BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
infinite mercy is incompatible with perfect justice.

my opponents counter was rather brief, and thinking on my opening this may be due to a misunderstanding. I had said in the rules that the first round was for my arguments and for my opponents counter. If my opponent thought that I meant simply stating the counter position I apologize for my ambiguity, as I meant specifically counter arguments. I will however treat his opening as it was an argument and retort as such. My opponent suggests something similar to what was talked about in the comments between me and lostInTheEcho. As the debate is between me and my opponent those comments will be mostly irrelevant to what is spoken of. if my opponent or the readers would like to see me put the following argument slightly differently, you may go to the comments. However, readers should not take the conversation in the comments as counting toward or against any of my points. if anything in the comments becomes relavent to the debate, me and my oponent must state so in the debate. For brevity, I will call my opponents counter A1 and I will call the person the merciful judge has for recompense the scapegoat. As justice is to judge the wrongdoer of their crimes fairly, and perfect justice is the faultless and perfect fulfillment of that justice, punishing the scapegoat would be unjust. The scapegoat committed no crime and therefore deserves no punishment. Punishing the scapegoat would not only be unjust toward the scapegoat but would be merciless. Also, whilst punishing someone else equates to not punishing the wrongdoer at all, and therefore is technically merciful, it is still unjust, as you are not fulfilling the punishment for the wrongdoer. Another problem with A1 (though perhaps not a major one) is that it does not explain explicitly how it refutes my position and arguments for them. For any argument, claims should be followed by demonstrations in order to make apparent how the reasoning of the claim works. That way one side can address any faults seen in the reasoning of the other and vice versa.
infinite mercy is incompatible with perfect justice.

I take the position that infinite mercy is compatible with perfect justice I will only say that 1 definition doesn't accurately reflect the concept being addressed, so i presented an alternative: Def. 4 - Perfect mercy: knowing the most fair retribution of a wrong, having the power to enact that retribution on the wrongdoer, and either not doing so, or carrying out a lesser punishment or no punishment at all Perfect mercy like perfect justice is that which executes mercy to the fullest extent. If the merciful judge has someone to recompense for the crimes of the offender, perfect justice and Def. 4 of perfect mercy would be in harmony.
It is immoral to kill animals for food

I'll respond to the points Con made. Con can respond to either this response or my original argument. Con's 1st point: Humans are at the top of the food chain. The 1st paragraph says that it is natural to hunt and eat animals. This is an appeal to nature. It is natural to rape; it doesn't make it moral. Con provided a hypothetical example where humans were on the bottom of the food chain, So humans were too preoccupied with surviving than to debate ethics. If killing animals or humans was a matter of survival, Then killing would be justified only in the particular life or death situation. Humans in modern civilization aren't in this dilemma, So it doesn't make killing animals justified. By the way, Rule 2 clearly says no life or death scenarios. Con's 2nd point: Humans have a higher purpose and the ability to reason, While animals don't. The belief in a higher purpose is arbitrary. If I were to say I believed my purpose was to kill other humans, Would that be justified? Infants, Mentally retarded, And senile people are incapable of reason, Is it okay to kill and eat them? "It is moral for us to kill animals to eat as a means of survival and purpose. " We don't need to kill animals to survive. Con's 3rd point: No difference between plants and animals. Plants can't feel pain because they don't have a brain to register pain. There is no evidence plants are sentient, Especially not sentient enough to compare them to cows, Pigs, Or chickens. Pigs of which have been shown to solve tasks faster than chimps [a1]. Where is the source for the claim that plants are sentient and can feel pain? a1. Https://escholarship. Org/uc/item/8sx4s79c
It is immoral to kill animals for food

My opening points will be: - Survival & Humans are at the top of the food chain - We have a higher purpose to carry out and that is to make a difference in the world with our unique ability to reason and make critical decisions. Whereas, Animals are of instincts - Killing an animal vs eating a plant is the exact same thing. So what is the difference in sacrificing one life form over another? 1. I believe that human beings are unquestionably at the very top of the food chain; therefore, It is in our nature to hunt and eat animals despite it being ethical or not. To put this into perspective, Imagine if it were the other way around where Bugs were at the very top of the life cycle, Plants 2nd, Animals 3rd, And us 4th. Life would be a lot different then wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't be us having to question if eating them is moral or not, Because in this situation it would be a matter of survival and instincts than reason. 2. First and foremost, I believe that we all are and were created equally with a greater purpose to carry out; however, One should keep in mind that we are far more complex than animals are in the sense that we have higher moral values. For example, We have the ability to cause mass destruction (destroy nations) or end all the violence and work towards peace (be the change you wish to see in the world like Ghandi once said, As I believe every individual is capable of making a difference but that's a different story for a different topic). Furthermore, It's about our responsibility as human beings to reason. We have a higher duty to fulfill, A more important mission to accomplish than animals do and that is our ability to make a difference in the world, In which animals are uncapable of. A Lion cannot become the next president neither can the species of Apes take over the world (As interesting as that would be); therefore, It is moral for us to kill animals to eat as a means of survival and purpose. So, Just like how we have higher moral values than animals do, We have the ability to use this higher power to do good such as make these types of critical decisions (question if killing animals is immoral, Or not) that animals in no way can ever do despite evolution; we are at the very top of the food chain for a reason. Furthermore, Animals are of instincts; for example, Filial cannibalism. -> Sloth bears that eat their own for evolutionary/reproductive reasons. -> Human beings don't need to do that -> Therefore, The topic of morality is nullified 3. Lastly, Killing an animal vs eating a plant is the same thing. -> Both animal and plant are living organisms that feel pain & have a purpose in life; therefore, Being a meat-eater vs being a vegetarian has no difference.
It is immoral to kill animals for food

The argument for the moral value of animals. p1: Humans are of moral value. p2: There is no trait absent in animals that if absent in humans would make humans valueless. C: Without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, It is a contradiction to deem animals valueless. The argument for veganism from animal moral value. p1: Animals are of moral value. p2: There is no trait absent in animals that if absent in humans would make it moral to kill and eat humans. C: Without establishing the absence of such a trait in animals, It is a contradiction to deem it moral to kill and eat animals. Debate structure: 1st round: Introduce arguments for and against. 2nd-4th rounds: Reply to the claims. 5th round: Conclusion, No new arguments. Rules: 1. No ad hominems. 2. No life or death dilemmas. We're talking about normal circumstances. 3. Try to keep the argument on morality.
rapping

Hahahaha kim kardashians butt i macked that sh** So dont give me dat look i mean u cant see me when It come to the beats cuz imma just slotter yo asss just Call it a feast i cut you up in peices and after that i Cut you up in slices dices im rollin' 6-6 in the money I roll millions and when readyy to come bak just give me A minute see i really dont rapp with losers cuzz when i rapp With you i get called a bueler i really cant lose my repp and racks cuzz you you just give me some slack give me The millions and then ill just roll you up in billions im a Money maker you cant see me im like a hundred bakers Bake a cake see i will let you know later when i wanna rap with a Peice of crap ill just have to SMELL YOU LATER peace im out
rapping

Concede cause you can't supercedeï¿½ The M.C.,master of ceremony Beasty boy only a memory I lead,you to your final leave Begging on your Knees WAKE UP BEASTY BOY, But this ain't no muthaphunking dream Cream,may I remind rules everything around me While beasty boy envy,I'm on Carlos slims salary If you don't know who he is look it up Stop looking at Kim kardashians butt You've run outta luck,Concede not cause I'm great,but and cause you suckï¿½
rapping

OOhhhhh i see in the back yeah and really smell like crap and if you think you can out smart mee huh! U must hav smokin' weed and im the beast and your the beauty HA! ill put u in jail like Issac Newton yah and if u think you got rhymes well haha, u had to drink some wine soo if u think u the best then YOU should stop suckin yo mommas breast yeah so wat imma kid and i got rhymes better than 50 cent yeah oooh man in disguise yeah and you the man who eat fries haha thats very funny, but wats really funnier ur mommas suckin my dick like she was born to doo ooooooH
rapping

Beasty boy you've ï¿½ruined my day With your challenge tha's gay I guess I'll have to srew you harder than Sasha Grey So with no delay lets begin this foray I'm in the mood toï¿½exterminate Your a chump I eat you for lunch You ain't much,your lyrics smell and look like dump,never felt a womanly touch But he probaly touches himself Or probaly Pablo his companion in a cell Time will tell if you make it out of Pablos living hell but if I was you I watch were that boner And where it dwells Time to reload on my lyrical shotgun shells something that's felt To blow you away,no body for autopsy or x Ray watch your body sway,the kids scream hooray I guess no rapper remains only his remains,beasty boy was his name Not worthy of fame,or claim to anythang,mess with me you'll end like a slave in chain, If you're a real beasty boy why don't you change To a rapper who actually has a muthaphunking brain
Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools

Unfortunately, Pro did not frame the debate proposition as a debate over whether as a bifurcated debate on the merits of creationism or evolution. That is an entirely different debate and is not the one agreed by Con. The debate proposition is Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools Whatever implicit assumptions or intended meaning Pro desired is irrelevant. However, Pro seems like a genuine sincere person, so I will move away from the more ridiculous aspects of last round and focus on the issue of creation, but again full BOP is on Pro to defend DIFFERING VIEWS OF THE ORIGIN OF LIFE SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL TIME IN SCHOOLS. My opponent brought up an interesting point about God and uncertainty, why is it invalid to propose that the Universe is expressed in circular rather than linear notions of time without beginning and end. Question I want Pro to Answer. One—universe without beginning or end: Buddhists believe in circular dimensions of time, please explain why this is invalid? Did you not say that schools should present all sides, and theoretical models in quantum physics support this model, so again please explain why this very sophisticated form of creation should not be presented in school. Question I want Pro to Answer. Devil as creator of God In the early medieval period, Catholic sectarian groups believed that unlike the more orthodox sects of Christianity, the primary cause of the universe was the devil. The devil that created God and God created the universe. There remain texts and groups that support this idea. Again, provide reason why this should be excluded or included into school. Question I want Pro to Answer. Scientologist version of life or Alien-related creation of human life My opponent says that my comments last round were immature and unsophisticated, but he only dealt with the most ridiculous aspects. So please, after answering questions one and two, tell me why it would be invalid or valid or include the Scientologist narrative of creation, which involves aliens and volcanoes and so on. Question I want Pro to Answer. Question of Creation Loyalties: Muslims might agree with creationism but they should definitely object that that he was Jesus in human form. Therefore, how should school resolve this dilemma, should the Muslim view that creation came from God but only Muhammad was the real prophet. Would this fine to present it this way.
Differing Views of the Origin of Life Should Be Given Equal Time In Schools

Evolution is promoted as the means of how life arose on this planet. Other points of view are suppressed as being unscientific since they support the possibility of a source other than matter for life. Creationism and Intelligent Design point towards a source of intelligence in the form of a Creator as the source of life. There is evidence that supports the logic of adopting this point of view. There is however, no real good evidence to support the assumption that life "evolved" through undirected means using only the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection. The fossil record does not show the slight innumerable steps that Darwin claimed were necessary to create living forms. Dinosaurs for example, appear fully formed in the fossil record with no transitional forms. Where are the transitional fossils to show how dinosaurs "evolved" through slight innumerable changes? All we see are fully formed dinosaur with complex mechanisms fully formed like eyes, digestive systems, limbs, skeletal systems, nervous systems etc. This is pretty consistent across the board for all fossils. We pretty much find fully formed complex fossils instead of slight, innumerable successive variations leading to a life form. So why should we accept evolution as science when science requires evidence to support its claims and evolution really has much more claim than evidence? Seems to me that students should be taught oppositional points of view and then be permitted to form their own opinions. If evolution feels secure and can prove itself, then this should not pose as a challenge. If ID or Creationism can provide evidence to prove its points why not allow it? After all, isn't education about providing all of the options and then promoting clear thinking to produce better thinking people? Or is education more like indoctrination whereby you are only given one choice and must accept it or fail? Is evolution that insecure in that it can not allow any other view than its narrow definition of materialist naturalism? Isn't science about promoting views that have the best evidence? However, as heretofore pointed out evolution really isn't supported by good fossil evidence. Heck, if anything, the fossil evidence points more towards creation than evolution where living things appear fully formed and complex rather than through discrete material steps. This points to creation not evolution. There is more of course but let me stop here and allow a response. Other issues can be addressed in other rounds. The main point however is that education should be wide and inclusive to promote the most sound conclusions not narrow and exclusive which promotes narrow-minded prejudice and less developed people. Therefore, allow for competing views to be considered side by side and permit the student to choose whichever makes the most sense to them. Doing so promotes clearer thinking about science and life. Not doing so prohibits thinking and promotes a dogmatic claim that appears to be avoiding debate because of its vulnerabilities not its proof.
sicence and technology is more good than its damage

First, I would like to point out some definitions so that we can agree on the terms we use to debate. Science refers to mankind's knowledge on natural world. Technology refers to artificial creations made deliberately by human for humans' comfort. "To be more good than bad" will be considered by humans' happiness, as happiness and satisfaction in life is the overall goal of human beings. I'm not going to deny the benefits of technology and science. They have definitely helped human in laborious work and saved us a lot energy and burden. However, they do not really increase our satisfaction in life, but simply change our lifestyle, and they do not make us more happy or satisfied. First, you said that technology ease mankind in completing difficult tasks, expand the horizon of the impossible. But does that necessarily make us happier? People may get used to the technology, take technology for granted and do not feel thankful or happy for having the technology. Thus, they does not necessarily make life better. Rather, satisfaction in life is concerned with people's outlook on the world. As said by Thor Heyerdahl, "It is also rarer to find happiness in a man surrounded by the miracles of technology than among people living in the desert of the jungle and who by the standards set by our society would be considered destitute and out of touch." Moreover, technology is not one-sided; it is not all good. Although technology is created by human, human cannot control it 100% and thus the product does have side effects. Along with the benefits that technology does give human, there are also disadvantages that did shape our life in a worse way. For example, social network did make people talk to each other easier, but it also takes a lot of time and tends to replace eye - to - eye communication. Eye-to-eye communication is vital in making human understand each other and show emotion, thus it is irreplaceable. Average internet users spend more than 3 hours on the Internet, and young people even spend more, up to more than 4 hours per day (source: http://heidicohen.com...), making time spent on eye-to-eye communication very limited. Thus, I believe that technology does not bring more good than bad. It does offer negative impacts along with the good ones. Also, the good effects of technology do not necessarily increase humans' satisfaction and happiness, as people would get used to the technology and take it for granted.
The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

It appears that my opponent has forfeited the rebuttal, on the last round. Since I can't say whether this was due to time constraints (based on schedule comments) or because of being unaware, or for any other reason, I cannot judge the merits of any missing argument. In the interests of fairness, I will forgoe this entry, and await my opponent's latest rebuttal, if any is to be forthcoming. I will simply close my argument with what has been stated, and await my opponent. If my opponent sees fit, and has the time, he may post one last rebuttal, and close. Anything left unaddressed, at that time, will have to stand unto its own.Ameliamk1, the floor is yours.
The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

To clarify, my position will be that both side of the argument are legitimate, and indeed honest views. Argument Summaries On the atheist side, the side I personally subscribe to, the belief that there is no evidence, and no ulterior reason to believe in a God immediately requires it be an honest opinion. The default position for that which we have no proof of is disbelief, not absolute neutrality or apathy. If someone were to say that they had discovered a unicorn, and yet was able to supply no form of evidence to support their claim, one must not believe it; otherwise, one would have to be neutral on every single thing that could possibly exist in the imagination. Simply because something cannot be disproved, as complete falsification of anything is logically impossible, does not mean it must be placed on even footing with the possibility of its existence. On the most basic level, everyone must be agnostic about everything, but in the order of maintaining our sanity, one must set on a position, even if it need not be permanent. For theists, deists and the religious, while many believe what they do on faith, others are persuaded by the arguments. (Ontological, Cosmological, and so on) While they can be quite easily argued against, in simple form they are arguments, and capable of forming some support for the opinion of the religious. Therefore, they conclude that it is likely that a God exists, based on the evidence. My opponent's proposition in this discussion stems on the misconception that neither side in the conflict possesses any ammunition. That is false. There is "evidence" to be confirmed or denied, and logically proofs for which there is much contest over. Whether these are valid or not is a topic for a different debate. When there is evidence to be had, people may, completely intellectually honestly, hold an opinion on it. Perhaps I overdid the summary a little bit, but there is my position. Over to my opponent for opening statements.
The only honest view of the god debate is Agnosticism.

The proposition is really quite simple: While the debate surrounding the existence of any god, and humanity's propensity for formulating religions around such a perceived existence is an highly emotional debate, it is of little (if any) significance in human endeavor. Only religion and its proponents claim to speak on behalf of any deity, perceived or otherwise, and demand that lives be structured in accordance with religious philosophy and tenets. Not one religion has ever put forth a single shred of evidence for the existence of any god, nor has any been discovered. On the converse, this does not preclude the existence of some form of 'supreme being,' simply because we have not yet come in contact with it, or discovered a path to it. While I am adamantly opposed to religion or allowing religion any influence in legislation or policy, I cannot preclude the possibility of the existence of some form of supreme being. However, this is not because of the questions that may, at present, appear to be unanswerable. This is solely and exclusively because we, as a species, have not acquired enough information to make an assertion in either direction. The default position is disbelief, until a convincing reason for believing/disbelieving can be proposed, but the only rational answer to the question, at present, would be neutrality. I am offering believers and non-believers alike the opportunity to offer a valid reason why belief in any deity should be either in the affirmative or the negative. Rules: Five rounds: 1 - Acceptance, with stated premise and basis. 2 - Opening arguments for/against 3 - Rebuttal to opening arguments 4 - Second round rebuttal and further evidence (optional) 5 - Conclusion and summary. No emotional arguments: Feelings are not evidence, and emotional impact is not sought. Religion is irrelevant, and dogma is meaningless. Holy manuscripts, of any kind, will only be accepted as evidential if there is a conclusive connection made to substantive reality and supportable with fact. I am interested in discussing the merit of belief (one way or the other).
Boeing Superjumbo V Dreamliner

Shut the heck up, your argument is bullocks. The Z900 is an aircraft, ever since Philip Zimbardo changed it from a bike to an aircraft a week ago. You need to learn that your aircrafts are inferior, and that the Z900 is the only aircraft that doesn't suck poo poo. Your aircrafts are both awful, as is your face. No thanks, sod off, J-dawg