BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans do not need religion for morality

Cause does lead to effect, that is true, however you have not provided a reason for religion being a cause and morality being an effect coming from religion. Religion is not inherently immoral nor is it inherently moral. No one is born with a moral compass. And ideas cannot have morality. Morality applies to sentient beings that can reason with each other and form a society or community. Morality is subjective and changes and depends on the times and the society that people reside in. If something is helpful to the neighbor across from me (like picking up their garbage that fell into the road) that is good. If something is harmful to my neighbor (like someone robbing their house or someone murdering their wife) is bad. Also, some things may have a grey area, as in, you cant please everyone. (Like if we sent soldiers to save stolen information, that would be good for us, but bad for the enemy. ) (I understand I'm using black and white examples but that is just for simplicity, feel free to create your own thought experiments and such. ) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "if you feed a starving man, he is no longer starving. this is objectively moral thus = religious" - Con How does this have anything to do with religion? when something is "Objective" it is based on facts and truths, and religion cannot be proven true, a religions deity for example will always be non-testable, making it a hypothesis. But science is objective, science can prove things and test thing and observe things. Religion is not falsifiable, but that doesn't make it true . "Wild animals kill food for themselves. Thus death can be moral = cause/effect=morality. " - Con Irrelevant, that is survival, that is their natural instinct. Has nothing to do with morality. Death is not inherently moral or immoral, again, concepts and ideas cannot have any form of negative or positive morality. It is the people who create these ideas and concepts or think of them, that make them subjectively moral. Christianity is moral to you I assume, unless your not christian - in which case you probably find your religion moral, and that is your subjective opinion. I find religion immoral - this is my subjective interpretation of religious morality. Concepts that have no effect on our society will always be personally, subjectively, defined. Only people can have an effect on our society, only nature and physical entities can effect us. Concepts and abstract thoughts and ideas cannot do any wrong to us. Thank you for taking the time to read all of this. I am excited for the next round! !!
Humans do not need religion for morality

simple causation relationship if you have a light in the darkness, that darkness becomes light: cause leads to effect In thus way religion and morality are cause/effect if you feed a starving man, he is no longer starving. this is objectively moral thus = religious Wild animals kill food for themselves. Thus death can be moral = cause/effect=morality. Without religion, no cause = no effect = no morals. Plz try to edcate yourself by reading the Bible before continuing in the debate is it is clear you dont have a concept of true morality. Source: http://www.charismanews.com...
Humans do not need religion for morality

The basic premise is that humans do not need religion to have morality and to know right from wrong. I am also debating that Objective morality is false and there is only subjective morality. Objective morality - Objective morality is about how Morals are actual fact and are as true as 1+1=2. Objective morality is how morality never alters or changes almost akin to a law of math (like the example above). Morality is ingrained as a law of the universe. Subjective morality - Subjective morality is entirely based on society and the independent being who discerns what is right and wrong in his or her own opinion and is heavily and almost entirely based on the well being of those around them. IE: Killing is almost always wrong but if my life is being threatened I must defend myself, or even kill the murderer in front of me if it comes to that. You may disagree with my definitions so here is the dictionary definition Subjective : based on feelings or opinions rather than facts Objective : based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings Morality : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also just a quick point I feel I should make for no reason. Take science for example, all of science is objective, it has to be fact or it is no longer science. Morality is always based on feelings, it always has been. Sources - Cites http://www.merriam-webster.com...
con will break a rule

I thank my oppponent for conceding the debate, since JustCallMeTarzan, acting on the side and with the responsibilities of Pro, now recieves all votes going to the Pro side. And since JustCallMeTarzan carries the inconvienent, spurious label of "Con" in the voting field, all votes to him acting as Pro, wherein he clearly won the debate, shall go to him in the Con field. 1) Vorxxox shall cast his vote appropriately according to his admission that Pro shall recieve votes for the affirmation of the resolution and in accordance with JCMT's responsibilities as Pro. 2) Vorxxox shall not attempt to introduce counterarguments that negate his admission of defeat. 3) Vorxxox shall compose a limerick acknowledging his defeat. 4) Since the debate is effectively over with Vorxxox's concession, debaters shall commence conjecture on the subject of whether or not Skittles REALLY pwn M&M's. 5) Both debators shall compose one haiku per round concerning the virtues and benefits of a healthy lifestyle, focusing primarily on good eating habits. Summary: Vorxxox has conceded and claims all votes go to Pro. JCMT, in his responsibility as acting-Pro, graciously accepts his concession of the debate and asks that all voters summarily place their votes in the appropriate place. Random: Garbanzo beans make me giggle... I love saying Garbanzo. Conjecture: Skittles own any day - they are much, MUCH better than M&M's. Haiku: A healthy lifestyle: Eating every day at home, A veggie diet. Broken Rule: "Do not vote 'Pro'" - as per the concession of Vorxxox and the rules of debate concerning the responsibilities of JCMT-as-acting-Pro, all votes must go CON. ********************************* Thank you for the concession - the responsibilities clause easily gives me the win, concerning the fact that you have in effect stated that winning is now one of Pro's responsibilities. Snookered in the extreme.
con will break a rule

I'm CON!!! Yay! I BREAK ALL THE RULES. And guess what. The resolution is AFFIRMED. Did con break a rule? Yes, so the vote goes PRO! I have to admit though, that was clever as I don't know what... you trying to make me switch sides with you. The only problem with that is: I no longer win if YOU break a rule, but I win if I break a rule. And you locked it in so it can't be reversed. Vote PRO. Thank you.
con will break a rule

1) For the remainder of this debate, including this current round, JustCallMeTarzan shall assume the side and responsibilities of PRO, and Vorxxox shall assume the side and responsibilities of CON. 2) This swap may NOT be reversed. 3) Any breakage of JustCallMeTarzan's switch rule shall be considered grounds for forfeiture of this debate. 4) Vorxxox may not restrict JustCallMeTarzan's use of the English language/require him to post in a non-English language (including ASL). 5) Vorxxox shall make a statement at the end of each round properly acknowledging that he has been completely snookered. Summary: Vorxxox's "set up" was incomplete. He is now CON and must break a rule, granting JustCallMeTarzan the victory. Random: I have some vegetable oil on my desk that I use for lubricating my drill when I make holes in computer cases.
con will break a rule

We will play a game where we get to set 5 rules per each round that both players have to follow the round the rules are posted. I go first 1) Both sides must put "Please vote pro" 2) Both sides must summarize how this debate is going 3) Both sides must break a rule 4) Both sides must put rules that don't violate previous rules 5) Both sides must type something random that is apart from the summary Summary: Basically I have set con up for faliure, so I will automatically win this debate. I'm gonna violate the rule of saying something random.
con will break a rule

I am highly disappointed in my opponent's forfeiture, though it matters little, as he conceded the debate in the second round... This round is mere formality. 1) Vorxxox shall apologize in the comment field for his forfeiture. 2) Henceforth, all rules concerning llamas shall be null and void. 3) Henceforth, all rules concerning alpacas shall be null and void. 4) Henceforth, JCMT shall be referred to as "His Excellency." 5) Henceforth, Vorxxox shall be referred to as "He-who-has-been-snookered." Summary: A mere formality, His Excellency cleans up in the last round. Random: I had a post-coital craving for Skittles the other day. Conjecture: PC's are better than Macs. Haiku: Eat peas and carrots. They are very good for you, A healthy lifestyle. Broken Rule: Do NOT vote pro. As per the concession of He-Who-Has-Been-Snookered and the rules of debate concerning the responsibilities of His-Excellency-as-acting-Pro, all votes must go CON.
Obama is a bad president

To begin, in 2008 Republican John McCain ran against Democrat Barack Obama. This was obviously a huge deal due to the fact that America could possible have its first African-American president. Many people did not know what to expect from Obama but hoped they were making the right decision. Unfortunately, America made the wrong decision. Then in 2012 when he was running for a 2nd term America was asking for it by re-electing Barack Obama. There are multiple reasons why Obama is a bad president.
People don't die everyday

Wow, I got nothing but respect for you, man. You even rapped. But heres the thing: how are there so many people claiming to have seen these wonderful things God has done, or why do so many people claim to have reached Nirvana? Maybe all this is made up, but I still have these thousands (strike that, millions) of claims by people who have seen these things. A person might believe in a "myth", but it's more than a "myth" if people worship this as their truth and live their lives around this. People might make up these explanations, but are people making up their true experiences and encounters that have happened to them too? But you still haven't showed any evidence, while I have very weak and possibly corrupt evidence. You have only countered my argument, but could you make a reason why you believe the way you believe next round? I have the possibly wrong, but millions of claims that people believe this way, and thousands of claims that people have seen these things right before their eyes.
People don't die everyday

"So if any of these or more religions are true, then you are WRONG!"I cannot believe a religion when it was made in the ages where people didn't know the answer to something so they made a explanation. For example, this: http://www.causewaycoastandglens.com...God created this earth? But this other legend said it was created by giants? I will rap nowYou start as if your some kingBut that was really just one of your dreamYou think you know everything But i can tell your just an overweening teenWhy don't you just give in to your fancy dreamSo you can dream in your filthy binYou don't even pimpYou don't even tryYour just a trash talking being that im gonna kick inYou try to sound like a rapper but it ain't even coolAdding pawn every time isn't gonna help your tuneSo why don't you just sit down and shut up before i can destroy your dreamSo you can re think who your really messing withYou talk so small that i can't even hear youThat probably because your not even illedgableYou can't even rym some words That gonna mess your worthI should take you to my school so you can look like a foolSo you can make a drool when i show you my rule's
People don't die everyday

You commented that I was not using real evidence, but the thing is, I am not. I don't have 100% proof that I am true, but you have no evidence either. You have evidence saying someone died today, yesterday, the day before that, and that is all good and all BUT you are telling me the days people die, but not everyday in the whole universe, so how do you know that one of the days not recorded on this website does have someone die. I Have Possibly Correct Evidence: The Bible, The Vedas, And So So On. The people who wrote these could be making their stories up, or they could be telling the truth, I don't know, but these books are more evidence then you have: none. That website doesn't have the first EVEN MONTH of the world on it, what happened during the first month, huh, huh? I can tell you using evidence, you can't. Thats why I think I'm right.
People don't die everyday

According to Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and more, there has been. Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe that in the start of time when god made everything, the first day he only made a little of Earth. He didn't make any other living thing, so that resulted in a zero death count. For Hindus, Buddhists, and any other who believe in Nirvana or Moksha, or resurrection, no one dies, except for when finding the way of Nirvana or Moksha. But both of those religions were formed along time ago, but no one has ever received Nirvana before the creation of the ideas of Buddhism, and the same for Hinduism. So if any of these or more religions are true, then you are WRONG! >:D Now I will rap. Go tell yo momma I just pwned you Ya, you're looking really blue I'm busting out rhythm like a King And you're just my little Thing A little clown of my power Ew, you really need to shower You sure really stink At this Debating I got a line written before you can blink You really need to rethink Should I challenge this guy? My words, so in-sync Sync, sink, sink you down To the bottom of this river Wait, I'll give you a sliver of hope Don't mope, I'll mispell a word or too So you can rant too But tell me, who are you? Making up these stupid debates I'm pwning too Your Turn
George Zimmerman is guilty

I agree that Zimmerman was not right in his behaviour. He did break the law and behaved irrationally. However it has been blown up to the point of people saying that he is a racist monster that just killed Martin for sheer bloody entertainment. It was simply two humans who made irrational impulsive decisions and it got out of hand. Yes, George Zimmerman is indeed guilty of killing Trayvon Martin, but the circumstances were not what everyone is making it out to be.
George Zimmerman is guilty

Zimmerman was no "goodie" himself either. Zimmerman wa told not to follow him. He could be suspious of him all he wanted he had not right to follow him after the police told him not to that is a felony that the court desired to look over.. And it dosent matter if he was a bad kid or not . If Zimmerman was such a good neighborhood watch wouldn't he know where martins fathers house was? Or maybe think to call his father to see if his son was there or going there? Your making Martin doin like a worse kid than he was. Yes he may have not have been the perfect kid everyone keeps saying he was but Zimmerman was no angel either.
George Zimmerman is guilty

I believe that both parties reacted unfavourably, however Martin was not the innocent victim that everyone is making him out to be. Zimmerman became suspicious of Martin because he was hanging around at night and marking up buildings with explicit graffiti. The kid already had a criminal record and had been caught stealing before. When the autopsy was preformed on Martin, traces of PCP were found. Zimmerman had every right to be suspicious. When Martin attacked Zimmerman, he had the right to defend himself, however he should not have resorted to such an extreme.
George Zimmerman is guilty

George Zimmerman lat February kill Martin. Martin was unarmed. Zimmerman was the head of his "neighborhood watch." When Zimmerman spotted Martin outside who was leaving from his father house he called the cops because he looked suspicious. When he talked to the cops the cops told him to no longer follow him and wait for them to get there and that they would handle it. Zimmerman then called back the cops this time you could hear yelling and then gun shots. There were no witnesses on the scene, however there were many calls that night saying they gets a gun shot. If Zimmerman would have listened to the cops when they told him to stop following him there would have never been the killing of a 17 year old who was getting something from his dad at his fathers house..
Trump to demand military parade.

Go back and read my entire statement. I made a few points I want you to address. First, this might harm national security by pulling troops away from their positions. I support our troops, but this is ludacris. Second, the money spent on this could go towards children's protective services, healthcare, and education. Third, what about the social programs to help single mothers who are often the backbone of their communities. Forth, Kim Jong Un just had a military parade, how do you feel about that? Fifth, what are we saying when we glamorize wars which should be congressionally approved like Ron Paul says? Do you know what it's like to be mind effed for having been through something traumatic? When human life is involved, err on the side of caution.
Trump to demand military parade.

First off, how exactly will this take from healthcare? Secondly, sure some dictators have been known to parade their military, however parading our troops here in the U.S. shows patriotic unity and support for our military, just like Veterans Day and Labor Day Parades. Yes, it will take our soldiers away from training ,but it'll give them a much needed break and boost their moral. No, war isn't a game and our troops are not toy soldiers, they are human beings, they need breaks.
banning all guns in the U.S. will work

for example guns would not dissapear and crime rates would not move. lets say there was a ban on the guns. there are around 300 million guns on the streets that are already owned. how do you expect to catch these people? do you think they will just hand them over? please tell me what your plan would be for this to work. i dont really have anything to say until my opponent explains or comes up with a solution to consficate these weapons.
banning all guns in the U.S. will work

First time doing this, so I might not be clear on how this works. Sorry if this is improperly formatted or unclear. I affirm the resolution: Banning all guns in the U.S would work. I'll start of with definitions. For the most part, the resolution is clear in its meaning. However, there are some terms that must be clarified. Oxford Dictionaries defines "ban" as officially or legally prohibit. Within the context of this debate, "banning all guns in the U.S" means that the U.S federal government would enact a law that would prohibit the possession and use of all firearms. Furthermore, the term "work" must be clarified. "Work" simply means to achieve the desired end. The action of enacting a law to ban guns doesn't necessarily imply that the aim is to stop gun use. Rather, the only concrete goal of the ban would be to have the government enforce the ban on guns. Therefore the question is of whether or not the United States federal government is necessarily able to have a ban on guns enforced on a federal level. It should be noted that whether or not guns are successfully kept from the citizens isn't necessarily a factor in the ban "working". My sole contention is that the United States can very easily get federal officers and departments to enforce a ban on guns. Although popularity might not be high, the chance of any resistance in the form of a coup or otherwise are highly improbable. The question of whether or not federal departments and officers will comply with a federally enacted law can be answered with an obvious yes. Therefore, I urge a strong vote for the proposition.
Is Lord of The Rings better than Game of Thrones? (TV only)

I'll start with saying that I have never seen of read GOT, so of course this is biased. I do realize it has a large following and will do my best to show that LOTR is in fact better. I may not be able to change your mind, but I sure can try. I will refrain from using the books, or else this would be a landslide victory. LOTR is a classic trilogy that will remain a ground breaker in cinematic history. Yes, it had great CGI and an amazing soundtrack, but what really hit hard was the story and characters. There may not be as diverse a cast as GOT, but what we did get were amazing characters that you got to know throughout each movie. For three years, you follow this innocent Hobbit, who you can empathize with at some degree, who is thrust into adventure with a cast of characters that all have an interesting story behind them. The bond between them may not be great in FOTR, but TTT really builds up their connections, and then you get a wonderful payoff, both emotionally and thematically, that really ties it together. The story is also a classic that has been replicated for decades. Even G.R.R. Martin was inspired by Tolkien. The world is so fleshed out with languages, maps, history, and the classic good and evil that is the backbone of any good story. These days are plagued by movies trying to make the bad guys good. Suicide Squad and Guardians of the Galaxy are great examples. Downright bad people are made to be people to look up to in these films. Those are just two though in the vast array of making villains good. LOTR is an escape from that world, giving you good vs evil with a good amount of twists and turns. Is LOTR perfect? Not the movies, but they are, in my opinion, significantly better than GOT.
Is Lord of The Rings better than Game of Thrones? (TV only)

First of all, I wanna say that ive never read any of the books about any of the 2 universes. I prefer just prefer AGOT. Firstly, i think that the story has more different characters with more differences between them. In that way, i think that you can relate more to them. Also, the story doesnt focus only on 1 side of the oponents (the good guys). Everything becomes predictable the more you watch LOTR. (Im going to go more in-depth with my arguments in round 2)