BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If Socrates should or shouldn't have drank the hemlock

It is very true that Socrates embraces death, and that his moral code would not allow him to escape from prison due to adhering to the charges placed upon him; it does not make the choice anymore sound? There an major difference between embracing the idea of something and taking the action. Just because Socrates embraces the idea of death and does not fear it, does not mean that he needs to take his own life in this situation. This type of action that Socrates had committed, in the way that you have described them as, to would be a very extreme form of civil disobedience. Though in order for civil disobedience to take place, you have to have been wrong in some way shape or form. The only wrong done to Socrates is the fact that the city of Athens put him in prison and placed false charges against him. Socrates proved himself innocent of his charges, what justification is their for Socrates to commit suicide as he did? Note, I don't label Socrates' death as a death sentence or death penalty but a suicide. A death sentence is given to those who commit horrendous crimes against society and the best punishment for their crimes is to be sentence to death, whether it be by euthanasia or hemlock or electric chair. Socrates, as proved in "The Apology" committed no crimes against Athens, so why was he put to "death" of his own free will? No matter whether he embraced the idea of dying to be good or bad or felt indifferent of it, it still no need for one to voluntarily act on these ideals. Socrates had no reason to kill himself as he did
If Socrates should or shouldn't have drank the hemlock

Socrates only has three options in this matter. He has one, the option of drinking the hemlock, two the option of escaping, or three the option of exile. In "The Crito: Socrates' Refusal to Escape" it is discussed that if he were to escape form jail that he would be showing the children Athens that it is okay to disobey the law there for he would be corrupting the youth; "For a man who is a subverter of law may well be supposed to be a corrupter of the young and the thoughtless." Furthermore during his trial Socrates has said that he preferred death to exile, meaning his only option now is death. Socrates does have a viable reason to consume the hemlock because he has nothing to fear in death. In fact he embraces it. In "The Phaedo: Virtue and Socrates' View of Death" it is discussed that with death come the separation of the body and the soul which to a true philosopher is something to rejoice because "for the body is a source of endless trouble to us by reason of the mere requirement of food; and is liable also to diseases ...it fills us with love, and lusts, and fears and fancies of all kinds..."
If Socrates should or shouldn't have drank the hemlock

Socrates had no reason to consume the hemlock. In "The Apology" Socrates proved himself not guilty of the crimes placed upon himself, spreading the belief of atheism and corrupting the youth. He proved through clever ambiguity that he never has been an atheist or did he spread the belief of atheism to the youth. And as for corrupting the youth, he proved that he merely offered new ideologies to just as any great philosopher before him has done. Therefore, for what viable reason to consume the hemlock? None, therefore he should have never had to have drank the hemlock and die for crimes he did not commit
Rap Battle 2

First of all,You are nothing,Second of all,You suck at rap,Third of all,You think you're funny?But you're so boring when I understand your lyrics I want to take a nap.You think you can rap?You think can rhyme?Dude, you uttering another word,Should be a cognitive crime,Against humanity,The blatant insanity,From every line that you spit,Is reason to have no vanity.If I was you,I'd hate myself,I'd see how much worse I am,Than everybody else,This rap is short,Just like your genitalia,Perhaps we should rematch,When skill is something with which you are familiar.
Rap Battle 2

Your lines mean nothing to me,Truly,It's like the sun thinking it's shining through me,I block it,Like I counter you,You leave only a shadow,You are worthless, black poo.You are useless at rapping,Please stop trying,You lines are so bad and,Leave me crying,With the harsh quality of the lines,My god, you should have to pay fines,For how many high-intellectual minds,You've just blown out of line.Your name stands for that muchMy name stands for me,What I am,My life plan,Everything that's part of me.I'm rational,Like Einstein to the power of two,I'm a madman,If you don't watch out I'll come for you.........So in this battle,I'm the winner,You get fatter,I get thinner,You get ugly,I get hot,I am the best,You are not.
Rap Battle 2

Let me take you on a journey,A journey you will regret,I'll be the devil's advocate attourney,I won't stop, blood will be shed.I shall tear you apart, cut deep into your emotions,Oh dear white boy, I'm the sun and you ain't got no lotions!You rap like a baby,Your bars are like dirt,In fact I think maybe,You look quite good in a skirt,Quite bad in a shirt,In fact if I were a vampire I'd eat you as my girly dessert.What kind of a name is hghppjfan?Sound like a sad attempt at rhyming with rationalmadman,I have talent, I got skill,When I rap it's such a thrill,To hear my victims scream so shrill,In agony at their peril,For rappping me is inevitable doom,You will realise that very soon,Do not assume,That you can win,Because compared to me,You are nothing.You got the skill of a baby,You got the rhymes of a 5 year old girl,Your talent is so down to earth,Mine's out of this world,You are pointless,Without reason,Your life has no meaning at all,The truth is,All I see in,You is far from beautiful.So go ahead and give it a go,Tr to beat this unquestionably elegant pro,Try to pull votes in like a pimp pulls in a hoe,But trust me you're just a beginner, you just rap for show.
God's Existence Is Personal Opinion

"If I claim to have had a supernatural experience, then I don't expect you to believe me unless I can replicate the experience for you somehow. Likewise if you claim to have a supernatural experience, I, as a skeptic, will not be believing you unless I see it for myself in one way or another. No hard feelings. " That's the topic I really want to address though, the idea of "hard feelings". Religious belief is a difficult thing for people to express or convey. It's a bit materialistic and nihilistic to just say "there's no evidence for god, when we die that's it". However this is my belief. I don't expect you to understand it. Likewise I don't pretend to understand the experience of people who have had "God reveal Himself to them". Who am I to judge? If we try to judge each other's experiences, we will get nowhere. Especially on a debate site, trying to debate religious belief. There's nothing to debate; one person has their belief, another person has their own belief, another person has their own belief, and that's the way it is. You can't try and debate that someone who is a Muslim is actually an atheist, or that someone who is an atheist is actually a Christian, that's just preposterous. But that's EXACTLY what people try to do when they say "your belief is wrong and this other belief is better and you just don't realize the truth". Each person is entitled to their own personal opinion. God's existence remains a personal opinion either way, and I vouch for the right for people to have their harmless personal opinions excluded from criticism. You imply that an experience is not personal opinion, but has the highest form of truth value in the human perception. Would you agree that first-hand observation of the big bang at the moment it's happening is much more accurate than inductive reasoning and evidence based on modern observations thousands of years after the event? I think you would. Evidence is given because we cannot replicate those experiences (humans, accidents, trees, etc. ) and thus need some level of accuracy, however experience cannot be refuted and is logically the most accurate assertion. The only thing is that it is personal, but not an opinion. "My question for you, is this: "Is the goal of science to be objective or subjective in reaching conclusions? "Essentially, the goal cannot be objective if you are expected to subjectively use the scientific method to reach scientific conclusions ONLY within the realm of science, not reality. "If god's existence were not something that is a matter of personal opinion, then there should be some way for everyone to agree on whether or not god exists. " It is up to God to show himself to us since we clearly lack the capacity and the knowledge to even see or prove God. Just like it is up to you, people, aliens, and other beings to manifest themselves to us in order to reach a logical conclusion of their existence.
God's Existence Is Personal Opinion

my position is that everything is subjective because we can not take any other point of view other than our own and our own senses.that being said, you cannot be completely objective about anything.in the example you gave,we cannot objectively see the rock falling unless human perception is involved. When we consider multiple viewpoints,depending on the context, it probably can be objective.I will argue that while science cannot prove God existence, we can all there are subjective experiences come to the conclusion that he exists.
God's Existence Is Personal Opinion

This debate is not focused on God's existence. This debate is focused on the question, "Is belief in God a personal opinion, or is it based on some sort of observational evidence?" Objectivity cannot be disputed, subjectivity can. A simple example would be that a falling rock objectively falls. Subjectively you can say it's doing anything, you could say it's falling or evaporating, and subjectively I can say it's doing anything as well. But objectively, we have to agree that it is falling. If you or I were to say that it did not fall, then someone might invite us to put our face where the rock would land before it is dropped. If either of us disagreed in the objective question "did the rock fall", we would surely be able to answer it after the rock makes it quite clear by leaving a fat bruise on the forehead. Enough rambling. Debate is open to anyone who wishes to debate that god's existence is something that must be objectively agreed on, rather than something that can be subjectively agreed on or subjectively disagreed on.
Cups

In a world filled with many items, there is none more divisive right now than the 2015 Red Starbucks Cup". On the surface, it might look like a simple crimson container sized to hold either 8, 12, 16, 20, or 30 fluid ounces of the life-giving dark nectar we know as coffee. But it's much more than that. In certain pockets of the US, it speaks to something larger than the vessel from which we drink our hot, caffeinated beverages.
Same-sex Marriage

Homosexuality is not a choice. It is something people are born with. Research has led us to believe that sexuality is determined by biological traits such as brain dominance, genes/DNA, etc. Though the main cause is unclear, scientists are certain that being gay is not a choice. However, polygamy is. It is part of a culture that people choose to follow. This very fact separates polygamy and homosexuality. 'There is now very strong evidence from almost two decades of 'biobehavioral' research that human sexual orientation is predominantly biologically determined." [1. http://www.nytimes.com...] "A basic principle of our social covenant is that we do not discriminate against people on the basis of circumstances that they cannot choose, like race, sex and disability. If sexual orientation belongs on that list, then should we still prohibit gay marriage?" [1.] On the contrary, polygamy is a choice. It is part of a culture that people choose to follow. This fact draws a fine line between same-sex marriage and polygamy. It will be looked at differently because same-sex marriage is a matter of human rights, while polygamy is matter of freedom of religion. They're part of different categories in the legal aspect, and therefore the Judicial branch will handle it differently. Despite activism the may occur, the road to legalization of polygamy will be stopped in court. For this reason, it is safe to say that the slippery slope is an invalid argument. The increase in divorce rates were caused by other factors. My opponent stated that divorce rates were rapidly increasing after the legalization of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands that occurred in 2000. However, same-sex marriage isn't to blame. Around the same time, emigration rates were increasing. "In 2003, emigration exceeded immigration for the first time since 1984." [2. http://focus-migration.hwwi.de...] Also, 'unemployment rates increased from 8.7% to 15.7% between 2000 and 2004 in the Netherlands. [3. Globalization and Migration: A Comparative Study of the Political.... By Michael Orlando Sharpe] These economic factors caused financial issues, and other problems that resulted in divorce of many married couples throughout the Netherlands. Blaming same-sex marriage for these occurrences without evidence is not a logical argument.
Same-sex Marriage

Marriage, by definition, is the formally recognized union of two human beings. It doesn't specifically mention the sexuality of these individuals, and therefore the presence of same-sex marriage doesn't contradict the definition of marriage itself. Those that argue that acceptance of same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy and bestiality, are unreasonable. As I have said before, marriage is between two human beings. This doesn't involve animals (preventing bestiality), and since it is limited to two people, it doesn't open up a road to polygamy. Also, I understand that many religions disagree with homosexuality. I do not plan on changing the beliefs of those who are of the religion, for everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, preventing marriage between two individuals, solely based off of their sexuality is discrimination and prejudice. This is unacceptable behavior. It is our duty and responsibility as human beings to make sure people are given the rights they deserve, and all people are worthy of the right to marry someone they love. Furthermore, "separation of church and state" denies any argument related to the Bible, Torah, or any other religious document. Therefore, any argument that opposes my current statement cannot have a connection to religion.
Slippery Slope arguments are useful

Con has yet to rebut anything they said in Round 1, all of which I assert as true and am meeting my burden of proof by doing so.Con's point in Round 2 is that men said 'what is next?' but he provides no evidence of them ever saying this because it's a lie and didn't happen.Animals do not have the right to vote, this however has nothing to do with the resolution whatsoever.
We Are All One (Consciousness)

Since the last debate of this same title wasn't going anywhere, and you said in the comments that you were interested in discussing this topic, I'd like propose we discuss this topic together. See if we can make some interesting headway. To get some grounding I'll state points that I hope we both share, then go from there. The big bang (or there abouts) and Evolution conclude that all matter stems from the same point and life as we know it evolved from the same single origin. Likewise, as Humans, we are 7.1 billion different people but have the same single point of origin, so in turn we are intrinsically the same at root source. If we can agree on those points then I feel we can proceed with the standing that at root source we are all linked. Now onto my argument. The Mind and Consciousness As humans we feel split from others because we all perceive the world though a different mind. A mind that has identity, creates and ego and talks inside our heads. Though different techniques, hallucinogens, meditation, injury, near death experiences, 'moments where god talks to a person' [1] the Ego, Identity and the voice that talks in our heads can be put aside and observed rather than engaged. This separation is called many things under different religions or practices but experience wise would be best described as (pure) awareness. This awareness of existence and/or experience is a thoughtless space in ones head (as I said above, it's more of an observer than an engager in our mental activity) that feels in touch with everything as a whole in the universe. Again this is nothing new and is talked about in many religions and practices I am just going through it for clarity of my argument. I would like to argue that much like when our physical bodies are broken down into atoms and empty space, that if the mind (our Consciousness) is examined closely enough, we can see the raw material (or immaterial) that is our existence and because it's outside of ego self it is the same for all humans. And if that's so then it could theoretically be the same entity. Much like atoms are building blocks that connect all physicality, this inner space of awareness could be the foundation of all minds. Very hard thing to prove of course because we can't even know if each other really exists, but an interesting topic none the less. Please poke as many holes in this as you can, I'm very interested in your opinion IAMCOFFEE 1. Where god or heavenly bodies talk to people or speak to people though prayer, I am simulating to 'emptiness of mind' or 'ego loss' or something similar, i feel that people who have seen god through prayer are just attaching their god to the experience because of their previous belief.
We Are All One (Consciousness)

Cheers again CaptainShiny Thanks for the Ship of Theseus"link, it exactly sums up the paradox I was toying with and cheers for pointing out the trap I had set for myself where I contradicting myself in the beginning. I won't use this round to debate further because the debate could now go in a few different interesting directions and I fear that we won't be able to make any headway in a single round. I've got to say that this debate has done exactly what I needed it to, cut holes in assumptions I didn't know I was making and you also gave me a lot of fuel for thought. Thanks. As I'm thinking now, I would agree with you that consciousness may not be 'one' even if physicality is somewhat connected Through methods we've been talking of, detachment from self and ego is possible, but it doesn't mean that consciousness would join. A feeling of connectedness could be to do with the obvious link of all physicality, but not of mind and even that link could a sensory illusion. -------------------------- I saw this yesterday and thought you might be interested, it could be something to watch on topic of measuring consciousness. https://aeon.co... "These findings take us all the way back to Descartes. Instead of "I think therefore I am" we can say: "I predict (myself) therefore I am." The specific experience of being you (or me) is nothing more than the brain"s best guess of the causes of self-related sensory signals.' "It now seems to me that fundamental aspects of our experiences of conscious selfhood might depend on control-oriented predictive perception of our messy physiology, of our animal blood and guts."We are conscious selves because we too are beast machines ""self-sustaining flesh-bags that care about their own persistence." --------------------------- Questions this debate has brought froward for future discussion: What is consciousness? How much of belief is anxiety driven ignorance? Are we all ghosts in machines? Does everyone manifest their own god? And a random one inspired by animal farm: Should we measure a humans worth? How do we measure a humans worth? Feel free to start a debate on any of these, or a topic of your choice. I thoroughly enjoyed that. IAMCOFFEE
Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

Let's have a good debate, and may the best man win. (By the way, if it sounds like I am over explaining everything and come across as condescending, that is not my intent. I merely wish to ensure that all readers of our debate fully understand the terms we use. )First, if God does exist, he could be defined as a maximally great being, that is, there is no possible conceivable being that would be in any way greater than God. From this assumption, I use a version of Alvin Plantinga's formulation of the Ontological Argument.1) It is possible that a maximally great being exists.2) If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.3) If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in all possible worlds.4) If a maximally great being exists in all possible worlds, then it exists in the actual world.5) If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then it exists.6) Therefore, a maximally great being exists. In premise 1, the kind of possible that I am using is metaphysical, not epistemic possibility. Metaphysical possibility refers to whether something is actually possible while epistemic possibility refers to what is consistent with what we know. For example, an incredibly complex math equation that we cannot grasp has the epistemic possibly of being true and the epistemic possibly of being false, since we are uncertain of its truth, but the equation itself, as a part of mathematics, is necessarily either true or false. Likewise, our uncertainty of a maximally great being's existence does not change the fact that it must be either necessary or impossible. In premises 2-4, when I say possible world, what I mean is a way of describing how reality might have been. For example, there are possible worlds in which Mitt Romney won the presidency. Possible worlds does not mean other universes. For something to exist in no possible worlds, it must be logically incoherent, like the concept of a square circle or a married bachelor. In premise 3, it must exist in all possible worlds because a being that exists in all of them is greater than one that exists in only some; therefore, since we are talking about a maximally great being, it must exist in all of them. According to this logic, if it is even possible that God exists, then he must exist. Source: Reasonable Faith, Dr. William Lane Craig
Ontological Argument for the Existence of God

This is my first time debating here, so I would like to debate one of my favorite arguments for the existence of God, the ontological argument. Rules: Round 1 is for accepting the debate, Round 2 is for opening statements, Rounds 3 and 4 are for rebuttals, and Round 5 is for closing statements. Also, correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation are very much appreciated.