BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

""Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified at least 51% of the time." stupidape I changed the resolution to the above since the original was too ambiguous to begin with. The way it was written, it seemed you were arguing that civil disobedience was morally justified 100% of the time. I explained that there are many circumstances where legal avenues and opportunities are available. We shouldn't haphazardly break the law and use civil disobedience. Yes, there are times when civil disobedience is warranted. Yet, as I've already stated rarely will we need to resort to civil disobedience due to phone call, emails, petitions, law abiding protests, and social media. Not only that but disobeying the law ties up police and court's resources while costing the disobedience person fines. Thanks for debating.
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

So, my opponent said that civil disobedience is disruptive. They said civil disobedience makes polices to arrest them and this means that they can't block crimes. But if civil disobedience is morally justified, disobedients can communicate with government. Police doesn't need to block people who are communicating with government. Also, my opponent said that other process like living wage are so slow. Civil disobedience can be used on that part. Now I'll extend my case. Civil disobedience is morally justified. There are no any reason to block people's voice. As I already stated, civil disobedience is a tool to give people voice. Justifying civil disobedience is justifying people having voice which is a key in a democracy. And for my opponent, I have a question. Lets say that a kid is getting bullied by lots of people across the street. The problem to help the kid is that the cross light is so far and police is too slow to help the kid. Are you going to help the kid? The second question is that isn't it true that some laws are legally defined but morally bankrupt? I hope that my opponent answers this question. The problem on my opponent's base was that there was no any argument. This made us to argue only in my case. But never let my opponent to make a new argument because making a argument is allowed only in 1st round and 2nd round. But then, my opponent was just talking about what they thought. This means that they dropped every single argument. This is very important. They are just agreeing to every single case. This is going to be the main reason why I should win. So I ask you to affirm. Thank you.
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

Civil disobedience is disruptive. The act of the police arresting the individuals means the police cannot be somewhere else pursuing more serious crimes. Civil disobedience clogs the prisons and courts. Also, there is usually fines for disobeying the law. This money can be used for other endeavors. As for any social justice cause, including living wage, progress is slow. You can't expect a public that is duped up on reality TV and fast food to be sensitive to your plight. Besides, there is people suffering worse in 3rd world countries. This suffering in 3rd world countries draw sympathy away from the lower class in 1st world countries. Thanks for debating.
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

First, I'll defend my case and go over my opponent's case. So my opponent said that there are lots of legal ways. But the problem of living wage is as I said, it is so slow and often ineffective as I said already. Also, it doesn't mean that civil disobedience is not justified even if that we have another way. So, my opponent's respond cannot stand. Now, I'll go over my opponent's case. My opponent had to prove that civil disobedience is not morally justified in a democracy. But, they didn't give any value, value criteria, and arguments. This means that they have nothing to say now. Because of these reasons, I ask you to affirm.
Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified

My opponent doesn't specify is civil disobedience is always, usually, often, sometimes, or rarely justified. In one of my first debates I lost, because I didn't specify and my opponent therefore said I must prove it in all cases, which I couldn't. So, I lost from not being explicit. I think this was a lousy way to win a debate, so I won't do the same to you. Instead, I think a the fair amount of 50% middle ground would make for the best debate, do you not agree? So, let the resolution be, "Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified at least 51% of the time." The problem is in today's world with civil disobedience is there are so many lawful avenues. Phone calls, emails, petitions, law abiding protests, and even stating your mind via social media. Therefore, I find it rare for a person to have the need to resort to civil disobedience. Thanks for debating.
Resolved: Society should implement a eugenics program

This debate is impossible to accept. Message me in comments if you are interested in participating. Let is be resolved that society should implement a eugenics program. 10,000 characters. Round 1: Acceptance Round 2: Opening arguments, Con may rebut me Round 3: Rebuttals/Arguments Round 4: Rebuttals/Conclusions - No new arguments/brand new rebuttals That is all, good luck!!
the bible does not contridict its self

"your pork argument is null" How so? Anyone can say "no" to something, but you've got to explain. I was showing an example of two different sets of rules in the Bible. "your argument about the old and new testement being diffrent is very true because jesus died there wich payed for sins and changed a lot of things because of the significants so your arguments are null" You agree with me on a point and then just say that my arguments are wrong without any explanation as to why. You had two points in your opening argument: one that the Bible doesn't contradict itself and another that it is "100% straight forward". The Bible contradicts itself in many ways, the Old and New Testaments being the most general example of this. The Old Testament contradicts itself, the most blatant examples are when God deems it okay or even tells the Israelites to kill people (for example, wiping the promised land clean of its inhabitants) but the Ten Commandments still say "Thou shalt not murder". And it isn't straight forward, actually most of it is pretty vague and open to so much interpretation, it's anything but straightforward. This is how my points earlier about translations come in; there is too much speculation about the Bible for it to be taken at face value.
the bible does not contridict its self

ok you are trying to debate two things at once here you are sayint that the church is wrong well yes its flawed its run by man everything man does is flawed on some level. next it is not the churches fault that its people did not learn to read and write we still had the same genes and were basically the same ok now we have had another couple hundred years to find things out yes we consider ourselves smarter yet we still deal with the same issues. Next we you say relgion is flawed are you saying relgions or christianity.
the bible does not contridict its self

A lot of the Bible does contradict itself, to claim that it is "100% Straight Forward" is absurd. First off, to begin generally, there is the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Someone following the Old Testament will follow a much stricter set of laws then someone following the New Testament; for example Jews do not eat pork because the Old Testament forbids it, but the New Testament says that that's okay, so Christians do. Also God in the Old tends to stress the "eye for an eye" philosophy, delivering plagues on Egypt, prompting the Israelites to wipe out everyone in the promised land who wasn't a Jew and so on. Jesus on the other hand says "turn the other cheek" and stressed the opposite; while many of the Israelites wanted him to topple Rome he didn't and never intended to. Also, most of the Bible isn't straight forward at all. A lot of the stories, especially Jesus's teachings are parables and open to interpretation. Take a story like Daniel in the lion's den. Some people will say that all of that God literally controlled the lions and saved him. Others will say that the story is metaphorical and that it teaches the same message but the events didn't really happen. Many books of the Bible that set down laws, especially ones like Leviticus, are the most controversial. Some of these laws are outdated and unnecessary in our time (like passages that tell you how to treat your slaves). Are these meant to be taken literally or not? Finally, a common argument regards translations. The Bible has been translated and transferred so many times that it's highly likely that portions of it's original form have been lost. The Bible isn't necessarily wrong, but it is far from rock solid.
Autonomous robots should be given the ability to kill.

As I am the creator of this debate, I uphold myself to supply the rules of the debate, the format of the debate, and to supply definitions of the terms in the resolution. Rules: ~NO TROLLING OF ANY SORT. ~The use of Wikipedia as source for any argument is not allowed. ~The Pro must have a case for the Con to argue against. Format: ~In Round 1, the Pro may simply state that they accept the debate. ~In Round 2, both the Pro and Con will only present their case. ~In Round 3, the Pro and Con will 1) Attack their opponent's case 2) Defend their own case. ~In Round 4, the Pro and Con will give reasons proving why they should win the debate. Definitions: ~Autonomous robots - "...intelligent machines capable of performing tasks in the world by themselves, without explicit human control." (http://mitpress.mit.edu...) ~Should - "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) ~Ability - "power or capacity to do or act physically, mentally, legally, morally, financially, etc." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) ~Kill - "to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay." (http://dictionary.reference.com...) If you decide to accept this debate, you're a wonderful person! Cannot wait to debate.
evolution is wrong

First, it should be noted that gaps in the fossil record are not a problem for evolution because evolutionary theory does not predict a gapless fossil record. In fact, many scientists find it surprising that there aren't _more_ gaps, considering how rarely fossilization occurs. Gaps in the record do make it difficult for us to reconstruct precise evolutionary lineages in many cases, but that doesn't make the occurrence of evolution itself any less likely. Suppose someone jumped, and it was too dark for you to see how high they jumped; would that constitute evidence against the theory of gravity? With that established, I would ask which gap you are referring to? Which "simpler organisms" and "more complex organisms" are you describing? If anything, the problem we have is not a lack of intermediaries, but rather a dearth of fossil remains of those simpler creatures: creatures lacking hard body parts almost never fossilize, so the further back we go, the sparser the record is. However, it is important not to forget that this is consistent with evolutionary theory: larger, harder, more structured body parts would be expected to come after smaller, simpler, softer ones in the fossil record, and this is what we find. It would be a devastating blow to evolutionary theory if we found that the reverse were true, and more complex or structured organisms chronologically predated all simple life. Regarding how birds evolved, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. You concede that the Archaeopteryx demonstrates morphological features of both reptiles and birds, but then make the irrelevant point that Archaeopteryx may have been flightless. Why does that matter? Whether Archaeopteryx was flight-capable or not doesn't change its morphological features, just their functionality. If anything, the idea that Archaeopteryx was flightless supports the evolutionary link between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, because it provides further evidence that Archaeopteryx wasn't a typical bird, but may have retained its ancestors' flightlessness. If this is so, Archaeopteryx was not only morphologically transitional, but also transitional in its flight capabilities: it may have only been capable of gliding. I also seriously doubt that any self-respecting scientist has ever claimed that Archaeopteryx is "much like our own ostrich". The two could hardly be more different.
evolution is wrong

There are too many problems with many of the claims evolutionists use to justify their beliefs. Take for example the fossil record. There is an enormous gap between the simpler organisms and the more complex organisms. There is also a problem with their theory of how birds evolved. The example most defenders of evolution use is that of the archaeopteryx. while it looks like it is half reptile half bird, scientists who study such things say that it was closer to a flightless bird much like our own ostrich.
The character at the end of the newest Batman v. Superman trailer isn't Doomsday. It's Bizarro.

When the character first shows up, there's what looks to be the reverse S symbol on his chest, the same one Bizarro dons. He's also seen shooting some sort of energy blast through his eyes and mouth, and Doomsday has no such power [1], while Bizarro has flame breath [2], which is what he seems to be doing here. And finally, at 2:08 to 2:14 in the trailer's run time, Lex says, "If man (Batman) won't kill God (Superman), the Devil will do it. If the Devil is the antithesis of God, what's the antithesis of Superman? Bizarro.Since this site breaks DC Wiki links, probably because of the dash between the character names and New Earth, I'm going to use a link shortener here.[1] http://bit.ly...[2] http://bit.ly...
The Starchild skull is human

I actually thought round 3 was the last round for some odd reason and treated it as such. I don't think there really is much to say here without bringing in new evidence so I'll just go over a few important points. I don't think I'm required to account for every single abnormality a 600 year old skull that has no reliable chain of custody has. Especially when you consider that it's been treated as more sacred than the shroud of Turin. I showed DNA evidence that the skull is human. The DNA was specific enough to narrow down where the starchild's ancestors were from. I've explained how the earlier tests found DNA easier because the DNA hadn't been corrupted by the effect of the radiation from Xrays. We need to look at what the most likely scenario is. This is a human skull found next to another human. It had human DNA. It looks human, though abnormal. This skull is only 600 years old. This skull comes from a human sized humanoid creature at the very least. It's very hard to believe a human looking creature from merely 600 years ago has escaped discovery or has went extinct without discovery, especially one that lived with and among humans. If it's not an undiscovered species than it would have to be an extraterrestrial. It's hard to believe that an alien species would travel billions of light years and have one of their crew die on Earth and just leave his body to rot on this planet. If it's a hybrid than what are the chances that an alien banging a human would be compatible enough to have a child. The most likely scenario especially conidering the DNA evidence which my opponent failed to show was unreliable is that the skull is human.
The Starchild skull is human

Evidence my opponent did not refute I explained how the Starchild skull does not have a brow ridge, even though all primates including humans have brow ridges St archild"s eye sockets were too shallow to be human Starchild"s foxp2 gene had too many mutations to be human to survive But my opponent gave no explanation to any of these. Any one of these points alone is enough to conclude that the Starchild is most likely not human. The only deformities my opponent mentioned were hydrocephaly and progeria, neither of which can explain the first 2 points, and my opponent made no reference to the DNA test that extracted the foxp2 gene. My opponent"s repeated mistakes Peruvian skull my opponent explained how Peruvian skulls have extremely deformed and argued that it is likely that the Starchild skull had similar deformities I explained how the Peruvian skull is likely not human and therefor its physical features aren"t a result of deformities my opponent continues to claim that the Peruvian skull shifting practice as demonstrated by the Peruvian skulls could explain the Starchild"s abnormal features without refuting my argument that those Peruvian skulls might not be human Lloyd Pye In my opponent"s first round argument, he claimed my arguments would mostly rely on the "BS artist" Lloyd Pye I cited evidence from Craniofacial expert Dr. Ted Robinson Afterwards my opponent claims "My opponent is just going off of a random dude with no background in science's interpretation" Conclusion I explained that the more Recent DNA tests are more reliable than the older DNA tests conducted when ancient DNA recovery was new. My opponent gave no reason why the first DNA test is more reliable. I gave abnormalities of the Starchild skull that my opponent was unable to give human deformities that could explain them all. Hydrocephaly and progeria can"t explain shallow eye sockets or missing brow ridge. Since the Starchild skull has physical abnormalities that can"t be explained with human deformities, and even more features that are rarely caused by human deformity, in addition to the fact that current DNA tests show it to not be human, it can be concluded that the Starchild skull is not human.
The Starchild skull is human

I think when deciding the winner of this debate we need to look at what is most likely. Is the Star child skull which appears human, was found along side other human bones and had human DNA human or some other creature that has yet to be discovered or is quite possibly an alien and human hybrid? SHAPE OF THE SKULL My opponent has claimed human skulls don't look like that. I've shown that when you look at the Peruvian skull shaping practices along a few rare diseases that could contribute to the skulls shape being a little odd. I've shown that in fact a lot of people as much as 5% don't have sinuses and when you combine that with the fact many people don't develop them until later in life the fact that an odd shaped skull coming out of and back from the time frame when skull shaping practices were widespread isn't surprising. As far as the Xray my opponent provided as new evidence in the final round I have no ideal what I'm looking at. I'm not a doctor I doubt most of the voters are. I have no clue how to locate sinuses in an Xray. To be honest I'm not completely sure what a sinus is. DNA ANALYSIS I've shown DNA evidence where human DNA was recovered from the starchild that indicated the starchild descended from a native American race. My opponent has failed to show why the DNA tests confirming the skull is human is wrong. He merely speculates it is because later tests had a harder time recovering it. The later tests despite being slightly more advanced had a more difficult time recovering DNA because exposure to multiple X-rays actually degrade DNA and make it harder to recover as I explained and my opponent offered no rebuttals for. As far as the mutations are concerned I've explained how Mr. Pye likely misinterpreted the data because he is just an ancient astronaut theorit reading papers recording a science experiment. Neither me nor my opponent have access to this paper. My opponent is just going off of a random dude with no background in science's interpretation. While I'm going off of the interpretation of somebody wih a background in science. It's unfortunate that all this data is 2nd hand knowledge and not easily accesible to the public, but that's the way it is. CONCLUSION Let's apply a little common sense here. The Skull is by all appearances to the plain eye an oddly shaped human skull. Taking into account the Peruvian skull shaping practices as well as at least one rare disease affecting the shape of the skull and not to mention 2 DNA tests that recovered human DNA from the skull. It can easily be concluded that the skull is human.
The Starchild skull is human

False Dilemma My opponent"s arguments rely on the idea that if the Starchild is not human then it must be either alien or a human alien hybrid. This is a false dilemma. There are millions of animal species that have yet to be discovered, and it very well may be the case that the Starchild is one of those species. The first time scientists saw a platypus, they assumed it was a hoax [3]. But it turns out bizarre creatures do exist despite it being hard for some to believe. hybrids are not human My opponent stated if the Starchild skull is a human alien hybrid, then it is still human. This is false. For example, mules are hybrids of donkeys and horses [2], but mules are not donkeys and mules are not horses. Therefore if the Starchild was an alien human hybrid, it would not count as human. Sinuses My opponent"s source does not say that 5% of humans lack sinuses. It states 5% of people lack frontal sinuses. " The frontal sinuses are just one type of sinuses humans have. And as you can see in this X-ray, the Starchild skull doesn"t have any sinuses. Peruvian Skull My opponent made an argument that basically boils down to: P1: the Peruvian skull is human P2: the Peruvian skull is more deformed than the Starchild skull C1: It would not be surprising that the Starchild skull was human I will argue that P1 is false; the Peruvian skull is not human. DNA evidence shows that the Peruvian skull has mutations in its mitochondrial DNA unknown to humans. [1] This alone might not be considered proof that the Peruvian skull is not human, but my opponent must prove it is human in order to use it as evidence for his arguments. DNA Tests Something that is important to know is that the DNA recovery is a recent science. The human genome wasn"t recovered until 2003. And ancient DNA (like DNA from the Starchild skull) is even harder to sequence since DNA degrades over time. The only DNA tests that can give any support to the Starchild skull being human were done in 1999 and 2003. My opponent was unable to give a more recent DNA test result that supports the Starchild skull being human. Scientists have gotten a lot better at DNA recovery since then, and it is malicious to insist that those earlier DNA tests results were accurate when much newer DNA tests say otherwise. My opponent accused me of misinterpreting the mitochondrial DNA results. My opponent"s source agreed that 342 base pairs produced no significant similarities. If your mitochondrial DNA is not human, then your mother was not human, which means you were not human, since mitochondrial DNA. It had a significant amount of non-human DNA so it was not human. The results were not misinterpreted. [1] http://www.ancient-origins.net... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...