BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is being "dumbed down"

No Wikipedia No adding new arguments in later rounds No profiles that claim they are 100 years old. Nobody under 18. No word games. No playing with semantics. No vague definition of words. If you use a word that can have several meanings, make it clear what you actually mean. Texting has encouraged young people to stop caring about spelling and grammar. Ur, U, B4, Y and other "abbreviations" are even showing up in student school papers. http://www.suntimes.com... Religion is hindering the advancement of science. Almost half of Americans don't accept evolution as a fact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... More people watch the Super Bowl than the State of the Union Address. On Jan. 25, 2011, only 42.8 million viewers watched Obama give his third State of the Union address. By contrast, more than 111 million Americans watched the National Football League's Super Bowl, between the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers. http://uspolitics.about.com...
We should have African slaves again.

Okay, I am pretty sure this is a joke but for the sake of debate, let's pretend you are serious. 1. That's racist. Why? Because you are targeting only one group of people for slavery and implying that Africans are no more than equipment to be exploited which is inhumane. It is not the 18th century any more. 2. Now your argument is that they are farm equipment and should be treated as such but let's look into this: Definition of equipment: the necessary items for a particular purpose Definition of farm equipment: equipment that is used or intended for use in farming operations, including any combine, tractor, implement, engine, motor or attachment Thus farming equipment is the necessary items used for farming. Slaves are not necessary for farming, for one you can pay them which is a humane solution as well as a legal one. Plus, agriculture is moving more to machinery and human workers are losing jobs to machines that can do them better and faster. Reverting back to slavery is immoral, a waste of time, and quite inefficient. Going back to slavery is a hit on the economy too so even if you don't think it's immoral, it is still going to have negative consequences.
cause and effect is logic

If "know=Physical experience" then the empiricist epistemology behind cause/effect is valid. Is any cause and effection relation "logic?" I think this goes against "know=Physical experience" of opponent, which states that if we don't have physical experience, we won't "know" so to say. So if cause and effect is "logic" so to say, and then "know=Physical Experience," since logic is necessarily a priori then we don't know cause and effect, because we have no physical experience of it. Hence, negation!
cause and effect is logic

FRAMEWORKThis debate is about the concept of causality. The opposition has taken the rationalist approach to the problem, saying that in essence, cause and effect is "logical" i.e. so to say, cause and effect is known through "thinking about it" alone. Before I go on with my arguments, I would like to define several terms.The definition of "Causality" is the principle "that holds between two temporally simultaneous or successive events when the first event (the cause) brings about the other (the effect)"By logic, what is meant here is that everything "logical" can be proven a priori.Hence the BoP of the opposition to prove that the concept of causality is indeed known a priori, whilst my baseline is that the concept of causality is known a posteriori. ARGUMENTS1. Cause/Effect is proven A PosterioriWhen Thomas Palley made his Watchmaker Analogy, in his highly influential yet very dogmatic work Natural Theology, he necessarily attempted to, via analogy, show that the universe must have been designed, as it is perfect. However, several future philosophers, Hume included, simply refuted this upon one ground: we have an idea of a watchmaker. We do not have an idea of a universe-maker. This is ultimately the very disproof of cause/effect.Cause and effect is rooted in our inductiveness-we cannot prove that for "a cause" there is an "effect" in a priori terms. This is because, perhaps, the a priori realm does not need cause and effect. Only we can experience cause and effect, and cause/effect is an empirical thing on these regards. Since all notions of cause-effect depend upon a synthetical a posteriori claim of something i.e. "when I fart, the room smells", to prove cause-effect using a priori methods will result in necessary confusion.REFUTATIONSThe opponent talks about a pragmatic case for cause-effect which is merely apart from the point. The resolution remains NEGATED!
cause and effect is logic

there is no logic in fantasy logic is absolute if you are lost in the forest and hungry, and you pick up a mushroom and eat it, does it matter what you think is going to happen if the mushroom is poisonous? logic is determined by matter, not by your thoughts.. you crazy person :) you cant read these words on the screen with your eyes closed, cause and effect, absolute if apples became poisonous today, and everyone was aware of it, would it be right to give kids apples if we wanted them to be healthy(logic)? and even if we didnt want them to be healthy, would it be right to give kids apples(morality)? logic+(and)experience of it=(is)reason(the concept, mental simulation of logic) reason+intent=morality
India becomes a great country in future.

India has great potential because of its love and respect for animals. Also, India is non-violent due to the principle of Ahisma. [0] Also due to the fact that Hindus see all life as sacred. "3. All Life is Sacred As all of life is created by God, all life is sacred. You should not harm any creature " and particularly "Holy" animals, such as cows, which represent the selfless love of God to its people. Indeed, one should not even think or speak badly towards others, due to karma." [1] As I see it India is being beaten up by stronger more violent factions. Although in the short and medium term India's future may not be that bright, I have high hopes for the long term. People are getting fed up with animal abuse. Factory farming is losing popularity. Vegetarian is gaining ground slowly but surely as more scientific articles point towards the health benefits of vegetarian. Sources 0. http://www.bbc.co.uk... 1. http://www.hinduismbeliefs.org...
India becomes a great country in future.

India cannot become a great country in it's future. The present situation in India is very worse. As compared to other countries, india is very poor in many fields. The leaders of India are selfish and could not develop it. I think that the state of India worsens in future.Many leaders like Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi etc. imagined the future of India very nicely but their imaginations are wrong. India could not develop until it's people becomes unselfish and think for India like of great indian lovers.
Jeannie Crutchfield wasn't justified in treating her daughter, Ricci, the way she did.

I believe that Jeannie was justified because she is the parent, and free to punish her daughter as she sees fit, within the parameters of the law of course. You stated, "A normal parent wouldn't surge through the school and chant after her daughter." to this I say there is no such thing as a normal parent. I would go a step further and say good for her mother, at least she cares enough about her daughter to get involved, I do not feel she was doing it to be malicious, I think that this is an example of a mother teaching her daughter one of life's great lessons, that there are consequences for your actions. Your profile states that you are 22 years old though I find that very hard to believe based on your responses in this debate, and that the only other debate you are in is over whether Minecraft or Roblox is a better game. I am not saying that she is Mother of the Year, but she clearly cares about her child, even if she has a funny way of showing it.
Jeannie Crutchfield wasn't justified in treating her daughter, Ricci, the way she did.

Although speculation can vary, the parent attacked Ricci like a bully regardless, whether Ricci was schiving for reasons like to 'smoke pot' or for reasons like bullying. A normal parent wouldn't surge through the school and chant after her daughter. It is morally wrong and doesn't help her child's cause. 'Teasing' and 'bullying' are basically the same in today's society, as some children can't deal with negative energy whether it is from acquantance peers or friends, either way if they are uncomfortable with it, it should be eradicated. Although, yes, I was a little ridiculous with "I would run away from home forever", I believe that if your family isn't there to support you with your problems and needs, why should you continue being part of it? Especially when, in some conditions, you could do a lot better without such bad parenting.
Jeannie Crutchfield wasn't justified in treating her daughter, Ricci, the way she did.

Do we know the reason she was skipping school? No of course not, we do not have all the information, though you can not hold a debate on speculation alone. You can not admit we do not know and then make up your own speculation as to why she was ditching. I could just as easily suggest that What is "maybe" she was skipping school to have unprotected sex with her boyfriend? would you not agree that teen pregnancy is also a huge problem in children's lives these days? But these types of arguments hold no water which is why they are best avoided. Bullying and Teasing are two different things, it is not inevitable that she will be bullied, though it is likely that she will be teased, she was caught there were consequences. I never said she would not do it again, merely that she may well think twice. You say yourself that you are guessing. "if I were treated like that by my Mother, I would run away from home forever" Such a ridiculous statement, life is harder than you are aware.
Jeannie Crutchfield wasn't justified in treating her daughter, Ricci, the way she did.

You say that "she may well think twice before doing it again", but do we know, as the audience, the reason why she was ditching school? Her mother accuses her of ditching with her friends in the video, but her friend seems dumbfounded at this allegation. What if she was ditched school on her own because she wanted to miss a certain class where she got bullied? Bullying is such a huge problem in children's lives, especially in the American education system, that it may lead to a child not attending school. I'd like to ask you this: posting this video will inevitably lead to Ricci being bullied, so how can we be sure that she won't do it again? Her mother was being a bully herself, and I am guessing Ricci wanted somewhere to be alone where she wouldn't feel cornered by her family or the bullies at her school. I would like to say now that if I were treated like that by my Mother, I would run away from home forever, for what is family if you can't offer sympathy, wisdom and advice?
Jeannie Crutchfield wasn't justified in treating her daughter, Ricci, the way she did.

Jeannie Crutchfield was completely justified in her actions, perhaps not the way I would have handled it yet justified just the same. Jeannie did not break any laws whatsoever, and handled the situation the best way she knew how. I have 5 children of my own and can attest that there is no magic book with all the answers, I am sure most parents have searched for it. I am pretty sure that her mothers actions have shown the daughter that there are consequences to her actions. There is clearly not enough information from a three minuet and one second youtube clip in order to know the entire story. Yes her mother is acting childishly though I believe that childish behavior is actually a mockery of her daughters childish behavior. Lets not forget that the daughter was the one ditching school, and these were her consequences. She may well think twice before doing it again.
Jeannie Crutchfield wasn't justified in treating her daughter, Ricci, the way she did.

Watch video: #t=49 I believe that Jeannie Crutchfield's actions were unjustified and, if I am honest, childish. I believe that she doesn't appeal to her daughter's interests and can lead to bullying and other problems in the child's future. I believe that Jeannie Crutchfield doesn't act as a mother in this family by outing her daughter's problems publicly. She doesn't act a role model and puts her daughter off having the incentive to work. Crutchfield acts as a bully!
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

You just conceded your whole point. You admit that all calenders in use today are secular, and that all God says is that a day be set aside for worship/rest. No one is disregarding the 10 Commandments. A day of worship is still set aside by those who practice this religion, correct? Does it really matter to God if that day happens to not be the seventh day according to a secular calender? I think not. I think he cares that we set a day aside to rest/worship.
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

Yes, it is true that there were secular calendars, including our midnight based Gregorian one is among these. But the principle of setting aside a day of worship is not. God explicitly inserted it into the 10 Commandments, which now lie in the centre of the Ark, which was a symbol of His Presence, the holiest relic ever put on the face of the Earth. Do you also beg to differ that the commandments regarding idolatry and adultery should be removed as well from Christian fundamentals? What does matter is the principles that correlate with the command- a defined work ethic, and a specific time set aside for God. Disregarding these for a mere humans tradition is not at all in the spirit of the Bible.
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

While I could care less, I have a hard time agreeing with you because I seriously doubt that God would care if the day of rest is on "The Seventh Day", or on "Sunday". Besides, is not the measure of time, and the labels we put on time, i.e. days, months, etc., a secular principle? Why would god care is we rested on "Saturday" or "Sunday"? To challenge an establishment based on the reason that you are arguing is foolish and useless.
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

So far on debate.org I have kept to debating politics and an assortment of other issues, but have continually kept away from issues of Faith, despite the importance it plays in my life. I've seen a lot of broad philosophical views of religion- usually a direct a shallow confrontation between Deists, Christians and Atheists. But for the purpose of this debate, I would like to instead debate a fellow Christian of any denomination in a particular point of doctrine. Please keep in mind that for the purpose of this debate, one is encouraged to use the Bible as a reference and way of backing up your arguments. The point of doctrine I have chosen is that of "Shabat", that is the Fourth Commandment, which allocates the seventh-day as a memorial to the majesty of God's creation and intends it to be used for rest and worship. Among more observant Jews, this practice is continued to this day. Meanwhile, for some reason, Christians (which seem to acknowledge indisputably the other nine commandments) ignore it, believing it no longer theologically viable or that the day of the Resurrection has somehow taken precedence over the eternal sanctification of the Sabbath. There were many fundamentals among the Judaic religion before Christ's time. Although it is generally perceived in the Christian community that many of the 603 ordinances were part of a setting-specific legal code that is malleable enough not to be continued in today's society, the 10 Commandments were written on STONE and placed inside the MIDDLE of the Ark, wherars the ordinances were written on PAPER and placed at the SIDE, signifying they were not as important as the stone tablets. Now, when Christ came to this world to fulfil His Mission, He manifested a fresher bout of theological thought and made fulfilled many parts of the Law, namely replacing the sacrificial system with Himself, but explicitly recorded such amendments. If he were to take one of the oldest and most directly explained fundamentals of the Church, and replace it with a Sunday sabbath or none at all, would one not assume He would have clarified more than the vague scriptures used by opponents of the Sabbath? Rather if one is to study Church history one realises that the Early Church did congregate mainly on the Sabbath, and kept it as Christ had. It was only when Constantine tried to bring politics into the Church by appeasing Sunday-congregating pagans that it became common practice. Looking back, is not a more sound theological descison to respect the Word of God (the 10 C's were the only thing actually written by God in the Bible) rather than a human tradition?
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

You offer only the bible as your only source for evidence, yet you to fail to realize that the bible was written by hundreds of people, full of contradictions, and was put together by the Romans. I would hardly consider this a legitimate source by anyone's standards. Secondly, you say that God's day is Saturday. Again, where is the word Saturday mentioned in the Bible? You downplay my interpretaion of the Bible by saying that I twist its meaning. Yet you are offering an interpretation. Are we to believe that you have some divine insiht into the meaning of the bible that the rest of man kind lacks? Also, you say that God specifically commands Saturday be his day of worship, yet Saturday did not exist until the Gregorian calender, how is this possible? I again assert that the meaning of this command is that we observe a day of rest every seven days, not on a specific day that has a specific name that didnt exist until 1300 years after the command was given. By resting every seven days, we are still recognizing that God rested on the seventh day. Are you saying that God rested on Saturday? Though there was no one on earth at the time inorder to keep time? Marke the date? Write the word down?
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

Sigh... Yes the Gregorian Calender is recent but it is based on the seven cycle established at Creation by our Lord, a cycle that was affirmed both by Moses and Jesus so that we know no days were lost or miscalculated. Also, God is very specific that His Day is Sabbath, and specifically dubs it to be Saturday, as it was in the begining. What you think God means is a very malleable idea that can be twisted any which way, so why is it that one would replace the commandment of God, and act of love and obediance towards your Creator, for a personal preference or human tradition? T he Sabbath is a sign between God and his people, a symbol of the rest they shall enter (Hebrews 4), and is described to be celebrated in Heaven (Revelation 21, i think) so we know God did not intend to have it made obosolete. Thank you.
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

SSORRY, ACCIDENTALLY POSTED THIS IN THE COMMENT SECTION............ First of all, only a fool would do EVERYTHING the bible states literally; the Bible condones slavery, are you saying that it is a biblical tradition to have slaves? Your entire point about the seventh day is self imploding. You are basically that the calender in use today considers Saturday to be the seventh day. The Gregorian calender was enacted in the 1500's thousands of years after the Ten Commandments, and after the rule of Constantine. That being said, the seven day week has only been around since the 1500's. Based on these facts, how can a set of commands command you to do something (rest on the seventh day) if the seven day week cycle that exists now didnt even exist then? Sure they could have rested once every seven days, but they did not know what the seventh day was in relation to the other days, just that it was every seven days. Basically, if they got their days mixed up, they could not refer to a calendar and fugure out that it was the seventh day. Secondly, the concept of a seven day calendar was not intruduced until the 3rd century. Again, how could god give a commandment to worship on the seventh of the week, if the week did not exist until the 3rd century? Before the 7 day week, thee was an 8 day week. Finally, who is to say that Sunday is the "first" day of the week? Why cant it be the third, forth, first, second? If you say that that is how the calendar is designed, then you have just proved my point. You will be saying that the calendar did not exist when god gave the commandment and thus those who worshiped before the enactment of the 7b day week that we know now were unable to follow it. Besides, the Bible says that we should remember the seventh day. Doesnt Sunday fall every 7 days? I think God means that every 7 days, we should rest and worship. No matter if it is in Mondays, or Saturdays, or Wednesdays.
The Christian day of worship and rest should be the seventh-day, not Sunday as is common.

No I have not conceded my point- just the opposite in fact. The seven day cycle has been continous, and Shabat was a time estbalished by God pertianing to rest rest and worship. In the Torah, and the 4 commandment specifically, Sabbath is defined as the seven day, sunset to sunset. Since it is so very specific, why is it we Believers have disregarded it en masse? If one belives they have the authority to alter a Divine Decree and replace it with "a tradtion of man", than one should seriously consider why one is doing such. And if Ancient Israel, Jesus, the Early Church all practised such a celebration as according to the Will, by what authority did Constantine alter this Divine Decree? Moving the Christian day of worhsip to Sunday was purely done for poltical reasons at the time in an effort to fuse together Roman pagans and Roman Christians, but not for proper theological reasons. Personally I would prefer to celebrate in obedinace the decreed tradtion of God, than a polytheist custom.