BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Determinism renders moral responsibility impossible

The layout of the debate will be as follows: Round One - Constructive Arguments Round Two - Rebuttals Round Three - Closing Remarks Firstly, however, some definitions: Determinism - the philosophical school that holds that every state that currently exists in the universe is the result of previous states, and that those previous states could cause no other outcome. Principle of sufficient reason - the notion that everything can be explained in terms of causes and effects. Free will - an attribute that humans supposedly have that enables them to defy determinism and act in a way that is not necessarily the product of their previous state. Moral responsibility - the idea that as humans have free will and are capable of moral reasoning, that they therefore should be accountable for their immoral actions. Note that for the purposes of this argument, exactly what is moral and what is not is irrelevant. The brain - the collection of neurons that processes information and controls bodily processes. 'Us' - our conscious selves - inhabit only a small portion of the brain at any one time, and so consciously controlling it all is, as far as we are aware, impossible currently. The winner of this argument will either a) if the Instigator, demonstrate that any rational argument the contender puts forward in defence of the concept of moral responsibility is flawed, or b) if the Contender, show a sound rational argument for the validity of the concept of moral responsibility. And so, we begin. Firstly, consider that the brain, including the portion that contains 'us' is at the base level, a collection of particles, and that all particles follow laws governing their interaction and movement. It stands to reason, therefore, that all the activity that occurs in the brain is the product of these laws. The foundation of moral responsibility is that if you are free to act and choose your action, you are responsible for that action, and yet the fact that our brains are controlled by natural laws seems to suggest that we do not in fact control our actions, so how are we responsible? Secondly, on a larger scale, consider that 'intended' is merely a label that we apply to actions after they are done. Research has shown (Libet et al., 1983), that the motor cortex in the brain is active three hundred milliseconds before a person perceives that they wish to move. Even more interestingly, Fried et al. (2011) found that observing only two hundred and fifty six neurons was enough to predict with eighty per cent accuracy the subjects movements seven hundred milliseconds later. Consider, therefore, that our movements are the products of brain processes that we do not control, and if we do not control our movements, how can we be responsible for them? Moral responsibility relies on our accountability for our own actions, but accountability simply does not appear to be present. I have said all I have to say thus far. I now turn the debate over to someone who is, I'm sure, much more experienced at this than me. I appreciate your time, and feel free to comment. INTJPhilosopher
YouTube has been Corrupted

I'm sorry. I was busy with a lot of things. Anyways, more and more videos are being removed because of content. One of the biggest issues is music. If you use music and don't credit it, then the audio is usually disabled. Sometimes, even if credited, the audio is still removed. Also, they're putting more movies and tv shows on YouTube. Now there are only four tabs. Home, Videos, Channels, and Shows. Sure people are putting clips from their favorite shows, but YouTube doesn't need to start putting shows there too. That's what Hulu is for, which ironically is the source of most of these clips. In addition, the ratings are no longer visible, so nobody can tell what videos are crap, and which ones are worth watching. And to make matters worse, smaller channels are practically invisible now that the only videos in the videos tab are videos about popular subjects like the teen choice awards, or mega channels like Fred, Nigahiga, and SMPfilms. Most of their videos aren't as good as the ones that made them popular. I mean, is it really necessary to make a channel just for your cat? Another unreasonable change to YouTube is the overused censorship. Some videos that have nothing offensive in them have been removed for no reason. This is why YouTube has been corrupted.
YouTube has been Corrupted

My opponent is Pro and instigator of this debate. Therefore he bears the burden of proof that Youtube has been corrupted. Corruption is defined as "a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct."[1] Therefore, Youtube will have been corrupted if it has deviated from its original or its pure/correct intent. Yotube has a mission statement, as every company does, outlining the goals of its business. "Ideally, a mission statement guides the actions of the organization, spells out its overall goal, provides a sense of direction, and guides decision making for all levels of management."[2] A company, while a legal person, is not a real person with a sense of morality to degrade. Rather, it has only its mission statement, its duty to its stakeholders, and its duty to abide by proper regulations to consider. Therefore, Youtube will have been corrupted only if it can be shown that Youtube is presently pursuing goals contrary to the stated aims of its mission statement. Pro has not provided a copy of the Youtube mission statement, without which his claim is unwarranted. My research has revealed a possible mission statement for Youtube, although the source, I must admit, is highly questionable and the answers it provides likely speculative. I shall, of course, continue to endeavor throughout this debate to determine Youtube's true mission statement. Presently the statement that I am working under is: "[O]ur mission is to provide fast and easy video access and the ability to share videos frequently."[3] Note that the business statement does not say that the mission of Youtube is to provide everyone the opportunity to be heard/viewed. Rather, Youtube's mission statement is to provide "fast and easy video *access*" along with the "ability to share videos frequently." Neither of these goals are thwarted by Youtube's expanding commercialism. In fact, "fast and easy video access" is improved by commercialism, as it provides users the opportunity to more readily access professional productions with the option to browse less professional productions. That option ensures that users are still able to share videos and, barring any limitations on publication, nothing in Youtube's current policies will impact the ability of users to share videos frequently. It is simply less likely that someone will accidentally check out what you are sharing when they wanted to check out something Walt Disney Co. was sharing. Therefore, barring an alternative mission statement for Youtube, my opponent's claim that Youtube has been corrupted is unwarranted. [1]http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org... [3]http://wiki.answers.com...
Fairy Tale Court Case: Goldilocks

I don't think I can make this similar to a real court case, so we will debate whether or not she will be charged. I start with the evidence that Goldilocks did indeed commit those three crimes. 1: Breaking and entering A. The three bear claim to have found Goldilocks in their residence, in the bedroom, on a bed. B. The door to the bears' residence was found unlocked. 2: Minor Theft A. Portions of porridge were found missing at the bears' home. B. Stool samples have found that Goldilocks had consumed porridge around the time she is suspected of entering the bears' residence. 3: Vandalism A. A chair was found in ruins at the bears' residence. B. Two other chairs were found with noticeable marks on them.
Fairy Tale Court Case: Goldilocks

My opponent says that, since the bears can speak, they must be humans wearing realistic bear costumes. However, it is possible that the story takes place in a parallel universe where bears can speak like humans do. My opponent says that, since Goldilocks was able to break the chair, she must have not been too young. I agree. However, it is possible that she is around 17, meaning that she is not necessarily an adult. She is innocent until proven guilty, so until it is proven that she is 18 or over, she cannot be arrested. My opponent also says that she must not have slept enough, as she fell asleep during what was probably the morning, so she's a criminal on the run who was running from the police in the night. It is possible that she hadn't slept enough the night before, but this doesn't mean that she's a criminal on the run. She might just be someone who suffers from insomnia. Voters, please vote Pro. Goldilocks has not been proven to be guilty, and she is innocent until proven guilty. Make the right decision, voters.
Fairy Tale Court Case: Goldilocks

The main basis of Pro's argument is that we are dealing with bears here, and therefore they respectively are not as intelligent as humans and do not have constitutional rights. However, these 'bears' can speak, which means that they could not be real bears. The only logical explanation is that these are humans wearing realistic bear costumes (something with a human responsible). To prove Goldilocks was over 18, I figured that I would have to cross off who she wasn't. To start, Goldilocks couldn't be too young, otherwise, she wouldn't have been able to break the chair. She couldn't have been too old, or she wouldn't be able to jump out of bed quickly. Some more facts: The bears were eating porridge, which leads me to conclude it happened in the morning. Goldilocks also fell asleep. She must have not slept enough that night, which leads me to think that she is a criminal on the run who spent the night running away from the police. A runaway kid would have likely stayed in populated areas to get a job. The majority of criminals are over 18. http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk... Interesting side point: In the original story, Goldilocks is an old woman without a name. Since I wrote Goldilocks in the title of this debate, I find it unfair to bring it in as an argument. Here is the story: https://en.wikipedia.org... In my last argument, I forgot to put a source. Here it is: http://www.americanbear.org...
Fairy Tale Court Case: Goldilocks

It is possible that Papa Bear had actually not sat down in the chair before. It is possible that his chair was new, which would explain why he was so disturbed when he noticed the marks on the chair. Therefore, it is also possible that Papa Bear had mistakenly bought a chair that was meant for humans and not for bears. If that was the case, then it is not unreasonable to say that a small child sitting on the chair could have caused marks to appear. Furthermore, I argue that the bears do not have constitutional rights, so they cannot legally press charges against a human being, let alone one who is very young.
Fairy Tale Court Case: Goldilocks

Goldilocks's claims that Goldilocks is a young child, so therefore she should not be charged. However, when she sat on Papa bear's there were noticeable marks on the chair, as Papa bear said, "Hey, someone was one my chair" (or something like that). Presumably, Papa Bear sat in the chair before, and it likely was built to sustain great weights, as black bears can weigh 125 to 600 pounds [1]. A child, even a abnormal obese, should theoretically not weigh this much. It is much more likely that Goldilocks is an overweight adult than an overweight child.
College football player receiving a stipend or living expense

In closing, I believe that I have made the case the college football players should not receive a stipend for living expenses nor receive any monetary compensation for their participation in college athletics, especially those on full scholarship. Students attend colleges and universities in order to obtain an education and those on scholarship are having some if not all of their educations paid for in return for their athletic abilities. Many, including my opponent, look at the revenue being generated without realizing that not all Universities generate the same amount of revenue and that revenue does not equate to profit. Last, there is no reason that college football players should be placed on a pedestal. They are no different than any other college athlete, many of whom are able to work on a part time basis in order to assist with the academic endeavors.
College football player receiving a stipend or living expense

College athletics are considered "amateur" for a reason. This has nothing to do with "fair" to the players. People attend college football games to watch college football not specifically the players. Many also attend for nothing more than school pride and to support their universities. Also not all players on a team have the same skill level. Do you think it would be fair for the star college QB to get the same compensation as the 3rd string QB? How about the punter getting the same level of "fair" compensation than the starting center? What about the player who is not on full scholarship? This is a slippery slope. What you fail to look at is the fact that College Football and Division 1 Universities fund the entire Athletic Departments of those schools and football revenue does not equate to profit. According to Forbes magazine, the University of South Carolina's football program generated a little over $58,000,0000 for the 2009 season. They also spent over $22,000,000 on the football program for a "profit" of $35,000,0000. What we don't know is how much of that $35,0000,000 is left over without knowing how much of that money was spent on the other 18 NCAA teams at that school. What I do know is that for the same 2009 season, Universities like Vanderbilt and Mississippi did not turn a profit in football. That's right $0 of profits were generated. Additionally, if college football revenue were to be able to fund their respective athletic departments and still have money left over for a true profit than perhaps your position would make more sense to me. However, we know this not to be the case as if this were possible, universities would not have to rely on federal subsidies in order to operate their athletic departments. Not all Division 1 schools generate the revenues that South Carolina does. You are mistakenly using revenue to base your position when you should be looking at profit. Just because a Division 1 football program turns a profit does not mean that the university makes a profit. To take my position a step further, what about players who play Division 1A football? Is there schedule any less hectic than a Division 1 player? Why shouldn't a Division 1A player get compensated? Oh, because they can't afford it? What if you are a college baseball player? Just because you play baseball you shouldn't be compensated even though it's a much more difficult sport? The purpose of attending a college or university is to obtain an education, not to play sports. Putting college football players on a pedestal by compensating them for play would be unfair and unjust to all other student athletes.
College football player receiving a stipend or living expense

I was not clear on my topic but I concentrating on division 1 athletes. However, division 3 player not receiving a scholarship is no ones fault. Simply there can not afford it. Again, fans go to a college football game to see college football players play but all the money generated should be of no concern to the players. This has to make sense here now, if college football player are being compensated which means to give equal to, or to make an counter balancing payment. One example would be the university of South Carolina, when using the highest numbers a student would have to pay up to 18,00 dollars a year. That is including room board, food, tuition and books. The math of of that is 72,000 over a course of 4 years. Now in those same four years, using the last four as an example the university of South Carolina has made, 148 million dollars off of there football team. Now how is that fair compensation when to the football players. Now on the matter of Arena football and the AFL. Yes is it half of what a professional athlete makes in another league. But there league is a very low budget league. Meaning the payment they receive for there play is fair COMPENSATION for what they do. A better argument would be to compare the numbers to how the football team generates.
College football player receiving a stipend or living expense

Not all universities and colleges are on a level playing field when it comes to sports/football. Divisions range from division 1, 1-A 1-AA through division 3, yet division 3 players cannot get a scholarship to play sports. It's no secret that division 1 coaches make millions of dollars but not all college coaches earn million dollar incomes. Division 2 coaches earn between $70,000 to $100,000 with few above the $100,00 mark. The amount of money a university or college makes is of no concern to a student athlete, especially to a student athlete that is on a full scholarship. As an athlete on scholarship, a player is indeed being compensated. The players are being provided with a free education, room and board and meals in exchange for his talent on the football field. For example, UCLA is a public institution in Division 1. The tuition for UCLA is a bit over $11,000 but I will round down to $11,000. Tuition costs for 4 years equates to $44,000. If your a full scholarship football player for UCLA you're getting a minimum of $44,000 to play football there. All other 4 year students pay the cost but those athletes on scholarship pay nothing. A "reasonable" number of $500 equates to $4,500 per academic year or $18,000 over 4 years. This may seem reasonable to you but consider that professional football players in the Arena Football League get paid between $500 and $1,000 per game. A low end AFL player will earn $9,000 for the season. Your reasonable number of $500 equates to half of a professional players salary.
College football player receiving a stipend or living expense

In my communications class I have repeatedly debated the topic of paying college football players because they are unable to work. Due to how much time is spent in the off season as well as in season. I am a college football player myself and find it hard to support my personal expense. Toiletries, clothes, food other than the dining hall and even a night out once and a while. Having school paid for is indeed a big burden off my shoulders but school alone is not the financial issue of any college student. There is also the fact that that the university's make so much money off the players which a portion of that revenue should go to the players. After all they are the one's people come to see. College coaches make allot of money, just half their salary without incentives would be more than enough to help out the players. A reasonable number would be 500 dollars a month, which can go a long way in the hands of an athlete that is not working. On many occasions when arguing this topic I have been told that college football players should just work because other students do, which is true. However, I argue that the university and the NCAA make too much money not to justify some form of reward for the players. The rule the NCAA has in place is that college football players are "amateurs" and that payment would change they way they are looked at. Which I agree with but I am asking for a stipend or a living expense to help with things that come with being a human being. Simply, there are no arguments to pay high school football players because it is simply not plausible. The national high school football association does not make billions of dollars a year that off the players.
trolololololololololol

All I have to say to that is... " Have you ever met a girl that you wanted to date- but when it came to making love she wanted you to wait? Here's a little story bout my situation- I was talking to this girl from the US nation." " You! You got what neeeeeed! But you say he's just a friend- but you say he's just a friend. OO BABY you- you got what I neeeeeed- but you say he's just a friend- but you say he's just a friend." " NOW EVERYBODY NOW" ( you repeat)
30 hour work week and higher minimum wage

This is a typical I am right and you are wrong debate. I get the impression that Pro is actually debating their own personal agenda rather than a greater U. S. Socio-political agenda. In the spirit of debate I addressed all of Pro's issues. Yet Pro still dismisses all of my very relevant argument. Straw man is such a cheap cop out. 1) Unwittingly maybe, But Pro's proposition is anti-capitalist. Taking control of trade and Industry away from the private sector by the imposition of stricter state intervention on pay and conditions. Pro's own mindset, Therefore undeniably exhibits a socialist bias. 2) Pro clearly refers to "international examples". Therefore my questioning was not irrelevant. 3) My simple math exemplar was directly based on Pro's proposition. A 25% reduction in working hours coupled with a 30% increase in a minimum wage. Will this work? Especially in manufacturing industries. But also in the public sector, Given the constraints of the public sector budget. 4) The whole point of my overtime comment was to suggest that Pro's approach to overtime is somewhat contrary to the actual needs and purposes of overtime. I would also suggest that the skill of a workforce is of paramount importance in all work related situations. Suggesting otherwise is somewhat ridiculous. 5) Clearly in Round2. 30hours became 40 hours for some. This is undoubtedly backtracking and therefore contradictory. Pro implies that despite their initial objections to the contrary, They are nonetheless content with a situation where certain sectors of society have a greater work burden and a consequent lower quality of life. 6) Pro's angst at the middle class is once again indicative of something greater than a concern for the quality of life for all. And my selfish, Overdemanding and lazy comment was clearly not directed at minimum wage workers or poor people. It simply was a general questioning of social attitudes in wealthy societies. Pro has a plan that they wish to debate: Therefore Pro's plan should be open to all scrutiny and Pro must be prepared to respond and answer to all scrutiny. Rather than dismiss everything that they do not wish to answer as "strawman". Capitalism dictates hierarchy and hierarchy inevitably dictates social disparity. Though in most wealthy societies all are given equal access to educational opportunities. How an individual eventually fits into society is wholly relative to formative preparation. It would be too simplistic to say that where one ends up depends solely on educational choices, But the opportunities are nonetheless there. Pro's plan sounds perfect in theory. But when all the social, Monetary and fiscal considerations are taken into account is Pro's plan implementable?