BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

First of all, this resolution is based on individuals. Not groups like Nazi's. My opponent states the the Nazi's had different Ideals of morality, yes they did. But once again these morals were not correct, the definition of moral is Right from wrong. They might have thought that there morality was correct, but that doesn't mean it was. Because killing millions of people for logical reason is not correct. Also they got into the Nazi group through manipulation which is a whole different story. These are false morals, based on the definition of moral.Also as I said before, the reason that this genocide was not stooped is because of the bystander affect, which originates from lack of individuals moral obligation. So the massacre of millions became the norm.So this shows individuals should have a moral obligation to assist people in need, because this idea could have ended The Nazi Party. All of the oppositions to morality that you stated are against the actual definition of moral.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

Ideology- the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group. Notice how in the definition of ideology, never once is it stated that an ideology is a fact, and since ideology is not a fact, it disproves nothing. Also, Nazism was a morality, sharing none of the core ideas, so they do not share the basic principals needed.My opponent states that different views in morality aren't correct. However, can this statement really be made? In any faith, the doctrine of said faith is what is considered 'right' while another faith's doctrine is considered 'wrong.' Taking this into account, every person has a different idea of what is right and wrong. To each person, there is right and there is wrong. A Nazi and a Jew may have different beliefs but both are right because they believe they are right and cannot be moved to feel differently. My opponent also says that the lingering of the KKK is from lack of moral obligation, also false. The KKK lingers because members of the KKK believe that it is morally right that they hunt down African Americans and annihilate them. To them, this is their moral obligation. My opponent saying this isn't due to moral obligation disproves the resolution itself because saying so translates to people aren't obligated to their morality. Seeing as the next statement by my opponent is incomplete, I will argue this point in the next round when he is able to fairly argue it. I look forward to my opponent's following arguments.
Resolved: Individuals have a moral obligation to assist people in need.

I would like to begin disproving my opponent's first and third contentions, with the idea of cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism is the ideology that all kinds of human ethnic groups belong to a single community based on a shared morality. This is contrasted with communitarian and particularistic theories, especially the ideas of patriotism and nationalism. So even though mortality may vary from person to person, everyone is made with the core basic understandings from good and evil(based on second contention). My main point is even if there are two different morality's they still share the basic principals needed. To begin on my opponents third contention, which states again people have different Ideas of morality. Yes they have contrasting convictions of morality, but this doesn't mean that it's correct. Morality is the differences from right and wrong, and KKK and the Nazi's soldiers where completely wrong so this is not a valid point. Also the pursuit of the Nazi's and KKK lingered because of the lack of moral obligation from the people, which is associated with my third contention, that the lack of moral obligation leads to the bystander affect. And on the second contention, A person cannot help everyone in need let alone everyone they witness in a state of need, and if they were to help everyone they came into contact with that was in need of assistance it would not be healthy for the one giving.This is inaccurate because not everyone is in the s
The orthodox solution to the Monty Hall riddle is incorrect.

With that said, let us proceed. Let us assume that you ignore what the host does and choose the door you originally believe to be the correct door. When you chose, the 3 doors were equally likely, so you win the car with probability 1/3. Now lets back up for a moment and assume that you didn't ignore the host, and decided to switch; you choose a door, wait for the host to expose the door with nothing behind it and then switch to the other remaining door. You win if and only your initial door had nothing of value behind it (think it through). How likely is it that your initial choice had a nothing of value behind it? Two thirds, of course. Keep in mind that in the beginning, the probability of getting the right door was 1/3. This probability would stick with the door the candidate chose, so when one of the other doors is removed from the game, the remaining probability is two thirds in order to have all probabilities sum up to 1 If you don't buy that, lets expand this hypothetical situation a bit. Suppose there are a hundred doors instead of just three. Only one has something of value behind it. You get to pick a door, then the host opens 98 loser doors, then he allows you to switch to the other remaining closed door. Would you? Of course, it's almost sure that the prize is behind the other door, and very unlikely that it is behind your original choice. Still not convinced? Here's another try. Suppose the host had three boxes . . . one of them contains a hundred dollar bill, the other two contain nothing. You have to pick, but before you do, the host agrees to help you out: You can point to two boxes, and he will gladly combine their contents into a new box. Now, after that's done, would you go for the new box, or for the old untouched one? Of course for the new one, it is twice as likely to have the bill. Now to make it more like the original problem, suppose that the host doesn't combine the contents into a new box, but instead throws away an empty box from among the two you pointed out to him. That's effectively the same thing, and has the same result: the other box is twice as likely to have the bill as the untouched one. Still not convinced? Lets get some empirical evidence then: . http://www.remote.org... . http://www.grand-illusions.com... In both of these simulated programs, you'll notice that the probability for victory will remain at 66-67% most of the time Here is a mathematical proof that confirms my claims: . http://www.remote.org.... Conclusion: Changing your door is the best solution.
The orthodox solution to the Monty Hall riddle is incorrect.

For the purposes of this debate, the Monty Hall riddle is the following: Suppose you are walking down the street and someone calls your attention to a set of three closed doors. This person--we'll call them The Host hereafter--offers you a large sum of money if you can guess which door the money is hidden behind. Two doors are empty, and one contains the prize. You choose a door. Before the Host opens the door to show you whether you won or not, they instead reveal what is behind one of the doors you did NOT choose. Behind that door is nothing of value. There are now only two closed doors, one of which is the door you originally chose. The Host now offers you the chance to switch doors. Should you agree to switch or should you stick with your original choice? --------------- The orthodox "answer" to this riddle is to always switch. I believe this answer is incorrect. If you disagree, accept this debate challenge. Please keep in mind that I have defined the Monty Hall riddle above for the purpose of this debate. Read it carefully before you accept this challenge. Some tellings of the riddle vary slightly on some of the details.
The orthodox solution to the Monty Hall riddle is incorrect.

"In the riddle (and like all riddles), the answer is based off of the information we are aware of. The host' use of multiple strategies is not part of the Monty Hall riddle my opponent typed in round 1." The above is the crux of my opponent's objection to my previous argument. In short, my opponent is saying that my argument relies on an assumption that is not implied in the original riddle. However, it is in fact my OPPONENT who has assumed something not originally in the riddle. My opponent assumed that the Host would ALWAYS open an empty door and offer a chance to switch. The original riddle neither states or implies this to be the case. All it says is that you were given a choice between 3 doors. You chose one. The host opened an empty unchosen door and gave you a chance to switch. Why would you believe the host was OBLIGATED to give you this choice? It is not stated in the riddle. Yes, as I have said, SOMETIMES it is stated in the riddle when others tell it, but often it goes unsaid as it did here. Again, nowhere in the riddle does it state or imply that the host was OBLIGATED to give you a choice. And if the host is NOT obligated, then you can not know what strategy the host is using. And, if you do not know the host's strategy then, as I showed previously, it is impossible to know what the player's best strategy is (to switch doors or not to switch doors). I have already agreed that my opponent's analysis of what happens when the host IS obligated to offer a switch is spot-on accurate, so it is not true that I failed to address my opponent's analysis. My point is that his analysis is incomplete, since it only takes into account ONE of the many possible strategies that the Host may be using. And since we have no way of telling from the original riddle which strategy is being used, we therefore have no way of knowing whether we should apply my opponent's analysis or not. To conclude, my opponent has accused me of assuming something which was not stated or implied in the original riddle. However, it is in fact my OPPONENT who has done that. My opponent incorrectly assumed that the Host was OBLIGATED to show an empty door and offer the player a chance to switch. This is clearly NOT stated nor implied in the original riddle. Therefore, my opponent has failed to successfully argue against my contention that we have no way of knowing what the player ought to do without at least knowing what the Host's motives are (do they want us to win or lose), or knowing what strategy the host is using.
The orthodox solution to the Monty Hall riddle is incorrect.

First, my opponent insinuates that there is no flaw in the answer I am supporting for this problem unless we take into account the possibility that the Host is using a particular strategy used to undermine the contestant's confidence. However, the problem with this line of thought is easy to spot. In the riddle (and like all riddles), the answer is based off of the information we are aware of. The host' use of multiple strategies is not part of the Monty Hall riddle my opponent typed in round 1. For instance, when playing poker, the initial phase in the game requires that you receive a hand of cards. If you're given the first card, you'll note that there is a 1/52 chance of you getting an Ace of Hearts. Then again, if the card shuffler has fixed the deck to get you a hand purely made up red and black digits, there is a 0/0 chance that you'd end up with the Ace of Hearts. That said, can such an assumption be warranted? Possibly, but without prior knowledge of the card dealer? Not really. The same applies to this riddle as we're given no information that can allow us to take into account these other variables which my opponent brings up. All we know is that the host opens one door and tells the contestant that he/she has the option of switching. All that stuff about being a con artist (in which case, the best idea would be have all three of the doors contain nothing of value) or trying to increase the ratings cannot be applied without having been insinuated in the riddle. There is nothing in the riddle to suggest that the host would go about any method other than to always open one empty door and offer the player a chance to switch doors. Using my opponent's approach, one can conclude that most (if not all) riddles are unsolvable With that said, you can dismiss strategies 2-4 (since they aren't implied by the riddle). With those dismissed, the con has already won this case as my opponent has conceded to there being no fault in the reasoning used to conclude that switching is the best option. On top of that, my opponent does not address my empirical evidence used to conclude that switching is the best option. IMPORTANT NOTE FOR THE VOETERS: I realize that many here may be tempted to discount my round 2 response (and vote against me) since it was not as LONG as my opponent's. I suggest that if you don't wish to read the arguments, you shouldn't vote on them. With that said, I await my opponent's final rebuttal.
Nicolas Cage caused the government to shut down so he could steal the Declaration of Independence

Left and right you can find political hacks all blaming the party they dont like for the cause of the shutdown..... Republicans blame the Democratic party because they think the Democratic party are refusing to compromise, and Democrats blame the Republican party because they arent retards. However, the TRUTH is that the government shut down was caused by Nicolas Cage in a plan to steal the Declaration of Independence for whatever reason he may have come up with (Odds are its an invisible treasure map on the back of it that leads to a massive treasure) I will provide evidence that this is the truth, con will argue that it is not true
Nicolas Cage caused the government to shut down so he could steal the Declaration of Independence

This has been a fantastically hilarious debate and I have had a ton of fun participating in it. Thank you imabench! Due to this being the last speech, I will address my opponent's last rebuttal, and then present my final stand. My opponent attempts to argue that Nicolas Cage has been the mastermind and puppet-master behind the whole plan. This cannot be true, however.Cage could not have approached Travolta and the CoS first, because Face/Off occurred many years before Cage's "financial crisis". Thus, it had to have been Travolta and the Scientologists who came up with the plan and approached Cage with it. And this is how: So, the scientologists' highest ranked members have the power to see the future if they combine their power. They were looking for potential candidates who would need their money, and therefore work for cheap. They saw that Cage would soon be in debt, so they (and Travolta) proposed the plan to stay switched in order to achieve great fame for all. Time went on and the plan advanced until 2004 when Travolta filmed The Knowing in Cage’s body. The paper from The Knowing not only revealed dates of tragic events, further decrypting revealed that Cage was planning to betray Travolta and the CoS. In a rage, Travolta spent years depleting the fortune Cage has accumulated over the years, thus bringing the CoS prediction to truth. Cage, pissed off at his fortune being gone, then began to enact his betrayal plan early. The CoS was worried it would be screwed by the end of this, therefore they had Travolta (still in Cage’s body) get hired in the movie Sorcerer’s Apprentice, where Travolta learned the power of sorcery. Using his new found power, he put Cage under a spell, making him a pawn to the CoS. This spell limited his power, and made him forget what was going on, preventing him from betraying them. You see, Cage has never been in power of the plan, it has all been strings pulled by the Illuminati, persuaded due to the majority of members being scientologists. The CoS then continued the plan and had Travolta shut down the government and steal the Declaration of Independence, giving them the power they needed without needing to pay Cage for his services. Cage, still entranced in the spell, willfully swapped back bodies and forgot this whole thing ever happened, leaving all the cards in the playing field of the CoS.Thus, the vote must go to the Con, because Nicolas Cage, being a mere puppet to the power of Scientology, could not have engineered a plan that would outsmart the combined wits of CoS and John Travolta. The spell caused Nicolas Cage to forget he was ever part of this plan, and thus forget that he is able to reap some of its rewards. This has left Cage struggling to avoid the IRS as he deals with his tax debts, wondering how he blew through $100 million and when he acquired 14 mansions.Again I want to thank my opponent. It has been a pleasure getting to debate you in this round. I wish you the best of luck! I'm eager to read some RFDs on this topic.
Music Composition Contest

Have you composed any music? This debate is a competition for the better original musical piece. Rules: There will be three rounds; the first is for acceptance, the last two are each for posting your submission. All instruments are allowed. I'll be using a keyboard. You can submit a video or link an audio file of your playing. Submissions can not be more than three minutes long. You can use a song that you have already composed or you can compose one for this contest. Only one track is allowed. Basically this means no lay-overs or second instruments. (Note: you can accompany your playing with singing, that doesn't count as a second track.) Playing other pieces is not accepted for this debate. Please use only your own composition. Voting: This debate has a "select winner" system of voting. Voters should choose whose songs were better overall.
That parents should be allowed to choose the biological sex of their children.

In Australia, abortion is legal in ACT,"Victoria,"South Australia, Tasmania, Western Australia,"Northern Territory, if there is approval from a doctor or in some cases 2 different doctors. Abortion is legal in Queensland & New South Wales if the doctor believes a woman"s physical or mental health is in danger. If our country allows abortion, why should parents not be able to choose their child's sex. We can kill babies, but we can't say determine if we have a boy or a girl?! http://www.childrenbychoice.org.au... Sex selection could help reduce the population because couples could get the gender they wanted right off gate instead of continuously having children until they get the gender they desire. We have all known someone in that situation where for instance, they already have three boys, but decide to try for another baby because they want a girl or vice versa. We would also probably see less children being given up for adoption because of the child being the undesired gender, such has been the case in China. Another important issue the sex selection could help with would be sex specific diseases. Many times parents are the carriers of a particular sex specific disease bur do not want to pass it on to the child. Should they risk having a child that could risk getting a serious sex specific disease?! Sex selection would allow these people to have children despite having these diseases because they would be able to choose the sex. http://community.babycentre.co.uk... Thank you
People as a whole are tearing the world apart.

The structure of the world at large remains highly intact. Humans have not affected tectonics in the slightest, nor are they on a pace to. The sum total of human action so far is more comparable to sanding the surface, smoothing it out, on this sphere, than "tearing it apart." The earth's diameter is 7926.28 miles. It is literally impossible for humans to do as the resolution describes. I'd say more if it weren't for the character limit.
An IQ Debate

My opponent argues that knowledge is a better predictor of success, and that IQ tests measure knowledge. This is incorrect. IQ tests measure a general mental ability. This mental ability is genetic in nature. Of course, people can have bad days where they do abnormally bad on an IQ test. .. but that does not change what the IQ tests measureNow, we know that IQ is about 75 to 85% heritable. This measure is gotten by using IQ tests. This means that IQ tests MUST measure some genetic quality. Otherwise, it would not be heritable at all. Knowledge, as my opponent mentions, is not genetic. It is true, however, that those with high IQs typically have more knowledge, because they are more curious and more able to learn. My opponent's key flaw is that he mistakes imperfection uselessness (IQ tests do not measure intelligence perfectly, therefore they are useless). Sure, environment affects IQ, but it is 75 to 85% genetic. This means that IQ, while imperfect, is the best measure of general mental ability. And, as mentioned above, IQ correlates heavily with life outcomes. This means that genetic ability has a lot to do with life outcomes. In order to rebut my opponents case I needed to prove that:1. ) IQ is heavily Genetic2. ) IQ is a pretty Good Measure of Intelligence3. ) Intelligence is a heavy predictor of Life Outcomes4. ) IQ tests measure IQ pretty wellThese are the points my opponent challenged me on. I have successfully rebutted all of these points.
An IQ Debate

A IQ test is not a measure of one's IQ... Knowledge is the x factor in the equation. Unless you can eliminate the unknown variable(knowledge) you cannot accurately measure one's intelligence. Knowledge is a result of intelligence IQ tests treat intelligence as a result of knowledge That is why they fail at accurately measuring one's Intelligence Intelligence does not change, knowledge does; one can be highly intelligent and extremely ignorant. Because you cannot measure intelligence, you cannot use IQ tests to reform government policy.