BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
rainbows dnt exist if you are blind

Light is made up of all the colors of the spectrum. Since the sun is immensely bright, you are only able to see a blinding, white light. Once the sunlight reaches the Earth's surface, and is reflected off of bodies of water left over from the rain, it is reflected off of all of these water droplets and an arc of a multitude of colors is shown across the sky. Unless you are deaf, you could be able to learn about it in a science class/presentation/etc. It's a phenomena that exists whether you are physically able to see it or not. Just because about 2% of people cannot see a rainbow (or anything, for that matter) does not mean it is completely void of existence and a figment of someone's imagination.
rainbows dnt exist if you are blind

You can taste the rainbow if you eat a bag of Skittles! Anyways, none of your senses tell you that oxygen exists, or the sky, but they have to exist in order for you to live, correct? Also, a rainbow is a scientific phenomena that happens when sunlight is reflected and dispersed off of water droplets across the sky. Arguing against the reality of a rainbow is quite silly, and you do not need to see it to know that it is real.
Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

There is a difference between "you are wrong about Iraq" and "you are a whore" (attention or otherwise). Whether you can establish it or not does not alter its nature as an insult. I could prove from the evidence in your profile that you are something else that is also an insult (I won't mention it) but it would still be a personal attack if I did so. You have no business determining what my motives were, so stop. I am waiting for you to present evidence that there is a reason to engage in a debate about stumbleupon.com. or one user thereof (4 million users do not change whether it is a pointless website). I saw nothing in there indicating it was labelled as "art." However, dishonesty, while bad in an ideal climate, is not necessarily bad when regarding someone's status as a whore. Various forms of pornography, etc, are or have been outlawed, and could be at any point. Labelling it as art protects the business from governmental whim sometimes. If someone passed a law indicating that all wood would be confiscated, would you regard someone falsely labelling their home as made of stone to prevent confiscation by predatory officials as immoral?
Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

"If your goal was to get the novinha in question to respond, you would have been guilty of violating the rules had you succeeded, because outright calling someone a "whore" once they have established membership would have made you guilty of a personal attack against a member. " "So it doesn't help you much to speak of what "should be" in the rules. " Not if I could prove it was a fact and not an attack. By your logic anything I say about a person they don't like is against the rules. Like "you're wrong about Iraq". "He said I was wrong, that's an attack!" The phrase "attention whore" is not like "poopie head". For one its provable, for two it is not a metaphor for "I think you're a foul person", in fact I don't know the person. But I do know the behaviors she engages in, and establishing whether or not they classify her blog as an attention whore's blog was the whole point of the debate. So if I'm insulting anything it's a web page, not a person. However, if your position is that she isn't engaging in these behaviors, and thus I'm just making a personal attack, then maybe we actually have a debate now. How about we get to it, to make up for all the time you've wasted. "Besides, what are the odds she'd answer? " Zero, now that some ****** crashed my debate. (Maybe the asterisks hide the word "genius".) "Did you inform the person in question that a debate regarding her status had been raised?" Indeed I did, but again since you crashed my debate before she even had a chance to respond to the msg containing the link, who's at fault here? "I did not say the debate itself was pointless, I said the proposition was, there is a difference. I joined the debate because I wanted to dig out precisely what premise could lead you to make such a pointless proposition." No you didn't, you saw an opportunity to wreck something and could not resist. You did not present a shred of evidence for any position you simply stated it. "Is it because you find being a whore to be a bad thing? If so this debate will travel a lot further." No I don't, actually I think prostitution should be legal and I have a deep respect for all sex workers as both needed and honest. Her dishonesty is my problem not the nature of her actions. She conceals her underhanded sales pitch using "art". Which harms both art and porn, which in my view need to be seperate like church and state, or commerce and education. But that is not the subject of this debate. You're trying to divert attention away from your impulsive action. To be specific, crashing a debate you had no intention of participating in and simultaneously making sure no one else could participate in either. The extent of your expression of my position's pointlessness should have been limited to a comment or non participation. Anything else is underhanded, and if not already against the rules, will be as this site matures. But I guess I'm just being insulting aren't I.
Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

If your goal was to get the novinha in question to respond, you would have been guilty of violating the rules had you succeeded, because outright calling someone a "whore" once they have established membership would have made you guilty of a personal attack against a member. So it doesn't help you much to speak of what "should be" in the rules. Besides, what are the odds she'd answer? Did you inform the person in question that a debate regarding her status had been raised? I did not say the debate itself was pointless, I said the proposition was, there is a difference. I joined the debate because I wanted to dig out precisely what premise could lead you to make such a pointless proposition. Is it because you find being a whore to be a bad thing? If so this debate will travel a lot further.
Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

"Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of what Encyclopedia Dramatica would call "s*** nobody cares about," especially on a debate site." What, this isn't a fair subject to debate? I saw someone debating who batman could beat up, so I kinda thought I could debate whatever I like. If this topic isn't stuffy enough for you, go look at my other ones. Besides this wasn't aimed at you, I was hoping she'd answer. If you think I'm silly for debating something so ‘pointless' what does it say about you for volunteering to be involved? "As such, further classification into "attention whore" is wholly unnecessary, especially considering how any attention whore with a brain would not restrict attention to those willing to sign up for a pointless website." Pointless website? Would that be debate.org or stumbleupon.com? I'm confused because I like Debate.org and I would never call it pointless, and Stumbleupon.com has over 4 million users and is growing faster than MySpace did. "I am against your proposition not because it is false, but because it is utterly pointless, establishing nothing of any value to anyone in the slightest way." But obviously it at least has value to you, sufficient to speak on it publicly. I'm always amused by people screaming at the top of their lungs (figuratively speaking) about how little they care despite their willful participation. But in reality when a person doesn't care, they don't do anything. :) So for the record, let me just restate what you've done here, and you can tell me if you agree or disagree. You've joined a debate that you have/had no interest in (which is weird, I mean why join in the first place), that you have no intention of following through on in order to express an opinion about the pointlessness of its nature which could have easily gone in the comments section. Yea it's obvious you don't care, I mean most people when they see debates they think are pointless they do something really crazy, they just ignored them. But then again they're not starved for attention. :) Perhaps since you've ruined this debate we should take the opportunity to explore your status with respect to attention whoredom?
Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of what Encyclopedia Dramatica would call "s*** nobody cares about," especially on a debate site. As such, further classification into "attention whore" is wholly unnecessary, especially considering how any attention whore with a brain would not restrict attention to those willing to sign up for a pointless website. I am against your proposition not because it is false, but because it is utterly pointless, establishing nothing of any value to anyone in the slightest way.
Novinha.stumbleupon.com is a classic example of an attention whore's blog.

According to... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whore "Prostitution describes the act of sexual intercourse in exchange for money. However, its definition may be extended loosely to include any sexual act for any type of compensation; depending on the location where the act occurs." So, if attention is compensation, which we know it is because people pay for advertising, and that compensation is acquired in this case by posting pictures of others or yourself that are of interest for primarily sexual reasons, then technically speaking, what other term fits better?
Euthyphro Dilemma: Morality is arbritary

Honestly, I was thinking about it and was excited just from that. So I wish you the best of luck. But before I begin, I take it we can both make these assumptions. 1) God (the morality-giver) has knowledge, 2) God can rationalize, and 3) God uses logical, rational decisions based on the knowledge that he has. If you object to any of them, let me know in the next round. Otherwise, you can go ahead and present your arguments. Of course, if all your arguments are the ones in round 1, then we'll just cut it a round short and move ahead.
Euthyphro Dilemma: Morality is arbritary

I'll just be addressing two issues. First, "Already many of God's teachings are slowly being pushed away by the secular worldview. Abortion..." Second, "logical" and "rational" as compared with "arbitrary". >> First issue << Very simply, society changes. People's conceptions change. But if something is immoral, societal change doesn't change the morality of it, right? You even said "God is constant and consistent. We, as a society, are not." Thus, since God is the morality-giver (which is an attribute you agreed to), the morality of an act does not change to conform to society's TRULY arbitrary standards. If stealing becomes the 'cool' way to get money, does that make it any less immoral? No. Plain as that. >> Second issue (the more important one) << Pro's term used in describing morality __________________________ arï¿½biï¿½trarï¿½y adj. 1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle [1] ________________________________________________________________________ My terms used in describing Morality _____________________________ logï¿½iï¿½cal –adjective 1. according to or agreeing with the principles of logic: a logical inference. 2. reasoning in accordance with the principles of logic, as a person or the mind [2] raï¿½tionï¿½al –adjective 1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development. [3] ________________________________________________________________________ The key word is in the definitions of logical and rational: REASON. If arbitrary means without reason or not by reason, and logical and rational both imply reason, pro can't say "Logical reasoning played a role in God's law, I am not disputing that, but that does not refute my resolution that morality is arbitrary" Since pro isn't disputing my point, then he MUST be disputing his point. Because, if x = ~y and z = y, then x CANNOT = z. ( the ~ means not in Boolean algebra ) if that doesn't make sense as pertinent to the resolution i'll explain next round, but anyways, we have found the flaw. Hence, we have a contradiction in pro's position. Reasoning cannot be used in an arbitrary manner, it is a contradiction in it's own nature. The burden is now upon pro to resolve this issue. Thanks [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://dictionary.reference.com... [3] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Euthyphro Dilemma: Morality is arbritary

I agree that the moral law has a logical reasoning behind it, but that does not refute the fact that morality is arbitrary. For instance, I looked at your profile and saw that you were con for drug legalization. I'm sure you have a logical reasoning behind it, but does that change the fact that you are con for drug legalization based on your own arbitrary standard? In the case of God, since he is omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator, he created what is good, and what is bad. What is morally good was decided (Created) by God based on his own arbitrary standards. Logical reasoning played a role in God's law, I am not disputing that, but that does not refute my resolution that morality is arbitrary. Already many of God's teachings are slowly being pushed away by the secular worldview. Abortion is now legal, and Gay marriage is working its way up. 50 years ago, both of these things were illegal without question. The Gay Community claims that they were born with homosexuality, and even though there is no biological evidence that there is a "gay gene". I know that I did not choose heterosexuality, I am quite convinced that I was born with the preference of women over men. We can give logical reasoning to justify any of our actions. The fact of the matter is morality is arbitrary by our own standard. If we adopt a theistic view, and choose to believe in God. It starts with throwing away our arbitrary moral standard and submitting to the arbitrary moral standard of God. My resolution stands. Morality is arbitrary, and the Euthyphro Dilemma is negated.
Euthyphro Dilemma: Morality is arbritary

I look forward to this debate as well. Now, seeing as my opponent accepted the aforementioned attributes, I can make my case. >>Knowledge<< This is not so much an argument as much as it is an observation. The point I want to make here is that God understands the physics of the Universe and the system by which it will operate, so he will create it in such a way that there will be an apparently coherent order. This order will be logical such that life won't be paradoxical. --side note: I am speaking out of the view point of my religion, Islam. The reason I gave you that side not is because Islam is based on knowledge and rationality, or at least, has an emphatic stress on it. . http://www.al-islam.org... >>Rational<< Based on the above, we see that order will be the goal we are trying to achieve. Thus, the system of morality that we see is set up as such: 1) Causing harm to another soul is immoral, because of rational provided in the Qura'an and throughout the religion itself, the golden rule, treat others as you wish to be treated. In Islam, it is phrased slightly differently . http://nahdaonline.islamicink.com... "None of you are believers until. .. " 2) Inflicting harm upon oneself is immoral, also justified. Regarding suicide specifically, we have "Allah says explicitly in the Quraan, "And do not kill yourselves. Surely, Allah is Most Merciful to you". (Surah An-Nisa Verse 29) In another verse of the Quraan, Allah says: "And do not throw yourselves in destruction". (Surah Al-Baqarah Verse 195) " . http://www.inter-islam.org... But then, let's talk about other self-induced harm. In Islam, alcohol and pig's meat are forbidden among many others. The reasons? Cirrhosis (scarring of the liver) and loss of brain cells, loss of ability to reason, etc. from alcohol. Pig's meat has been found to be a serious cause of obesity, heart disease (or other circulatory diseases), etc. Before we knew the science behind how this works in our bodies specifically, it was already outlawed in Islam 3) Theft is immoral because you are first, cheating your way to success by taking someone else's, but second, you are damaging someone else's livelihood. I could go on, but the point is, anything that is immoral by any standard has a logical reason for it, and if you lump all deeds that are immoral together, you will find they have a commonality- they cause some sort of harm, spiritual, physical or otherwise, to a being or multiple beings. A counterpoint would be nice, or go on and give me your rationale.
Res: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

I agree, an individual's rights is important. However, the welfare of the society matters more. In an choice like this, both choices are immoral. However, we must choose one to be morally permissible. The Aff choice is better. What is better, to kill one or to kill more than one. Either way, we are killing. So we have to choose one choice to be morally permissible. Obviously, killing one person is much better than killing many people.
Res: It is morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people

I am against this resolution because of one important contention: 1) An Individual's Rights A life should not be discarded to save people that one is not affiliated with. The person that would die is innocent, and has no gain from dieing for an other's cause and would most definitely not consent. The idea is unfathomable when looked at from the following perspective: What if you were the innocent person? You would be killed for some "greater good" that has no purpose in your life.
Loose Gun Control

OK, I'll use this last round to summarize and explain why I win this debate. Voting issues are as follows. Arguments: 1. Drops In round 2, my opponent dropped Guns = Less Crime, my argument that More Guns = More crime, and Second Amendment. In round 3 he dropped Legal vs Illegal Guns, Guns and Self Defense, Government Tyranny, Break In Deterrance, and Conflit Deterrance. In round 4 he dropped everything other than Guns vs Crime and Government Tyranny, which were only responded to after I called out their drops in earlier rounds. I wont even go over all the missing arguments in round 5. 2. Guns and Crime I provided a source showing that gun control is having a positive effect on crime in the United States. I pointed out how this outweighs all his stats, which are based in foreign countries and not in the one we are debating. This argument was also never responded to, so the argument about crime flows con. 3. Guns and Self defense I proved guns worsen it by enouraging enemies to attack from behind rather than from the front. Ultimately my opponent dropped this in his last three rounds; this must flow con as well. Spelling/Grammar I also encourage a grammar vote for con. I probably made two or three mistakes somewhere here, but my opponent never labeled any arguments, and his first and last rounds were walls o' text with no paragraphing to seperate different ideas. Ultimately, the biggest issue is that almost all of my arguments made were dropped by pro at some point. Therefore, due to a lack of responses, I urge a pro vote. Thanks for the debate.
Loose Gun Control

So my opponent is saying that we should prevent people from having guns because accidents can happen. What about the saying you live and you learn. The people should have the chance to make the mistakes, if they believe that having a gun on them makes their life safer, it is their choice. We shouldn't stop people from wanting to be protected and thats what the gun laws are doing. I will make a basketball analogy since it is march madness, announcers and basketball analysts say don't let the referees decide the game, let the players decide it. This is just like the government in gun control, the refs are the government controlling the peoples lives (the players). The people should be able to live their life how they want to, if they feel a gun will protect them they should have the option to be able to get one. From personal experience, i see how having a gun can make you feel unsafe. I had a basketball game at my school and during the game there was a kid shot by an older man who was in his 30's. No one else had a gun on them, now we are all at the will of this man with the gun because he has power over everyone. Unless you have been in the situation where someone near you has been shot and a person is holding a gun to everyone you do not know how the people feel. It feels very unsafe knowing someone can get an illegal gun bring it into school and just take over the place and he has the power to choose whether or not you live or not. If someone like a security guard or a teacher or a faculty member was able to carry a gun legally, deaths could have been prevented. Lives could have been saved, but because control laws are so strict my friend was shot down and he wasn't even the intended target. Guns are like drugs, people get them easily on black markets, and it is the people who don't have access to the black can't get illegal guns, they fall victim to these people carrying illegal guns.
Loose Gun Control

1. Correlation vs Causation Pro: Other cases of increase happening I'll get to this later. Pro: I have no evidence that one did not cause the other You introduced this statistic, you need to give the link. Without it you can make no assumptions from these statistics. Pro: There is no such thing as a logical fallacy http://www.logicalfallacies.info... My point stands that correlation does not imply causation. However, I will still refute his statistics in a minute. 2. Guns for protection Pro: People use guns for things other than offense He made this exact argument last round and I already refuted it. I point out how my opponent said that "some" people wont use them for offense, which implies that others will. Pro: People who use guns end up in jail Yeah, AFTER they use the gun. Better to have tight laws and prevent the gun from being used in the first place. Pro: Plaxico Burress shot himself Con argument. He admits that Plax wanted the gun for self defense. If he ended up hurting himself with it, that indicates that there is a risk of accidental shootings. As such, he shouldnt have had a gun in the first place. 3. Guns and crime Pro: Gives all these stats about guns and crime abroad All your stats are abroad. My evidence (1) indicates that gun control has a positive effect in the United States, and that the presence of guns creates an inherent risk of accidents and homicide. You reference the second amendment (although drop it later), so I assume we are debating gun control in the US. At that point I outweigh on sources, mine is specific to the US while yours is only about foreign nations. 4. Tyranny Pro: Someone will eventually find a way around the system a. Already dropped b. No warrant. Never explains who, when, how, etc. c. Even if I buy that our governmental system can collapse and fall into tyranny, he gives no link to prove that the government will become Saddam-like and be aggressive towards the people. d. This is all speculation Please extend all drops once again. For all of these reasons I urge a con vote. 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...