BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Redistribution of Wealth

Focusing first on your claim that the redistribution of wealth (or, more generally, resources) would somehow inherently destroy all incentive to work on the part of those from whom resources were taken, this is just patently untrue. It is a well-known historical fact of economics that, even when corporations are taxed at supposedly exorbitant rates (e.g., about 90% under FDR), American industry nevertheless thrives, CEOs still make out like bandits, the populace as a whole is no less likely to prosper (than under comparably low corporate tax rates), and nobody just abandons a highly profitable business model or product/service concept and moves to Tahiti to escape fiscal oppression. This logic applies to individuals as much as it does corporations; realistically, nobody with a billion-dollar idea is going to forgo pursuit of it simply because, after all is said and done, all taxes are paid and debts are settled, s/he'll be left with "only" a paltry, say, $78,000,000. That's just pure nonsense, hogwash, bunkum on its face, and we need only common human experience and a child's understanding of economic realities to see that. It's of course an entirely empirical question what the exact "tipping point" would be, i.e., the rate of taxation or seizure of capital (or however you care to define it) at which incentive actually would begin to appreciably suffer, but what is beyond rational debate is that a considerable percentage of the income and assets currently earned/held by the nation's wealthiest citizens could indeed be redistributed to some particular or general demographic (e.g., the country's neediest citizens [defined in some precise way] whether employed or not, those gainfully employed but earning less than $35,000/yr., those earning less than a certain amount who also have at least two dependents [spouse and one child], those recently laid off after 20 or 25 or 30 years, whatever; the specifics hardly matter at the outset of this debate) without their incentive to do exactly what they're doing now, and have done to generate such incredible wealth in the first place, being even marginally tangibly affected. Your move.
Global warming is NOT a phenomenon that is happening right now.

Experts have probably lived 50 years. To truly study the earth's weather we need to record it over the course of hundreds of years. We have only been tracing the weather for -100 years. Experts have the point of view of 100 years. Earth will(and has) live much, much more. Second, I AM NOT AGREEING WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never said the earth was heating, but only have explained what it what mean if it were present. I clearly stated what was wrong with the planet and what we could do about it. Can you read? I have NOT tried to change the topic of this debate, experts do not have to be right, you said the experts are concerned about green house gas emmisions:not global warming. I have presented far more valid arguement than you have, You have just tried to sway the decision of the voters and not focused on actually arguements. you think you can just say that I am against the rules instead of proving me wrong. You are playing the whole debate wrong. Please learn to argue. I am right. If the voters project the opposite theory then too bad for them. As you will some, some voters are smart, they know who is trying to weed out of arguemnets. Sorry for the flare of anger, I can't help it, bye.
Global warming is NOT a phenomenon that is happening right now.

Again, my opponent is not debating his side of the argument. The definition of global warming is simply: the earth is heating up. My opponent has put forth arguments that do not argue his side of the case. He is arguing that global warming is natural. HOWEVER, he agrees that it is happening. He has basically conceded to this debate. My opponent has tried to change the topic of this debate so that the debate would be about the factors of global warming. This is against the rules. My opponent cannot just choose a different topic in the middle of a debate when there is a topic already set in the debate. In this debate, we are going by the American Heritage Dictionary definition of global warming. My opponent has done nothing but prove it. I do not have to put forth any arguments, but I will. Experts all over the world agree that global warming is a phenomenon that is indeed happening right now. In other words, they all agree that the earth is heating up. For instance U.S. National Academy of Sciences issued a joint statement with 10 other National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." In other words, there are 11 National Academies of Science agreeing on the same thing: the world is heating up. It does not matter if it is mankind's fault or if it is natural; that is not the debate. The debate is whether or not the earth is heating up, and scientists all around the world say it is. This is my only argument for now, but if you want more, look at my opponent's arguments. They all help me to prove that global warming is indeed happening.
Global warming is NOT a phenomenon that is happening right now.

No one can ignore the changing state of our home planet. >>"My opponent has been talking about global warming being a natural part of the Earth." I have most definately have not been talking about 'global warming' naturally occuring. It would be imposible for me to say that everything is alright, and everything is according to the usual. The planet is naturally foregoing changes that no one has seen drastically as now. You should not win the debate Chng-kt! >>"No. The question is the topic, and nowhere in the topic do you say anything about factors of global warming. You can't add to the topic in the middle of your argument. The point about the factors is irrelevant." I did not say that was the topic of the debate. I said that people around the world need to realize that 'global warming' is not happening, and they need to recycle, and replenish earth's resources before it is too late. The global 'heating' is a totally different theme and as littlelacroix says: 1. On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history. 2. Carbon dioxide emissions do not correlate with the higher temperature. Around 115,000 years ago, the Earth was in it's warmest phase on record, yet the carbon dioxide levels were among the lowest ever recorded. If that isn't enough to convince you, over the last 200 or so years, the carbon dioxide levels have sky-rocketed, mainly due to mankind, yet the temperature has only risen a half a degree Celsius. So, if we're in a period of warming and mankind has given off so much carbon dioxide, then why has the Earth's temperature only risen a half a degree Celsius? It just goes to prove that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide and the temperature. 3. Finally, during the mid 1990's, two Danish researchers, Henrik Svennsmark and Eigil Friis, had hypothesized that cosmic rays from space influence the Earth's climate by effecting cloud formation in the lower atmosphere. Their hypothesis was based on a strong correlation between levels of cosmic radiation and cloud cover, thus, more cosmic radiation, more cloud cover. Clouds actually cool the Earth's climate by reflecting about twenty percent of incoming solar radiation back into space. The hypothesis was potentially significant because during the 20th century, the influx of cosmic rays was reduced by a doubling of the sun's magnetic field which shields the Earth from cosmic rays. According to the hypothesis, then, less cosmic radiation would mean less cloud formation and, ultimately, warmer temperatures. The influx in cosmic radiation may have cause the recent spike in temperature in recent years and may have been a factor during the time when Earth had temperatures this high as well. Thank you, I have won this debate.
Global warming is NOT a phenomenon that is happening right now.

Before I start my debate, I would like to ask everyone who is going to vote in this debate to vote based upon the debate itself, not your own opinion. Thank you If I may, I would like to take a definition of Global Warming from the American Heritage Dictionary: global warming n. An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change. My opponent has been talking about global warming being a natural part of the Earth. He has been saying that everyone has been predicting that this is happening and there is nothing we can do. If you look back at my definition, you can see that all he has done is help me prove my point. He, as the Pro side of this debate is supposed to prove that Global Warming is not happening right now. My job is to prove that it is happening right now. Seeing as all my opponent has done is prove my point, I should win this debate. >>The question is whether global warming is happening or not, and what (if any) factors that contribute to it we can change and correct. No. The question is the topic, and nowhere in the topic do you say anything about factors of global warming. You can't add to the topic in the middle of your argument. The point about the factors is irrelevant. >> I believe there is nothing we can do about our planet's NATURAL state of change. 'Global warming' is a imagined situation. Change is necessary. But you still think that there is change going on. You still think that our Earth is heating up, and you have provided evidence. You are just proving my point. Thank you
Global warming is NOT a phenomenon that is happening right now.

Thank you Ching-Kit for being my friend, Thank you for debating and telling me about debate.org, Thank you for teaching me good strategies. Now prepare yourself. Global warming is an inaccurate theory. As a part of my evidence I will present to you a situation. In the 1970's, many news groups and organizations that studied the weather had a strong belief that we were going to, soon, go through another ice-age. Thirty years later: here we are. Earth has always gone through fluxuations in climate and temperature. You might present the fact that ice near the polar areas has recently been melting and breaking apart. This occurance is brought by the changing in currents that brough warmer waters toward the ice. The warm waters that constantly bash into the ice cause it to melt. Let me assure you that in at most twenty years, the ice will be frozen solid again. Studies on weather are outrageously over-rated. They have only been going on for less than 100 years. There is no written history about the weather 150 years ago. You might argue that we can do archeological digs to see what the climate was like, but who is doing those now. I agree, we could find out how much rainfall occured 200 years ago by studying old trees, but no one has done that yet. Even then they wouldn't get a wide enough spectrum of earth's overall changes in climate. "On average, an Ice Age occurs every 10,000 years, and when was the last Ice Age? Just over 10,000 years ago. Many scientists agree that we are well over due for the next one. Also, before every Ice Age, there is a period of warming similar to the climate that were are experiencing today. Thus, all things considered, we are experiencing a natural cycle in the Earth's history." He is right. I have researched on many websites (and one book) and the answers are consistant. He has a point// You have no evidence that is good enough to prove that we are going through 'global phenonemon'. You might also argue that we must conserve resouces, protect the environment, and lower green house gas emitions. Then I would agree with you. These problems do not contribute to what is happening now (which in no way I am saying is global warming). These problems are a result of mankind being careless about their planet home. Many people believe global warming is happening because during their lives they have experianced constant warming temperatures. They also believe what Al Gore and other activists tell them. Most of these people say we must recycle, get more fuel-efficient cars, and prtect the environment. I am saying they are exactly right. The question is whether global warming is happening or not, and what (if any) factors that contribute to it we can change and correct. I believe there is nothing we can do about our planet's NATURAL state of change. 'Global warming' is a imagined situation. Change is necessary.
visa

Because it appears that my opponent will not be returning to the site, I shall present only a single point rather than constructing a complex argument.Visas help governments keep undesirables out of their countriesVisas may be withheld from people who have no visible means of sustenance, poor moral character, a criminal record or are deemed to pose a threat to national security.(1)The visa system, therefore, serves to keep potential spies, terrorists and other troublemakers out of a country. Sources1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Fallacy of Self-Representation (Biblical)

My opponent has not provided counter-evidence, which means my arguments are still superior. However, I will address the arguments to ensure their utter destruction.My opponent has not been able to refute that Morgan Freeman is always right. Morgan Freeman's voice is literally the sound of truth.Logically we can't just say that there is nothing that can self-represent, otherwise it's impossible for us to actually have truth. Truth may self-represent as it is the truth regardless of what other sources say it's not. Since Morgan Freeman always says the truth (as it has been established at this point), it would be illogical for us to actually oppose Biblical self-representation, as it was inspired by the voice of Morgan Freeman.My points and evidence as a whole have not been adequately attacked to this point.Thank you for reading.
Fallacy of Self-Representation (Biblical)

Response to p1. If I were to challenge moegan freeman being god, than you could raise the point morgan freeman is god. But, like stated with the second example of the fallacy, you cannot use any examples of morgan freeman himself as a way to justify him. Essentially, these movies are just different parts of the bible in a metaphorical stance. Please read through the scope of the argument before you make this clause. Reaponse to p2 Again, supporting evidence must be unrelated to the challenger himself and be impartial towards the postions. I can provide an incident. For example, if I think my dad is not cool, he cannot defend himself by saying he thought he was cool, or a book he wrote saying he was cool, or a picture of something he did that was cool. The point is, evidence remains unbias and unrelated. Response to p3. Of course a "God" is going to try to break the fallacy, he benefits. It will simply break any fallacy to try to make people believe in their petty lies. The more obscure and undebatable, the better. Its hard to debate when you have a fully prepared prestandard of fallacious bias lies such as the bible
Fallacy of Self-Representation (Biblical)

I feel this will be a very good debate.I'm going to run down a simple line of logic.P1: Morgan Freeman is God.P2: Everything. Morgan Freeman says is true.P3: God inspired the writers of the Bible to write truth.C: The Bible may self-represent. Point 1: Morgan Freeman is GodWe have two instances where Morgan Freeman reveals to us that he is God.In Bruce Almighty: And in Evan Almighty: In the second image it's more convincing as he's sitting on the ark.However, full observance of these films will reveal that Morgan Freeman is revealing to us that he is God.Point 2: Everything Morgan Feeeman says is true.I merely present a video for my evidence: http://youtu.be... Point 3: God inspired the writers of the Bible to write truthThis is just logical stuff. If God wants a relationship with us like he's demonstrated by coming to earth in the forms of Jesus and Morgan Freeman, then it makes sense he'd want us to know truth. Since everything he says is true, we can assume that everything in the Bible (or at least things that actually have an affect on us) is true.Conclusion: The Bible may self-represent.This is just logical stuff. The Bible is written with the inspiration of the golden milk chocolate voice of Morgan Freeman. We have to assume that it speaks truth. It's actually a ridiculous assumption intellectually to say the Bible isn't true given the evidence presented. Thank you pro for making this debate! I hope we can have fun with this and get down to the truth!
Immanuel Kant was more important than John Stuart Mill in the development of philosophy

Thank you Phantom for a great debate. This has been fun. As this has been a long debate I will be brief. As referenced earlier… “he (John Stuart Mill) gave them (empiricism, and utilitarianism) a new depth, and his formulations were sufficiently articulate to gain for them a continuing influence among a broad public. ” Pro says “The influence mentioned is of the broad general public. There’s no reason to say empiricism was not still influential in philosophical discourse. Indeed, the broad general public is not entirely relevant unless they contribute themselves to the development of philosophy, which layman do not, really. ” I contend that to have such an influence on the general public when promoting philosophical ideals is to very heavily influence philosophy itself. Indeed, to interest and engage layman in philosophy promotes philosophy to new realms of influence. Development was defined earlier as ““the act or process of growing or causing something to grow or become larger or more advanced” It is largely due to the idea of growth or advancement that I defend Mill in this comparison. Kant’s work was foundational and very important. He laid ground work that needed to be laid. Mill through influence caused growth and advancement. Both in theory, and especially in practice. The appeal to the layman increases general interest and awareness in philosophy. In this regard Mill is without a doubt of great importance. Due to this understanding of importance and development, we can conclude that John Stuart Mill was more important than Immanuel Kant to the development of philosophy. Thanks for reading! .. .
Immanuel Kant was more important than John Stuart Mill in the development of philosophy

100th debate! This debate should be impossible to accept. Introduction and Clarifications Credit to SocialPinko for the idea. We had a similar debate a while back and I wanted to do one like this again. The terms “important” and “development” will be open for debate. There is no need to agree on the specific definitions but we should apply common sense and reason to the terms. This debate is NOT about the soundness of the philosophers' views. Please do not start arguing about who was right or wrong unless it bears relevance to the debate--which it probably will not. Conditions Western philosophers only. Likewise, it is primarily Western philosophy that we are talking about. List of Western philosophers: http://en.wikipedia.org... My prospective opponent may choose any philosopher from the above list with the following stipulations: 1. Post-Descartes era only; starting in the 1650s with Thomas Hobbes and onwards.2. The scientists, i.e. Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal etc. do not count.3. Pre-1900s only. So 1850-1900 counts but 1900-2000 does not. These conditions are not strict. Please feel free to suggest a philosopher outside these provisions if you feel he would be a good candidate. I will choose my opponent based on the suggestions and other factors, such as Elo. Rules Burden of proof is shared. I must show Kant was more important and my opponent must show that his choice was more important. 72 hours to respond 10,000 characters per round 2 week voting period No Elo limit. I don’t predict much poor or bias voting. Select winner voting R1: Acceptance/introduction R2: Arguments and rebuttal R3: Arguments and rebuttal R4: No new arguments. No new sources. No referencing sources from previous rounds unless citing information that you’ve already mentioned. Summary. Voters must provide, at the least, fairly detailed reasons for their decision which correspond to what was in the debate. Otherwise, their failure to meet this condition will be used to call for their vote being deleted. Other voter discretions will not be tolerated either. Otherwise, as always, I greatly appreciate everyone who takes the time to read and judge fairly.
Morality is fair

The world we live in is not so black and white that we can claim things to be absolute. This is similar to the debate "is love real", the trouble is love is not something physical but it is as real as anything in the world to those who have it. Con seems to believe that because morality is not absolute it cannot possibly be fair and that being a matter of perspective somehow diminishes the intent of morality which is to be fair. I suppose a more appropriate way to define morality would be "the intent to be fair to others" because like love, sadness, happiness they are all just situation conditional, not one is absolute. There is only one thing in life that is an absolute and that is that death will take us all. True though it may be that morality is not always fair it is certainly intended to be by those that choose to have morals. Those that engaged in slavery were not being moral by definition despite any justifications they made in their minds. The 2nd definition of morality listed in your source is much more matter of factly stated : the degree to which something is right and good : the moral goodness or badness of something Those that fought in the American Civil War were indeed slave owners at one time such as Abraham Lincoln the 16th president. The north owned slaves though not as many but they were the ones that initiated the abolishment of slavery. http://slavenorth.com...