BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mormonism is a Rationally Untenable Belief

"Faith is rational when there is factual evidence that its consequences are beneficial. Even if it sources are false." You have contradicted yourself, you previously stated "the very definition of faith is a belief that is not based on evidence", however you have not provided a single supported instance in which Mormonism, and only Mormonism, is beneficial. Overall studies on religious people and happiness, or community for example are not applicable here due to the other religions involved, as well as the discrepancies in the definitions of the same religion, and issues of this obscure nature. It certainly is beneficial, nor rational to be part of group think, marginalized thinking, blindly accept events or claims when the truth is known, disdain people because of their skin color or sexual orientation, restrain scientific endeavors, banishing blood transfusions, inferior views on women, perspicuous plagiarisms and thefts in its scripture, and hindrances on society of this nature, all because of the yearning to believe in something that is very well proves and displays Mormonism as irrational. Endorsing pedophilia, for example, Latter Day Saint church founder Joseph Smith married girls as young as 13 and 14, and other Latter Day Saints married girls as young as 10. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints eliminated underaged marriages in the 19th century, but several branches of Mormonism continue the practice" (http://en.wikipedia.org...) as well as hate, or example "the LDS Church excluded blacks from the priesthood in the church, from 1860 to 1978.Most Fundamentalist Mormon sects within the Latter Day Saint movement, rejected the LDS Church"s 1978 decision to allow African Americans to hold the priesthood, and continue to deny activity in the church due to race. Due to these beliefs, in its Spring 2005 "Intelligence Report", the Southern Poverty Law Center named the FLDS Church to its "hate group" listing because of the church's teachings on race, which include a fierce condemnation of interracial relationships" (http://en.wikipedia.org...), are not rational ideas to accept -- especially on top of the problematic concerns I listed above and in my previous arguments -- just because Mormonism tells one to. "Mormonism still gives to people an ideology and a way to live", and this is precisely why it is irrational, and which has been explained above. Delving into the realms of moral and cultural relativism are completely irrelevant to this discussion, since we are discussing Mormonism on the grounds of rationality. Rationality is objectively, that means without biased, analyzing a claim or situation. Taking a look at Mormonisms beginnings, its principles, its biases, and the marginalized detrimental thinking it provides, we can see it is rationally untenable. See arguments 2 and 3.
Mormonism is a Rationally Untenable Belief

The very definition of faith is a belief that is not based on evidence, which is invariably irrational." Faith is rational when there is factual evidence that its consequences are beneficial. Even if it sources are false. Ok even if we dismiss the idea that the book of Mormon was divinely inspired and we admit Joseph Smith was a criminal. (Btw is a criminal someone morally bad by default ? Or was he just in contrast with the morality of a society he didn't believed in ? Being a criminal does not automatically prevents him from doing some good stuff" Mormonism still gives to people an ideology and a way to live. "they may subscribe to this idea and see nothing wrong with it, however, in the larger perspective, based in reality, this doesn't mean their not wrong." Mr.Nietszche said "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." There is no such a thing as an objective morality which we can use to judge if others are right or wrong. The only logical approach would be adopt some kind of objective moral relativism and admit objectively that there is no right or wrong (Except for our little moral subset applying to society and culture we live in). Cannibalism is ok for some tribes. It's the path they've chosen to take. We cannot say they are really wrong. What we can say is that they are wrong according to our Western-centric point of view. And even if our culture is becoming the dominant one, it doesn't automatically gives us the authority to judge every one else. Let me ask you a question. One of the paradigm of our society is that Science is truth (I myself am a Med student, spent hours in lab and couldn't agree more). But do you know that most people have to believe in science even if they do not have intellectual capacities to understand it or prove it. What ultimately motivates the masses to believe in science is the benefit of the progress it can bring. I know people claiming that they hate "Chemistry" because they feel it is polluting the world, spread cancer and other multiple reasons. Their hate for Chemistry is illogical and irrational because they do not even understand how it works. And yet somehow they managed to give a logical analysis of some consequences of science misused. My point is the following : Mormonism may be based on lies but when you take the whole picture you cannot say it's consequences are wrong and irrational. In fact it is possible to lie for good purpose and you can't make a trial on one's intentions. There is nothing wrong in believing a lie if it gives you some kind of advantages. (I was slightly misquoted, the full quote is "religion is not the only source of finding fulfillment community in life. Their are betters ways to do so, without the gratuitous biases, such city events for example, or clubs. etc." City events or club are subject to cultural biases which is not substantially different.)
Mormonism is a Rationally Untenable Belief

"The very definition of faith is a belief that is not based on evidence", which is invariably irrational. One would be deemed a charlatan if they made claims on insufficient evidence about any other area of thought, religion certainly isn't to be considered an exception. Emphasis on the prove for the existence of god is irrelevant to this discussion, if we look at the events that look place, as I have explained in my previous argument, from Joseph Smiths lying and false claims, then we can conclude it was not divinely inspired, insofar as he claimed he was visited in an angel and whispered the text through a rug as his friend eagerly scribbled it down. We know Joseph smith plagiarized from numerous sources. Works in philosophy ( http://20truths.info...), 25,000 thousand words from the king james bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com...), as well as proclaiming he was this generations new Muhammad. Tremendous plagiarisms along with his compulsive lying and manipulation is reason enough to dismiss any idea that the book of Mormon was divinely inspired, even if one believes in god or not. If someone believes that homosexuals should be subject to condemnation, or establishing a cult Utopian Mormon society, they may subscribe to this idea and see nothing wrong with it, however, in the larger perspective, based in reality, this doesn't mean their not wrong. Seeing the bigger picture and thinking things out while looking through an objective lens --as opposed to believing in it regardless because god commands it -- is much more efficacious to open thinking and rational thought. Mormonism provides one with marginalized thinking. Instead of thinking and juxtaposing the reasons for believing what the preacher says, and simply accepting it because you're told to is not within accordance with rationality. It is untrue, doesn't logically follow from one sensible premise to the other, and provides one with biases in which are illogical. We're not talking about all religion, but strictly Mormonism, the topic of discussion. I was slightly misquoted, the full quote is "religion is not the only source of finding fulfillment community in life. Their are betters ways to do so, without the gratuitous biases, such city events for example", or clubs. etc. However this should't distract us, and most certainly shouldn't overshadow the curiousness and gloominess of Mormonisms beginnings and beliefs See Round 2 Argument
We should continue to fund the war against heroin

It's the acceptance round, not claim necessary, but think what you will. We are at war with something that is known to be an extreme form of relaxation, and that decreases the sense of pain. Yet it is dangerous, even fatal. We are at war with Heroin. A study conducted by the Center For Disease Control and Prevention showed that heroin related deaths have skyrocketed over the past 5 years. In 2013, 8,200 American"s died from Heroin overdoses. Recently there has been a lot of controversy on a program the White House has recently passed to combat the rise in Heroin deaths. As told by CNN News, the plan will focus on tracing the sources of Heroin, and will also prioritize treatment of addiction over punishment for users. To fund this, it will take 2.5 million dollars. That"s where the controversy comes in. A problem that many see, as stated by former congressman, Patrick Kennedy, is that it needs much more funding, so why put towards the money when there is more financial commitment needed, much more than the White House is providing. My response to that is any amount of money put towards the program, will help in several ways. This program not only works towards stopping trafficking of heroin, it also gives help to those struggling with addiction, which is much needed, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others. Yet there is the opposing side that claims addiction is a choice. My argue against that is simple, addiction isn"t a choice, research shows that. It has been proven in many studies. A study done by Dr. Brad Lander, a clinical director of addiction psychiatry, found that addiction is a chronic disease. According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), addiction is now known to be a chronic and progressive brain disease that attacks and damages key parts of the limbic system and cerebral cortex, which in turn results in compulsive cravings, obsessive seekings, and irrational over-use despite harmful and often devastating consequences. Addiction is considered a brain disease because alcohol and drugs literally change the brain chemically, structurally and functionally. While it"s true that for most people the initial decision to partake of alcohol or drugs is voluntary, over time these substances literally change numerous aspects of the brain to the point where the individual cannot stop using or drinking even if the desire to do so is high. As was just stated, by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, addiction is a real thing, and is a disease.
On balance, Obama's foreign policy has done more harm than good

This is the final round of the November Beginner's Tournament. Congrats to my opponent for making it here, and good luck!Definitions:All words are assumed to have their common definitions, and the meanings of "harm" and "good" ought to be defined based on who has the best framework for this argument.Structure:R1 is for acceptance only.No new arguments in the last round.Other than that, how you use your 10,000 characters is up to you (barring silly things like posting a link to a Google Doc with 20 pages of extra argument).The BoP is shared.
Zombie apocalypse- THW shoot your best freind who has been bitten by a zombie

I concede on the second point, but will reinforce my argument by refuting con's first argument. Your argument is based on the fact that one additional zombie does not pose much of a threat to an already hardened group. However, let me paint a scenario for you. You run into your previous companion, who is now a full fledged zombie. Considering the group left him alive based on humane decisions, it is a viable scenario that they decide to spare his life. (As you pointed out, this decision could be affected by growing dearth of rationality.) As we do not know how strong or smart these zombies are, it is entirely possible that this group of survivors is injured in an attempt to escape. With this conclusion, the cons of taking the moral high road outweigh the pros. Or perhaps like con suggested, you tie up your bitten friend. Is it really the more humane, and morally acceptable to tie up your friend? Con's original argument was that your friend deserves to live his remaining moments in a sense of peace. Having your few friends in the world tie you to a tree, in the middle of no where is certainly not peaceful. In addition, by tying him up, you are condemning him to suffer, alone, slowly dying of starvation, until someone else kills him. In summary, I firmly believe that by allowing your friend to live, you are endangering yourself, and condemning said friend to suffer. As a side note, this stands to be my first ever debate. Thanks for making it a good one! I evidently have a lot to learn.
Zombie apocalypse- THW shoot your best freind who has been bitten by a zombie

First, I will make clear contradictions stated in my opponents opening sentence. "In the best interest of society, and the most morally permissible course of action." These two statements are often polar opposites of each other. For example, when a murderer is convicted of crime, would it not be said that by executing him, you are acting in the interest of society? However, as a society we choose to not execute him, based on moral principles. I will make clear how this relates to the debate at hand, further in my response. Now, in response to your arguments. 1. You argue that by killing a bitten member of your group, you are directly going against certain morals that guide and govern your group. I will argue that this is not true. When you kill a bitten member of your group, it is done under the assumption that your friend will turn into a zombie, and directly endanger your group. You are not setting a precedent to kill each other in danger of starvation, because the original act was out of necessity. When you kill your bitten friend, you are saving yourself from a possible horrific, and gruesome death. The group will understand the difference between killing out of necessity, and out of convenience. (Killing in face of starvation.) 2. You argue that by not shooting your friend, you are respecting his last wishes. This is done under the assumption that said friend would choose to have a few hours of peace, in exchange for damaging the survivability of the group. You would be correct if this was modern day, however this is a post apocalyptic world. There is every chance that this member would understand the threat he poses, and choose for you to shoot him. In summary, there isn't a direct correlation between respecting your friend, and not shooting your friend. 3. By shooting your recently bitten friend, you are possibly saving him from a slow, painful, and horrific existence. To survive in a post-apocalyptic world, you must realize that the hard choice is sometimes the better choice. You must understand that modern world moral standards are no longer at play, and that by shooting your friend, you are doing him a favour. As well as increasing your own chances of survival. In conclusion, I argue that letting your friend live, is not equal to acting "in the best interest of society" and "in the most morally permissible course of action." In the best interest of society is staying alive, and a bitten friend can harm you. The most morally permissible course of action is respecting your peer's wishes, and your bitten friend could likely wish to be shot.
Zombie apocalypse- THW shoot your best freind who has been bitten by a zombie

Thank you for accepting! @derjungfuchs It is and indeterminate time i.e we do not know On side opposition we stand for whats not only in the best interest of society but what is the most morally permissible course of action. As so i have two points of contention today. 1. The person who's bitten, your friend is not yet a zombie and we believe that it is in the best interests of your group to not only respect his last wishes, but to also to uphold this sort of a moral standard. Side opposition believes that every person has an inherent right to life. We believe that this is an inalienable right and that it cannot be violated. If it were to be violated we feel that this violation is a detriment to the survival of our pack. This is because it sets up the precedent that it is morally permissible to kill of people in your group when you believe that there is a threat. By following this precedent when things like food ultimately become scarce, it would be justifiable to shoot people in order to try and preserve the survivability of the group. The other issue is that the proposed course of action is an affront to the core principles of society and we cannot allow such a beach to occur. 2. The person who has been bitten is your friend. This is someone who has been fighting along your side and we feel that we should respect their last shed of dignity before their inevitable death and that we need to respect their last wishes. We believe that by respecting their last wishes we ultimately take the moral high ground and allow people to have their last moments in a sense of peace, not with their friends pointing guns at them.
Driving in the passing lane(s)

Since my opponent forfeited his last round, I'll just extend my argument from round 2 Pro: "A four, or five lane road is stop and go for almost two hours. They only way to make it worse???? To force as many cars to the right as possible." As I previously stated, driving in the passing lane(s) is forgivable if the other lanes are too full. Pro: "Even during normal day hours, this rule would ultimately slow everyone down. They would have to constantly pass and merge around right lane traffic. Why do that when you can just remain in the left hand lane and pass all of them much faster???" If you remain in the left lane in order to pass slower traffic, it's fine as long as you are indeed passing slower traffic. You would be using the passing lane to do just that. Furthermore, I maintain that if drivers were to remain in the driving lane during non-congested interstate and highway driving, it would help promote the free flow of traffic. Pro: "If my opponent thinks that People who remain in the passing lane are clotting the veins of traffic, then imagine how clotted that right-hand lane would be." This would only apply in congested traffic, which I already stated was forgivable. Pro: "Furthermore, I would assert that the passing lane is a perfectly fine lane to travel in as long as the driver yeilds to traffic moving faster than himself. He can drive in the left-hand lane all he wants as long as he is willing move over for a few second for another car too pass." I would affirm this position, as long as the said driver could indeed immediately yield to faster traffic. Otherwise, I would not consider this to be forgivable.
Driving in the passing lane(s)

Secondly I would like to apologize for erroneously omitting that this rule should only apply to interstate and highway driving. Following this rule would indeed be harmful, as my opponent mentioned. I should've reviewed my first round argument before submitting it. For voting purposes, I will consider this round forfeit and allow my opponent to redirect his argument. I will however address some of the arguments made by my opponent in the first round. Pro: "A four, or five lane road is stop and go for almost two hours. They only way to make it worse? ?? ? To force as many cars to the right as possible. " As I previously stated, driving in the passing lane(s) is forgivable if the other lanes are too full. Pro: "Even during normal day hours, this rule would ultimately slow everyone down. They would have to constantly pass and merge around right lane traffic. Why do that when you can just remain in the left hand lane and pass all of them much faster? ?? " If you remain in the left lane in order to pass slower traffic, it's fine as long as you are indeed passing slower traffic. You would be using the passing lane to do just that. Furthermore, I maintain that if drivers were to remain in the driving lane during non-congested interstate and highway driving, it would help promote the free flow of traffic. Pro: "If my opponent thinks that People who remain in the passing lane are clotting the veins of traffic, then imagine how clotted that right-hand lane would be. " This would only apply in congested traffic, which I already stated was forgivable. Pro: "Furthermore, I would assert that the passing lane is a perfectly fine lane to travel in as long as the driver yeilds to traffic moving faster than himself. He can drive in the left-hand lane all he wants as long as he is willing move over for a few second for another car too pass. " I would affirm this position, as long as the said driver could indeed immediately yield to faster traffic. Otherwise, I would not consider this to be forgivable.
Driving in the passing lane(s)

This rule should apply only under situations, such as interstate and highway driving. Anwhere else, however, following this rule would be harmful. On a two lane road...during rush hour, how can you expect everyone to follow this rule??? It would be a game of leapfrog all the way into town. Cars all taking turns passing and merging...passing and merging. I would have to wonder if my opponent has ever drivin in rush hour traffic. A four, or five lane road is stop and go for almost two hours. They only way to make it worse???? To force as many cars to the right as possible. Even during normal day hours, this rul would ultimately slow everyone down. They would have to constantly pass and merge around rightlane traffic. Why do that when you can just remain in the left hand lane and pass all of them much faster??? During day hours, your not in anyones way. If my opponent thinks that People who remain in the passing lane are clotting the veins of traffic, then imagine how clotted that right-hand lane would be. Furthermore, I would assert that the passing lane is a perfectly fine lane to travel in as long as the driver yeilds to traffic moving faster than himself. He can drive in the left-hand lane all he wants as long as he is willing move over for a few second for another car too pass.
Driving in the passing lane(s)

If you're in the US and you're driving in the passing lane(s) (especially in congested traffic), you need to stop acting as a clot in the veins of society and merge back into the driving lane so others can get around you. There are some instances when driving in the passing lane is forgivable, including but not limited to preparing to make a turn from that lane, when the other lane(s) are too full, avoiding road hazards/construction/emergencies/etc, or when there's no one else around.