BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality > Nature

I would think that the idea of morals being created by nature contracts itself. Morality (or at least ones that the majority of humans can agree on) is telling us one thing, while what we see in the current natural world says another. For example, a person may know in his heart (technically, his brain) that killing humans is wrong. Then he turns as sees a predator attack one and eat it. As basic morality and what and what we see in nature contradicts each other so much, I think it is unlikely that morality is set by nature. However, if this is the case, than that means nature itself is falling out of control, and that the most intelligent species it has created (humans) should try to get it back on track. If morality is a system created by humans themselves, then it appears to me that the system we have created works better the original. This is because while nature keeps only the strongest individual alive, a world under the foundation of human morality would benefit all. It is also true that, under this assumption, nature created the human brain, which came up with the morality system. However, I still believe that the morality system, so different to the natural system, is independent. There's also a dark possibility that nature is right, and our minds are delusional and we have created a messed-up moral system. If this is the case, then most of our thinking and logic would go down the drain and we really can't do anything about it (since our minds are wrong). Hopefully, this is not the case. I would like to clarify what I mean by "fixing" and "adjusting" nature. We, humans, would plan ways, build products, and establish order that would turn the world we know it into a new one. One founded of the moral system of man. Just throwing this in, without technology, this would be a hard task (not that it isn't a hard task to begin with). Let me state that our moral system is most likely not perfect (which is why there is so much disagreements, change in moral codes, etc. ). But it is a next step forward towards a Utopian universe. :)
The United States should continue with offshore oil drilling

Once again, RougeFox puts forward an outstanding argument for affirmation. I thank him for the time and effort put in to debate this important topic with me. In response, I would like to simply make the following points: 1. My opponent makes an argument that we should not waste seepage. That is fine. I would even agree with that, but offshore drilling is not required to capture seepage. Therefore, the argument is not valid. 2. My opponent claims I need sources for our declining need for crude oil. I already cited his very own source, so it is completely admissible in this round. His source, a doctor in the field I might add, raved about his electric infused car. He claimed he hardly ever had to convert over to gas, and finally exclaimed that they are a thing of the near future. I believe this absolutely affirms the declining need for crude oil. 3. I never said anything about not still using or needing oil. I simply am saying that offshore drilling is not necessary to meet our needs, and is only hindering our future, and our children's future unnecessarily. 4. While we can certainly research alternative energy while offshore drilling, I am simply answering my opponent's argument for the need to continue offshore drilling. If the money were not spent on offshore drilling, and converted to alternative energy, it would eventually make up much more than the 30% my opponent argues so admirably for. Why wait? That is argument against supporting offshore drilling. I feel like my argument is sufficient for a con vote. RougeFox has proved, once again, to be a remarkable opponent. Thanks again. I hope it was enjoyable for the readers as well.
The United States should continue with offshore oil drilling

I will begin with the reasons why I think that the voters should affirm the resolution. 1. Dependency. The United States already depends too much on foreign oil, and, for the reasons I stated in my 1st round, dependency is bad. If we stop offshore drilling, which accounts for 30% of our domestic oil, we will become even more dependent. If we continue, we will prevent dependency. 2. Economy and Jobs. My opponent has not really refuted this point effectively. I showed how many jobs that are provided from offshore drilling jobs, specifically, in the Gulf of Mexico. These jobs are extremely important, and many people along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico will be affected if offshore drilling were discontinued. 3. Environment. I provided sources on how offshore drilling helps improve the environment. If oil is naturally seeping, it doesn't make sense to waste a limited natural resource. I would like to briefly respond to my opponent's points. 1. Offshore drilling is not good for the environment. I showed how in some ways, it is good. Also, it is not very bad. Even with the large BP oil spill, I provided sources showing that the impact was smaller than most perceive and the oil evaporated and dispersed rapidly. 2. Long Term Dangers. Previous oil spills have not had devastating long-term effects. Also, most of the oil evaporated and dissipated so the damage has already been done. 3. We are technologically advanced. This claim really needs some sources. If we were really technologically advanced enough to rely on fossil fuels, why do we use them so much? Why is oil in such high demand if we don't need it? Do we not need gas. Do we not need plastic? If we do not need oil, then why do we use so much? ( see . http://www.nationmaster.com... ). We, right now, are dependent on oil, and we need to harness as much of it as we can. We can't discontinue because alternative energy sources are not viable and my opponent has not provided any. He can't in his final round because I would not be able to refute it. I would also like to clarify that alternative energies are not mutually exclusive. That is, we can still drill offshore while researching alternative energy sources. I think I have met my burden of proof because I have showed how offshore drilling has many more benefits than negative effects. It helps solve dependency, it provides jobs and employment, it can help the environment, and it is necessary for us to use oil.
The United States should continue with offshore oil drilling

As expected, RougeFox does not disappoint in his previous round. Another well argued round, however, I intend to quickly put one argument to rest. My opponent says the BP spill was not much worse than natural seepage, and in fact claims that offshore drilling actually has a positive effect. While this would be fantastic, it is not true, and I will use common sense to prove it. This natural seepage has been occurring for years, right? Of course it has, however, it has not caused hundreds of thousands of Americans to be out of work, and certainly does not cost billions of dollars in economic hardship. To say that the spill was not bad, would basically nullify any oil spill that has ever occurred. This type of thinking is not only false, but dangerous as well. It is common knowledge that crude oil is a negative environmental factor, but if the mentality were to shift, I fear our environment would be put in great peril. My opponent would have you believe that America should decrease its dependence on foreign oil, using offshore drilling. First, there is no proof that this decreases our dependence on foreign oil, as these companies keep massive stockpiles of crude. Second, the whole purpose of this debate is offshore drilling, not dependence on foreign oil. My point is that we need to discontinue offshore drilling, and focus on smarter, cheaper, cleaner fuel for the future of our country and our planet. I promise you, there are more than enough jobs to go around in clean energy, so the jobs created by offshore drilling can be offset following its demise. Fossil fuels are finite, so if we continue drilling, they WILL run out. Then what? Why would we not be proactive in tapering oil use? This should not even be a debate between two intelligent men, but between big oil companies and the consumers who are being taken advantage of. Offshore drilling is great for oil companies, and bad for people, nature, animals, jobs, and our economy. The worst part is that these companies have people advocating their shortfalls with debates such as this one. While I certainly respect my opponent and his opinions, I believe the voters are smart enough to realize these points: 1. Offshore drilling is certainly NOT good for the environment, and any statement to the contrary should be made only in jest. 2. We have not begun to see the long term dangers this can present, and there is no reason why we ever should. 3. We are technologically advanced to the point where we don't have to rely on fossil fuels anymore(or near as much), so there is no NEED to continue this process.(see definition of 'should') In summation of this round, I ask the readers to use logic. As you can see, I have cited no sources in this round. There is a reason for that. We are smart enough to know that oil is bad for the environment. We don't need stats for that anymore. Also, my opponent bears burden of proof, and at this point I feel as though the BOP cannot be met. I still have a fourth round, but until then, I look forward to my opponent's final argument.
The United States should continue with offshore oil drilling

I would like to sincerely thank RougeFox for the opportunity to debate again. The first debate was very enjoyable, but was on a topic of my choosing. I look forward to the opportunity to debate such an important topic with such a worthy opponent. I accept the organization of the rounds, and will start with definitions. Should-ought (to be or do something); Indicates that the subject of the sentence has some obligation to execute the sentence predicate http://www.google.com... Continue-do something repeatedly and showing no intention to stophttp://www.google.com... Offshore oil drilling-Offshore drilling typically refers to the discovery and development of oil and gas resources which lie underwater through drilling a well. Most commonly, the term is used to describe oil extraction off the coasts of continents, though the term can also apply to drilling in lakes and inland seas.http://www.google.com... My opponent assumes burden of proof here, and I will provide evidence that offshore drilling is not only dangerous and expensive, but also puts our environment, animals, jobs, and ourselves at great risk. I will also illustrate other energy sources to alleviate our need for crude petroleum products, in which case there would be absolutely no need for offshore drilling. I will hold my arguments and sources for my next round, as my esteemed opponent will start what I am sure will be a memorable debate. Good luck to RougeFox, and may the best arguments win.
Naruto Vs Goku Vs Saitama Vs Superman Vs Luffy

What up brother how you feeling? You haven't really gave a specific topic to debate here their would be multiple positions and It would get messy. I still have an argument though! Saitama wins only bc he is a gag character and in his anime he gained planet busting feats by only doing 100 push ups, 100sit ups, 100 squats, and a 3km run for a few years. His main appeal is that he can defeat anyone no matter what period. Now Kid Goku was training by dodging lighting and fighting armies of robots and soldiers as a child. Naruto can beat Luffy, Luffy can beat no one here and Goku can beat everyone except Saitama, while superman can beat everyone excluding Goku and Saitama. Here are the rankings I shouldn't have to cite info but I probably will. 1-Saitama 2-Goku 3-Superman 4-Naruto 5-Luffy Forfeit for me please kid.
Naruto Vs Goku Vs Saitama Vs Superman Vs Luffy

Ok the first one to go down would be luffy he is super weak compared to all of them even though i love him he has to go second would be naruto he is very strong he even beat madara and kaguya but superman goku and saitama could beat both of them easily next would be goku he is very strong compared to all of them but saitama can beat everyone with one punch and superman only uses half of his strength he only uses a part of it. and the next one would be superman and the winner would be saitama Explain in more details when you're writing please
immigration is destroying america

I am only going to say one point, to be the most fair to my opponent. P1: Accepting immigrants helps the economy. This would mainly happen in two ways, which I will organize into two sub points. Subpoint A - Creating more jobs. This would happen for both our (referring to the United States) citizens, as well as the new immigrants entering the country. Let me explain. One of the most common concerns from local people is that immigrants will take over jobs, especially unskilled jobs. Immigrants often lack the skills necessary to do higher paid jobs due to different languages and other problems, so a large amount of people coming into the job market can cause lower wages to fall. Although, this is not true. However, in the longer run, immigrants appear to create an outsized role in creating new jobs, and even raising the wages of the locals. One of these reasons is that immigrants appear more likely than others to create small businesses, according to The Washington Post. Michael Clemens is the leader of the Migration and Development Initiative at the Center for Global Development. Clemens says that immigrants are more likely to create small businesses because compared with other immigrants, immigrants are less likely to have a job waiting for them in their host country. Subpoint B - The National Bureau of Economic Research found that immigration benefitted 19 out of 20 of the industrialized countries they studied. Another study by the Social Science Research Network found that a large amount of refugees going into Denmark led the native workers to switch to more skilled jobs and away from jobs that were mostly manual labor. As a result, many U. S. citizens earned higher wages and received better jobs, even with the immigrants also getting jobs.
Jacksepticeye is better than Pewdiepie

I'd personally go for Pewdiepie. Why? It's simple. Pewds over the years has continued to show constant improvement in quality while at the same time producing videos in quantity. His growth rates are solid proof. His content is very unpredictable now of the days. He's moved on from just the typical game play videos and has his viewers on edge anticipating what he's going to release for the day. He's as well really down to earth and really cares for his audience and the YouTube communnity.
Jacksepticeye is better than Pewdiepie

Jacksepticeye is way better that Pewdiepie because he is loud, fun, crazy and out going. He is not afraid to try something new. Yeah, he kind of became a famous You tuber because of Pewdiepie... But who cares! He is still way better. He is liked by many and has amazing potential to do amazing things. One. He is frikin Irish. Two. He has awesome green hair. Three. He was in a heavy metal band. Four. He cooked for his parents.(my friends don't cook for their parents) Five. He has the best intro to his videos.
Assisted suicide should not be a crime.

All my arguments extend. Also to deal with concerns brought up that the value of life is purely from religious sources I would like to point out that so is morality of mercy witch is also a pivotal need in the justification in assisted suicide. If I am wrong on that I haven't seen my opponent contradict that statement this debate. If I have to prove the Immorality/Morality of preservation of life or suicide then it is just as much upon my opponent to have show the Morality/Immorality of mercy for those that are suffering, and the system that is used to promote that claim cannot also support the Immorality of suicide. My opponent though has left the morality mercy just as much assumed as I can ever leave it assumed that the immorality of suicide is self-evedent. I know of no religious takes that does not support both. I do know of a non-religious take that supports the intrinsic value of human life though. http://virtusetvita.wordpress.com...
Assisted suicide should not be a crime.

Now a lot of people can look at assisted suicide as inhuman, uncalled for and many believe that it should be outlawed. Firstly to clarify what i mean by - Assisted Suicide, i mean someone who helps either the patient/person kill them self or they do it them self Some people who are physically or mentally ill are usually incapable or frightened of killing them self, therefore want someone to do it for them. As a liberal society we should look at this from the victims perspective and how damaged they must feel not knowing how long they are going to live? When the pains going to stop? , So why is it taken in such a crude way? . Very few places have legalised assisted suicide, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland and three American states. Many people can find Justifiable arguments why assisted suicide and euthanasia should be illegal, yet alot fail to find real substantial causes to support their argument, Many believe suicide is wrong therefore assisted suicide is wrong, Many question the Mark ( person carrying out the suicide ) motives although in 90% of circumstances they are seen as understandable and NOT an attempt of murder. Why cant the victim have a choice what they want to do with their life? , Its is an individuals choice to decide how they are cared for This includes being able, if they wish, to end their lives because of chronic and incurable pain and suffering. Although there has been many vast improvements in medicare there are conditions for which it can't relieve suffering, such as motor neuron disease, this means the victims life has been put on hold and could be facing living the next years of their life in pain. Im not saying euthanasia/assisted suicide should be use in all cases of illness, but i do believe it should be a choice for people who are desperately ill so they are reassured Death is an option that people should have because death is similar to the options we already have. We are allowed to take risky choices for our own benefit, such as tobacco, or alcohol, as long as we know the consequences of the act. Similarly, choosing death is one form of choice that has benefits with minimal risk, and we do not see why death is an exception. Moreover i know this is a very controversial and opinionated topic but i do believe terminally ill patients and people in ma jor desperation should have the right to able to commit suicide. or atleast have the choice and maximise their limits, Life is now treated as if it is a sanctuary and nobody should violate it and choose death until nature ends your life. However, life is not an ultimate value. The weight of life varies f rom one person to another. In other words, life is just a relative value and thus the right to death can be one of the options for the citizens. I apologize for a very full first round and for my spelling mistakes as mnot on a very good computer at the moment. I look forward for my opponents rebuttal :) -Sources; . http://news.bbc.co.uk... . http://www.coursework.info...
Stretching Before Practice is Crucial to a Dancer's Skills

Stretching isn't crucial to a dancer's skills. Let's take a minute to look at the meaning of crucial: crucial (adj): (1) decisive or critical, especially in the success or failure of something. (2) of great importance Stretching isn't all that important as people make it out be. It isn't crucial to a dancer's skills. It is only crucial and important to a dancer's muscles. Those two are completely different things. If a dancer also exercises and works out, he/she doesn't need to stretch before practice. Even simple exercises, like jumping jacks, is enough warming up.
Stretching Before Practice is Crucial to a Dancer's Skills

My component has mentioned that simply just walking around can loosen your muscles so that you are set for practice. Now here is where I BEG to differ. Many dance warmups and or stretches involve coordination, legwork, extensions, and more. These warm-ups are all important because just like doing math drills can better your school work, stretching improves dancing. Although that is not the point of the issue, it is still very important. Now back to the issue. I believe stretching before physical activity is beneficial for a variety of reasons. It helps increase range of motion, reduces muscle tension, and helps decrease the risk of activity-based injuries. Stretching after exercising is also just as great because it can help decrease muscle soreness! Also, greater gains in flexibility are possible once your body is warm.
Stretching Before Practice is Crucial to a Dancer's Skills

Well, I might not win this debate but here goes: It's not really that crucial because stretching is to loosen up the muscles and joints but as long as you've been walking around or using your arms and legs recently, that's enough stretching. And stretching doesn't affect a dancer's skills. It's not everyone who gets muscle cramps frequently. It's only there as a safety precaution to prevent muscles cramps but aside that, it's not that important.
The Literal Flood Never Happened

I will be using Answers in Genesis for my sources, because I am arguing for Creationism. I argue that these are valid sources, as they provide honest empirical evidence, or source the empirical evidence, and make interpretations based upon the empirical evidence. This is what separates creationists and evolutionists: the interpretation of empirical evidence. ARGUMENTS Noah's Ark Was Mathematically Possible: Creationists claim that only 16,000 animals were on board the ark, and , giving the size of the ark, this is a mathematical possibility (1). Geological Evidence of the Flood: When clams die, their muscles relax, and they open up. During catastrophes, clams do not have time to open up, and so they are destroyed quickly, and remain closed. We find millions of clams all over the world that are still closed shut, showing either many rapid water catastrophes, or one major water catastrophe. (2) Polystrate fossils are fossils that go through nutlike geological layers. This shows how these layers were formed rapidly, not over large periods of time (3). Sediments were moved over vast lengths (4). Sediments in Utah were moved from either Pennyslvania or New York. This vast length of sediment travel can easily be explained by a catastrophic flood moving these sediments around. However, other possible explanations are lacking. We find rapid burials of sea creatures in almost all of the rock layers, specifically layers that are high above sea level (5). This can be explained by a worldwide flood. How could rapid burials be produced non catastrophically on high mountains? CONCLUSIONS I've provided a few examples as to why the flood is not only possible, but likely. I look forward toy opponent's rebuttals. (1) . http://www.answersingenesis.org...... (2) . http://www.answersingenesis.org...... (3) ibid (4) . http://www.answersingenesis.org... (5) . http://www.answersingenesis.org...
The Literal Flood Never Happened

I propose that the literal world covering flood as described in the bible never happened. I shall provide geological and mathematical evidence showing that not only did it not happen, but that it could not have happened. Both Pro and Con have BOP, my bop is to show that the Flood did not / could not happen. Con will have to show that it did / could have happened. !st round: Acceptance and basic review of stance. 2nd round: Arguments (no rebuttals please.) 3rd round: Rebuttals (no arguments please.)