healthy or unhealthy, and having a beneficial or adverse effect, accordingly. The formulation of, acceptance of, and expression of moral beliefs is rooted in emotional motivation. Emotions are not rational. Moral belief is not rational.
Was Jesus the God or Son of God

Wifi is finally back, so I can type this out just in time.My opponent seems to have classical misunderstandings on the meaning of "Son of God" common to those of the Muslim faith."Son of God" does not mean that God somehow had sex with someone and then out popped a son. Far from it. Instead, there were two ancient traditions on the meaning of "Son of God." Roman Tradition on the "Son of God.""Son of God" was not a title reserved for actual sons of deities, but instead those who held specific power and authority as rulers of Empires. Octavian, in particular, was given the title "divi filius," "Son of God/The Divine." So when speaking of being "Son of God," it had nothing to do with biological reproduction of a deity, but it was a title of authority (Source: http://www.roman-empire.net...)Jewish Tradition on the Son of GodExodus 4:22 describes the nation of Israel as God's "firstborn son."In Psalm 89, King David is called the "son of God."Throughout the Psalms, Kings are called "Son of God."The Book of Ecclesiasticus 4:10 refers to any righteous man as "the son of God."So, here we have many different people being called "Son of God," and it's clearly referring to their status with God. Further, it is focused around not their "ruling" status but their spiritual status.If someone is righteous and/or has authority then he is a "Son of God." This has nothing to do with literally being the biological child of a deity.ConclusionClearly, "Son of God" is a common title in the ancient world, and it doesn't mean the literal offspring of a deity. Instead, it's a righteous individual given authority. Jesus was a righteous individual, and he is the founder of a major world religion and billions in history of see his teachings as the ultimate authority. Whether or not there even is a God, Jesus has authority to many and was righteous. He is the "Son of God.
Was Jesus the God or Son of God

Jesus was not the God or Son of God I don't care what bible says it's not true First We must define God or Son of God God is immortal and invincible and invisible I believe God is energy and we are all a part of God With this definition I don't see how Jesus could be the only God Since we are all a part of God Second a Son of God would be a man God begot by having sex with a woman How can energy have sex to beget a son? Unless you believe God is a man with private parts I don't see how Jesus could be the son of God First of all Jesus was born from a woman God can't be born He is ever living Jesus was born in blood like all babies God is too holy and clean for that Jesus got circumcised No one dares touch God's private parts since He doesn't have any Jesus learned how to crawl God doesn't learn things He is all knowing Jesus was breast fed and later ate food and drank water God is in no need of such sustanance Jesus was beat up by romans and got punched by them in the face God is invincible and unstoppable Jesus then died on the cross all bloody God can't die He is immortal Jesus before he died screamed, "my God my God why have you forsaken me?" This proves he isn't God or else he would have said, "oh me oh my why have I forsaken myself?" This all proves Jesus isn't God or Son of God Christians respond by saying Jesus is fully God and fully man Well if he is fully man then he has no room to be God If his body soul heart and mind were human then there is no room or part of him left that could be even 1% God But you say he is 100% God and 100% human??? You are full of contradictions I don't believe in the resurrection since why can't my grandfather rise from the dead No one has risen from the dead Not even Jesus It is more logical to believe his body was stolen So Jesus is not God or Son of God since he is forever dead Amen
There's no porn on the Internet

Thanks for accepting the challenge, PoeJoe, but my opponent is wrong, I don't have any tricks up my sleeve and, like him, I hate semantics. My opponent posted a link to a google search page and I duly clicked one of links and discovered that there is, indeed, porn on the Internet. To my shock and dismay I also discovered that my company has a very strict policy on accessing pornography at work and as a result I've been sacked for gross misconduct. Therefore, I've not only lost this debate but also my job as well. Now I'm really depressed and nobody wants their fellow debaters to be depressed, do they? I think the only thing that could cheer me up would be if lots people voted for me in this debate. Call it a sympathy vote if you like, I don't care, I'm not too proud to accept charity. Now, if my opponent suggests in any way that you should vote for him instead of me, you'll know that he is an extremely cruel and ruthless person and to vote for him, under these circumstances, would be akin to voting for Josef Fritzl as Father of the Year. http://news.bbc.co.uk... I thank you all in advance for your kind understanding. Good Night!
There's no porn on the Internet

I suspect that my opponent has a trick up his sleeve. You, the audience, must ignore this. The audience must ignore his trick NOT because I dislike semantics debaters, but because this is a two round debate. The rules of debate stipulate that no new arguments may be introduced in a closing argument. Because my opponent only has a closing argument left, he may not introduce any arguments at this point. My opponent has not provided ONE SINGLE argument. Because my opponent bears the burden of proof, I automatically win this debate. In other words, my opponent gave up his one chance to introduce an argument. He did not. Because he bears the burden of proof, it is not possible (without breaking the rules of debate) for him to provide any argument whatsoever, and therefore I win. However, in case my opponent wants to break the rules of debate (in which case I win anyway), I will speculate. 1) If my opponent is trying to make me break Debate. org's TOS ("Will not upload, copy, distribute, share, or otherwise use Content that is. .. pornography"), please see my argument later on. 2) If my opponent wants to argue the definitions of "Internet", "my opponent", "porn", or otherwise, the audience must ignore this not only because he has introduced an argument in a closing argument, but because it's silly. And because I will define these words first: a) Pornography (or short "porn"): "Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. " b) Internet: "The Internet is a worldwide communications network originally developed by the US Department of Defense as a distributed system with no single point of failure. The Internet has seen an explosion in commercial use since the development of easy-to-use software for accessing the Internet. " c) Opponent: "a contestant (such as a debater) that you are matched against" 3) If my opponent believes that my burden is to provide a link to a porn site to win, then he is gravely wrong. The resolution clearly states, "There's no porn on the Internet". If I can provide evidence of such pornography, I win. I thus direct the audience to this link (NSFW): . http://www.google.com.... Click on any of the subsequent links to view pornography. I have clearly won this debate.
girls rugby

It is not a matter of positive or negative, I write disadvantages to the resolution, you write advantages, then the voters weigh the net benefits. You are getting it, but I think you need to write more and with more structure, and cover more of the opposing case. Also in order to win a debate you should have more than just one argument. You give the opponent too much free space to maneuver. Message me if you want some tips on writing structured cases. You are going to vote PRO on this debate because this was not fair on my end to take this case in the first place. Plus it is a good thing that someone wants to debate and we don't want to discourage courage.
girls rugby

In debate, your opponent will never agree with you, even if they agree with you. Soooo lets start. WOMEN SHOULD NOT PLAY RUGBY. 1) SOCIAL NORMS a. All social animals have decorum, what is acceptable according to what is good for the social structure. I.E. Baboons exile members who eat out of turn, hit infants, or are overly greedy with food b. Human decorum differentiates between sexes I.E. Our clothes, our names, our suffixes prefixes, our proffered interests. all are dictated by what is acceptable c. It is a social norm of humans to allow men to be aggressive and competitive because it is representative of their role in the natural social structure as testosterone jacked hunters who prove their worth by defeating others. I.E. Football, Boxing, Stags butting heads, wrestling, basketball, baseball, fencing, sumo wrestling d. This is the way that the females in the social group can choose suitable mates, according to which is the biggest, most assertive confident and capable, kind of like an inherent gene screening process. We are attracted to strength aggression and size in men for a reason, it is so that strong large aggressive genes might be passed on to offspring. e. It is deemed acceptable that women play sports that are less aggressive and more co-operative this is to ensure conversely that reason and civility are passed on in our species. THE SOCIAL NORM IS CREATED TO ENSURE THE MOST BENEFICIAL METHOD OF SURVIVAL IN THIS CASE MEN IN RUGBY LINK. If we deem it socially acceptable for women to play rugby a. We will see an increase in aggression and violence. b. Women will be chosen as mates according to their testosterone levels as well This leads to waves of violence in coming generations, where before men and women were seperated by social norms into the group that is civil and checks back against the group that is not. This violence would have exponential growth, as the object of aggressive sports are to filter out the small and weak and find the biggest and strongest (and meanest) if this is happening for both men and women in our social norms we will have large dumb jocks running around everywhere and in 1000 years nobody will go to school, they'll just go to practice.
girls rugby

for this i just want to see what you think, my first debate . for this argument i will for girls rugby. do you think girls should play rugby? i belive that there is no reason why girls can't play, its just peoples opions that stop grils from playing. Both sexes can do exactly the same as the opposite sex. Girls who have a passion for such a rough sport should be able to play the game without being discriminated agaist. The sport isn't just for rough lads, its for everyone who wants to play, there is no law on girls not playing rugby. The game should be as big as boys rugby. Everyone can play if they put thier heart to it. Do you agree?
College athletes should be allowed to make money related to playing

This debate comes from the following Opinion.http://www.debate.org...The terms "make money" and "paid" refer to monetary or any highly liquidable asset (meaning something that can be turned into cash pretty easily and quickly) for compensation, beyond just scholarships that cover the cost of the schooling and housing. I will be arguing for a structured compensation with limits and regulations, but it will allow players to be paid and collect cash. My opponent will be arguing that players not be paid in anything highly liquidable. He does not have to argue that they need to abolish scholarships or anything of the sort.The intent of this debate should be clear. Any attempt to use semantics to corrupt or argue something outside the spirit of the debate shall not count towards arguments and count against conduct.My opponent may start their arguments their R1, or accept and pass for me to start R2.Thank you,
Homework should be optional

If homework were an option, then little to no student would take such an option. In the reall world, we have responsibilities outside of school. Homework is one way to demonstrate that to children and it should be required for all students. To demonstrate that one can survive outside of school, they must demonstrate the ability to balance themselves without holding someones hand. If a student cannot handle homework, then they need to learn how to fix cars or do carpentry. There's the option I would agree with: pass (homework) or fail (no homework). Weeding out the strong from the weak. It's not rocket science, it's a review.
Homework should be optional

That is a very good argument Alyfish, but that does not prove that homework should not be optional. If school were to add on about 10 - 15 minutes to each class, there would be enough time to get to anything extra. If a student still has trouble, they could stay after-school for help, or they could decide whether or not they should have homework or tutoring.As the topic states, I believe that homework should be an option,not no homework at all.So the only thing you proved in your argument was that tutoring is often available.Sources: Alyfish's last argument.
Homework should be optional

Homework helps develop a student's study skills; their ability to research a topic on their own. If a student needs help, they can ask questions in class, or develop better note-taking skills or research habits.Homework reinforces thr topics learned in class and sometimes prepares students for future cconcepts, so, if everyone has done their homework, class time can be used to continue on to more advanced topics.Homework allows parents to take a part in the student's education, if they are willing and able. Homework encourages the development of a student's self-discipline since it requires them taking initiative/responsibility for themselves without their hand being held.I am a free tutor, and peer tutoring is often a free route to take; further strengthening relationships in class.
Homework should be optional

I believe that kids should not HAVE TO have homework because most people would rather get things done at school instead of at home. If needed we could even extend school hours so that there is no need for homework. Also, at school there are teachers that can help you if needed, while it is harder to get help at home (for most people.). Some kids have parents that are busy or just plain do not want to help their kids, and they are likely to NOT pick their kids up later after school if tutoring is needed. Even if they do, tutoring cost money 1/2 the time. Sources: Me, myself, and I.
Religion isn't Real

Omnipotence paradox The paradox is false, as it misunderstands what 'omnipotence' is. It is not the ability to do absolutely anything - rather, it is the ability to actualise the logically possible. To 'create a rock so heavy that [God] couldn't lift it' is a logically impossible scenario - not even an omnipotent being could do it. However, omnipotence doesn't mean to be able to do the logically impossible. Evidence Pro states 'there is hardly any evidence for religion to be real'. However, let me present a proof: 1) Whatever begins to exist has a prior efficient cause -proven by the metaphysical truth 'out of nothing, nothing comes'. If there is no cause, there is no effect. 2) The universe began to exist -proven by the Big Bang 3) Therefore the universe has a prior efficient cause - Logically follows from 1/2 Science Heaven is transcendent to the universe and so we shouldn't expect to discover it in space. I extend my other points, as Pro hasn't as of yet responded to them.
Religion isn't Real

The matter can be answered by the simple paradox: "Could God create a rock so heavy that he couldn't lift it?" If you would like more evidence, there is hardly any evidence for religion to be real, other than the Bible or other religious books. The books would be false if the religion is false. Science has already taken man to the stars, a theory that has not been thought of when most religions were created. They do not explain that man would fly in space and find no heaven.
Religion isn't Real

Hey everyone Since its just a 1000 character limit, I'll keep the arguments short. Burden of proof Pro is making a positive claim that "religion isn't real" and so the BOP lies on my opponent in this debate. So in order to win the debate, I must discredit the claims. Genetic fallacy An obvious response to Pro's argument is that it commits the genetic fallacy, whereby through explaining the origins of a belief - in this case, religious beliefs - you thereby attempt to discredit the belief in itself. [1] Note that the motion is "religion isn't real"; to which, Pro responds by stating that "religion was created to explain the supernatural". This appeal to religion's origins is an irrelevance in establishing the truth value of religion itself. Science Pro claims that "scientists are starting to explain the unknown". However, God claims are beyond the reaches of science. It cannot possibly empirically prove of disprove God. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...