BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Humans are better than animals

"If I cut down 100 trees in order to build a farm that feeds a small town, is it destruction?" The answer, in fact, is yes. The "innovators" such as my opponent ignore the fact that other living beings exist. 100 trees could house millions of different life forms! If genocide such as this is required to do something as simple as build a farm, then yes. It is destruction. I am using the iPhone 6 as one of countless examples of needless products mass produced for no reason. He said that other species do run each other "out of business," but he didn't really help his side. He just made a vague metaphor that I believe meant that other species kill each other too. This is true, but my opponent has yet again missed my point, that humans have taken this fight and warped it into something that spawns genocide, nuclear weaponry, even just guns. My opponent has not responded to many of my points and I have responded effectively to all of his. I have clearly and inevitably won this debate.
Humans are better than animals

My opponent clearly doesn't understand what the term "destroyed" refers to when he uses it. In the context "humans have destroyed the world" he overlooks that in this situation there is a beneficiary. Therefore, it depends on the perspective. If I cut down 100 trees in order to build a farm that feeds a small town, is it destruction? This is the question that my opponent cannot ask. When I said that I will not debate global warming, I meant right here, right now. In a separate debate, I would debate that. I do not "support" war, but I (unlike my opponent) understand that it is the bad side of something inherently good, ideas. My opponent also keeps bringing up the iPhone 6, as if that is a major source of environmental pollution. Maybe you should ask, "do we need electricity?" not "do we need the iPhone 6?". I realize that humans ARE apart of the animal kingdom, this debate's topic (as I specified) is whether humans are the BEST in the animal kingdom. Obviously, my opponent sees human beings as the sole source of win-lose environmental change; this would mean that other species do not run each other "out of business". I am clearly the rationalist in this debate.
Humans are better than animals

My opponent started off by refuting my point that humans' advanced thinking does not benefit the common good. However, this argument still stands. According to him, if we are doing good for the short term life of our country, we are doing good for the world. This is the kind of thinking that humans use that HAS destroyed the world. If he will "not debate whether global warming is a real threat," then I will first put in a last reason to prove climate change is a real issue, and then provide another example. Global warming may have been going on since the dawn of time, but (I am not going to provide a source for this one, if you oppose it then you need to be educated,) we have been greatly helping this along through the mass releases of carbon in every little activity that we do. Take my next example, extinction. Here we have yet another example of the "Great Expansion" of the human race. According to my opponent we are winning in the fight for survival, but to defend my point that we are the creators of war, (which my opponent supports, as I will later prove,) humans have taken this "fight" way too far. Do other species kill other tons of their own species to prove an idea? No! His refutation to this point was very weak. Its only purpose was to advocate war. He implied evolution was not progress, but completely missed the point. He asked if "the entire production of everything that supports BILLIONS of people all over the world that has lasted throughout human history and has benefited countless people just like your self better than preserving a certain sub-species of cheetahs?" but we can have a common ground here. Mass production of things we don't need stands in the way of preservation, but we don't have to become animals to help them. Do we need the iPhone 6, or the countless things a needless as it? No. But ignoring other beings because they are not vital to our own survival is different. You feel compassion for a dying animal on the side of the road, but not a broken phone. Then he went on to rant and call me a genocidal Nazi communist. He said that "most bad things that have been done by humans have been done by irrationalists." Well, yes, but he only proved me right here. The human race has so many problems and so do other species. We are equal. True, not everything is equal, but a criminal is not better than a cat, is it? A cat may not have ever done anything bad, but a criminal sure has. That's why he's a criminal. The cat is better than the criminal. I will go out of this round providing some extra reasons to vote for my side. First, humans are the only mammal incapable of making their own vitamin C, which actually caused Ebola in Africa. Ebola circled around animals such as monkeys in Africa for a long time without harming them, but a human got it and started this whole Ebola epidemic. Finally, humans are animals too. We belong to the Animalia Kingdom. I have indisputably won this debate.
Humans are better than animals

Clarification: This debate is on the basis of whether or not humans are better than animals in respect to development and utilization of the environment, i.e. the mastering of life. Humans are a species that has adapted to their environment very well in the last 100,000 years. This means that as much as nature has thrown at us during ice ages, floods, famine, disease, heat, cold, and all other kinds of disasters, humans have come out on top every time. We have evolved to be much more intelligent in respect to language, conceptual thinking, perceptual thinking, insight, and mathematics. Rational thinking is strictly human, all other animals have varying levels of instinct and lower levels of perception. Even gorillas, whose brain patterns and development is close to humans, have not been able to construct most anything. Gorillas have not linked their logical side to their instinctual side, thus any similarity to humans is unpractical. All other animals are even lower in development and utilization of the environment than humans. Both objectively and subjectively, humans own this planet. The term "best" can be defined by the most utilized, practical talents among the creatures of the animal kingdom. For example, it doesn't matter in the slightest that dolphins are able to communicate well, because, in this moment in time they have failed to construct walls, housing, tools, or any other useful piece. This is why "man-made" is a term used for pretty much anything that is "made" by a living organism. Of course, ants, termites, and bees are close to humans in their social skills and developmental skills and thus could be said to be closer to humans than apes. However, our immense size (relative to smart insects) enables us to construct irrigation systems, mining and drilling operations, controlled fire, and most importantly, agriculture. These examples of utilization of the environment are absolutely impossible for creatures of insect size. Thus, the most important things in human life are strictly human. The breaking free of "need" is an achievement of humanity. As humans, we do not live on the brink of starvation, fighting predators to survive just another day. We are more profoundly adapt to our environment than other animals. With such ancient inventions as knives, wheels, clothing, fire, farming, and buildings, we are able to set aside the limited time in the day for "play". However, as smart beings, we use this extra time to reinvest in our welfare. We invent, capitalize, work, and trade as much as we can. With higher and higher returns in the standard of living, human beings have lifted from the mud and are the sole creature to have reached the stars.
Humans are better than animals

David Graber, an environmentalist at the National Parks Dept. once said, "Until human beings can rejoin nature, we can only hope for the right virus to come along..". That is a little unnerving, however it is the basic consensus of the leaders of the environmental movement. My opponent implies that humans are not apart of nature, only a force against it. This means that you and I, if he is right, must be a plague upon the earth, and that we must be wiped out. I know for sure that my opponent will next ride over that statement, saying that it is "foolish" and "absurd". All environmentalists do. However, I ask you this: if my opponent considers building a farm a form of net destruction (as he stated), he must consider trees and "the millions of different life forms inside them" vastly more important than human beings like you and me. This kind of thinking- that humans are equal to all life forms- engenders questions of the limits of "rights". In other words, does the ebola virus have the same right to exist as a human being? Obviously, common sense would dictate not. But, if you follow my opponent's reason to it's logical conclusion, a human has no right to murder a virus! This kind of nonsense is what happens if you take environmentalism too far; but honestly, name something in history that wasn't taken too far. This line of thinking is evil, it implies that we are not more evolved than the lower animals, ad thus have no right to act as a dominant species. My opponent keeps bringing up guns, murder, genocide, and war. Obviously, he is preoccupied with the bad parts of human life (as if the possession of reason has proved to be a net loss). If you consider how he points to the evils done by a few men, and blames them on the entire species, you can tell he has no chance of being correct in his argument. He skipped over my point that "the iPhone 6 is not a main source of pollution", clearly to avoid questioning our need for energy and food and shelter and paper and all other things we use everyday. If my opponent questioned our need for those most essential things, he would most definitely lose this lose this debate. Of course, the fifth amendment does protect you from admitting self-incriminating evidence!
Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Hello Debaters,I welcome you to this debate, which has the resolution:Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.In this debate, the Pro/For/Affirmative debater will be stating that the resolution is correct; that it is true. He/she will be stating that citizens' rights are more important than national security. The Con/Against/Negative debater will be stating that the resolution is not correct; that it is false. He/she will be stating that a nation's security is more important than the rights of the citizens. I welcome you to bring your own definitions and interpretations of the resolution, as those make debates unique. We must, however, have rules. 1. No kritiks 2. No trolling 3. No unsupported evidence (that is not widely known; use common sense) all unsupported evidence is considered bogus 4. Respect everyone 5. One forfeit round allowed, no more. Keep in mind that you are giving your opponent more time and chance to place forth his arguments.Structure of the Round:In this debate, the first round (1st) will be acceptance, thanks, questions, etc... The second (2nd) will be opening arguments, no responses. The third (3rd) will be responses to opening arguments (rebuttals). The fourth round (4th) will be responses to the responses in the third round (3rd). The fifth round (5th) will be closing arguments. To the debater(s):Please do your research before the debate. Let's keep this clean as well, no cursing or vulgarities. Also, I would prefer that we keep theology out of the debate, thanks. To the voter(s):Please vote on this debate! Read the entirety through before voting.
Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

For my closing statements. .. My opponent's main point rests, again, on the idea that increased security decreases personal freedoms. This does not prove that the citizens' rights OUGHT to take precedence over security. My opponent used personal freedom as the measure of how things should be, so of course by those standards personal freedoms should take precedence. However, such standards were never established in the debate and therefore I don't see how they are an accurate measure of what OUGHT to be. I think it is clear that security ought to take precedence over the rights of the citizens because, simply put, without security there are no citizens as there is no nation.
Resolved: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security.

Hello debaters and voters, In this last round of the debate, I will be presenting my closing arguments. Though I would like to respond to my opponent regarding what he stated in the previous round (R4), I do not have time to do so. Notice that throughout the round, I have sufficiently routed my opponent's claims and applied my own arguments extensively. The only place I find my opponents arguments, much less them being applied in a major way, is in his opening arguments. My opponent oft attempts to refute my claims, but I have shown how his refutations are either mislead or illogical. I want to draw you, the voter, out of all the muddle of contentions, applications, and sources and give you a look at the whole debate; a look at the forest instead of the individual trees, if you will. My opponent's motion is violating basic human rights, just to try to provide a security method, which is not even working! My opponent also pushes that a country's sole purpose is to protect the lives of her people. I say that a country has a duty to protect the rights of her people. In a Utopia, a country could protect the lives of its people without becoming corrupt and abusive of those rights. As you all know, we do not live in a Utopia. Thus, almost everytime a government takes the security of their people solely into their hands (cough communisms cough) that government ends up abusing the people and their rights, due to corruption. Therefore, I affirm the resolution: a nation's citizens' rights ought to take precedence over its security. Thanks you for this long and arduous debate, TheRussian! Thank you for reading through this, voter, and please vote for who you though upheld their side of the resolution the best. Thanks again! ~arrowjaw
The Problem of Evil is Sound

First I would like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and also thank Microsuck for the opportunity to debate such a noteworthy opponent on such a vital topic.I will be arguing that the Problem of Evil does not successfully refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.I would also like to define evil as - The lack or corruption of goodness.For example: The corruption of sex in an adulterous relationship.I would use this definition because evil is parasitic upon the good, and goodness can exist without evil (we need to know the original to know the perversion of it, but not the other way around). I would like to define good as - That which is to be sought for its own sake.For those of you that have seen my other debates or have talked with me, you know that I'm a pretty simple guy. I tend to just look at things how they are. That being said I would like to point out the heart of the argument:If God could prevent evil, he would, and if God would prevent evil, he could.Once again I would like to thank Microsuck for the challenge, and I know how much he hates plagiarism so I will cite anything I use that is not my own thoughts.Good luck.
The Problem of Evil is Sound

Resolved: The Problem of Evil is sound and successfully refutes the existence of a Judeo- Christian type God. ARGUMENT FORMULATED If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil. Evil exists. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate all evil. Therefore, God doesn't exist. NOTE that this argument (and this debate) talks about God who is: Omnipotent; Omniscient; Morally perfect; Omnibenevolent; And the other attributes assosiated with the Judeo-Christian type God. Round 1 is for clarifications, terms, and acceptance only. Round 2 we will start opening arguments.
The Problem of Evil is Sound

Conclusion:My opponent is correct in saying that I agree evil exist, God can eliminate evil, and God wants to eliminate evil. However, eliminating evil is not the only thing God wants. He wanted to create creature with the free will to either accept or reject him as I previously stated, but Microsuck ignored it. Since this is the case, it simply does not logically follow that evil and God are logically contradictory. Most theist and atheist such as: William Rowe and Christopher Hitchens in his panel debate with WLC, and strobel, agree that evil and God are not contradictory.Even though my opponent used the strange definition of evil as unnecessary suffering, I have still defended the proposition. Microsuck even said "suffering... seems [sic] gratious" This is why the argument fails. The best microsuck can say is that it seems gratuitous. However, that only leaves us with inscrutable evil which is not logically contradictory to God. He also said that "there is no need for this suffering." However this claim is unwarranted because he cannot possibly know that. If he knew that he would actually be God and make a great case for the theist! I will gladly answer my opponents question. Evil came into the world during the fall. When Adam and Eve chose to do something that is contrary to what God wants. God did not create evil, humans chose to bring it into the world by sinning. It does not then follow that evil is greater than God, as it has been suggested. All that logically follows is that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing evil. As long as there is this chance (even microsuck seems to agree when he says suffering seems gratuitous) it negates the resolution that the moral argument successfully refutes the existence of a Judeo-Christian type God.Thanks to Microsuck for the debate. If you, or anyone who reads this, would like to ask me a question about the Problem of Evil I am more than happy to talk with you as I do not find the Problem of Evil that much of a problem at all.Thank you for your time.
The Problem of Evil is Sound

Thanks for your swift reply. This round is for closing statements only. Conclusions My partner concedes that: 1) Evil exists; 2) God can eliminate evil; and 3) God wants to eliminate evil. Because of the very nature of God and the very definition of God, it is impossible for God to want to eliminate evil, has the power to eliminate evil, and for evil to exist. What my partner is saying is that the evil is greater than God to handle; which would make evil and suffering God. This debate has came down to the definition of evil. What is evil? I define evil as unecessary or needless suffering. Although sin may exist, it cannot exist in the presence of a holy God. But why suffering? Suffering certainly seems gratious. I define unecessary suffering as suffering that is not needed or can/should be avoided. Those are suffering such as 9/11, hurricane katerina, or botched executions which should have took a relatively short period of time, but was prolonged to make the condemned suffer. There is no need for this suffering and god should have the moral desire/obligation to intervene and stop the suffering. I urge the voters to look at the two sides from an open standpoint and consider the following question: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? ” I want my partner to answer this question. He concedes that God is omnipotent thus having the power to eliminate evil; omnibenevolent having the moral desire to eliminate evil; and the omniscient having the knowledge of when it occurs. My partner states he is both able and willing. Then the question asked is whence commeth evil?
Presidential Debate (I'm Pro and You're Con)

As president, these will be some of my policies.Sorry if the argument seems short, I don't have much time to post it. I'll try to go more in depth for the next rounds.1. Smaller government The US was founded to have a small government but the size of the government has been increasing lately. I will plan on creating a better and smaller government. A government that does not get in the way of people's personal and economic rreedom.2. Better EducationEducation should be improved as it will lead to a better society. I will plan on making education much better leading to smarter individuals. Higher expectations and shorter summer breaks to possibly year round schooling will be implimented. 3. Flat taxMy opponent is advocating for a progressive tax, US's current progressive taxation system is way too corrupt. We should switch to a simpler flat tax for various reasons. 4. Increased spending on the space programThe space program is important and has greatly impacted our understanding of science. We should spend more money on the space program and possibly be the first country to land on Mars. We were first on the moon and we should continue with so. (sorry, i'm really running out of time, i'll post more in the next round)
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god

Thanks Yvette for the post…. My opponent is confused with absolute concepts and Relative ideas and seems like, trying to explain both with the same relative terms. "Of-Course it is possible no to believe in something." This is purely personal as explained in the previous post. "You can't believe in both the statements simultaneously" I think this may not require much explanation. You have claimed yourself to be an atheist and so you must be in a position to reject one of the statements from each category mentioned in the previous post. Unless you do so, you contradict yourself. Atheism: http://en.wikipedia.org... Saying that you lack belief, you do not reject the existence of God. You believe that God may Exist. It is no different from, the position where Dobzhansky or Richard Dawkins saying that life and all the creatures might be created, but we don't believe, and call themselves as Evolutionists. First you need to define yourself whether you are an Atheist, Weak atheist or and agnostic. My opponent's claim of ‘lack of belief' does not apply all the atheists who strongly deny and disbelieve the existence of God. Con's position i.e. lack of belief in God (quite personal) believed by her to be as atheism but insubstantial to distinguish her from an atheistic position that denies the existence of God. As Con's explanation of ‘lack of belief' is from her own personal understanding alone and so it can't be generalized. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Con challenged the debate saying that more positions can exist than the below mentioned, on the question of existence of God. [Statement 1> God Exists] [Statement2> God Does Not Exist] Con failed to list any than taking the discussion to different directions. Con has confused with God with various religions comparing it with political parties.