BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is Grounded in God.

It is an honour to debate felixmendelssohn may it be critical and educating. Defeating the first Syllogism: P1: I agree. P2: I agree P3: I have two takes on it. The first is that "religious differences" in moral oughts are based on factual errors brought up by such religion, For example, Some radical Islamic extremist believes that women do not have souls and thus aren't and so oppression of women is right. However, This same group believes that oppression of what they call human is intrinsically wrong. The Second take is that I believe there is a difference between Theism and Religion. Theism is the belief in a Deity of a supernatural entity while Religion is that plus all the institutionalized practices etc that come with Theism such as the Jewish Passover or water baptism in Christianity. So P3 is not sound and thus must be rejected so P5 and P6 fall apart. Defending P1 of Dr. Terrance Cueno's argument from Epistemic Realism: First I would like to remind my opponent that Epistemic facts are almost identical to moral facts. Both are prescriptive not descriptive take the example of intellectual dishonesty and moral dishonesty which I presented in my first round. Both are verifiable using the verifiability principle found in logical positivism. How do we know that there is an objective moral law? Dr. Frank Turek's argument from moral reactions is a great example. Consider the action of stealing. You may not believe that stealing is wrong but what is going on with your moral intuition the moment someone else steals from you? You believe Something's wrong. My opponent's objection is based on a misunderstanding of what epistemic realism is. Defending the P1 of the argument form Experience: The point of this argument is that no one can live the life of a relativist and that our intuitions and desires and beliefs inherently point to the existence of a moral code that we did not make but that instead we simply discovered through evolution and critical discussion. Also, My opponent makes the assumption that people don't take into the account of a round earth when doing things like building a house. I would invite my opponent not to use the Round Earth as a rebuttal to the argument from experience. Defending P1 of the argument from Moral progress and convergence: What? My Opponent seems to not understand what am talking about. I have argued that apparent moral differences among cultures is based on factual errors. When we get rid of those factual errors than convergence can happen by the use of rationality so I do not see the "contradiction". Defending my argument from evil for the existence of God: The ontology of something deals with the things that that of which is being discussed came. An example: B cannot exist unless A existed. Evil the negation of God/Good as you have metion is manifested in rational agents which means God is still universal. Conclusion: My opponent can do better. Try again, Please. Blessings.
Morality is Grounded in God.

Hi, Ill response to Pro in the order he presented. 1. P1. Morality is a rational enterprise P2. Moral Realism is true, Meaning moral facts and duties exist P3. Religions' differences in MORAL OUGHTS are too much for us to assume that morality is based upon theism P4. Premises 1, 2, And 3 confirm that Moral realism is grounded in a source of necessity. P5. The source of necessity cannot be called God Con. Therefore, God does not exist. 2. "P1. If Moral facts don't exist, Then epistemic facts don't exist" == the first premise is false. the first defining characteristic of epistemic facts is that they are verifiable. the second defining characteristic is that they are descriptive. like "energy is a closed system conserves" is both descriptive and verifiable. = = moral facts are neither verifiable nor descriptive. Statements like "thou shalt not kill" are NOT descriptive like "F=ma" but rather imperative. Needless to say, Imperative statements are neither VERIFIABLE nor DESCRIPTIVE therefore they lack the defining characteristic of epistemic facts. Equating the two things that has nothing in common is nonsense. 3. P1. If Moral Realism is false people would not live like it is true == people live like a lot of things are true even when they're not. The earth is round but locally, Its indistinguishable from a flat surface. Thus people behave like the earth is flat. When you throw a ball, You don't take into account the earth curvature to calculate the range. When a house is built, They are not built to "wrap" around the curve surface of the earth, So architect and engineers also build houses based on the assumption that the earth is fact. Another example, People on earth behave as though the gravitational acceleration is constant even though it is not. Objects further away from the center of earth like the clouds, Experience smaller gravitational pull according to newton's law of graviation. 4. "P1. If Moral Realism is false, Moral progress and convergence would not be possible" == Pro contradicts himself right here. He stated earlier that moral is a rational enterprise. He said what drive us to morality is rationality alone but then saying that we cannot converge there unless something else is true. According to him, Moral convergence would be possible as long as we follow rationality. 5. P1. There exist Objective Good and Objective Evil as the two pathways of Objective Morality P2. Objective Evil is the absence of Objective Good P3. Atheism cannot give a basis for the ontology of Objective Morality P4. Theism can == Define "give a basis for the ontology of" "Objective Evil is the absence of Objective Good" == this premise might be translate to logic as "objective evil = negation of [objective good]" but objective good = GOD but GOD = universal thus objective good = universal thus "objective evil = negation of [objective good] = negation of [universal] = nothing"
15% Tariff

I believe that many of the problems the United States faces could be fixed by putting in place a 15% tariff. Many corporations are outsourcing jobs and factories because they can find cheaper labor elsewhere in the world. A tariff would level out the playing field by making up the difference in cost that American based companies have to pay to their employees, causing more companies to stay domestic. America is also facing a problem with soaring deficits. More corporations staying in the U.S. due to a tariff would bring in additional revenue for the U.S. Government. This is not to mention the revenue a 15% tariff would bring in of itself. I have more reasons for a tariff but we will start with these.
The Government Should Not Fund The Arts

I strongly believe that arts have the right to be funded by the government. The main reason that the government began funding the arts (which the idea of creative funding started back the United States constitution itself) is because, it is meant to allow artists to retain the materials necessary to perform their creative tasks that they have undertaken. The government states that creativity is important and essential to a well formed society and allows other parts of the brain (which would otherwise go unused) to be accessed. Also the amounts of money that these artists are paid are very miniscule and more times then not they are "supported" by a tax deduction rather than an actual physical income. The argument stands that if science can be funded to further help mankind in advancing ourselves to understand about our body's, chemical reactions, the solar system etc. Then why can't art be funded to advance ourselves with the use of our creativity and the good our creativity can bring to this world.
The Government Should Not Fund The Arts

The US Government, or any government for that matter, should not be in the business of funding the art industry. For the same reason the government shouldn't fund gas companies or stock brokers, artists should have to prove their worth in the marketplace. Professional artists choose their job like the rest of us (unless you live in a socialistic country). Artists know exactly what the salary and risk is before they choose their profession. The government should not take someone else's hard earned money and give it to someone just because they're an artist.
The Government Should Not Fund The Arts

Hello nypuller, and thanks for accepting my challenge to debate this topic. Let me start by saying I don't agree with your premise that we should even be funding science. There is a clear economic market for both science and art. If you want to be an artist, then you should take that risk just like the millions of entrepreneurs in the country who have to save their money, start a business, and often times go years without being cash-flow positive. We all love pizza, and I hear tomatoes are good for the brain, but again, it's not the US government's role to fund the arts, just like it shouldn't be funding pizza restaurants. If your art is in demand, then people, schools, and other organizations will purchase it. If you create something that nobody wants, then you won't sell it. The problem with government funding, is that all of the garbage gets the same type of funding as the good stuff. The only means to determine art-in-demand, is to let the free-markets decide. We all have to take risks in the marketplace. Artists and scientists should not be exempt from this rule just because of some philosophical point of view. After all, why should I be FORCED to pay you for your art creations? That's my hard earned money, not yours.
God is not real

Yes God is real, the universe didn't start from nothing however god isn't necessarily the god you think of from the bible which I believe is man-made book. I believe in Deism just to clarify http://en.wikipedia.org... a lot of the smartest people in the world believe in Deism Examples: http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Abraham Lincoln http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Albert Einstein(the smartest person of his time and possibly history.) http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Benjamin Franklin http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Isaac Newton http://en.wikipedia.org... --> James Madison http://en.wikipedia.org... --> James Watt http://en.wikipedia.org... --> John Locke http://en.wikipedia.org... --> Neil Armstrong The effects we acknowledge naturally, do include a power of their producing, before they were produced; and that power presupposeth something existent that hath such power; and the thing so existing with power to produce, if it were not eternal, must needs have been produced by somewhat before it, and that again by something else before that, till we come to an eternal, that is to say, the first power of all powers and first cause of all causes; and this is it which all men conceive by the name of God, implying eternity, incomprehensibility, and omnipotence. "Thomas Hobbes, Works, vol. 4, pp. 59"60; quoted in John Orr, English Deism, p. 76
Video games encourage violent behavior

It looks like my opponent is a glutton for punishment. In today's round, I will disprove the notion that "Video games encourage violent behavior." First, the job of the instigator is to prove that video games encourage violent behavior. My opponent only list one event to suggest this. Keep in mind that during this event, they two boys played a VIOLENT VIDEO GAME. Now, onto his argument. He suggest that the Columbine massacre was caused due to both Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold both being fans of the video game listed as Doom. My opponent is either guilty of ignorance and dishonesty, as this valid assessment points to their psychological problems being caused by other factors: http://www.slate.com... . In fact, the following quote sums up their reasons for committing the school shooting: "These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority" (by the way, the specific rantings are listed in the article). I would like to add that studies performed have actually suggested that video games have an even LESSER effect on the aggression of an individuals than television does: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com... Finally, given that the video game industry is very beneficial to the entertainment industry, logic suggest there are quite a plethora of individuals who buy and play video games. If that is the case, shouldn't there be far MORE incidences of violent behavior as we've seen with the Columbine catastrophe? At any rate, my opponent has not provided you with valid evidence that would suggest that video games (not just ones that fall under the violent category) encourage violent behavior. Since the burden of proof belongs to him, the contender automatically wins this debate. Thank you.
A Resource Based Economy is better than Free Markets

Hello I am new and this will be my first debate here.Statement: A Resource Based Economy is a better system than Free Markets in the long run.PRO will agrue why a Resource Based Economy is better in the long run.CON will argue why a Free Market Economy is better in the long run.Definition:Resource Based Economy is an economic system where currency/money is no longer used and the entire earth and its resources become a common heritage of all humans.All human beings have equal access to all resources and necessities of life.Round 1-AcceptanceGoodluck!
Is homework good

Hello there, please forgive any grammer issues as this is my first online debate. I do think homework is good. The reason I think this way is because it is intended as a means to keep the learning of a subject fresh in the students mind for as long as possible. It also gives parents opportunities to further connect with their childs intellect and provide their own insights and ideas thus helping them progress through difficult situations with perhaps an alternative option of solving a problem. I'm long past the age of homework now (don't laugh) but I know I hated it, I know it seemed like a chore and a waste of time but I do believe it helped shaped my intellect for the better in grown up years.
Is homework good

Ok just so you know this is just a debate I'm doing for fun and if I don't argue back I got bored Ok anyways I think homework should be abolished just ponder this 6 hours a day 5 days a week 10 months a year every year till they get a job is that not enough there's a difference between giving work because it's not done but just popping up and saying here do this worksheet even though you already talked about this for 6 hours(just and example high school is worse) if they have all thier work done let them be free not having to sit down doing more work they already had 6 hours of work seriously
Is homework good

Homework is not intended to last you several hours. They base home studies on your evaluated intellectual level. If it is taking them all night to finish a piece of work then either they have left everything until the last minute (exactly what I used to do as a kid) or they are struggling to grasp the homework's concept. The latter proves a lack of understanding which is good because they can focus on improving that particular module with a teachers aid. Kid's typically have more than enough time to themselves after they complete homework if they are not having problems with it. But having problems and sorting those problems out is a part of your personal development.
Pandavas were the rightful heirs to the throne of Hastinapur

Thank you for your argument.But I'd be remiss if I didn't clarify my stand in this argument to you. I am against the belief that Pandavas had any right to inherit the throne of Hastinapur. Basically, I am of the view that Duryodhan WAS the rightful heir to the throne. From your argument, you have only substantiated on my viewpoint. You have posted all your arguments in my favour. Hence, I request you to read the topic, your side and my argument at least once.Thank you.
Pandavas were the rightful heirs to the throne of Hastinapur

Hello!Through this debate, I wish to challenge the highly decorated belief that the Pandavas were the rightful heirs to the throne of Hastinapur. I am of the opinion that the Kauravas instead were the ones who deserved to rule the throne.It is my simple argument that once you renounce any power/authority/status, you lose all rights to command any sort of control over it. Building on the aforementioned argument, I believe that when Pandu renounced the power to rule Hastinapur and his brother Dhritarashtra was crowned the king, the latter assumed all rights to rule the kingdom in any way he wanted, i.e., he became the ultimate owner of it. As a consequence of that, naturally the sons of Dhritarashtra would hold the rights to inherit the kingdom from their father.I firmly believe that it was wrong of Pandavas to even demand any stake to the throne of Hastinapur.I would expect the following from my challenger, Response to my argument Any other argument that he/she may deem fit Thank you.
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

< > saying that they are all "no good rotten scoundrels" leaves 2 possibilities: 1) You're over exaggerating and by saying they should ALL commit suicide you are asking for good, loyal people to kill themselves. This would be wrong and in this case the "best" thing to do, even in your mind, would to kill only the "bad" people. 2) If every single one of the couple hundred people in Congress are "no good rotten scoundrels" then its likely there are more of these people. If they all die, then they have to be replaced by other politicians. It is very likely that at least some of these people would have the same values and the point of the previous Congressman committing suicide would be nullified. I will refute the rest of your arguments with the following resolutions. Resolution 1: Cycle You claim that Congress is corrupted and because of this that they should all kill themselves. Congress will just be replaced by new politicians appointed by the state governors. If a corrupt politician can get ELECTED into Congress by fooling millions of people, it is very likely he get APPOINTED by fooling one governor. Because more corrupted officials will be in Congress the point of the first ones dying would be nullified. Resolution 2: Corruption My opponent claims that the reason the Congressional members should commit suicide is because they are corrupt as a whole. My response is that if hundreds of corrupt people can be elected then the chance of one corrupt person being elected (the President) would also be very high. My opponent seems to think that we should not have a Congress at all, this means that the President can create and pass laws at will. If that one person is corrupt, there is no majority to block his ideas and so many laws could be passed that harm the majority and only help a minority or the President himself. Resolution 3: The Best My opponent claims that Congress killing themselves would be the best option, or better than any other possible options. He says this is the best option because Congress is corrupt, wouldn't a better option be for the Congressional members to NOT be corrupted? If they aren't corrupted, then there's no reason for them to kill themselves and them "adjourning" wouldn't be the best option. They would be able to keep a corrupt President in place and also be able to pass laws that would actually help out the U. S. as a whole. Summary: The biggest hole in my opponent's argument is that he claims that the deaths of all the Congress members would be the best possible option. Since we can't ever know the best possible option, my opponent's argument is a logical fallacy. I've already shown that his idea would not work in the least and the consequences of his idea. In the next round my opponent needs to answer my resolutions. Good luck.
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

Please remember that it was my opponent actually believe that the President can pass laws in the absence of Congress who demanded detail. OK but remember: You Asked For It. By "adjourn" I mean "commit mass suicide." These are all no good rotten scoundrels and the world will be far better off without them. They have conspired with Big Bucks to plunder the planet, ransack the economy and make enemies around the world. They have sold out the people of the planet and the planet itself for a few dollars which they are also rendering worthless with their insane ruinous economic policies both here and abroad. But we have to consider the cost of operating Congress also. And note that during "Spring Recess" is when all the lobbyists gather like locusts. This is where the damage is done. Well what a fortunate time we debate in. Congress is just returning from its recess. Before I finish my argument they will surely provide amusement for us. Keep your eye on http://voices.washingtonpost.com... as the debate proceeds. On day one sure enough we are already into major trouble. Tim Geithner is testifying, or I should say lying, before TARP to add to the $13t already given away to the rich. If this money were given to the poor they would all be millionaires now. http://www.moneyandmarkets.com... Health Care: More money for the rich http://www.BigBig.info... The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 http://www.heritage.org... And that was just the major damage the first day. Day Two: Nothing happened. This is good. Let's look at what's ahead: http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Spend lots of money on Climate Control. http://www.foxnews.com... Local businesses cooked up this one to hamper Internet sales. Tax Internet Sales and spend more collecting them than they bring in. Just as long as it slows down Internet sales that's fine with them. http://www.foxnews.com... Health Care, Banks, Education and Energy See my opinion at http://www.BigBig.info... $83 billion for more insanity in Iraq and Afghanistan. This will do more damage than can ever be repaired. Rest my case. Look at the http://www.lonestaricon.com... suicide rate. As the pool of at-risk veterans increases, the suicide rate, now 260 per year by government=damnlie sources, will also increase so total suicides goes up exponentially. Anti-mortgage-fraud measure Fast track to bankruptcy Banks and credit card companies stop raising rates Christopher Hill To Be Ambassador To Iraq http://newledger.com... Kathleen Sebelius To Be Health Secretary http://www.foxnews.com... Restrict Bonuses if company receives bailout money. Comic relief. FDA regulate tobacco products instead of ban them like they should have done long ago. Streamline railroad freight operations for the benefit of large corporations. Eliminate gun control in DC. A terrible idea but why not let the people that live there decide? Hello? How many centuries do they have to ask for it? Give DC one vote in the House. What??
The best thing Congress can do is adjourn

I confirm that I am CON against the resolution. For my opponent to win this debate he must prove that every single other option is worse than Congress adjouring. Adjourn: to suspend the meeting of (a club, legislature, committee, etc.) to a future time, another place, or indefinitely: to adjourn the court. (http://dictionary.reference.com...) I assume that my opponent means indefinitely, if not please specify in the next round. < > You got that backwards. They actually tax the rich more and then give it to the poor through government handouts. ::CONTENTION 1:: CHECKS AND BALANCES The system of checks and balances is what makes the U.S. government so successful. Without this part of our government one of the branches could easily take full control. Congress has the duty of making and passing the laws. Normally the President will suggest laws to Congress who will then make them up and vote on them. Without a Congress a President could pass laws at will as long as they weren't considered unconstitutional. This would upset the balance of powers and overpower the executive branch. ::CONTENTION 2:: THE BEST How do you know the best option? I see no proof that adjourning is the best option. If you are against the spending, then the best option would to stop the spending. If something else, please specify. That will be all for now. I await my opponent's rebuttal which will hopefully be in more detail than his opening argument.