BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A persons environment influence choices more than free will

But I read your statement and you stated that " The environment does not force you to make a choice". I completely agree, that is why I have stated that the Environment INFLUENCES a person's choice more than free will. Now the Starving man example is extreme, so I will give an example that most people can connect with. Say a person was at a party with a friend. His friend was drinking heavily, and the friend asks "Would you like me to drive you"? Now the person would recognize that the friend is not in a proper condition to drive (a factor of the environment). Also, this friend and him will be in a car, which in the wrong hands can be turned into a double-edged sword (another factor of the environment). So in order to avoid a dangerous environment, the person may choose to walk home or drive the man home. Another thing that you stated is that choices are made by Temptation. Temptation is created by trying to avoid doing a habit because it is wrong, and habits are directly formed by a person's environment. In example, a person may be struggling with lust. Now that person is on the internet and no one is home (keep in mind that this is the environment), and he has the choice on whether or not he will view Pornographic material (again, the environment has clearly influenced the choices available). Now, this temptation to view porn was not something this man was born with, because in order to have obtained this habit, he had to be introduced to it. Maybe he was sexually assaulted by a women in his youth, maybe his father had a collection of pornographic material, or maybe one of his childhood friends introduced porn to him. All these possibilities have one thing in common, they are all environmental factors that contributed to the habit which he has learned. And the Same is for Alcoholics, people who over eat, studious people, etc. Yet keep in mind that it is his environment that has given him these choices, and if he chooses to view porn it's mainly because their is no one there to see him (environment). And if he chooses not to view porn, than he has sided more with free will. But keep in mind that a majority of the time, people will keep true to their habits, which is directly affected by a persons environment.
A persons environment influence choices more than free will

I believe it's more temptation that environment. You can be born in an environment where robbing for survival is deemed OK. It doesn't mean that it causes you to do it. It's not the people's fault that you chose to rob. You chose it. I believe however that in a culture where it's OK to rob it's a lot more tempting to do, because the societal values there imbed that in the culture. But I definitely think that one always has free will, no matter what the circumstance. What I see here is mostly one that has to do with temptation than with environment. I could have been born in the ghetto. I would not have stolen anything still.
A persons environment influence choices more than free will

While free will definitely influences peoples choices, I must argue that a persons environment influences peoples decisions more. This is because people usually build their ideologies and beliefs (which affect a persons free will ) off of their environments. In example, a christian person who grew up going to church everyday may view lying as a horrible action. This is because his environment (Church, preacher,etc.) has condemned lying as a horrible idea. So this person has created a distinct behavior of repeating this pattern. But a majority of choices are based off of reaction. In example, a man attempts to kidnap another mans girl. The other man will usually attack that person without thinking. Or a starving man who has been constantly taught that stealing is a horrible crime, might steal food or even rob another man; while he even kills the man in the process. And Why did he kill the man? Because he had flinched, and the robber was nervous because this was something he had never done before.
Jaguars Will Do Great with a little training on Blake Bortles

There have been plenty of quarterbacks in the history of the NFL who have seemed promising out of college like Peyton Manning but another example could be Blaine Gabbert who has yet to show that he is truly NFL material. His potential was great, but his passing was inconsistent and when he did show up it wasn't anything spectacular. His stats have declined since, and he is a sad example of an NFL bust. When a Quarterback is drafted high in the first round a special burden is placed on them. Some QBs struggle leading the team and high expectations can complicate this even further. Another point can be made that not every QB is built to play in the NFL. Some are just built for High School and NCAA football. With some help Bortles could finally shine and he may become an elite QB. But the chances of that happening are slim compared to him becoming the next Blaine Gabbert, Colt McCoy, or Case Keenum
Jaguars Will Do Great with a little training on Blake Bortles

I am trying to focus on him but in football history tends to repeat itself and as rare as it may be the hype train can derail. He may be the best thing since sliced bread but sliced bread eventually goes stale. He may have just one good season due to a lack of the proper tools. A man is only as good as the tools surrounding him. In an age where every NFL team is shooting up into space the Jaguars only have the tools to make an engine. It's a sad reality the Jaguars will have to learn to accept
Jaguars Will Do Great with a little training on Blake Bortles

True there have been some big let downs with NFL quarterbacks, (RG3, Nick Foles) but instead of comparing two different people, we should be focused on Blake. In his Pro Day, he outperformed Teddy Bridgewater. He has been able to contend with some really good quarterbacks. Lets not compare quarterbacks but lets look at the actual stats.
Jaguars Will Do Great with a little training on Blake Bortles

That is true but what if he becomes a huge sensation then goes on a downwards slide like RG3? RG3 looked amazing coming out of college and he was, but he got injured and that injury has changed his playing style. It is good for Bortles to run but if he can't run out of bounds or slide quick enough he may end up (literally) running his career into the ground. He also could use a bit more time from his offensive line on passes but he can overcome that. Nick Foles excelled last season and he didn't necessarily have an astronomically biblical O-Line. But Nick Foles is a one season wonder. He hasn't shown up after being thrust into a starting job. Bortles has potential and skill but not consistency. For all we know he may be a late bloomer but for the time being, he's the man leading the tattered remains of the Jaguars program into stormy waters
Jaguars Will Do Great with a little training on Blake Bortles

You have some valid points. Blaine Gabbert was was a bust from the start. Bortles is NFL material. To even use Gabbert as an example is useless. Everyone knows Gabbert was the one to hand the ball to the running back. Blake is a runner, and a thrower. Exceptional skill comes from Bortles and he can improve in the future.
Coca~Cola is better than Pepsi.

Before I begin I'd like to point out that the resolution refers to the BEVERAGES Coca-Cola and Pepsi, and not their respective companies. So anything their companies do has no effect on which soda is better. "1. You can buy stuff with the caps. 2. They support the Olympics. 3. They support local sports. 4. It tastes better. 'Nuff said. 5. More people like Coca-Cola than Pepsi. 6. The Coca-Cola Company owns other things like Sprite, Minute Maid, and Vault. 7. Coca-Cola is better. 8. Pepsi tastes funky. 9. I ran out of things to say. 10. I already told you." 1. You could disguise the Pepsi caps as Coke caps and sell them to people who would actually do that, and make a direct profit. 2. See my opening sentence. 3. See above. 4. Your opinion is not fact. Sorry. 5. That makes it more popular, not better. 6. See #2. 7. Restating the resolution establishes nothing. Sorry. 8. See #4. 9. Then why didn't you just say 8 reasons? 10. You did? When? As for my side of the resolution, I can't prove that one is better than the other, since it is a matter of opinion.
Coca~Cola is better than Pepsi.

Coca-Cola is by far better than Pepsi. Here's 10 reasons why. 1. You can buy stuff with the caps. 2. They support the Olympics. 3. They support local sports. 4. It tastes better. 'Nuff said. 5. More people like Coca-Cola than Pepsi. 6. The Coca-Cola Company owns other things like Sprite, Minute Maid, and Vault. 7. Coca-Cola is better. 8. Pepsi tastes funky. 9. I ran out of things to say. 10. I already told you.
Make DDO Great Again!

DEAR MY LOYAL SUPPORTERS, MY OPPONENT, THE MARKET "HUSSEIN" LIBERTARIAN, IS AN EDEB8.COM EXTREMIST. HE WAS NOT BORN IN DDO, BUT HE WAS INSTEAD BORN IN EDEB8.COM. THAT IS WHY MY OPPONENT SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO RUN IN THIS DEBATE TO MAKE DDO GREAT AGAIN. I DEMAND HE SHOWS HIS BIRTH CERTIFICATE OR ELSE!ALSO, MY OPPONENT HAS JUST WIRE TAPPED MY PHONES! HOW LOW HAS THE MARKET LIBERTARIAN GONE TO TAPP MY PHONE DURING THIS VERY SACRED DEBATE! THIS IS NIXON/WATERGATE! SAD!IS IT LEGAL FOR MY OPPONENT TO BE WIRE TAPPING A DEBATE PRIOR TO VOTING?I'VE REPORTED THIS. TURNED DOWN BY MODS EARLIER. A NEW LOW!THIS IS MCCARTHYISM!#TheMarketLibertarian-Gate Scandal
Make DDO Great Again!

We are going to make DDO Great Again- for starters, we need to impose a complete ban on Muslims signing up for debate.org, and all these guys:http://www.debate.org...We're going to deport them to edeb8.com- which we are going to soon invade and bomb with trolls- we got troll the sh*t out of them. That would be my first measure, but in addition to this, the following provisions should be necessary:1. get rid o the forum glitch- it used to be that there was a forum section where you could see the latest and trending forums: Now it's gone. 2. Get rid of the forfeiting glitch- this is really annoying, and it makes forfeiting more appealing than making an argument- thus causing me to forfeit debates, which makes things very confusing when you have 12 or 14 due debate arguments that you're never going to get rid of. 3. Enable to get more voters, we should have people, like now, complete 3 debates, but offer an alternative to confirming your phone number- this being to get a friend to sign up for DDO. This will not only allow people who previously couldn't, to vote, it will also bring in more members! Which is better than my opponents proposal.
Make DDO Great Again!

"Make DDO Great Again!" is a lax debate on how to make DDO "great again." Pro and Con will suggest changes that should be made to the website to increase activity and enjoyment on the website.For the purposes of this debate, joking around, and using jocular references to politics is allowed.Round One: AcceptanceRound Two: Main ArgumentRound Three: Rebuttals MAKE DDO GREAT AGAIN!
Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA.

My opponent admits his arguments could be used for a slippery slope, which is one of the big arguments against it. Also, my opponent must find the difference between sourced facts and opinions to him everything would be an opinion. I never mentioned gay parenting this is a strawman. I do have to apologize, I meant biological not biblical parents. Defining traditional marriage has been upheld in courts such as Baker v. Nelson [1]. Sources [1] http://goo.gl...
Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA.

Yes, you are right that it could be used to defend polygamy, incest, and child marriages, but that is not what I am defending. Most of your arguments are, even though they have sources, still opinionated and are completely thrown out. There is no reason that gay marriage should not be legal because the children raised are more likely to be gay, that is prejudice. I am atheist so biblical parents is thrown out, because your religion can't be used to make laws (separation of church and state). :)
Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA.

First, Homosexual couples can not create children. There is no child that has a genetic code from only one sex. Second, children do better with their biblical parents, which should, and is promoted with traditional marriage [1]. Further, marriage is a privilege, not a right, and it does not meet the requirements of the 1964 civil rights act [2]. Also, my opponent's reasoning could be used to defend polygamy, incest, or child marriages. Sources[1] http://goo.gl...;[2] http://goo.gl...
Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA.

The 9th amendment in the United States Bill of Rights states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," which grants the people of the United States any other right not specified in the constitution. . A homosexual couple can still create and raise children through a surrogate mother or sperm bank, and the child would be raised as normal, and if not they can adopt a child.
Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA.

"A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, as possible, each child is emotionally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman & man whose sexual union brought the child into the world." [1] This shows that marriage is about procreation, and this explains why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives. Allowing gay marriage would shift the purpose of marriage from producing & raising children to adult gratification.Source[1] goo.gl/2xFrH6
Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA.

If you want a religious debate, then you're out of luck, because there is a separation of church and state in the US (and I am an atheist). Give me a good argument that doesn't have a religious side. It's also not unnatural, because in many scientific studies there are over 15,000 species to have a recognizable form of homosexuality. If there is an ALL-POWERFUL GOD THAT HATES HOMOSEXUALS then why hasn't it removed homosexuality yet?
Radical Empiricism is Preferable to Radical Rationalism

This is for bsh1's Ethics and Philosophy Tournament, round 1. . http://www.debate.org...Thanks to That1User for agreeing to the debate and bsh for managing the tournament! ResolutionSame as debate topic. "Preferable" can be understood roughly as overall better, or more rationally superior. DefinitionsRadical empiricism: the position that all knowledge is derived from sense experienceRadical rationalism: Acceptance of all five of the rationalist theses . http://en.wikipedia.org...The intuition/deduction thesis: "Some propositions in a particular subject area, S, are knowable by us by intuition alone; still others are knowable by being deduced from intuited propositions. "The innate knowledge thesis: "We have knowledge of some truths in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature. "The innate concept thesis: "We have some of the concepts we employ in a particular subject area, S, as part of our rational nature. "The Indispensability of Reason Thesis: "The knowledge we gain in subject area, S, by intuition and deduction, as well as the ideas and instances of knowledge in S that are innate to us, could not have been gained by us through sense experience. "[1] In short, this thesis claims that experience cannot provide what we gain from reason. The Superiority of Reason Thesis: '"The knowledge we gain in subject area S by intuition and deduction or have innately is superior to any knowledge gained by sense experience". [1] In other words, this thesis claims reason is superior to experience as a source for knowledge. Burden of ProofThe BoP is shared. Note that we only have to defend one as preferable to the other. So proving radical empiricism or radical rationalism completely sound is not necessary to win the debate. FormatRound 1: AcceptanceRound 2: Each debater presents his case. Con is free to fit his case and rebuttal as he best sees fit. If he only has space for his case, he may neglect the rebuttal of my case untill the next round. If he can only address part of my case in addition to making his own case, he may do that too.
the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

I am wearing a hat right now (coincidentally, but irrelevant). I think that already demonstrates the PRO position false... Pro's claim (that I'm wearing a hat) may have been imagined... but unfortunately the claim was TRUE. That alone disproves his claim in at least this round. Nor does the claim being imaginary (based on nothing outside Pro's mind) allow him to KNOW anything, about default positions or positive positions of claim. This response proves he DIDN'T know, and actually what he claims he did know, was FALSE. This doesn't bode well for the rest of the debate. As it appears, our debate has begun and that's his only argument so far-now shown to be unhelpful to Pro's position and if anything, destructive TO his position.
the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

if you have to prove to me with evidence that you are wearing a hat, is it true for me to state right now before such thing has accured and considering we dont have a time machine to go back and look, that you were wearing a hat as you typed that? at the point a claim is true, its not a religious claim, so religious claims are also not about knowledge belief is false, becasue i dont know is true, so i dont know is true, not belief or disbelief if god fell from the sky to prove his powers magically somehow i dont know but then we would know, and atheists would be wrong, theists would have an argument.. true goes beyond just evidence, you can see on a live feed right now that i am wearing a hat as evidence but you still wouldnt know the machine or some people are tricking you, and really i am not wearing a hat if i claim santa will come and bang your wife later because you was bad that one year.. your initial reaction isnt i will call 911 or lets drive to Canada to hide.. the default position is i dont know beyond what i know, and i know i am reading these Words on a screen and typing them on my keyboard right.. the default know is the default position, life, but i am certain i dont see a dog in my room right now, so if you claim a dog is biting me i would have to tell you clearly a dog is not biting me, there is no dog in my room.. its like binary code 0 1, now is true not now is not true, i am one is true, if you say a dog might come by my house randomly and run in and bite me and it might turn out that you are right about that when i answer i dont know, it Means i know i dont know, becasue how else would i know. so i see that i dont see a dog in my room right now, and i have no doubt about that when i am alone, the true size of the human population is one
the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

Ok, enough nonsense. I see no arguments here, but assume the vague idea is the issue of Burden of Proof-which indeed rests on the one with the "imaginary claim" But that's not your argument. You never mention BoP.... rather you claim that any default position is KNOWN to be false. ie the non-position is always right. Now no question on where BoP is inherently between "claims" and "lack of claim" But burden of proof is NOT knowledge-it's simply what happens when you make a positive claim (vs. no claim, which is a negative position). The default may or may not be true. the default position is the safe one (ie no burden of proof to fulfill) but it doesn't by simply being the default become true-it simply determines WHERE the BoP is. And you have made a positive claim-now proven false, by the simple hat example, and also via the argument here. Were you going to make an argument? You know, so we can debate it? Not so far.
the default position on any imaginary claim is i know its false

I don't see that it would matter. But no, I am wearing a hat and I was wearing a hat before the debate was even found... I always wear a hat when I'm due for a haircut... it's pretty scruffy and I don't like hair in my face, so yes, a baseball cap that says "VT" on it, which recently I found out was a "Virginia Tech" hat... and met a girl from Virginia as a result. But all that did was shorten my argument... and I'll prove it if you pose a less likely example of what you're trying to prove here.
Abortion after the baby becomes sentient is immoral and wrong

"The mother while she should have the authority to abort the fetus before it is sentient, Should not have the right to abort it after it becomes sentient as sentient beings have a right to life due to them being able to experience pain. ----->According to sentient's argument, Fetuses cannot be held to experience pain. Not only has the biological development not yet happened to support pain experience, But the world after birth so necessary to the development of pain experience, Is also yet to happen. If you are pro abortion despite the fact that the fetus is sentient because it doesn't have intelligence, Like I previously stated you should be fine with the mass murder of mentally disabled people. ----->Mentally disabled people are inalienable rights. It's impossible to compare with fetuses whom yet come to life. As you said killing, It's called murder while the mother only aborting is a termination. It's difference between killing and aborting as well mentally disabled people and fetuses. Also just because its technically legal for the mom to abort the fetus after its sentient doesnt make it right. This sort of logic can be used to justify acts like slavery or the percecution of minoritys if those acts are deemed legal by the government. ----->Mother is a guaranteed life which mean it's more important than potential life the fetuses. Therefore it's nothing like in other cases when it's not exist in the world but it's exist dependable the cell of body in it's mother womb. - Thirdly I am not debating whether or not abortion after 3 or 5 months is legal, I am debating whether or not it is right on a moral level. ----->I'm not sure what is your definition of moral level. As far I know that fetuses doesn't fit in this topic. Because it cannot make a decision or ability to notice their behavior. Your debating are little bit confused.
Abortion after the baby becomes sentient is immoral and wrong

- The mother while she should have the authority to abort the fetus before it is sentient, Should not have the right to abort it after it becomes sentient as sentient beings have a right to life due to them being able to experience pain. If you are pro abortion despite the fact that the fetus is sentient because it doesn't have intelligence, Like I previously stated you should be fine with the mass murder of mentally disabled people. - Also just because its technically legal for the mom to abort the fetus after its sentient doesnt make it right. This sort of logic can be used to justify acts like slavery or the percecution of minoritys if those acts are deemed legal by the government. - Thirdly I am not debating whether or not abortion after 3 or 5 months is legal, I am debating whether or not it is right on a moral level.
Abortion after the baby becomes sentient is immoral and wrong

" Embryos and fetus's are not independent or self decision making " - I agree on that embyros and fetus's aren't capable of decisions however I disagree with this whole notion that people whom are mentally incapable have no right to life and here's why. People whom are mentally deficient like the mentally disabled, Still are sentient and can feel pain. Therefore it is not moral to harm or kill a being that has emotion and can feel pain. Also I did make a mistake on the title so to clarify I meant it is wrong to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus is sentient, My apologies. - I have no idea if something in my brains not clicking or if you worded it weird but for the sake of the argument I would respectfully like you to clarify your first point you made. Once again my apologies.