BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If the freedom of speech law really is in effect inside schools

I believe that the freedom of speech laws aren't in effect in schools, we should be able to protest at schools, wear what we want, and say what we want at school. Example is that in the 1960s, there were a group of students at school who started to protest the Vietnam war and were asked to stop and leave the premises. This law is barley in effect in the real world outside of schools and public land too, like during the wall street protesting, the police and SWAT teams arrested up to 100 people for "blocking the bridge" and they had a right to say their own opinion in this so called "Free World".
Resolved: Vigilantism is justified when the government has failed to enforce the law.

You're first attack was that vigilantes are not a political authority and I responded and you seem to agree. You continuously state that vigilantism is unjust, biased. What makes the government unbiased? How do you know that their checks and due process are just? I have already addresses mob mentalities in the argument before this. If it was not clear I meant that the vigilante was enforcing the law and that would not be illegitimate or subjective. What is your proof that vigilantes are violent? You repetitively say that the only way that vigilantes can attain justice is through violence, but you have no proof. You say that because there are no checks to make sure the vigilantes are liable, but how do you know that these checks are just? Punishing the criminal is not the only way to enforce the law. Just reporting a criminal is vigilantism, because they 1. Are members of an organized committee 2. Are established members of a community 3. Proceed with definite goals, not with the intension of random violence 4. Act as a last resort because of a failure of the established law system. Again, what makes the law, the constitution, due process all just? If they are wrongly convicted then released, why would the vigilante try to punish them? A vigilante group cannot be faulted because they do not have all the resources, but it's not like the government has all the resources in the world. I see what you mean about how your value and criterion tie in, but I don't agree with it. What proof do you have that all vigilantes' perception of justice is subjective and fallible? What is the difference between what the government see as just and what the vigilantes see as just? LD debate is philosophy debate, and this is what I believe to be the traits of a vigilante. Vigilantes are citizens that try to enforce the law, and anything else by observation states. Whether or not the law is just or unjust is an aspect of this debate, and the fact that you don't want to debate whether or not it is shows that you do think that the government can be unjust. There is no proof that your checks and laws are just. You can't include something in the debate if it has nothing to do with the resolved. Again, yes one example of just vigilantism is enough to affirm since you haven't been able to bring up one example of unjust vigilantism. If you're saying that those vigilantes were biased then you're saying that the government is biased too. The government is made up of citizens and they just may as well be biased against one of the criminals because they stole something from them. You never know. The fact that you admit that your attack on my third contention had nothing to do with the Social Contract shows that you agree with it. This attack should have been placed in a different area. I responded to your attack in my prior argument. Vote affirmative because I haven't agreed with any of my opponent's arguments, I have responded to all of my opponent's attacks, I've attacked my opponent's case, and my case better upholds the resolution.
Are only established authors allowed to debate their works/ideas on DDO

con says "Notice that my opponent did not state WELL-establish authors. They only stated established authors. Anyone who writes an argument is an author of that arguments; they are established by the viewing of the debate." again another smart as.. who try to avoid the debate by semantic intricacies-a sure sign that they are afraid to engage honestly so come on and state you position since being con you obviously believe only established authors allowed to debate their works/ideas on DDO regardless of how you try and weasel out of saying that by your semantic bull sh..t
Is religion an evolutionary adaptation

Overall I see many flaws in my opponents argument. I will begin by stating that my opponents view of sanity is valid. 1) The definition of insanity is doing something repeatedly and expecting different results to be yielded. Having beliefs in the supernatural or extra ordinary does not classify you as insane. If it did, Then people with a belief that there dead grandma is looking over them or that psychics can see there future by reading there palms, Would be classified as crazy if humans set rational standards on what defines delusions. Severe PTSD resulting in psychosis can easily result in symptoms that could be (excluding a flat affect) indistinguishable from scizophrenia. PTSD historically is a survival mechanism utilized by our ancestors to provide anxiety after something violent had happened to them or a loved one perpetrated by an individual or predatory animal. Unlike today, If something bad happens you can't just get into a car and drive hundreds of miles away from the situation and the likelihood of a violent situation occurring again is very likely. Thus our bodies utilizing anxiety in the form of paranoia and delusions {PTSD} to prepare themselves for a future violent encounter protected the life of the individual substantialy more than if the "disorder" was not present. [1]httpss://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/m/pubmed/20001399/ 2) With that being said, Religious beliefs and PTSD have many similarities. Both cause irrational and often times impossible delusions for survival purposes. The government link used above and below can address and attest that PTSD is likely a survival mechanism. Hence giving a large likelihood to the fact that all religion is a survival adaptation. 3) For my 3rd point, I will rationalize the irrationality of believing that an all good and all powerful god would allow so many religions in the world. As stated by my opponent, Religion has gotten millions of people murdered throughout time. A rational god would not allow such things to happen to his closely loved animals that identify themselves as humans. Therefore this argument is irrational due to economical reasons. A good God would only allow one religion, Not thousands as even humans using common sense could identify that this move would be extremely ignorant and result in violence towards many individuals. . . Including woman and children. 4) Finally for my last argument, People inventing other religions for there own personal survival struggles for there own personal gain is vital to survival itself. The brain cannot evolve to what other individuals would or could do to you for having your adaptation. It can only give the individual the edge that it would need for effective survival historically. An adaptation such as making religion irrational for possibilities of persecution is not a rational or economical reason to completely abandon the day to day perks of having a religion. [1]https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov/m/pubmed/20001399/
Is religion an evolutionary adaptation

1) As far as there being thousands of different religions a person can propose two things. The first is a general observation. With there being so many religions could you say that people have a natural yearning for the spiritual? If there was no God and no spiritual realm it would make sense for there to be no religion at all. People must have been getting results specifically from religious activity over the years or everyone would be insane. For the colloquial definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. If they kept getting no result specifically from religion they wouldn't do it. I propose that people yearn for God and in turn partake in religious activity while getting results. Otherwise, According to the definition of insanity, Billions and billions of people would be insane. The second proposition is from a Christian perspective to address the issue of so many different religions. A conservative Christian will say that present day Christianity is the only religion that God honors as legitimate. I will say that all other religions are man-made religions while not being centered around Jesus Christ. You will see that pretty much all of these man-made religions are legalistic in nature which is the opposite of Christianity. Also, A personal and intimate relationship with God differs from others, Including a major one of Islam. As far as religion being a survival adaptation, It is apparent from history that some religions have resulted in wide scale death. The first example I will use is Islam which through history has done much marauding and aggressive warfare to advance its agenda. The second example claims to not be a religion, But it bases its main tenet on a sort of faith in there being no God, Which it can't prove. Atheistic leaders have headed tyrannical governments resulting in millions of murders. So, With misled belief systems much death can result. A person can research and find multitudes of examples of murder and death resulting from misled belief systems. 2) The the only thing I will debate with this point is that I don't have self control out of a fear of being judged. This is because as a Christian I have no condemnation from God because of the faith I place in Jesus who made the payment for my sin with his sacrifice on the cross. I have self control because I want to be like Jesus and please God. 3) In many places in the world, It is actually dangerous to be a Christian. Most of the central figures in the New Testament of the bible were martyrs and it still happens often today. In fact, In the last book of the bible the specific condition of the martyr is addressed. The vast majority of Christians have addressed the question of whether or not they would deny their faith in the face of death. I would say, Especially with Christianity, Religion tends to go against the natural grain of survival life.
Is religion an evolutionary adaptation

I believe that religion is an evolutionary survival adaptation that has kept many humans alive, Kept many humans from making uncivil decisions, And reduced anxiety and depression in many humans. I believe these things to be true due to the following reasoning. 1. Due to there being thousands of different religions in the world, Rational thinking would conclude that there is no god at all. Vrather rational thinking would conclude that religion is a survival adaptation that has protected humans lives and human stability for thousands of years 2. Humans that are religious on average tend to be less depressed as believing that you will never die and are intimately loved and important by a powerful individual obviously provides comfort and support. Additionally humans who are religious tend to have more self control as believing that you are being judged keeps your behavior civil and acceptable to others around you. Having faith that a God has everything under control in a poor and uncontrollable situation additionally can provide anxiety relief in high stress situations. 3. Additionally, People that are religious tend to create alliances and trust networks through worshipping a certain god together. For example, If an adolescent were to attend a youth group at a church, Odds are that individual will make alliances with other youth or adults. Although today it is true that when it comes to survival it's not important to have these connections, Historically the more alliances you could create, The more likely you were to survive. For these basic reasons I think that is is very apparent that religion is an evolutionary survival adaptation that has definitely played a role in protecting human life.
Minecraft better than Mario Party Nine

1. Minecraft fuels teamwork 2. Minecraft fuels creativity 3. It has no ending. after beating the ender dragon, it does not end their By the way your mario party 9 needs a wii. What's a wii? some people don't even know what that is. It is a very expensive piece of equipment. In minecraft you can make anything using commannd blocks. why if anyone tried, they could probably make your game inside of minecraft. Your argument "the graphics are bad" is the most generic argument i have heard in my life since everyone knows that the gameplay makes up for the graphics. Its like legos except you have an infinite amount of them. Just look at this (https://trends.google.com...) my game is is obviously better than you game. Do you know board games are losing popuarity? Do you know that Mario party games are the same old' games but with a different number and different boards? Mario party nine does not help educate students but minecraft does. While Mario Party nine will soon be forgotten by the next generation, Minecraft will not.
Minecraft better than Mario Party Nine

>A person trying to survive in the wild Such as a group of four people fighting to get back their lost mini-stars, with nothing but dice on their side? >Battling monsters for his final goal There are a total of 14 bosses in Mario Party Nine, not to mention the many map enemies you meet along the way. >To destroy a dragon You know some may consider Bowser a dragon. So, my friend, according to your description of Minecraft, Mario Party Nine is all that, but also featuring: -Better graphics -Twelve playable characters with unique personalities -Seven unique worlds, each with it's own interesting gimmick -An actual story line -A diverse set of minigames, each with it's own challenge and charm -A fun time. I don't want a game that features hours upon tedious hours of building a house, I want a moderately fast paced game that I can play with friends, and have a fun, exciting time with. So, my friendy ol' pal, Mario Party Nine is, in my personal opinion, better than Minecraft.
This House Believes that the Social Contract is a viable political theory

Many thanks to Stephen for what I'm sure will be another interesting exercise, and of course, l accept. While I'm sure that PRO doesn't expect a perfectly sufficient exposition of social contract theory in such a limited space (especially where even a Ph.D. dissertation could hardly accomplish that task), I'll seek to outline in this round -more or less sketchily- the basics of what social contract theory is. In political philosophy, social contract theory accounts for society's origins as well as power relations between individuals and society. Social contract arguments posit that the legitimacy of society's exercising power over the individual stems from individual's tacit or explicit consent "to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights." (1) Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and later Rawls are among the best known proponents of social contract theory. (2) I'll await Stephen's outlining his framework for what constitutes "viability" as it applies to political philosophy in the next round, as well as his arguments against social contract theory as such. (1) http://en.wikipedia.org... (2) http://www.iep.utm.edu...
This House Believes that the Social Contract is a viable political theory

The debate is as simple as it stands. My opponent should spell out the social contract theory in his first round (instead of using it solely for acceptance). The social contract I refer to is the one used in political philosophy - the concept of the social contract as a form of legitimizing the state. I look forward to whoever accepts this debate for a rigorous competition. Note the debate has a smaller character limit than most - 4000 characters maximum. Moreover, the voting system is "select winner" instead of the normal 7-point system. With that in mind, I look forward to challengers.
The Death penalty should be abolished.

I will start by responding to my opponent's challenges. Value: Utility is the greater good for the greatest number of people. The only people who are not getting the benefit of the greater good is a) the perpetrators, and b) the victims. By commiting heinous crimes, the perpetrators have surrendered their freedom in exchange for the prescribed consequence. The victims had their freedom involuntarily taken by the perpetrator. OBSERVATION: My opponent did not offer a value, therefore he has nothing for me to challenge. Criterion: States determine the method that they wish to use for executions. The 8th amendment to the Constitution protecst against cruel and unusual punishments. Prisoners on death row or serving multiple life sentences are not likely to be released. However, that information further supports both my criterion and my case of CBA. OBSERVATION: My opponent did not offer a criterion, therefore he has nothing for me to challenge. My C-1: My opponent is mistaken, I provided stats so the argument is not invalid. If my opponent would like the source I submit: Robert Weisberg, JD, PhD, Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law at Stanford University Law School, in his Dec. 2005 Annual Review of Law and Social Science article titled "The Death Penalty Meets Social Science: Deterrence and Jury Behavior Under New Scrutiny" My C-2: My opponent dropped the substance of my second contention, therefore it stands as presented. Now I will move on to my opponent's case, or lack thereof. Point 1: Which kids forced to commit murder are we talking about? If someone commits murder, there will likely be consequences as determined by a judge/jury, which is provided for in the U.S. Constitution. Point 2: How much rehab takes place in prison? What are the success rates? The statement about martyrs has no relevance. Any glory they may from execution for their cause will become yesterday's news only a day later. The balance of a person's life spent in solitary confinement, whether or not a priosner enjoys it, still supports my case of CBA. Many nations still use the death penalty because the most heinous crimes should have the strongest punishment. If that is the only reason other nations look down upon us so be it. Do we value the opinion of these unnamed nations? My opponent has dropped the substance of my entire case while presenting nothing of value to support the resolution, which is the responsibility of the affirmative in debate. Thanks.
The Death penalty should be abolished.

Value attack: What about the others? Utilitarianism isn't the best because not everyone gets the greater good. also, Sometimes we can't achieve the greatet good. Criterion attack: The death penalty is inhumane. C1: My opponent has no citing of statistics, therefore it is an invalid argument. C2: My opponent says that we will never release them. There are rehab centers that we can send them to to get heir life back in order. I will now defend my case- Point 1: What about kids forced to do murders? should we just convict them? I dont think so. His argument is invalid. Point 2: Prison is meant to punish and rehabilitate. Besides, people want to die so they can become a matyr. Yes, while they may like it, there is such a thing as solitary confnement. Conclusion: Because of these reasons, the death penalty should be abolished. We as a nation are already looked down upon. If we abolish the death penalty, things might look up for us. WE would be leaders. Thank you
The Death penalty should be abolished.

The death penalty should be abolished. Doesnt our constitution state that each citizen has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Basically, the death penalty does not follow the constitution. Also, if its some big time serial killer, then wouldn't we want them to suffer? Killing them kinda gives them a free card. If we let them go to prison, then they will suffer. I now stand open for my opponents arguments
Human life has no intrinsic value.

Anything can be taken away in this world. To define intrinsic as something that cannot be taken away simply does not work. A human vegetable (a brain dead person?) and a person facing imminent death still both have the ability to make action. They have through their life the ability to shape events that are happening. They have ability to impact the world. This is something that a inanimate object will NEVER have! A real vegetable (ex: Carrot) cannot do much. But it can do something. It can effect the world, this is something an inanimate object can never do by itself. The potential to do something is an intrinsic value of anything possessing life. Human life has intrinsic value.
Human life has no intrinsic value.

Thanks for the speedy reply. "Life has potential, it can do things, it can function. This potential is something inherent, intrinsic of life. Something inanimate does not have this potential at all. The potential is therefor not intrinsic to something dead, lifeless or inanimate." The potential of life is extrinsic. For example, a human vegetable is alive, but effectively, it has no potential. Furthermore, a man who jumps out of a plane 30000 feet in the air without a parachute is alive at least until he hits the ground, but .000001 seconds before that happens, he has no potential. If it can be taken away, potential must be extrinsic.
Human life has no intrinsic value.

No, you're mistaken. Life has potential, it can do things, it can function. This potential is something inherent, intrinsic of life. Something inanimate does not have this potential at all. The potential is therefor not intrinsic to something dead, lifeless or inanimate. I'm not speaking of what the potential is. I don't care what you do with your potential. I'm simply stating, you, as a form of life, has potential. Having a potential is of a higher value than having no potential. Life is of a higher value than no life. Life has intrinsic value. Human life has intrinsic value.
Human life has no intrinsic value.

"Value - relative worth. Life - a period of animate existence. Case: A. All life has an intrinsic value when compared to all things dead. Life has potential. Life is of a higher value than no life. B. Human life is a form of life. Human life is therefor intrinsically valuable." I would like to focus on the statement "Life has potential." That is an extrinsic quality that makes life better than no life. My point is proven by this, life has extrinsic value, not intrinsic value. I rest my case.
Human life has no intrinsic value.

Human life is valued by many around the world, religions, philosophers, all value human life above all other life. Human life is treated as if it has intrinsic value that makes it better than all other life. I strongly disagree with this sentiment. If human life has intrinsic value, than either humans as a species are simply intrinsically valuable, or all life is intrinsically valuable. Neither of these sentiments are correct. Let's look at two situations. 1. Humans are simply the most intrinsically valuable species. This sentiment is false, intrinsic value cannot occur because we happen to have the right DNA. Simply being a human does not separate us from other animals, except by saying that we are magically better. Humans themselves cannot have intrinsic value, as simply having the right DNA does not mean intrinsic value. This does not allow for an other species, even ones probably more extrinsically more valuable, to have any more intrinsic value than us. This is simply illogical, and cannot be justified. 2. All life is intrinsically valuable. Again, this cannot be true. Life itself has no value, mosquitoes are most useful to the world in death, serving as food for predators. If all life was valuable in itself, than all death would be bad, which is certainly not true, life could not exist without death. Death is certainly good at times. So this brings us to the conclusion that human lief is valuable for an extrinsic reason, not valuable in itself. Be it our intelligence, our self-awareness, or our futures that makes life valuable, it is certainly extrinsic, not intrinsic.