BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Atheism is consistent with Conservatism

Thanks for your arguments. I tend not to agree with the analogy between atheism and conservatism. "conservatism" is defined as follows: n. resistance to change, desire to preserve traditions Atheism is a position that merely claims that the that the data that supports any specific theistic belief is insufficient to cash in its claims. This is a word that shouldn't even exist in a rational world. just like the words a-astrologist, a-alchemist or a-witchcraftist are words that do not exist. If you think Atheism is a conservative position you should also be arguing the same about people that do not believe in astrology or in big foot. As the data that supports any specific theistic belief is no better. You argue that: "Atheists and Deists believe that morality is derived by reason from human nature. Therefore atheism is consistent with conservatism." But you fail to see that Atheists (or Deists) do not necessarily share any belief about morality at all. In fact an atheist would still be an atheist if he claimed that morality was programmed into our DNA by aliens :-)
Atheism is consistent with Conservatism

Perhaps I should of said this sooner and with more clarity: Atheism is consistent with anything except a belief in a god or gods. Therefore it is consistent with rationality, irrationality, conservatism and liberalism or you name it. This is because atheism is not necessarily as a result of any rational processing. Technically the resolution is not wrong its just meaningless. Its like saying that having black hair is consistent with having a mustache. You have failed to show any real connection between the two terms.
Atheism is consistent with Conservatism

Perhaps we both missing the points the other is making. The problem here is twofold (1) I feel you have stretched and broadened the definition of conservatism to the level that it can be consistent with almost everything. (2) You have narrowed down the definition of atheism You also failed to refute my argument about atheists not necessarily sharing any common views about morality. This is why I think (2) is correct. Regarding (1), you say for example: "Conservatism is also consistent with belief in astrology and Big Foot as far as I know, although no one cares." But using this same broad definition of conservatism it also follows that it is consistent with lack of belief in astrology and big foot much in the same way you claim its consistent with atheism. So perhaps your definition of conservatism is consistent with atheism and theism alike. A helpful definition of conservatism which is more consistent with how most people perceive it is as follows: A common way of distinguishing conservatism from both liberalism and radicalism is to say that conservatives deny the perfectibility of humanity. In other words, they deny the optimistic view that human beings can be morally improved through social and political change. see http://www.britannica.com... This is usually not consistent with atheism. Perhaps I am missing some deeper point that you are trying to make ?
Atheism is consistent with Conservatism

"Consistent" means "In agreement; compatible: The testimony was consistent with the known facts." http://www.answers.com... The question is therefore if there is any principle of Conservatism that is inconsistent with atheism, "disbelief in a god or gods." For example, if there were a principle of Conservatism that affirmed an absolute morality derived from the divine inspiration of the Bible," that would be a clear inconsistency. There is no such thing. As another example, Conservatism is inconsistent with Liberalism, because Liberalism disavows an absolute morality, while Conservatism affirms. Conservatism is also consistent with belief in astrology and Big Foot as far as I know, although no one cares. I never argued or implied that "atheism is a conservative position" and I have no idea how Con got that impression. Since Con made no argument relative to the resolution, the resolution stands affirmed.
Give the unicorn to science

1. My opponent claims that: "biology and medical sciences have developed methods of examination that have been proven to cause no pain or harm, such as electromagnetic radiation, blood tests..." I assume my opponent was stating that unicorns could be examined using X-rays (a type of electromagnetic radiation but correct me if I am wrong) and blood tests. X-rays would not be sufficient in understand the unicorn's properties other than figuring out its internal features. And blood tests, are invasive and require opening up skin to extract blood. Scientists are likely to take many samples from the creature which could deteriorate its nutrient/blood supply. Also, since little is known about the unicorn, scientist might not know of the proper ways to handle it, feed it, etc. The unicorn could die! Regarding cloning, I concede. 2. My opponent mentions that if humanity can control itself, then teleportation will not pose a threat. I find this to be somewhat naive, if not willfully blind. Empirically, humanity has been known to use new technology to harm others. In WWII, we saw the development of atomic bombing that was used to decimate Hiroshima and subsequently Nagasaki, injuring and killing millions of adults AND children. I would not argue that preventing humans from destroying one another with new technology is pathetic, rather we are attempting to extend the existence of the human race. 3. One must remember that the blood of the unicorn's healing properties are only rumors. What if we were to discover that it didn"t cure cancer after all?! But even if it did, the costs far outweigh the benefits. If we were to find the cure to cancer, it is likely that we would have also found out how to teleport. Wars would occur using teleportation which could have disastrous effects. Imagine if a country like North Korea got a hold of teleportation? Imagine what they would do? Or Russia? Countries with a thirst for revenge would start WWIII! Sometimes, we need to let things go.
Give the unicorn to science

Hello there, and, as usual, thank you for the debate. I hereby contend that, should a sole in the universe unicorn be discovered, it should become a subject of scientific research. I am to use the conventional definition and "unicorn" namely that of "A mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead." [1] Moreover, I approve my opponent's further assertions as to the characteristics of a unicorn, regarding its blood being a cure for cancer and teleportation. 1. My opponent claims that the process of scientific research could harm the unicorn, as well as that attempts to clone it might yield the same results. I happen to disagree, as biology and medical sciences have developed methods of examination that have been proven to cause no pain or harm, such as electromagnetic radiation, blood tests and substances that can nullify potential pain. As for cloning, our technology so far allows for DNA cloning, which would neither harm the initial unicorn, nor render the descendants uncontrollable. 2. Knowledge of teleportation will not pose any threat to humanity, if we are able to control ourselves. It is certainly, dare I say, pathetic to hold oneself back in fear of themselves. This is no major problem, should we use such knowledge wisely. 3. Lastly, knowledge of teleportation, ability to cure cancer and the rest of the expected and unexpected findings that would arise from scientific examination of a unicorn would help humans develop medicine and technology beyond possible imagination, being indisputably of our benefit; there is no reason to let such opportunities fade and perish. That is to say, on to round two. Sources: [1] Oxford dictionaries, "Unicorn" https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Give the unicorn to science

RE-DO of an old debate. If you were to discover the last unicorn on Earth, what would you do? Legend has it that the blood of a unicorn can cure cancer. And it may also be the key to teleportation. Some might say that we give it to science but I say no! Imagine what they would do to it! Experiment and harm the poor creature. And since it's the last one, they might try and clone the unicorn which could fail and lead to a destructive new species of unicorn. Also, if it's the key to teleportation, we have a huge problem. What if scientists figured out how to teleport? That sort of technology could ruin us. Wars would be teleported! Murders would kill and then just teleport! It'd be a disaster!
Resolved: I Could Beat You in a Fight

. Strengths- I'm 6 feet 2 inches tall. I weigh 251 pounds. I am strong (example I can squat 390 pounds ), I am quick, I am smart (4.0 in school) I play or have played on either on a school team or a rec league in football, basketball, baseball, and wrestling. Special Factors- I have a high tolerance to pain (examples: I sprained my ankle in football practice and started for my football game the next day, I pulled my hamstrings at the start of the football season and played the whole season, and bruised and strained my rib cage in the first quarter in a football game and played the rest of the game.). I have had training in self defense. I don't have great blood flow which means I don't bleed out if cut. Weaknesses- I'm not a very fast runner. With my bad blood flow I cramp if I work hard and have a long stretch of inactivity.
Resolved: I Could Beat You in a Fight

This will be a follow-up debate to my opponent's last debate of the same title which he won [1].This will be his first time defending the DDO brawler-belt -- And his last!The rules are simple>>Rules1. All standard DDO rules apply2. First round is for acceptance3. Any questions on this debate should be asked in the comments section prior to acceptance4. No hitting below the belt5. No items6. Starfox only7. Final Destination ResolutionI Could Beat You in a FightAs PRO, I will be affirming this resolution by arguing that I could beat utahjoker in a fight.As CON, the defending champ will argue that he could beat me in a fight.Burden of ProofShared BoPDefinitionsPretty straight forward. All terms requiring clarification once the debate has started will be defined using the Merriam-Webster online dictionary definition that best fits the context of this debate [1]. If there is a dispute on which definition best fits the context of this debate, the final arbitration is reserved for myself. FrameworkThis fight will take place in a flat field void of character. There will be no weapons lying around, or any cover. This fight will be 100% mono-a-mono.Round BreakdownThis fight will be comprised of four 48 hour rounds, which will progress as follows:Round 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Fighter statistics. This must include Strengths Special Factors and Weaknesses. Since my opponent has already posted his statistics in his last fight-debate, he can feel free to simply copy/paste.Round 3: Why you would beat your opponent. In this round, Con will not be addressing my R3 argument, but instead he will be building his own case for why he would win.Round 4: This round is for counter-argument to your opponent's R3 case for why he would win. This round will also contain our concluding statements. Once again, this round is not for countering your opponent's R4 argument, just their R3 argument. Failure to follow these rules and the round breakdown will be considered a full concession. Note: Even though this topic is violent in nature, I have nothing against my opponent and all comments made in this debate are in good-humour. 1. http://debate.org...2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Re-upload: Free Will

I appear to be arguing that Free Will exists if the right perspective of it is found. That a person need not let language button-hole himself into misery if they do not will it. 'If, Is a word you might object to I suppose, But this does not bother me. Do people not consider knowledge 'part of who they are? So when one comes upon a new knowledge, Experience, Environment, They 'acquire it. . As part of themselves. When we 'choose to make a decision due to information, Even if that information is part of what compels us, It is part of us. Our choices being made by ourselves of our own will and being, Are often a hallmark of a free choice I would think. Does it not seem an absurd statement to call a man completely constrained by gravity? Some constraint perhaps, But not complete, Which allows freedom. He is free to exert his will on what he thinks and feels about gravity, Free to attempt and perhaps succeed in building a plane or a jetpack if he desires it. A gravity so increased that is squishes a man from mortal life would sound the utmost of constraint to me, And if there is an utmost, There must be degrees before that level is reached. Again, Perhaps you object to the 'If, But if he does not make a decision, What else would. The concept of a man not being effected by anything but himself brings forth the image of a man existing in a universe the size of his body and no farther. What free'er man could there be? But what more of a bore? We exist, And exist amongst a world, Are not free of all constraints. But this does not make us completely constrain our will any more than it causes complete free will. Still though I assert free will exists, Though not complete. Complete is boring and limited to itself. The rainbow is a lie? . . . Hmm, Doesn't quite work for me. Is there a leprechaun or a rainbow bridge? No, But there is a beautiful image, Reflective of realities. A phenomenon. Free Will has many definitions. The one I'm taking from round 1 is the ability to act at one's own discretion. Which my argument argues for, As well as stating that in practicality we have free will, Though aesthetically a person might argue against it, Such an argument does not function. All the view we have of reality is a man made concept, Especially the concepts. Made from the world that be, But made none-the-less.
Re-upload: Free Will

A man is able to will something because he has knowledge of something. A complete lack of Free Will can no more exist in a human than complete Free Will. Same as the terms of Good and Evil requiring each other, And a human to possess relevance. A lack of free will can exist, But only when a person does not. As you said, We do not choose to be born. But after that? Is where my argument about 'apparent Free Will comes in (Which you did accept in the comments as an acceptable argument) You cannot expect a man to have knowledge of the skeins, Threads, Or whatever name you like of future events. After an event has passed, Nothing else could have occurred sure. But if events had been changeable here or there, Different routes and paths would have emerged. So within his own perspective and life, A man is free. An argument I would expect after this is that Free Will would still be an illusion in this case, But what of it? Do illusions not exist as phenomena which can be replicated and observed? Known for what they are? Free Will still exists even if it twere called an illusion. The existence of reality, Physics, And causation are not an argument against free will, Since free will could not exist if they did not exist. A man can exist within the constraints of fate since he also possesses the ability to do as he thinks best, But not knows. It's not a cheat I think to say a man is free because of what he knows and knows not. Good and evil. Freedom and bondage. It's a common nature of words to possess antonyms to describe their opposite, And for words to exist describing the in-between. To say free will does not mean complete free will. If only good existed, It would not. even the most smallest choices are influenced by many factors that are restraints that limit to how free a persons will can be. Does that mean that there is 'some freedom? When you say limit I mean, That implies that we have 'some even if not much, To me.
Re-upload: Free Will

I will give my argument that I gave in the previous one. I will also stick to this and would like Leaning to start the rebuttals. Thank you for taking up this debate. By definition we cannot have free will because we operate with constraints. This can be seen with being born. We did not choose to be born instead due to a choice made by our parents we were born. Even if you just say picking to eat an apple or an orange is a choice we made with free will. I would say that is based on past experiences to which one you prefer, DNA that was given to by your parents when life started which all had a play in part of choosing between the apple or the orange. With this in mind I have shown we were not born because of free will and even the most smallest choices are influenced by many factors that are restraints that limit to how free a persons will can be.
Re-upload: Free Will

Well, As mostly seen in the comment section. Apparent free will exists to humans, As they do not possess the ability to gauge with complete certainty how their life has been impacted and forcibly changed beyond their control in the past. Not can they gauge with complete certainty how they will act in the future due to events beyond their control. With humans being 'apparently free in their own perspective, This equates in practicality to the will being free. A person might say that a metal nail not inscribed with the letter 'E is not a 'true 'E nail, But does this matter for practical purposes when either one can be hammered into a piece of wood? And for an illiterate man does this change the practicality of him calling an 'E nail and a plain nail, Nails? The gist of all this I'm trying to get across is that Will being not Free is an aesthetic argument rather than a practical argument.
Re-upload: Free Will

I re-uploaded this because I did not find what Pro did was follow the rules I laid out and gave him/her options to question or state something before accepting so he/she has no reason to do what he/she did. This can be about two things and would like to focus on only one of them. I would like my opponent to choose where this free will debate would go. Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion. (Google: Free will define)Round 1 my opponent can also decide a definition. If I do not accept I am sure I can think of a compromise. Option 1:Free will exists. I am Con to this. Option 2:Free will is more beneficial in a society than not having it. I am also Con to this. (With this I am free will is not helpful whereas Pro is free will is helpful. I or my opponent will not be stating its existence here instead stating how beneficial it is in whatever way they see it to being beneficial) I added the category philosophy but it can be Religious debate if the person wants to and would like someone who supports free will to be my opponent. I also would like my opponent to refrain from straw manning my position since I haven't give one apart from against free will instead this will be solely about free will. Not atheism, Determinism or whatever ism it might be. Hopefully you accept this and make the debate centered to free will. Ask questions in the comment section if you are unsure about something.
Re-upload: Free Will

Sorry about the late reply. I appear to be arguing that Free Will exists if the right perspective of it is found. I thought you were arguing for limited free will. Not complete free will or something like the definition I gave which states without constraints. Even if that information is part of what compels us, It is part of us. The information you were gained was not because of the amount of will you had it was because the circumstances alligned for you to understand what the information meant and how best to use said information. A braindead individual would not be capabel of even reading the information let alone learning from it and finding out the best use of it. Our choices being made by ourselves of our own will and beingIt is not because of the will that make people do something. It is external factors and factors which you have no control over in saying whether you want it or not (Brain, DNA, characteristic). He is free to exert his will on what he thinks and feels about gravityNot the tools he uses. He might look it as a theist who states this as confirmation of God and an atheist as just something science has already explained. If the atheist was born and raised in Saudi more than likely he would have turned to have the theist viewpoint vice versa. The things we cannot control can dictate our choice. The person did not ask or choose to be hit in a head with a baseball bat instead another person willed by an emotion of vengeance that consumed him. That person hit with the baseball bat has suffered significant brain damage and loses of course some parts of the brain. No matter how much the person's will he cannot get back what he lost from the brain damage. Maybe in the future you can copy your brain but cannot do so in the present. Free to attempt and perhaps succeed in building a plane or a jetpack if he desires it. The amount of will did not make that happen. Money, Courage and time made that happen. Will is a small determing factor for the person using a jetpack. Still though I assert free will exists, Though not complete. Complete is boring and limited to itself. Guess you are advocating for limited free will. I am advocating for how useless free will is in making a decision. People say that person is free and has the will do to tremendous feats. What they clearly miss out the significant advantage that person has which gave him courage either past experiences or genetics. All the view we have of reality is a man made conceptAll from something in the universe or thought of using the natural world. Those concepts didn't come from nothing. A unicorn is just a horse with a horn and white and pink colours. Spiderman is just a man in a costume which can climb walls and shoot webs that cover large distances. They all came from something not nothing. Which goes against free will if what we know already existed we just changed it around a bit to suit our needs whether be through speech, Maths, Thought etc.
Rap Battle : (Pro)Cloud Strife vs(Con) Link

Hey Listen playa tell me what is Tifas Sitch? If your lucky later I'll let you smell her on my Dck! Her and Aeris told me they want to salavate my nutsack You wait your turn watch as I flipem and make there booties Clack Is this your first time ever seeing their titz? Now whip yours out come on lets see that polygonal dck! Where is barrett? They said they want to fck an amputee? I'm not into that sh1t but I would fck Nanaki! Tifa strokes my Master sword while Aeris sucked on my bomb sack I tell them to call me Sephiroth while I explode on their cracks! All aboard you slutz I'm now conductor of this train You biches better swallow I don't want to see a cumm stain! Its probably for the best I guess you didn't fck them first! They wouldn't fck you anyway.. I know I'm just the worst! I hope you liked my porno starring me and your posse I better not find out you download it for free I will end you Bich.. just fcking try me!
Rap Battle : (Pro)Cloud Strife vs(Con) Link

Why is this fukin fairy back for another round I am going to hit you with climhazzard and put you in the ground You think this guy would have already had enough When I hit LB 3, I am going to follow up with finishing touch I have got Materia equipped that gives me a lot of health Deciding to take this battle, was a wish to kill yourself I am going to slash that arm off, then we can call you barrets brother After this battle ends, you will never want to be in another Why bring up the tri- force, we all know that sht is overplayed and weak What are you going to do when I summon KOTR, you are probably going to try and play hide and seek. I have bahamut as a guardian, one do you think you can do against him Will the real fairy please stand up, oops shout out to slim I even have a materia for meteor, I can end the world at my discretion. See back little boy, you have no chance in this rap session This battle has already ended, It has finally done and its over What have we learned for this battle, that this btch is just another hero poser.