BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ignorance Is Bliss

Very few people can be considered truly ignorant in the manner which you have discussed. You seem to be discribing emotional ignorance, or complete self-engrossment, which would be considered either narcissism or sociopathy. Although it does not pertain to the original debate, I will address your argument. You offered no evidence, or even theory, to support your claim that a lack of knowledge and intelligence constitutes unhappiness. Are you claiming that there is an intelligence threshold that must be reached in order to be happy? You failed to consider individuals with genetic or cognitive disorders such as down syndrome. While considered unintelligent by society, men and women with down syndrome are often characterized by their joy. In regards to the second half of your argument, "A person cannot be truly happy if they can't understand and they don't have knowledge." If a person is truly unable to understand and does not possess knowledge, then they do not know that they lack these things, and are, therefore, unaffected. The only case in which your claim could be true is if the person knows that they are not understanding a concept that they truly desire to understand, and experience distress as a result. The knowledge of not knowing is knowledge in itself, and it is knowledge that causes distress. Knowledge that one does not have cannot affect a person because it has not come into a person's consciousness. It does not exist within that person's world. As I mentioned earlier, I believe you have missed the essence of the debate. Ignorance in this case, as I described in my first argument, is referring to philosophical ignorance, not fundamental ignorance. For example, is one who frequently questions the meaning of life happier than one who does not? My argument is that the one who does not delve into the unanswerable questions of life is happier than the one who does.
Ethics of Mass Effect #1 - The Rachni

I decided to start this, much in the same line of bsh1's Star Trek debates, to start a series of debates about Mass Effect. I love Mass Effect not only because of the rich storyline but also because of the tough ethical questions and dilemmas that the game forces you to face down and confront. This debate series is intended to replicate those questions and debate about the proper course of action between the two options that the game presents to you. Background Information:In Mass Effect 1, the story takes Shepard to the planet of Noveria to track down an asari matriarch known as Lady Benezia. She had known ties to Saren, the rogue Spectre who was working for the Reapers, and Lady Benezia likely knew where Saren was or what he was up to. After you defeat Lady Benezia, you discover that Saren and Lady Benezia's work on Noveria was to produce a rachni army.The racni were a previously believed to be extinct race of bug-like creatures. In the past they were the cause of the Rachni Wars, a bloody war that claimed millions of lives and forced the Salarians to uplift an entire race to galactic power specifically to fight the Rachni and force them beyond the edges of known space, known as the Krogan. The Krogan were believed to have eliminated the Rachni, extinguishing the species entirely. But, as the game reveals to us, a single egg remained on a derelict ship in deep space. It was the egg of a Rachni queen, and Saren's plan was to use that queen to replicate a Rachni army to use for his deeds.After defeating Lady Benezia, Shepard comes face to face with the Rachni queen and must decide whether to release the Rachni queen from imprisonment, or to kill the Rachni queen. Leaving the queen there wasn't an option: the facility was in ruins and leaving the Rachni there for Saren to return and get was a bad idea. The Resolution: Shepard ought to release the Rachni queen from captivity rather than kill the Rachni queen.A few rules:1. The debate is a comparative debate between the two positions of release and kill. The burden of proof is split between both positions. Both sides must advocate for why their position is the correct ethical choice. 2. The debate will center within the confines of the information you have available within that game. For example, knowing that if you release the Rachni queen, you will later run into the Rachni queen again in Mass Effect 3 cannot be used as it is outside the scope of the information known within that game and within that decision specifically. 3. As much as I'm known for being one, kritiking the topic is against the rules. I want this to be an honest, earnest discussion of ethics in relation to Mass Effect, and would prefer to stay on track if at all possible. The debate should be impossible to accept. If you would like to take this debate, leave a note in the comments section and I will choose someone in a few days.
Christianity Is Stupid

Christianity is stupid because it is based on the Bible, which is nothing more than a fairy-tale. 1. Prophecies The Bible is like your neighborhood tarot card reader; it makes a bunch of predictions that fail, then brags about the one that didn't. For example, in 2 Peter 3, Peter claims “scoffers” will come and deny Noah's Flood and the Creation story. Obviously, nobody is “scoffing” at Noah's Flood, so this is bunk. Then in Ezekiel 11:17 & 28:25, and Jeremiah 30:3, “God” makes the absurd prediction that the Jews will one day return to Israel and reclaim it as their own: another bust. 2. Acts of God Remember all those amazing things the Old Testament describes God doing? Like parting a sea so people could cross, sending plagues to the Egyptians, and wiping out the perverted cities of Soddam & Gomorrah with fire? Why don't we see any of that kind of stuff today? Oh yeah, because those types of things never happened in real life. I might change my mind if God, like, sent a plague to wipe out gays or something. 3. Science This one is simple: the Bible is easily disproved by science. For example, scientists have used the Scientific Method to prove people evolved from apes and all life shares a common ancestor. I'd like to see some “Young Earth” quack make a valid scientific prediction and have it actually come true. Also, Science has conclusively proven that a human embryo is not a person, yet most of Christianity (the Catholics) call this clump of tissue a person and even say it's murder to kill it! 4. Cannibalism Ok this beef is mostly with Catholics (but I feel it's a valid point since most of Christianity is Catholic anyways). They say Jesus was talking in analogy when he said to eat his body and drink his blood, but if Catholics would actually read the Bible verses, they'd see that Jesus clarified it was just a parable and he wasn't really promoting vampirism. Good luck to my opponent. He'll need it!
Prisons Should Segregate by Race

hope for a civil debate. Now what is the main idea of this debate? This is whether we should have segregated prisons based on race. Now the segregation is not based on race but more of gang violence. Look at the Aryan Brotherhood. Being the nations first major white supremacist prison gang. I am not assuming there white supremacist ideology." It's criminal organization. We need to be clear on that. Is there racism? You bet there is racism. Is it dominant? No."Ex-AB leader Michael Thompson. Following from this quote a former Aryan Brotherhood leader admitted the Aryan Brotherhood being a white supremacist and criminal organization. Now how is this relevant? The Segregation prison will reduce race wars. Gang violence will reduce since they have less gangs to attack. Look at what happened. There has been multiple times where a northern Mexican meets a southern Mexican in the mess hall. Let's say things were unpleasant. This is less about race and more of gang violence and racism. A inmate is more likely to share his cell with a person with the same race and ethnic group than there is with one without it. "In instances where the matter was pushed by staff, they would have to physically force the inmates into the cells. This resulted in a massive administrative hassle as the situation is considered to be a "calculated use of force." This required notifications to people in high places who didn"t want to be irritated, a video record of the incident, sometimes delays in count and significant impact to prison operations, including overtime costs." says by Bob Walsh. It's pretty clear. The segregation of races and ethnic groups is less about race and more about the safety of the guards,inmates,and race relations. Sources and Cites: https://www.splcenter.org...... https://www.correctionsone.com......
Animal Cruelty is morally sound

Con, your last argument is 100% wrong. If you are a vegetarian you must be an animal abuser. Did you not see the graph I posted in the comments? Animal cruelty as defined by wikipedia: "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon any non-human animal, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." Wikipedia There is no kind way to make the statement I'm about to make. You sir or madam are an animal abuser. You have indirectly caused suffering and harm upon non-human animals for purposes other than self-defense or survival. If you eaten eggs, milk, cheese, or any other animal product within your lifetime you have endorsed animal cruelty. Do you think those egg laying chickens and dairy cows simply appeared out of thin air? No, they were born. Born from parents who were mistreated and spent their entire life in captivity. What happens when the chicken or cow is spent? It is slaughtered. You don't need to eat eggs, milk, or cheese to survive. There are plenty of healthy vegans. As I see it anyone who eats eggs or milk has caused more animal cruelty than Cecil the lion's killer. What is the difference between a cow, chicken, and lion's suffering anyways? Can you honestly look at the humanemyth.org pages and tell me you haven't endorsed animal cruelty? The parents of the egg laying chickens and dairy cows. The field animals killed in harvesting the livestock's feed. I see it as hypocritical to be against animal cruelty when you openly admit you are a vegetarian and thus help cause animal cruelty. You might as well slaughter the egg laying hens yourself. On the other hand, I'm alright with animal cruelty. I am not a vegetarian nor a vegan. Yes, there is animal blood on my hands. Yet, you haven't answered the question. What makes animal cruelty wrong or unjust? I say might makes right. Humans got nuclear weapons and lots of other weapons. Also humans' ability to cooperate. " But in addition, we are intensely interested in what other people are doing and thinking, and this is something the cognitive psychologists have come out with pretty clearly in recent years, that people are superb, all of us geniuses, at reading the intentions of others in order to get cooperation, to develop dominance, bonding and so on. And that is what is called social intelligence." NPR.org http://freefromharm.org... http://www.humanemyth.org... http://humanemyth.org... http://www.bbc.com... http://www.npr.org...
Animal Cruelty is morally sound

"I like animals, so it is not morally sound." Con I like trees. What gives you right to infringe upon my freedom and seek justice against me while still upholding your freedom and right to mistreat trees? What gives you the right to go to the store and purchase paper products which endorses the paper industry? An industry which cuts down, kills, and then turns the tree's corpse into paper for you to use at your convince. What right do you have to plant, raise, nurture, kill, process, sell, buy, use, own, and neglect living trees generation after generation? What gives you the power of life and death over plants? To genetically modify plants' DNA. Overriding my preference for you not to mistreat trees. Simultaneously reinforcing your preference for me not to inflict animal cruelty upon non-homo sapien animals. Overriding my preference to abuse animals. I state it is not morally sound to genetically modify trees. "Monsanto and its spinoff ArborGen have also set their sights on genetically modified trees and grasses." Friday, April 27, 2012 by: Tony Isaacs http://www.tappi.org... http://www.naturalnews.com...
gay marriage should be legal

Thanks to pro for the debate. As regards pro's argument, he hasn't changed it and, as such, it still remains invalid. Even given that there is no reason to restrict the liberty of homosexuals (which I haven't challenged in this debate), and given that marriage of any kind is cultural, it does not logically follow that the state should hand out gay marriages. Pro would have to have added some other sort of premise to make it work deductively. Either way, by not handing out marriages to homosexuals the state isn't prohibiting our limiting people's liberty at all. Being unmarried isn't a restriction, so his first premise doesn't support his case. The second premise (marriage's being "cutural") without some sort of additional premise doesn't support the argument that same-sex marriage should be handed out by the state. As for my argument, pro hasn't successfully challenged it. Pro appears to be denying that homosexual relationships and heterosexual relationships, as such, have any intrinsic value or good. If that's really the case, then it's hard to see why the state has any duty or obligation to give marriage to anybody, let alone homosexuals. The state doesn't have to give value to something without any value. Pro also continues with the claim that my argument counts as being in discrimination. I'm happy to call it discrimination, so long as we go with the first definition found on his website (. http://dictionary.reference.com...) which is "to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things. " I've given an argument to show why my discrimination doesn't count as unjust discrimination. Pro even admits, "No one is saying that the two marriages are the same. " But that's just to grant my premise 3, that the two are not equivalent in nature. Given that premise, and 4-8, which he has left unchallenged, the concusion logically follows, meaning that my argument is sound.
gay marriage should be legal

My argument will be based on two contentions: 1) liberty is a default position and 2) marriage is not natural. 1) Liberty is a default position in that we assume liberty unless given ample reason to place restrictions on it. In short, we give liberty and freedom the benefit of the doubt. This is not to say that liberty is unlimited. 2) Marriage of any kind is cultural and, therefore, unnatural. If there could be any kind of "natural" relationship between men and women, it would be one of promiscuity because we are not biologically monogamous. I would conclude, therefore, that these contentions affirm the resolution. If we accept 1, then we must have ample reason to limit freedom, and if we accept 2, we must acknowledge that there is no biological, or natural, basis for marriage. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle

My opponent's finesse deserves applause,but the ultimate justification is flawed:Why is he in the right when he displacesin a world filled with uprooted races?By what criteria is the permissibility weighed?When the conflict arises, who receives aid?The aggressors, or the defenders in every case?If so, then any borders can be erased.So, where does the right arise?Is this land just a tournament prize?And, if it's an adornment for the strong,Then there's no question of right or wrong.History does not justify this occupation,There's nothing at the root, no ultimate causation.When the naked truth is that might makes right,Why debase and dismiss our fight?So long as our people remain barred from their landsas we are faced with bigotted reprimands,so long this state is based on ethnic majority,there will never be peace, healing, and amity.Peace can be accomplished through the destruction of a regime,which relies on ethnic identity as a central theme.Destruction of a people is not a goal.We seek the shattering of that people's control.We fight for an equal share of determination,in what ought to be a unified nation.
Israeli/Arab Conflict Rap Battle

A land without a people for a people without a landA wartorn, weary nation sought a home in barren sand.They made the desert bloomPeace denied by Khartoum,Assailed on all fronts; threats always loom.A brave little nation, caught against the sea,Fighting for a people fleeing inhumanityAt least that's how the story goes:Noble spirits versus implacable foes.The joyous homecoming of a people cast asideBeating back an inhuman, hostile tide.But willful blindness can hide so many facts:When the Jews were without a home, how did my people act?Jerusalem in ruin, it's people expelled.Umar marvelled at the ruin he beheld.He called this city's people to its freshly broken gatesthrowing them open, he invited these expatriatesfor the first time in centuries to walk their city's ways,denied to them for generations, for their refusal to obey.Ever a safe haven for the abused,Our empires have nurtured the oppressed, the diffused.It was on our shores that Judaism flourishedEven as, in Europe, it struggled, malnourishedSo in our darkest hour, how were we repaid?Our people are expelled, our, leaders betrayed.Western powers who divided Arab landDrew an all too hasty line in the sand.A Jewish state was founded, out of their 'charity'Which meant the exile of our people for their majority.They war is portrayed as offensive,Our aims as expansive.But war is never avoided, just postponed to our disadvantage.In our fight to have an oppressor disbanded,We are cast as assailants of a heritage.This narrative is prevalent,Omnipresent, yet fraudulent.The land was not without a people:The explanation's oversimple.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) Monogamous relationships still stands true and dominant in society over polygamy and is more accepted in most religions. 2.) Monogamy still builds a stronger bond of trust over those in polyamorous relationships. 3.) Because my opponent has failed to prove their point on how the trust is better in a polyamorous relationship, my point stating how a relational trust is undermined by sharing that trust with a third person still stands. Simply stating that polygamy has a better trust bond than monogamy without proof doesn't necessarily means that it's true. 4.) Love should have a foundation of trust and openness between two people because by adding the factor of a third party, it destabilizes the relationship by introducing feelings of jealousy, danger, and betrayal. This point still stands because simply stating that monogamous relationships have these negative feelings as well without backing it up with reasons doesn't make my opponent correct. 5.) In response to the reasons mentioned by my opponent in premise 5 in the 4th round, people in polygamous relationships don't automatically stay happy and won't be open to change. It's the same thing. It can go both ways. People in polygamous relationships can be unhappy and have a fading love while monogamous relationships can be romantic and plentiful. Also, there is no proof or facts that people in polygamous relationships are less likely to grow out of their lifestyle. Which is another reason why my original premise 6 still stands. 6.) Therefore, it's impossible to romantically love more than one person at once.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) Self-expression, romantic love, and polygamy are three different entities. A person can express themselves without the aspect of romantic love. Romantic love is much more than just self-expression, and it doesn't always have to include more than two people. This new definition of romantic love that you mentioned is a bit odd to me. Anyone can expose their feelings and personality to anyone; that's a common social tendency as human beings in modern society. I can express my personality and feelings to my friends but that doesn't mean I want to have a romantic relationship with any of them. This definition sounds a lot like a platonic love, which is possible to have with more than one person; romantic love however, is not. 4.) Just because one person can change their views from monogamy to polygamy doesn't always mean that the other partner will also. As I mentioned before, a relationship builds on trust, but it also builds on understanding and agreement. If someone agrees to be in a monogamous relationship they agree to be with that other person only. I agree that it is possible for someone to change their minds in the future, but everyone has a different outlook on their preferences and it doesn't always have to end with including a third person. Relationships don't work that way. If a person really cared for their partner, they wouldn't completely change the relationship just because of their own selfishness. 5.) I disagree. Polygamous relationships always comes with a feeling of jealousy and anger regardless of their trust or what they've agreed to in the beginning. People participating in polyamorous practice are sharing each other and it's not possible for all partners to be loved equally. Trust is stronger in a monogamous relationship because there is no sharing involved; Partner A has Partner B and Partner B has Partner A. All the love and affection is split evenly between the two partners. 6.) These feelings actually can ruin relationships because of the fact that we're human. Although people can agree to be in a polygamous relationship doesn't mean that the feelings will just go away. Anyone can get jealous of another person, anyone can feel danger in a relationship and anyone can be betrayed by others. Just because a polygamous relationship and it's terms may seem clear at first, doesn't mean the person will actually go through with it to the end. 7.) You can't give feelings of romantic love and call that a relationship, it needs to be reciprocated. Otherwise, that's just a crush. The goal of a polyamorous relationship isn't to just find as many people as possible and love them, there's way more to it. This other definition of polygamy is also weird. Does that imply that if you are not romantically involved with more than one person then you aren't living life? Sure, some people actually live that life, but that doesn't make polygamy acceptable or possible.
Is it possible to romantically love more than one person at a time

1.) I disagree. It is possible to romantically love more than one person at the same time. Romantic love is when a person exposes his/her feelings through self-expression and personality, attracting more than one person. This person can attract and accept more than one person in his/her love life. 4.) I agree with the fact that trust is built on a monogamous relationship, but there could always be a situation in which one partner simply changes their views on their partner or what love really means to them, and they involve another person in their lives at that point. Monogamy can turn into polygamy, it is possible. 5.) Polygamy reflects on openness; Trust is stronger in a polygamous relationship because all romantic partners are aware of how their love is being spent, and they are fine by it. 6.) Love partners are understanding of each other, although feelings and emotions get the best of us because we are human after all, these feelings will not ruin relationships that are open and clear on what everyone gets out from it. 7.) To romantically love more than one person means to live life in the moment and give as much feelings of love to as many people as possible. This is actually how some people live and what some people actually do believe.