BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ayn Rand accepting government aid was not hypocritical

At first glance, someone who accepted social aid while simultaneously decrying it as pure evil seems utterly hypocritical. The fact that Ayn Rand accepted government aid is often seen as an 'Ahah! Got you' by Ayn's opposition. The 'logic' in this estimate is complete nonsense, though. I will even go as far as saying it would have been hypocritical of Ayn to not accept said government aid. One does not have to believe in the philosophy of Ayn Rand to see that her actions were not hypocritical to her own belief. Ayn Rand was vehemently opposed to collectivism, altruism; and most importantly, the force used by the government to create programs with the aforementioned being used as ideas of virtue. She was opposed to the act of force e.g. taxing someone to help another. However, Ayn was not opposed to the isolated 'good' that this capital would do (she would not be opposed to healing the sick if a machine was invented that could only heal the sick and did not draw upon the fruits of another's labor). The world is not a vacuum, though. Taxes are always redistribution, not the intrinsic creation of wealth. Ayn Rand paid her taxes; something she strongly resisted. She did not do so out of charity, but out of necessity. Accepting government aid really is no different. Ayn Rand was against taxes, but would pay them when she had to (or face the harsh consequences), and Ayn Rand was against government assistance, but accepted it when handed to her (or face the senseless hardships faced by paying taxes AND not getting anything out of it). Not accepting government aid would have been hypocritical of Ayn Rand, who supported the notion that one should act in one's best interest if it does not inhibit others to do the same. Accepting government assistance was in Ayn Rand's best interest, or even easier to defend: Ayn Rand thought it was in her best interest. Ayn Rand paid into the system, why would she refuse the any benefit from it if she opposed altruism and supported acting in one's self interest? In conclusion, Ayn Rand accepting government assistance was not hypocritical, but merely how one would expect someone of Ayn Rand's philosophy to behave. If Ayn Rand had not accepted government, what would that mean? One of two things: one, that Ayn Rand thought the public was too illogical to see that doing so was not hypocritical, and it was in her best interest to keep as many followers (which really is a valid point! But does not ever lead to the conclusion that she was hypocritical); or two, that Ayn Rand had abandoned her philosophy completely and wouldn't accept government aid so there would be more for the others.
Ayn Rand accepting government aid was not hypocritical

Rules:1) No semantics Hypocritical :ofthenatureofhypocrisy,orpretenseofhavingvirtues,beliefs,principles,etc.,thatonedoesnot actuallypossess2) Do NOT post any arguments in round one. 3) Failure to comply with these rules means automatic loss for my opponent.By accepting my debate you accept my terms. For all of you who don't know the background of this; Ayn Rand was against all forms of government social programs and welfare. However, Ayn accepted social aid herself. I will be arguing this is not hypocritical.
This House Would Abolish nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons are computerised and they can be hacked. Less than a weak ago the National Health Services (NHS) was hacked and it is being held at ransom, but this is only health we are talking about, now imagine if terrorists where to crack the nuclear weapons (nukes) encryption and hold them at ransom, do you really think anything good would come out of this especially AMERICA is always saying that it does not bow to terrorists. It would rather protect its prestige than the people. Universal disarmament is not an easy thing to accomplish but its a step forward. Nuclear wars do not just destroy people they destroy hospitals, schools, buildings, even children which is a price to big to pay and it also claims up to 50 square kilo meters of land that could house over 20 000 people and still have farming land left. Disarmament can be carried out while scientists figure out a way to permanently neutralise these nukes. W ell Korea might not completely disarm because it fears America, Russia might also not fully disarm but when this becomes universal and all parties are in agreement a consensus will be reached and a deal will be struck. There will always be terror and chaos in the world but removing nuclear weapons is a begging to a much longer journey and here I quote your words, "Do not worry, personally I would have them all destroyed, absolutely demolished" well I say to you here is a solution.
This House Would Abolish nuclear weapons

No. Just no. Nuclear weapons shouldn't be destroyed nor banned. I'm not saying we will ever need them, but you think that some argument is going to get Korea to just up and destroy their chemical weapons? I think not. We need them, just in case we are ever hit where it hurts. I'm definitely not saying that we should use them freely like some squirt gun you bought for a dollar at Wal-Mart, but what I am saying is that they should be used purely as self-defense. When another country strikes, and we know they eventually will, we will have our chemical weapons ready to slam down on their economy. I don't want to hurt innocent people, and I'm sure they don't want to hurt innocent people either, so I think that we should only use them in a case of self-defense and self-preservation in our race as Americans. Do not worry, personally I would have them all destroyed, absolutely demolished, but what happens when you try to destroy a chemical/nuclear weapon and it explodes because that's what happens when you try to destroy something so powerful? Exactly.
This House Would Abolish nuclear weapons

I belive nuclear weapons should be banned because they have destroyed a lot over the past few years . Any country that has nuclear weapons uses them as leverage over other weaker countries. They have caused more harm than that can be repaired and even in TOKYO peoples are still bearing children that are disabled, this is a result of nuclear explosions. Radiation poisining remains present for years and years, good arable soil is lost, manpower (humans) are lost , and wildlife destroyed. Nuclear testing over oceans poses a threat to marine and all aqua lifeforms so thats why i stand firm against nuclear testing,weapons and all forms of nuclear technology.
Males are superior to females

I accept this argument and the rules, and put forth the following definition, as my opponent has not. Superior: of higher rank, quality, or importance [1] Male: a man or a boy [2] Female: of, relating to, or being the sex that bears young or produces eggs [3] I will await my opponent's opening arguments before posting my own. Since my opponent also hasn't specified, in order to avoid some trolling debate, we are discussing human males, and human females. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Males are superior to females

Resolution: Males are superior to females Rules: (1) Debater must have typing experience and internet access. (2) Place your arguments and sources inside the debate (3) Structure the debate in a readable, coherent fashion. (4) No semantics, trolling, or lawyering. Rounds: (1) Acceptance (2) Main Arguments (3) Rebuttals (4) Responses to rebuttal and closing arguments Guidelines: For the purposes of this debate, three categories will be devised to encompass the aspects of humans. Physical, Mental, and Emotional. Physical: of or pertaining to the body Mental: of or pertaining to the mind Emotional: pertaining to or involving emotion To fulfill the superiority requirement, males have to be superior to females in at least two of these three aspects. Burden of Proof: The burden of proof is on the pro/instigator.
Open Debate

"Is suicide alone alright?" No. It is, however, "alright" when they are in a state of suffering and/or have no value to life. He says medical prowess can alleviate pains. This actually supports my side. Pain relievers require more pills, injections, and tubes to consistently keep pain away. This ties into my value to life argument, which shows how people become wired in and dependent on machines and medication to survive. Some people may not desire this. He brings up an example of a family deciding to euthanize their comatose relative. This is a completely different issue. Suicide is the act of killing oneself. If the person was in a coma, they could not make that decision. So this example is nontopical. "You talk about the greater good" Where? I dont see that anywhere. He says allowing death from natural causes is preferable to death from artificial causes. Maybe for most people, sure. But when we just sit and wait for the natural death to occur while the patient is suffering and asking to let himself die, then the pain of living a valueless life outweighs dying a painless death. He concludes with saying that doctors who assist suicide are murderers. Sure. Fine. Call it whatever you want. However, he has dropped my argument saying that death is justifiable in some instances. This means that while they may be "murderers", they do not deserve punishment or bad stigmatization because they are only benefiting the patient. Drops: Nothing (like killing) is universally wrong. The entire value to life argument. Because living in a state of pain is worse than dying a painless death that you yourself desired, I urge a pro vote.
Open Debate

Let me ask you this. Is suicide alone right? You argue the issue as if a persons hospitalization is just a convenient excuse to commit suicide. It is not so. It is very improbable that any dying person would feel pain in his or her last hours because of technology today. Medications have been made specifically for the dying so that they can pass painlessly. Comfort is never the issue in these cases. The REAL issue here is where to draw the line. When is someone guaranteed assisted suicide? Say a person was in a coma and the family suggested he be killed. Where is the representation? It is nearly impossible to regulate such an interpretive threshold and it should be left alone seeing as it has already been determined that painful death is a thing of the past. Lastly, I'm going to say that NOTHING gives a person the right to kill another. If a sick person wants to kill themselves than that is their decision. But if a person wants to die, that doesn't give anyone the right to murder. With this distinction unclear, many will get away with murder, calling it assisted suicide. You talk about the greater good but do you even understand what that means? Which is worse: allowing nature to take people as intended? Or allow murders to go unpunished and permitting one man to kill another for money? (Doctors are paid for no matter what they do. It's a fact of life.)
Open Debate

Mine, then his. 1. Quality of life. Some people believe that a life full of suffering is worse than dying. They have every right to believe that. If a patient has a severe medical condition that causes them constant pain, or even periodically severe pain, they have the right to end their life to stop the pain, especially if the condition is terminal. 2. Value to life. Many terminal illnesses require immense medications and machine hook ups just to stay alive. Even then, patients often are severely limited in motor and gait abilities. Many have to spend the rest of their lives in a hospital bed, wired up to countless fluids and machines. Then you have chemo. In all of these cases, you cant enjoy anything life has to offer (can't walk, move, etc) and are only living in a state of technological dependency. People who do not desire such a life have the right to end it. Also, a person may be in a state of severe depression. Some may have had family members die, lost all their property, suffered severe trauma, etc. In this case they again are living a life of depression and thus have no value to life. Now to his points. First off, none of his arguments have warrants, or reasoning behind them. They are just sentences, so you can discard them based on that alone. But here are the refutes anyway. 1. He says killing is wrong. Nothing is wrong 100% of the time. If I have the opportunity to kill Osama to save thousands, I should. If they want to end a life of suffering, feel free. 2. He says "terminal" patients may survive. The argument is not about survival, it is quality and value to life. A person may survive cancer but has to live on life support, pills, and/or a state of pain for the rest of their life. In this case they still may wish to die. 3. He says killing for money/convenience is wrong. Money has nothing to do with this. Killing for convenience is generally wrong, but not in the case where the convenience is for a dying patient
Primary age students should not be allowed to access social media.

Pro has immediately launched into their main, and only argument, and doesn't show any statistics that it is a real problem. Here are reasons why we shouldn't restrict social media. It is the parents responsibility to educate their children and to have an open dialogue with them about technology and the internet. Learning the ins and outs of technology and social media are imperative to success in the modern world. If you lack the basic knowledge of such things your options for education, careers, and even housing suffer. You made the debate about social media then open up with half your opening argument about scams on the internet? Social media websites don't allow advertisements or such that do those things. Limiting freedoms on the grounds of protection is what is bringing down the western world and opening the door for corruption and its ilk to soil our freedoms we cherish. This is assuming the government would be enforcing your policy. I will bring my points to the debate now: Most of my advantages to allowing access to social media are derived from the disadvantages from restricting it. When the dialogue has been opened, it makes for much easier communication in the future from the sex talk to drugs and alcohol. This would reap numerous benefits. "Learning the ins and outs" reaps all the benefits that restricting social media does not. By disallowing the restriction of such freedoms like the internet we open the door for further freedom violations of the like we've seen with the patriot act and the following "safety" narrative being shoved down our throats. What could be next? Porn? My last advantage is not derived from the arguments I made against Pro. By allowing children such early access to social media we are letting them get a news source that is tailored to them. This increases the public's immediate knowledge of current events which is undoubtedly a good thing, but also starts conversation and discussion. With this restriction, children would never be able to ask what this or that is or clarify what's happening because they would have no idea it is even taking place. So if we evaluate the reasons to vote Pro and the reasons to vote Con it is clear who the winner should be. One would only vote for Pro if they believe the slight and unreasonable threat of hackers and stalkers on modern social media sites. And one would have to value that "protection" above all the other advantages that are lost by restriction. One would vote Con if they could see that the benefits are far outweighed by the disadvantages. Not only that but there are multiple reasons why social media is a good thing in a child's life.
Primary age students should not be allowed to access social media.

There is really no possible way to block stalkers because they can always get past what ever obstacles that you move into their way. Stalkers have very well educated knowledge on technology and Internet. The Internet. The thing that triggers most problems. The Internet attracts children because all of the games and how wonderful it is, it really isn't that great. The amount of stalkers and hackers there are on the Internet there is really is absolutely no way through. They might click on a website that might say "Fun Facts About Space For Kids" and as soon as they click on it the person owning the website has tricked them into a big mess. They can steal their photos, contacts etc which they can then steal their ID.
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Thank you for your response. My opponent claims that mythology was created in the same way that the Qura'an was, and for the same purpose; this is a demonstration of his lack of knowledge on the subject. The Qura'an has no entertainment value whatsoever; it is the most complicated literary work ever, that challenges humans to replicate it- it has never been done. As a matter of fact, there have been many challenges issued by the Qura'an to humans to attempt to invalidate it; none have been met. http://www.islamic-awareness.org... Furthermore, the Qura'an is filled with medical miracles and knowledge that was only discovered centuries ago, although written over a millennium ago. http://www.islamicmedicine.org... As regards Greek mythology, I ask my opponent to attempt to make a comparison to the Qura'an. "Going by your definition of mythology, it could easily fit the stories in the Koran." This is not true. Islam is not a culture, institution, or person; and it is not a collection of myths, either. As for the logical fallacy my opponent claims I make, he disregards the evident truth behind the statement. Because practitioners of mythology are so few, and often times only practicing for the entertainment and cultural value, it is clearly no longer relevant. Just like there are very few people who still believe the earth is the center of the universe, and very many who believe it is not. The former is *probably* false. I urge a Con vote; thanks again, and happy holidays.
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

You say that in Monotheistic religions the origin of the stories is far different than that of mythological stories today that used to be legitimate religions. I disagree. The ancient people who made Scandinavian or Greek mythologies did so with the same intentions in mind: To explain the workings of the universe in a way that they could understand. This is the same reason that monotheistic religions were created as well. All of the stories in the Koran provide entertainment and life lessons, the same as in mythology. Going by your definition of mythology, it could easily fit the stories in the Koran. We can not disprove the existence of Allah. But can you disprove the existence of Odin or Thor? No. Of course not. You also argue that because there are many more adherents of Monotheistic religions, this lends credence to its probability. This is a logical fallacy called Argumentum ad populum, or argument by popularity. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

Thank you. For this debate, note that definitions are going to be essential. In Scandinavian and Greek mythology, we take into account two issues. First, the people fabricated stories in the sense of fairy tales in an attempt to bring about entertainment through oral tradition while establishing *some* sort of understanding of divinity. In monotheistic religions, the case is far different. =====> LIKELIHOOD <===== Mythology is far outdated; as a matter of fact, it is, by definition false. In modern society, we have a program called "Myth Busters"; these people attempt to debunk some old fables and beliefs, and if they are in fact false, science has established it to be so. Further, in monotheistic religions, we have scholarly debate about it. Science has evolved from Muslim, Christian, and Jewish theology throughout the course of history. I would argue that, because we cannot definitively DISPROVE the existence of a monotheistic God, but mythology is definitively false, Allah is by definition far more likely to exist than Zeus or Thor. =====> PROBABILITY <===== With time, humanity progresses. We develop new technologies, sciences, and expand our knowledge to new heights. With time, we have learned that mythology is a fun fable to read; Greeks and Scandinavians left their traditions. There are still people who practice it, yes [1], but they are insubstantial. Meanwhile, the umbrella of the Abrahamic religions overshadows half of the earth's population [2]. It would seem sufficient that, if over 3 billion people believe in the same God, while a few thousand believe in Zeus and Thor, it is more likely that the God followed by over 3 billion exists. I will get into arguments from divinity on earth in the next round, if characters allow it. Thanks again. =====> SOURCES <===== [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.adherents.com...
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

'Tis the holiday season, though; let us all be jolly. I'll define terms, then arguments can begin in round 2. Allah- Muslim name for the one and only God Zeus- (Greek mythology) the supreme god of ancient Greek mythology; son of Rhea and Cronus whom he dethroned; husband and brother of Hera; brother of Poseidon and Hades; father of many gods; counterpart of Roman Jupiter Thor- (Scandinavian mythology) the god of thunder, rain, and farming, represented as riding a chariot drawn by goats and wielding the hammer Mjolnir: the defender of the Aesir, destined to kill and be killed by the Midgard Serpent Mythology- myths collectively; the body of stories associated with a culture or institution or person (all terms were defined by typing on google. com) With that, I'll send the debate over to Pro.
The Muslim God's existence is as unlikely as Zeus or Thor

However someone else had accepted it. So, I am challenging him directly. My argument is the same: My argument is that the God of Judaism and Christianity, and Islam (Yahweh or Elohim or Allah) is as unlikely (or as likely) as any of the commonly accepted mythological gods of antiquity, such as Zeus or Thor or Odin. I am NOT arguing against the existence of a historical Jesus of Nazareth, however. I AM arguing about the God of the Jews, Christians and Muslims described in the Old and New testament and the Quran and the "Father" or perhaps "Holy spirit" aspect of the divinity in Christianity. I contend that there is zero scientific or historical evidence for the existence of Yahweh. I also contend that there is no reasonable reason to believe in the existence of Allah or Yahweh, over that of Zeus or Thor. We all consider the mythological Gods of antiquity such as Zeus and Thor and Odin to be just that, mythological beings that do not exist. I argue that we should also, by the same exact logic, see Yahweh or Allah as mythological and non-existent being on par with Thor or Odin or Zeus.