BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality cannot logically exist without God

Without God, it is impossible to have an objective moral standard. An atheist has no logical justification for a belief in right and wrong or to criticise anything on the basis of morality. If there is no God, human being a worthless. Life is no more valuable than non life. Rape is justified and encouraged if it produces offspring and helps to out breed your competitors. If evolution is true: sociopaths are the most well adapted people to reality. People should aspire to ridding themselves of all conscience beyond the survival of themselves and immediate family. Racism is justified. Races are the biggest families in the human species and it stands to reason that some are less adapted to civilisation than others. Earth has limited resources and the only purpose worth pursing is to ensure the survival of ones own genetic material. We should eliminate anyone of a different race or anyone not being productive.
Morality cannot logically exist without God

The people of Isreal killing adulterers, homosexual and keeping slaves in 500BC does not violate my moral standard, which is God's signs and commandments. I can trust concience as being accurate and I can trust that human ings and life has inherent value because my belief in God logically justifies it. The question is how you can rationalize an objective moral reality without God. You have not even attmpted to answer this question yet expect me to answer question about the Bible which were not even mentioned in the subject. On what basis do you say killing adulteerers and homosexuals is wrong? How is keeping slaves objectively wrong in a worldview without God? You are attempting to condemn things set out in a book without even justifying your own belief in a moral reality outside darwinism or personal preference. I understand the Buddhism example but it completely misses the point. You can declare one person as enlightended and say his teachings are the moral standard but you have no grounds to apply those morals to anyone else. Buddhist morals are so because Buddha said so? He holds no authority of any other human. Buddhas personal moral beliefs hold no authority beyond any other human. I have answered your question and have not attmempted to answer any of the questions I have asked. On what basis can you condemn any other human for actions you disagree with? Is there a moral reality outside human beings or is it all differeing opinions?
Morality cannot logically exist without God

1.) Dodging I would like to point that Pro never addressed the question of killing adulterers and homosexuals and that of slavery. If he called these wrong and immoral, it would go against the bible, and thus would be detrimental to Pro's case, as he is arguing that the Bible (the SUPPOSED word of God) is to be the moral base. In the closing statements, I ask that Pro provide a clear cut yes-or-no answer to these statements: 1. Killing adulterers and homosexuals is moral 2. The institution of slavery is moral 2.) Morality Pro seemed to not have understood my Buddhism comparison. In Buddhism, there is a set of morals, such as the precepts, dharma, ahimsa, and the different teachings of the Buddha. The morals are all in scripture (the Pali Sutras), and is the basis of many morals for many Buddhists today. The fact that Buddhism has objective morality undermines the statement "Morality cannot logically exist without God": for the Buddha (a supposedly enlightened man) set the morals, and he never claimed divinity, never claimed to be a God. Yet, he gave objective morality. You claim that morality cannot objectively exist without a God. All it takes is one example to counter this. Objective morality can come from an enlightened person, thus coming from the Buddha, a man who never claimed divinity. If you can use the Bible (which is the basis of your morality), I can use Buddhism, and the Pali Sutras. Thus, I have proved that objective morality can come from a source other than God. It can come from an enlightened person. I would like to note that if Pro says that there is no evidence that the Buddha was enlightened, he destroys his own argument, as there is no proof of a God.
There exists at least one scientific flaw in the Qur'an

I'm looking forward for this debate. My position is that there exists at least one scientific flaw in the Qur'an. I'll be providing three separate cases which I think are all scientific flaws. To win the debate, my opponent has to provide well-supported, reasonable apologetic that refutes my three cases. I win the debate if at least one of my cases is found convincing by the voters. Scientific flaw: An error or a falsehood that conveys unscientific information. 1- Opponent needs to offer better translations if he/she rejects any of the translations used. 2- Opponent needs to accept that Classical Arabic is very similar to Modern Standard Arabic.3- Forfeits are not allowed. I can't stop my opponent from forfeiting, but I listed this as a condition for the voters to penalize anyone who forfeits.4- The first round is acceptance only.5- In the last round, my opponent has to say "As agreed." He/she is not allowed to argue, given that I won't be able to respond to any apologetic presented in the final round.6- Opponent has to accept all the definitions and rules given here.I await my opponent's acceptance.
Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..

Pro declares "Hold it right there, you have only partially disproved my argument, which for the nature of this argument counts for nothing. " This is common thoughts found in incapable noobs. We see Pro acknowledge that his argument was refuted in part and then dictates what counts or not, a question that is for the voters to decide. It also shows that perhaps Pro lacks understanding on what BoP is in a debate like this. So voters I ask please reread Pro's arguments and is his view justified as a rule of thumb when it comes to this debate "Capable until proven incabable[sic]" Now I don't mean to pick on Pro. Most noobs lose their first debate, as I lost my first. perhaps in the future RockvillSoftworks will be more articulate on his points. I am sure if I had a chance to repeat my first debate that I would win it this time around. Thank you for this debate.
Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..

QUOTE: "So in summery [sic], we have examples of noobs who via previous experiences are clearly not justified to be thought of as capable by default, no clear reason to think that capable is the default, and reasoning to consider incapable the default"Hold it right there, you have only partially disproved my argument, which for the nature of this argument counts for nothing. You justified that those that hold an identity such that we can identify them with "noobish" behavior should not be considered a neutral arguer (between being having superior debating skills and "noobish" skills). The remaining part is the hardest, which is the part that you've neglected.You will now need to prove why somebody with a blank profile, name kept private, and 0 posts (and debates and comments), should be considered to be a neutral arguer until proven otherwise. Just like we supposedly have no right to consider them to be a good arguer or a bad arguer by default, what makes the logic sway in the direction of being a neutral arguer. We can assume considering somebody to be neutral means considering them average, and we can assume for the purpose of this debate that there is an equal distrubution below and above that threshhold. What argument can support this "labeling" of somebody as neutral rather than good to initialize, or even bad for this matter. For this round, I have chosen a strategy of proving not necessarily why this "labeling" of someone as average is worse than "labeling" them as pro, provided there is no evidence on either side, but rather putting a burden of proof on my opponent to reason why there is an advantage over another method over the proposed one, and therefore I am not shifting the focus of the debate, which may be claimed. If there is a superior method, that will make the assumption of being "good until proven bad" inferior.I leave you a chance to justify this missing point in the last iteration of this debate, and so I will have no say after this, but I have chosen to take the risk and leave you the opporitunity to bring your point of view to a strong finish, provided that it is even possible to have a strong finish in this debate.
Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..

The source links all worked when i just checked them. It does not matter too much that you don't know who Chad is, as long as you understand that those who had known him before he joined DDO and was a noob here had no reason to think him capable at the point that he did join/become a noob. Assigning a default of capable would go contrary to previous knowledge. Chad is an example of why a noobs need not be automatically thought of as capable. Pro notes how the US court system is based on the default of innocent until proven guilty. This idea of pro's does not apply to capable or incapable. Presumed innocence is important in a legal system because it is the default position and the inherent difficulty of proving the negative claim of not guilty increases the wrongful convictions in a system the presumes guilt. When it comes to capable and incapable there is no default towards capable, and no sizable harm to being thought of as incapable. Furthermore unlike guilt and innocence capable and incapable is a continuum. An argument could be made that the default should be incapable because as infants we are incapable and some, not all progress from there. Add to this the fact that capable and incapable are both as easily proven and it is clear that the suggestion of a default of capable is not well reasoned. Pro claims "I am a good debater until proven otherwise." Such a claim has yet to be proven So in summery, we have examples of noobs who via previous experiences are clearly not justified to be thought of as capable by default, no clear reason to think that capable is the default, and reasoning to consider incapable the default
Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..

I took a look at your profile also, and we are indeed natural opposites... Your "references" include one dead link (temporarily possibly), and two pages whose content features a person who I do not know of... It also does not help that you didn't explain his role in this argument, so maybe you could clear that up next round... If you are familiar with the US court system (or basically any modern court system for that matter), we are all innocent until proven guilty. Not that I am being tried in a court case, but I want to stress that the system nowadays does not consider us neutral to start with, but innocent. Given that just like in a court case, we are debating (even though it is not over whether the defendant committed a crime), this should be more or less treated as if we were in court. I am a good debater until proven otherwise.
Capable until proven incabable.. Internet edition..

Thank you RockvilleSoftworks for this debate. There is no reason to, as a default, consider one to be a coherent debater over some other position. I noticed on your profile that you and I are very different but I did notice you are an atheist. perhaps you may know who Chad Elliot is, if not see the link. [1][2][3] I myself am of the view that a default judgments of "capable" or "incapable" should be withheld till relevant data can be aggregated. In cases like Chad Elliot relevant data was available before he was a noob at DDO (he has since deleted his profile) but in general the default position should be undecided. Pro asks "The question is, am I capable of making a good argument, and speaking for all the people out there who are or were once noobs,[sic]" Yes, any noob could be capable of making a good argument, but it is also true that any noob could also be capable of a bad argument. It is clear that this question has no bearing on the proposition because its inverse is also true. this means that while Pro is theoretically capable of a good argument, one has yet to be presented. to show the default should be capable rather than undecided as I am proposing. [1]https://encyclopediadramatica.se... [2]https://www.facebook.com... [3]http://www.youtube.com...
IQ Does Measure Intelligence

1. You did not refute the existence of sexual intelligence so my point still stands. You can broaden the concept of intelligence as you would like and by doing so dilute the subset of abilities that IQ test originally set to measure. 2. If religion is pure opposite of logic and reason then that must implied religious people are illogical and unreasonable? What about religious philosophers (Leibniz, Newton,...) who investigate and attempt to justify their beliefs with logic and reasons. Surely not all aspects of religion is irrational. Secondly, if there's no such thing as religious intelligence then what about emotional intelligence. How does one put emotions on a logical framework?3. I think you misinterpreted my point. The test does not take in account how you use your knowledge is ofc because the test wasn't supposed to test your knowledge in the first place. It tests your ability to acquire knowledge. Same thing with the car. The car have the ability to acquire distance doesn't imply that it will.c
IQ Does Measure Intelligence

Well for one there is no such thing as religious intelligence mainly because religion is the pure opposite of logic and reason, secondly you seem confused on the second part, i was refering that the test doesnt exactly take in account how you use your knowlege, sure the test can tell us that you know speeding in the car is wrong, but it wont tell us wether you would do so or not or if you would choose to do so.
IQ Does Measure Intelligence

1. Your argument seemed to be: There are things that IQ does not correlate with . TrueYou can broaden the scope of the word "intelligence" by introducing various intelligences and by doing so reduce the set of skills that IQ test correlates with. How about religious intelligence or sexual intelligence?2. It's not supposed to. A car tested to have the ability to run at light speed doesn't mean it's supposed to do so.
IQ Does Measure Intelligence

IQ is NOT a global measure of intelligence. IQ measures mostly abstraction, understanding and reasoning abilities, and does NOT measure emotional or social intelligence. E.g. you may be an autistic with a very high IQ and a very poor social intelligence.In addition, IQ does not say much about what you will do with the abilities which have been measured. Like owning a Ferrari does not oblige you to drive very fast: you can, but will you?
Literature is less important than it is made out to be in school

Alright, I just want to apologize to anyone reading this. I am going through a very rough time and I can't think of anything else other than things going on in my life. :( I think my arguments are valid enough for me to just leave it at that. I really wish I could continue this debate but I don't have it in me, life has brought me down and I just want to apologize for my absence :( I forfeit
Literature is less important than it is made out to be in school

Okay, I didn't mean to offend you by that above statement. What I meant was that when I said literature I was discussing prose and classics as opposed to other types of writing. I believe what you said is totally correct, though I am still uncertain regarding the importance of analysing older classics. Incidentally, which country/state do you live in? I think there may be a misunderstanding due to different curriculums - the curriculum I am doing in the UK is as I have described it. This debate can continue regarding our opinions on how the teaching of literature should be shaped: what types of literature schools should focus on and in what ways. However, I resent you saying that I am only arguing this because I am bored in lessons. Besides being false, this isn't exactly a good way of going about a debate. Patience is a virtue in debating and it is important to listen to what the other party has to say, however ridiculous it appears to be. People's opinions have to be respected. So I hope we can continue this debate and leave it having gained something from it.
Literature is less important than it is made out to be in school

"I think you decided to stretch the meaning of literature to all written works so you could have some substance in your argument." --You I did not just come up with the meaning of literature, I have literally given you the definition of what literature is... If you think the definition of literature is "stretched" then feel free to phone up every dictionary company in the world and argue what the definition should be..."Greek mythology" is a short lesson held at a later age just to provide you with information regarding the past so that as evolution grows, the past is never forgotten and will fortify the future with all of our pasts issues. Subpar pieces of information is kept at a light level of education which lasts merely a short period of time being taught, the fundamentals of literacy is very important to everyday life which should most definitely be taught from a young age to many future years to come. Saying that you don't like literacy because a couple of lessons are boring to you doesn't mean anything. Schools wouldn't waste your time with stupidity so that you would suffer past unimportance. This debate is basically over, there is no genius in he world who could claim that literacy is less important than we think. I have just explained to you why everything in literacy is being taught, I don't know what else you can argue against me?
Literature is less important than it is made out to be in school

What you said is very true and I"m glad that you brought this point up. Undoubtedly, it is of utmost importance to educate children how literature is used to manipulate the reader"s beliefs about a certain topic and people should be aware of this. Rhetoric is widely used by writers to enforce their ideas and beliefs. So it is important to understand contemporary writers" ideas. But what about all those classics that are required to be studied for English Literature qualifications? Is literature "behaving" the same now as it was in Shakespeare"s day? I think you decided to stretch the meaning of literature to all written works so you could have some substance in your argument. I think one can compare English Literature to Greek Mythology. Greek Mythology, as far as I can see, hasn"t got as great a position in education as it used to have in previous decades. Is this not because it is less important now in a modern society than it used to be? If so, surely classic literature is the same. Furthermore, the analysis aspect is almost the only aspect of GCSE English Literature (in the UK anyway).So is it not true to say that those in charge of education have thrown away the important part of studying literature and kept the less important part? Formulating theories about life"s issues surely belongs in the philosophy department of education.
Literature is less important than it is made out to be in school

Literacy goes much further than analysis. Literature is a term used to describe written or spoken material. Broadly speaking, "literature" is used to describe anything from creative writing to more technical or scientific works, but the term is most commonly used to refer to works of the creative imagination, including works of poetry, drama, fiction, and non-fiction. Therefore, the methods of writing or "literature" fortifies the meaning of itself by educating us not only "analysis" but creative writing which alters the process and methods of which your mind creates new information induced by a chosen topic. Literature is not something to be taken lightly, most definitely should schools introduce literacy from a young age onwards through your life. Analysis is merely a single aspect of literacy usually taught at a later age when your mind starts creating it's own theories regarding life's mysteries. I don't think you understand the definition of literacy which threw you off of this debate. Please describe to me out of the new terms that you have leaned, which ones are impractical to modern society?
Smoking is good for health!

Well, according to a website run by medical doctors[1], smoking does indeed cause lung cancer, bladder cancer, stomach cancer, etc... So how is this healthy? Cancer kills, and lung cancer, according to NBC news[2], is the most deadly cancer, and has taken the most lives of any types of cancer. How is this healthy then? The answer is, It is not. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1]: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... [2]: http://www.nbcnews.com...
New Zealand should be a state of australia

Australia's defense force would do just fine without the help of New Zealand. The New Zealand Defense Force only holds just over 14k people, approximately 2.2k of which are in reserves[1]. Compare that to the Australian army, which has approximately 10.5 million troops[2]. Convincing New Zealand to hand itself over to Australia would take way too much time and the benefits are simply not worth it, especially since the rest of Australia would be obligated to fund New Zealand. New Zealand has a completely separate culture and way of life to Australia, as well as many different laws and ideals. It would take unbelievable amounts of time to merge our two countries together. [1] - http://www.nzdf.mil.n... [2] - http://tinyurl.com...
New Zealand should be a state of australia

New Zealand should be a state of Australia because we need there help in the defence force. We have no way to defend ourselves if we were to be attacked. Another reason is sport. If New Zealand and Australia combine we would almost own the world of sport. For example, netball, Australia is first and New Zealand is second, if we combined we would be unstoppable. They have a much wider range of trade-able goods than us so if one fails they have other things to fall back on. Australia gets about US$200 billion a year we only get about NZ$10 million a year. New Zealand would benefit hugely from this. My last thing is, the pavlover rivory would finally be over!