BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Developed Coutries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change.

To begin with, the definition of developed countries is incorrect. A developed country is a highly industrialized country. Your first contention states that developed countries are largely responsible for climate change. However, this is a broad generalization. Many of the countries that contribute to climate change are still developing because of their large debts. Also, there is a generalization that every country release a significant amount of of CO2. My opponent's case focuses on global warming rather that climate change. My opponent is ignoring that climate change is also caused by uncontrollable changes in our orbit around the sun and solar emissions. My opponent's second argument is that Developed countries are the only one's with capabilities to act on climate change. However, most Developed Countries do have a large national debt. We need to focus on the country's success before fixing the world. His last contention states that the greatest impact will come from when the largest emitters of greenhouse gasses make reductions. However, again this is a huge generalization. Not all developed countries release a signifigant amount of CO2 or even can afford to mitigate the effects of climate change. Your example of the US is irrevlevant. The United States cannot afford to cut back on the use of nonrenewable resources. You provide solutions that are inconvenient. For example, what if you live far from work, or couldn't afford organic foods. My opponent states that cooling the ocean floor only costs $14 billion. However most countries, with a massive debt cannot afford this. For example, take my previous argument that Norway is in a national debt of $644.5 billion. Shouldn't the country try to fix itself before fixing the world? The Norway example does not support the Pro argument. He states that it is more of a reason mitigate the effects of climate change. However, isn't it more of a reason to fix ourselves before the world. My opponent conceptualizes the view of how to mitigate the effects of climate change without providing a valid solution. Obviously $14 billion is not cheap and we should not invest in the world when our own country has economic issues that are not caused by Climate Change. Moreover, the action to mitigate climate change is more of a moral right to an individual rather than a country.
It is Probable That God Exists

Microsuck wishes to revisit a debate I was forced to forfeit last time, so I will re-issue this debate. I will be arguing that it is probable that God exists. Note that I am arguing for God's probability. This means that I do not have to prove it beyond the shadow of a doubt, just that I have to show how it is probable God exists. God will be defined as the Judeo-Christian God, an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being. However, due to space limitation I will not be able to make the strongest cumulative case possible for the existence of God. So that Con will be able to adequately respond, I will choose two or three of what I consider to be the strongest arguments for God's existence.
Morality is not Relative

I do not agree, morality is not relative because morality is just a term that is used for approved social conducts that a given society will approve or disapprove therefore, therefore all society will have some sort of moral codes they will establish for their time that one should live by. You argue that what is right for one person may not be right for another how can you assert this position if morality is relative. That would mean that we have more than just one set of moral codes so therefore which to choose from? what do you mean by: " Therefore, morality is relative to society" that does not make any sense. Then, you say that morality is a matter of opinion but who's opinion you are referring to?
Morality is not Relative

Morality is a set of rules on prohibitions dictation what is or is not permissible in terms of harm. Each culture has their own moral code and own morals that they follow. Moral tolerance, which is acceptance of another persons actions and beliefs, is something that should be accepted worldwide when talking about this situation of moral relativism. Many people believe that morality is relative to society. 1.Morality is just a matter of opinion to each culture in different societies. 2.What one person may believe is "right," a person in another culture may believe it to be "wrong." 3.Having one moral code for every person and culture around the world to follow is something that is not relative. 4.There are various codes and rules in each culture, but one is not "more special" than the other one. 5. Therefore, morality is relative to society.
Morality is not Relative

Following up on the topic of "morality" and based on the readings that we covered in class, I will use author W.T. Stace"s essay to establish my argument that "morality is not relative". First, I will define "morality-; in class we identified morality as a set of rules that prohibits or dictates what individuals can or cannot do in term of harm. If morality is not relative, then it means that it is not changing. Therefore, it is absolute. By absolute I mean to say that it does not matter what the conditions are because there is an universal moral standard that applies to all. 1.Only one true and valid moral code exist (94.2) 2.That means only one morality exist for all men (94.2.11) 3.Those who believe that morality is relative cannot use the word "standard-(96.4-5) 4.Because "standard- used by an absolutist means only "one" and if used by a relativist it means more than just "one-(96.4-6) 5.If we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which "one "is the best.(93.1) 6. We cannot because we live on a planet that has an undefined number of existing societies. 7.Therefore, morality is not relative because if it were we would not be able to define its limits. (93.1) By using W.T. Stace"s essay I have concluded my argument that morality is not relative because morality is not something that changes from one day to another instead it remains unchanged for all because all existing civilizations have one universal moral code they share in common.
Morality is not Relative

To your argument, "all men live under one moral code that means whatever one is not approving then the other will thererefore, some way some how there will be a common ground for all and this is what I argue that morality is not relative if we have a common ground if you say that one is right and somebody else say that this is wrong then what does that say about this "thing"? There is not going to be a common ground for every single argument, if two people do not agree on something and have complete opposite opinions then they will never reach a common ground. in the readings we have done in class we see that each philosophers see things differently and they show that there are examples that there is not one moral code but rather multiple moral codes. One is not right and one is not wrong, but there is more than one. We just need accept the fact that there are different moral codes and keep an open mind to these different moral codes and standards that exist today.
Morality is not Relative

you still did not answer my question what does morality has to do with difference in opinions. what is it that you're saying that morality is based on opinions/feelings or what? all men live under one moral code that means whatever one is not approving then the other will thererefore, some way some how there will be a common ground for all and this is what I argue that morality is not relative if we have a common ground if you say that one is right and somebody else say that this is wrong then what does that say about this "thing"? It just say that it is neither right or wrong and that obviously we will reach a point where we will agree on just one thing. therefore again morality is not relative you cannot changes moral codes from one day to another how can we exist if every single day we have to go by a different set of moral codes that everyone has to follow? So imagine everyday you wake up and oops there go another moral codes added to the millions of moral codes that you will have to follow how is that possible and how can you live that way if morality is relative than that means that whenever someone wants to change their mind about something they can just change moral codes already establish and there it is. that is absurb! then you say that we do not need to determine if we do have just one moral standard but rather we should accept all moral codes that currently exist how can we do there are an infinte number of societies existing and can we investigate this matter.
Morality is not Relative

you say that all morality does is define behaviors that a society feels at the time, how do you define what a society feels at the time? One day it can be one thing and the next it can change and be something completely different. If you were to have one moral code it would be the same every single day all around the world in every single place. You state that my example is showing that there is not one moral code that we go by, because there isn't. There is more then one moral code that everyone around the world goes by, and it is defined by their society. In your argument you state that there is only one true and valid moral code that exists, where did this one true and valid moral code come from? how does everyone around the world know about just this one true and valid moral code? Who made this one moral code the ultimate one that everyone is to follow? In your argument you state that if we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which one is "best", we don't need to determine that, we can accept all of the different moral codes that exist around the world.
Morality is not Relative

Referring back to my argument Only one true and valid moral code exist (94.2) 2.That means only one morality exist for all men (94.2.11) 3.Those who believe that morality is relative cannot use the word "standard-(96.4-5) 4.Because "standard- used by an absolutist means only "one" and if used by a relativist it means more than just "one-(96.4-6) 5.If we argue that there is more than just one moral standard then how can we determine which "one "is the best.(93.1) 6. We cannot because we live on a planet that has an undefined number of existing societies. 7.Therefore, morality is not relative because if it were we would not be able to define its limits. (93.1) what I have paste above is again to reiterate my point that we all have one moral standard if we did not than how else can we exist in the world. all the word morality do is defining behaviors that a society will approve or not approve but the definition of the word itself does not change what changes is what a society feel at the time therefore what is morality based on feelings or behaviors? I ask. Why should we put outhere that morality is relative when it is not! you have not proven your point to me. You expressed this to me: " For example in parts of the world it is seen as "right" to kidnap a bride who you want to marry. Here in the United States we do not see that as "right" but instead as illegal, because you are taking someone else against their own will. This shows that there is not one moral code that we all go by, because if we did all go by the same moral code everyone would believe that this is something that is "right" and everyone would be doing it. But just because one society will kidnap their brides in some part of the world does not mean that morality is relative it only means that at this time and age those individual are following a culture that they think is right for them but nowhere does that prove that morality is relative if so how's so,
Morality is not Relative

All societies do have some sort of moral codes but they are not the same for each society. For example in parts of the world it is seen as "right" to kidnap a bride who you want to marry. Here in the United States we do not see that as "right" but instead as illegal, because you are taking someone else against their own will. This shows that there is not one moral code that we all go by, because if we did all go by the same moral code everyone would believe that this is something that is "right" and everyone would be doing it. You say that that morality is not relative because we would not be able to define its limits, but each society already has their own limits of morality set in place, but these limits vary from one culture to another. You referenced W.T. Stace's essay and concluded that morality is not something that changes from one day to another but instead remains unchanged for all because they share one universal moral code. Each society sets moral codes and moral standards that are right for their society and right for their culture. Each society has their own opinion that they are entitled to, and their moral codes come from that opinion. If morality is "just a term" then why is it so important all around the world?
Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

Short rebuttals: Solar energy only works during the day, whereas wind/hydro works regardless of time. This add up and is more efficient. The potential energy is not the same as the actual. These may damage ecosystems but not much. The adjustment to the roof slope, etc is needed for solar but for none else. The word superior considers many factors, like cost, time, and accessibility. I have already proven how it is more cost effective in my first argument. It is true that solar power might last a billion years longer, but again, consider what happens during the night. Accessibility means where systems could be installed and how easily they could be obtained. Wind works on land and at sea, and hydroelectric takes up no land space. But 90% of solar panels are installed on roofs.
Wind/Hydroelectric is Superior to Solar

byaka2013 Pro I apologize for the lack of terms. I was in a rush. Anyway, here goes: Wind first- According to https://greenfuture.io...... wind energy costs way less. And it works whenever there's wind (almost always) compared with solar, working only during a clear day (not night). They generate significantly more electricity than solar panels, which may not fit to every roof. Wind is a more efficient power source than solar. Compared to solar panels, wind turbines release less CO2 to the atmosphere, consume less energy, and produce more energy overall. In fact, one wind turbine can generate the same amount of electricity per kWh as about 48,704 solar panels. Turbines can additionally be built offshore, and is far less of a potent pollutant. http://homeguides.sfgate.com...... claims hydropower is the least expensive alternative energy source in the US. Again, hydroelectricity has a more constant power supply and can function throughout a whole day. There are several other uses for hydropower such as recreation resource reservoirs. Solar is not quite as reliable and is too expensive and too precise in necessary attributes.
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

I will accept your challenge. You bring up some very good points for Personalized education and I will admit, that the pace of the classroom can be a big problem. However I must state the fact that a big part of school is getting kids ready for the real world. With personalized education people may learn at their own pace, but in the classroom, kids can get used to working, in groups, or being behind. In a job you can't always work at your own pace, their are often deadlines that you have to meet, and in a classroom it allows for students to start to get used to this. Students could get used to working at their own pace, and won't be ready for the reality of a job. However in a classroom there is much more stress, and it is much more job like. While it is very important to get kids to understand what they're being taught, it means nothing if they aren't prepared for the job environment. I say classrooms are better because it gives students the ability to start becoming used to being behind, and have deadlines, and other factors that they will have to face when you get to a job. In personalized education, this is much harder for students to get used to as much of this stress is taken away.
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

By classroom education, I am referring to the k-12 school system where people are grouped into a class of a few dozen, and a single teacher instructs the class with a few hour long sessions per week. By personalized education, I'm referring to something like KhanAcademy, where the student is allowed to progress at whatever pace they wish, and can jump ahead or spend more time with topics. In both cases, a syllabus should be presented to the student, and there should be testing. Students would be given material to learn, and they have to prove they learned it. An advantage in personalized education, is that a student can be forced to have to understand a topic before moving on, whereas with classroom education, even if some people do not understand the topic the entire class moves on anyways. With personalized education 10-20 minutes can be used for instruction and they could be rewatched as necessary. With classroom education, sessions of an hour on a certain topic are held, and are often not recorded and people may not have adequate notes taken, or given to them. Classroom sessions are often not as productive as a 10-20 minute videos, as evident in many testimonies found in comments left on such videos. That is why I am on the side of personalized education, also known as the Digital Aristotle. Interested in debating?
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

Last round, so you will be getting the last word. I may not have made it clear that I'm arguing from the point of view of personalized education taking place in an actual classroom. Did you check out my sources? There are plenty of examples of Khan Academy being integrated into schools and working [2]. The sources were in the comments but I'll post them again below. I'd encourage you to watch all 3 of these videos before responding so we are on the same page. Unless you can describe any sort of schooling experience that is limited to the old style of education in a classroom, and cannot for any reason take place in a classroom that uses Khan Academy, then you do not have a valid contention that (2)"personalized education can't prepare people for jobs in ways that group education can". Again please refer to my sources so you understand exactly what I mean by "personalized education". (watch from 8:00 to 9:30) [1]http://www.youtube.com... [2]https://www.khanacademy.org... and from that list, in particular: [3]https://www.khanacademy.org... Thank you
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

My point is still valid. That of Personalized Education will not properly prepare people for a job. That is something you haven't really refuted, I still think personalized education is more laid back, but that's not my main point here. While it is good to allow students to work at their own pace, it is important to prepare students for the stress and difficult times of the workplace. Classroom's prepare students for the workplace better, if students do not learn how to deal with this stress, then having a good education will mean nothing.
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

You have it backwards. You are claiming (1) Personalized education is more laid back than group education. Group education can only go as fast as the slowest learner; the slowest learner will allow the fastest learner to take a nap in class and still get a 95% average. If the learning pace is set individually for each student though, then all students can be pushed at the fastest pace they can handle. Group education is actually more laid back.
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

The top percentile will not always be on top, eventually in a classroom they will fall behind, and then be able to learn how to catch back up then. In personalized education there is on falling behind or catching up. So students don't have that option to be able to learn how to catch up, which is a part of a job. It comes down to the point that it doesn't matter if students are able to take their time and be able to work on their own pace if they are not prepared for the situation which they will face in a job, and personalized education just does not do a good enough job of getting students ready for a job, while the laid back approach will help them work at their own pace, it will not allow for them to get used to the less laid back and more stressed world of jobs.
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

It a classroom setting, not all of the students will be able to learn the skills they need to be able to catch up when they fall behind. The students in the bottom percentile will learn how to cope with being behind, but the students in the top percentile will be uchallenged and the classroom pace will actually be too slow for them. So in effect, this helps the bottom percentile but harms the top percentile. The kids who learn the fastest will end up getting straight A's and they will actually end up learning bad habits. Since they might not even need to do any study to pass a test or even ace it, they will learn bad habits like procrastination, which will be rewarded by the fact that they still pulled a good mark. If you personalize a child's education path, then you can set them up so that they are always having to put in effort. In classroom education, only the bottom percentile of student get this opportunity. Overall, what I'm saying is that personalized education gives you the chance to push everyone, but group education only allows you to push the slowest learners. If you want to put stressors on the whole class, between personalized education and group classroom education, the former is your weapon of choice.
Classroom Education is Inferior To Personalized Education (like KhanAcademy)

You're still putting students into a much more laid back situation. I was never trying to say we want students to be behind, I was simply saying when they are behind they have the ability to learn to catch up. I a job situation you will not always be caught up and you'll have to learn how to catch up. It's better for students to be able to know how to be able to catch up in class, than in their job. Yes students may learn better in the personalized classroom, but learning the material is only one part of school. Another very important part is getting students ready for a job. Personalized education removed many of the stressors from school that you will have to face in a job. It is much better for students to face these stressors in school than in a job.