BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Torture (See for specifics)

Thanks for the quick response Con.My opponent uses the Categorical Imperative to show why torture is always wrong. My rebuttals will consist of me showing why my opponent has come to the incorrect conclusion on torture with C.I. to a certain degree, and I will be showing why other parts of C.I. should not be applied to this issue.Maxim OneThis maxim requires that we only take actions that we think would make the world better if the entire world followed this action as law/standard. My opponent states that the world would be a worse place if torture was allowed. The reason he gives for this can be summarized in this statement of his:"This is because when tortured, people are robbed of their ability to guide their conduct, and are made subhuman."I'll agree with my opponent that a person being tortured is being made subhuman. But what is worse, one man being made temporarily subhuman or being killed? Because that's a part of the criteria that I advocate torture under: the ability to save life.Maxim TwoI disagree completely with this Maxim, especially when applied to the scenarios I have proposed. I do not deny that torturing a man is treating him as a means to an end, but let's consider the end. The kind of torture I advocate has an end of saving lives. Imagine, you followed Kant's second Maxim, and failed to seize the opportunity to save many lives. How would you justify your inaction to the families of the people who lost their lives? It is morally justifiable to torture, as long as it saves lives.
is it better to be loved or feared when ruling

1.) RespectPro states in the round 2 argument that "it is better to be loved because than people will respect you." Pro makes the folly of drawing false causality between love and respect. For instance, if I had a child, I could love that child, but there would be no need to respect that child. This is the same case here. Con is drawing parallels between love and respect, parallels that don't exists.2.) FearPro fails to define terms, such as what is meant by "better". Here, I will make the case that to be feared is better, as no opposing party or citizen would make a move on the feared ruler. Here, the assumption will be made that every person in the country being ruled fears the ruler. To clarify, here is a definition of fear:Fear: To be afraid of ; expect with alarmhttp://www.merriam-webster.com...If can than be inferred that, if someone fears you, they would not dare make a move against you. But, if someone loved you, they could move against you, claiming that it was "for your good".
On balance, Anarcho-capitalism would be more just and humanitarian than Anarcho-communism

===Definitions===Anarcho-capitalism refers to "the political philosophy and theory that the State is an unnecessary evil and should be abolished, and a free-market private property economic system is morally permissible."[1] Anarcho-communism refers to "a theory of anarchism which advocates the abolition of the state, capitalism, wages and private property (while retaining respect for personal property), and in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations and workers' councils with production and consumption based on the guiding principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".[2]What is meant by "just and humanitarian" will obviously be a contentious issue in this debate. AnCaps retain a focus on individual liberty while AnComs generally prioritize equality. This debate will no doubt focus on arguments for the different moral standpoints of our respective systems.===Rules===1. Drops will count as concessions.2. Semantic or abusive arguments will not be counted.3. New arguments brought in the last round will not be counted.4. R1 is for acceptance. Argumentation begins in R2.===Sources===[1] http://www.ozarkia.net...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Atheism is not a religion

Well to begin I am not sure why you are confused about this. Definition (a) that you gave actually agrees with what I am saying so the evidence is already there, just because religious people confuse atheism with anti-theism is not my problem. You have been unable to explain why not being a theist, an atheist, is a religion. All you did was make an assertion based on only one part of a definition you found convenient or rather the lingo or slang alternatives. You have not been able to say why having no supernatural beliefs or god claims (atheism) is a religion where I clearly laid out reasons why. Atheism- asserts nothing about the supernatural, makes no claims about god(s) or has a system of belief and has absolutely no concept of faith. Religion (theism) does the opposite which is why I am saying atheism is not a religion. Now you could have said since religion is an extremely broad concept to which there actually is no official definition to describe all religions overall you could have simply said maybe a religion does not need all those components and that atheism still could fit in there somewhere but rather you committed the same fallacy twice after it had been clearly explained to you and then as "proof" you got a definition that agreed with me, definition (a). Atheism and agnosticism (as explained to via evidence, video, reasoning) are not mutually exclusive terms. You have the idea that anti-theism (statement that there is no god) is the same as atheism (no belief in a god). But then again any dictionary will tell you this. You said there where no rules but you should stay on topic. Atheism is not being a theist thus not having a belief in the supernatural or god(s) Is this a religion? Well I gave a clear reason why not. You however failed to do this. If you wanted to talk about anti-theism you should have said so. So those of you who will vote think here. I presented why atheism is not a religion because it has no beliefs about god(s) or supernatural and requires not doctrine. It is just the term we use to categorize non-believers. Not one thing my opponent said challenged this. If he did not challenge this with anything and only showed that they do not understand difference between atheism and anti-theism. So why should they get credit if they couldn't even stay on topic? Either not having a religion/supernatural beliefs/beliefs about god(s) is a religion or it isn't. I told you why not, my opponent did not. That's all there is to it.
Atheism is not a religion

Ok and thank you for being so organized! Ok well to continue it seems you have taken the view atheism is a belief there is no god and then said I was confused. As I said someone can say they believe there is not one but that at he heart is not what atheism is, again it is the not guilty verdict not the innocent one. I know you think this is strange but again even up to the point of Webster dictionary the misconception is there that atheism is "I BELIEVE..." this again is not so. I am concerned how you asked "everyone" if this makes sense it seems society is really caught in this trap of believing atheists are making a religious claim. If you are an agnostic you are also an atheist. This point has been made by not just Dillahunty (who you brushed off as confused...?) but Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Denette, Sam Harris and other reputable atheists. I can say I am fairly certain that there is no god but will always have to be in theory agnostic about about but in practice will go about life as though there is not one. Again to clarify you used ONE definition that does not fit what the actual group, nor many scholars say it is and you completely ignored the point made at the beginning when I said agnostics are atheist and just don't know it. Theism=there is a god(s) and certain belief in it(them) Atheism=not believing in a god(s)/not holding beliefs about it(them). There is at no point a need to believe there is not one.This has just been explained to you in my previous statement and then you pulled up exactly what I told to misconception was then acted as though you knew better. I really fear you started this debate with the presupposition that Atheism=believing there is no god. Also I am confused why you even bothered to bring up a source in this. Either not having beliefs is a religion or it isn't, that is what we are debating. Again I already explained that Atheism is in no way demanding you believe there is no god and yes many non-atheist thinkers/scholars etc have made the fallacy (as you have) of saying that. I am sorry but you just asked an atheist if they were an atheist.... you really cannot repeat this fallacy again I do no want to bother to repeat this I can go find a dictionary that says what I am saying and that still isn't the point. Please stick to the topic as I am. Not wishing to sound crass I just can't be bothered with people who have to be corrected twice. Atheism=I do not have super natural beliefs. Is that a religion, YES or NO and why? Please stay on topic this time, if you do not I will have to leave this debate. This guy is somewhat eccentric but he gets the point down right Since you asked I will. Those of you reading lets think here, if the atheists are saying atheism is not having any religious or supernatural beliefs and there are as well dictionary definitions along with that and you know actual atheists disagree with my opponent is there a point to arguing definitions or should my opponent actually give an answer to the actual topic?
Atheism is not a religion

I suppose to start I'll just explain what atheism is and then see if that gets the ball rolling in the right way. First of I would like to clarify atheism is just a term. Other than views on religion (which can still vary) atheists do not necessarily have anything else in common. There are no tenets or rules or things you have to do to be an atheist in a definitive sense. Here's why; atheism is the default position to religion, it makes no claims where as a religion is making a claim. For some reason people think Atheism = I believe there is no god. This is not true because Atheism=I do not believe in a god. The best analogy I have heard is from Mr. Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience. Picture a court case where someone is being tried for murder. The only two possibilities are that they either are guilty or innocent. However what is being determined is whether the evidence can show that they are guilty or not. The only possibilities again are guilty or innocent but the actual options are guilty, innocent or not guilty and guilty/not guilty are the only verdicts that are being decided. By saying the evidence does not show they are guilty is not the same as saying they are innocent. This is atheism, religion is making a claim, the individual finds there is not enough evidence or reason or logic etc.. to confirm the claim, thus the individual takes the default position of atheism or not guilty, not proven. This does not mean the atheist is saying there is no god but that there is nothing to prove one. There is absolutely no faith or belief taken here it is simply "I am not convinced this religion is true based on what you have told me". We are all agnostic about god(s) in atheism (not that there aren't people who believe there is none) which is why it is often said agnostics are atheists but don't know it. Again atheism is making no claims only saying that that person finds the claim is not believable based on what has been brought to attempt to prove it. And to clarify again there are no statements of belief being made, no claims at all. And to continue further remember that the god or deist argument is only part of it, it is the THEIST argument that is of the greatest concern. The claim that there is not only a god(s) but that everything a particular religion says about it is true=theist. Not accepting this claim=atheist. And to re-affirm the begging point atheism is just a term to describe someone who has no supernatural beliefs it does not say anything else about them. Most people in this world have a religion say they feel not having one must also be a category because having no system of belief at all is an extreme dissonance they can't understand generally. I think this should be a good start here.
The Christian God does not exist.

First off, let me apologize for how short this will be and for not addressing the points from the previous round, but as my opponent said, they are not proof. They are merely individual evidences that when presented together offer a case. If Con wants proof, then I have only one to offer. The God of the bible is considered to be perfect in every way. This by itself comes with two contradictions. First, a perfect being cannot create something that is imperfect. It goes against the very nature of perfection. Anything created by a perfect being would have to be perfect itself by the transitive property. The second inherent contradiction is the fact that God is self-admittedly vengeful, jealous, and full of wrath. These are not only imperfections, but petty human traits that could not exist in a perfect being. This is why I say the Christian God is impossible, because all-encompassing perfection itself is impossible, especially in a being with so many faults.
The Christian God does not exist.

I will accept the burden of proof for this debate, but I do hope Con offers some counter arguments. One sided debates are no fun. First off, there is no physical, measurable evidence of the existence of any kind of Creator, much less one specific example out of the hundreds of others. Furthermore, Christianity is nothing more than a combination of several of the religions that came before it, including Paganism, Judaism, Greek, Egyptian, and several more. Also, you can prove to yourself he doesn't exist by asking him. "Wherever there are two or more gathered in my name, there I am among them" Matthew 18:20. The answer is simple. Get a couple people, pray for verification, and watch it not come.
The Christian God does not exist.

As the instigator, the burden of proof lies on Pro. If I can refute Pro's arguments that the Christian God does not exist, then I have won this debate. Since the burden of proof is not on me, then it is not neccesary for me to prove that the Christian God does exist, but rather to disprove the claim that the Christian God does not exist. I also thank Pro for making this debate only three rounds long. This should be an easy read for all voters. I look forward to hearing your case.
The world is overpopulated.

BackgroundRecently the UN has announced that the world population has surpassed 7billion [1]. This is a landmark achievement, and the world population is expected to continue to grow.TopicThis debate will argue whether or not the world is overpopulated based on the ability of the world to sustain its current population with regards to food, natural resources and environmental sustainability/stability given the current conditions. Rules and Debate StructureThis debate will contain four rounds, with 48 hours of arguing time. You will be arguing the Con side (i.e. that the world is not overpopulated and is able to sustain the current population). You may make an opening argument in the first round if you would like. The last round will be a closing round which should not introduce any new arguments.This is my first debate, but good luck to anyone who accepts the challenge.Some background, as well as the announcement of this achievement can be found at the UNFPA’s webpage. Here’s a link to get started.[1] http://www.unfpa.org...
The world is overpopulated.

I genuinely regret that my opponent has forfeited the last two rounds as this is an important debate that has historically affected real policy. I will assume he is too busy, or is experiencing technical difficulties. If he would like a rematch, I would be open to that. I believe I have won the debate on a technicality, which is kind of like kissing your sister. However, I have not conceded the point. I won in that I showed my opponent's arguments wrong through logic and well researched evidence. Furthermore, I demonstrated that my opponent's sources and claims are: Misunderstood by him (FAO) Lacking in scientific evidence or citation (life123.com) Based on questionable and faulty logic (footprintnetwork.org) I'd be open finishing this debate with anyone else who genuinely disagrees with me.
The world is overpopulated.

I guess Pro's busy, so I'll elaborate on a couple points, but won't put too much down, as I already have a significant amount for him to respond to. 1.) “...the facts about the coming catastrophe are so obvious. Just apply a little grade-school math and economic common sense: Our planet’s natural resources can reasonably support about 5 billion people. That’s a fact. Another: Today we have 7 billion. That’s a problem, 2 billion too many. We’re consuming commodities and natural resources at a rate of 1.5 Earths, according to estimates by the Global Footprint Network of scientists and economists.” This was from Pro's cited Marketwatch.com article. The author here is citing Global Footprint Network's conclusions that Pro also cited. It is reasonable to assume that if we are using 1.5 Earths worth of resources, we have a serious problem. So let's take a look at some analysis by someone who's DAY job it is to dig into the numbers that are so central to Pro and his supporters' claims. http://wattsupwiththat.com... 2.) “The fact that fossil fuels are non-renewable and thus limited is an established fact that is not the focus of this debate. It is therefore reasonable to state that the present consumption of hydrocarbons is unsustainable because it is a finite resource that will eventually be exhausted. The same logic would apply to other finite resources.” No, it's not the focus of the debate. But if you cite an article to back that up (as you did) that has no citations or hard scientific data, just a statement of conventionally held ideas, and I cite a published paper with many citations to the contrary, http://www.csun.edu... I suggest one should draw back from the claim of factuality until more research is done, and a more scientifically transparent source is presented. I do not claim this paper establishes fact as I have not yet made time to study his claims and figures thoroughly, I am just saying that my source's claim calls yours into question, and seems to do a better job at presenting the argument, and actually cites research.
birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

"Also, you can not let him bring up ANYTHING new in this debate in his last speech"Ok, I will not bring up anything NEW, I will bring up old stuff though you had the chance to rebuttle against but declined not to. - 1 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants do pay taxes which boosts the economy - 2 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants provide cheap labor which boosts the economy - 3 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants consume goods in the US and the subsequent cash flow benefits the economy - 4 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants pay payroll taxes which benefits the economy - 5 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants pay sales tax and property taxes which benefit the economy - 6 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants contribute vastly to Social Security - 7 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants also pay taxes to fund Medicare - 8 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants CANNOT apply for food stamps, Medicare, or welfare - 9 - The Pro forfeits that illegal immigrants benefit the economy in many ways - 10 - The Pro forfeits that rights do not have to be earned - 11 - The Pro forfeits that the US does not have to give up rights just because other countries dont honor those rights - 12 - The Pro forfeits that countries that have abolished birthright citizenship have suffered immediate economic setbacks - 13 - The Pro forfeits that Birthright citizenship does not cause racism - 14 - The Pro forfeited round 3 and accused me of not being able to read several times, the Pro forfeits conduct points - 15 - The Pro has not used a single source in this whole debate, the Pro forfeits Sources pointsLastly, browse the Comments section and you will find something rather interesting, Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 5 hours ago"round 3 is the round that i won in."Posted by imabench 4 hours ago"You really are brainless huh"Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 3 hours ago"look at your arguments, i just won Harvard on this topic i think i know what im doing"Posted by imabench 3 hours ago"Wanna bet on it?"Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 3 hours ago"yes"Posted by imabench 3 hours ago"loser has to leave DDO forever"Posted by xxGINGER-THE-DEBATERxx 3 hours ago"deal"I thank the Voters for reading this debate :D
birthright citizenship should be abolished in the U.S.

In answer to my question of "do you understand the resolution" my opponents stated clearly "I am con abolishing birthright citizenship, you are pro abolish birthright citizenship. .. " exactly my point, my opponent obviously does not understand the resolution. Next when he talks about how I said that abolishing it harms the welfare of people, I simply mispoke, we are human, mistakes happen, and that is what happened here. Also, I do not believe it is fair for my opponent to explain his arguments now leaving me just one round to rebut them in whil he had 4 ROUNDS to rebut my arguments, and DID NOT say ANYTHING about them, so you can extend my points, so I win on them. In my opponents first contention, he states that there are so many things that are bad because of illegal immigrants, then he says that they make up for it and do not Harry the economy, but since my opponent has not been able provide any reason of why they do not harm the economy, the point still stands that they do. Also, you can not let him bring up ANYTHING new in this debate in his last speech, I have only extended my arguments, and my answers to his, if he brings up ANYTHING new about anything in this entire debate, you can not vote on it because it would be unfair to me. Just put you in my position. Your debating, and you finish your last speech, but then your opponent says something that wins them the debate since they spoke last and you never got the chance to answer it, how would you feel? Because he has never answered any of my arguments AT ALL, and I have obviously refuted is arguments, or turned them to be my point, you have to vote for me. And remember, anything he says in his last speech can not be taken into consideration because that would be unfair. I have obviously proven that the pro side has won this debate in every aspect.