BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tsunamis are more dangerous than Earthquakes

== RESPONSES == //According to my opponent's logic, tsunamis are always accompanied by very large earthquakes. This tells me that whatever damage that tsunamis cause, earthquakes indirectly cause. // Yes, Indirectly caused by LARGE earthquakes, which are a very small minority of all earthquakes. Whereas all tsunamis are large and destructive. //Since tsunamis are caused by earthquakes which is what you stated earlier, it would only be fair to give credit to earthquakes as well. If tsunamis cause famine, disease, and flooding among others and earthquakes causes tsunamis than earthquakes would also be responsible for the calamities that tsunamis cause. // Not quite, the things I stated are a consequence of the majority of tsunamis. Whereas earthquakes rarely have any consequences at all, even though SOMETIMES it may have those. All the time is a lot more dangerous than an insignificant fraction of the time. //This is false. Earthquakes cause more than just fires. Here are some of the calamities that earthquakes cause: Landslides Avalanches Flash Floods Fires Tsunamis// Again, I repeat myself: How often will an earthquake cause these? A rare minority of the time. Whereas tsunamis will always cause devastation. //My opponent stated that tsunamis are caused by large earthquakes. By this logic tsunamis wouldn't happen if it wasn't for earthquakes so whatever damage is caused by tsunamis, earthquakes would be responsible indirectly therefore earthquakes are more dangerous than a tsunami. // Yes, we have gone over this. How is that a new argument? It's precisely one of the many reasons why tsunamis are more dangerous. They are started by DANGEROUS earthquakes, which are a very small minority of ALL earthquakes. This debate is just like asking: "Which is more dangerous, dogs or dogs with rabbis? " Sure, dogs with rabbis are still dogs but they are a more dangerous sub-group of dogs so it would be correct to say they more dangerous than the generalization of all dogs. This debate is the same exact thing. Just like the vast majority of dogs will never harm anyone, so will the vast majority of earthquakes never harm anyone. .. but the tsunamis are the dogs with rabbis. I rest my case.
Tsunamis are more dangerous than Earthquakes

== Responses == //The vast majority of earthquakes are absolutely harmless. Only about 1/5 of earthquakes can even be felt at all. [1,2] Whereas tsunamis always cause devastation and are accompanied by very large earthquakes, or else there wouldn't have been a tsunami.// According to my opponent's logic, tsunamis are always accompanied by very large earthquakes. This tells me that whatever damage that tsunamis cause, earthquakes indirectly cause. //FALSE. Here is a list of "calamities" that tsunamis cause which earthquakes do not: Famine. Disease. Flooding. Among others.// Since tsunamis are caused by earthquakes which is what you stated earlier, it would only be fair to give credit to earthquakes as well. If tsunamis cause famine, disease, and flooding among others and earthquakes causes tsunamis than earthquakes would also be responsible for the calamities that tsunamis cause. //And besides these things, an earthquake is something that just happens and it's over(with the exception of causing a fire), whereas a tsunami has lasting destruction, continuously making things worse, especially with the immense and lasting flooding.// This is false. Earthquakes cause more than just fires. Here are some of the calamities that earthquakes cause: Landslides Avalanches Flash Floods Fires Tsunamis == My Second Argument == My opponent stated that tsunamis are caused by large earthquakes. By this logic tsunamis wouldn't happen if it wasn't for earthquakes so whatever damage is caused by tsunamis, earthquakes would be responsible indirectly therefore earthquakes are more dangerous than a tsunami. == Source == http://articles.architectjaved.com... This website that I used as a source has a saying, "Earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do." If it wasn't for the earthquake, the buildings wouldn't of been able to kill anyone.
Tsunamis are more dangerous than Earthquakes

== RESPONSES == //Very interesting however, I don't see how your argument proves that tsunamis are more dangerous. When you accepted this debate, you agreed to argue that tsunamis are more dangerous.// It shows that they are more dangerous because tsunamis ARE earthquakes PLUS a colossal wave of water. Any amount of danger designated to earthquakes must also be designated to tsunamis, except that tsunamis ALSO have whatever danger is designated to behemoth walls of water. // Earthquakes and tsunamis are both calamities. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis and other calamities as well whereas tsunami can't cause other calamities as my opponent stated.// FALSE. Here is a list of "calamities" that tsunamis cause which earthquakes do not: Famine. Disease. Flooding. Among others. And besides these things, an earthquake is something that just happens and it's over(with the exception of causing a fire), whereas a tsunami has lasting destruction, continuously making things worse, especially with the immense and lasting flooding. == SECOND ARGUMENT == The vast majority of earthquakes are absolutely harmless. Only about 1/5 of earthquakes can even be felt at all. [1,2] Whereas tsunamis always cause devastation and are accompanied by very large earthquakes, or else there wouldn't have been a tsunami. == SOURCES == 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://earthquake.usgs.gov...
Tsunamis are more dangerous than Earthquakes

== Opponent's Argument == "My case is that tsunamis are always accompanied by earthquake(and/or volcanic eruption), but earthquakes are not always accompanied by tsunamis. " "Saying earthquakes are greater than tsunamis is like saying that 2 is greater than 2+2. " == My Counterargument == Very interesting however, I don't see how your argument proves that tsunamis are more dangerous. When you accepted this debate, you agreed to argue that tsunamis are more dangerous. == My Argument == Earthquakes and tsunamis are both calamities. Earthquakes can cause tsunamis and other calamities as well whereas tsunami can't cause other calamities as my opponent stated. Earthquakes are the nature's most dangerous calamity. Earthquakes can hit any place, at any time and at any extreme level. There is no way to stop an earthquake. The earthquake that occurred in 2004 brought along with it tsunami, in the western coast of Sumatra and took away almost 2,055,000 lives. If it wasn't for the earthquake, that tsunami would not have formed. == Source == . http://www.interestingfacts.org...
Tsunamis are more dangerous than Earthquakes

I feel a proper presentation of definitions is in order. (let it be a note to my opponent that he should always lay out definitions first or his opponent my use it to win a semantical victory. Lucky for him, I'm not going to do that. I could have easily found a truck or something named an "Earthquake" or something like that. ) Tsunami: tsuï¿½naï¿½mi noun pl. tsuï¿½naï¿½mis A very large ocean wave caused by an underwater earthquake or volcanic eruption. [1] Earthquake: earthï¿½quake noun A sudden movement of the earth's crust caused by the release of stress accumulated along geologic faults or by volcanic activity. [2] == ARGUMENT == My case is that tsunamis are always accompanied by earthquake(and/or volcanic eruption), but earthquakes are not always accompanied by tsunamis. Saying earthquakes are greater than tsunamis is like saying that 2 is greater than 2+2. I eagerly await my opponent's response. == SOURCES == 1. . http://education.yahoo.com... 2. . http://education.yahoo.com...
Contender chooses topic (Video Games)

I can't think of what to debate... BoP is ALWAYS shared 10,000 character limit 72 hours to vote 5 rounds Open to anyone You must abide by the rules. Failure to do so will result in an automatic 7 point forfeit RULES: 1. The topic must be about video games 2. The topic must be debatable 3. The debate must be just a normal debate (no tic tac toes, rap battles, wars, etc.) 4. You must take the Pro side of the topic 5. You must argue in round 1, after explaining the topic. 6. Due to rule 5, you cannot argue in round 5 (Don't care what you do, just don't forfeit or argue.) 7. No spamming or trolling. Good luck to my opponent!
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

Okay, so you're arguing that a desire to help people is a part of our genetics. That might be true, at lest in some way, but I'm not seeing the link. First of all, have does something being genetically absolute make it morally absolute? Moreover, how can you actually prove that it is in our genetic make up to want to help one another. Adam Smith argued that humans are driven by selfish instinct, and that that actually leads to good. The idea that I'm trying to get across here is that without some infallible deity to establish what is good and what is evil, we can't establish what is good and what is evil. I mean, helping people sounds good at first thought, but then consider that the human race is arguably one of the most disgusting things in all of existence. Why should we help them? Without a deity to say that this is good or this is bad, nothing is really good or bad because there is no absolute to judge it by. You can make the argument (and I believe that you did) that believing in moral absolutes helps society function, whether or not you can prove that these absolutes exist. Well, it's true that they can help society function. But there's no objective and absolute reason why society should function. There's no objective and absolute reason for any branch of morality. The PRO rests. Good luck. (NOTE: if you want to bring up the loophole in Round 4, I'm going to post a comment refuting it, since I'd have no other chance to refute it otherwise.
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

A moral absolute... hm... I actually have to think about that. Now i can win via loophole but i shall save that untill round 4 if i feel like im losing. The moral absolute is to be helping other humans. It is part of our genetics to want to help other people. When you do so your body rewards it with that 'warm fuzzy feeling'. Wether this is a result of God making us want to make the world a better place, or a Dawkin like idea, in which we want to help people because that increases the chance of the human gene being passed on to another generation (honsetley that theory make me scared). Either way it is part of our genetic make up to help others, or want to help others, because it is rewarded. Now if it is a part of our make up, then humans should beleive in helping others.
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

I agree that the existence of a God doesn't make anything necessarily right, but the idea is that God is infallible. So, if God says something is absolute, then it is absolute. But that's a different discussion. However, I see where you were going with it. Now, you say that everyone should believe in moral absolutes because "they are good, and help humans." Why is it good? In your line of thinking all it does is lead people to one final destination. Let's say that it's world peace. Why is world peace good? Why isn't war what we should be pursuing? That follows at least two different schools of credible philosophical thought: "Might is Right" and Social Darwinism. Why is world peace any better than those? There is no absolute reason. And as for helping humans: why is helping humans good? Most people are scum. Why should we be helping them? My entire point is that there is no objective, absolute, moral reasoning. In order for the CON to win, you have to prove why whatever ultimate goal you're trying to reach through moral absolutes is good.
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

If we assume God does exist for this moment, than what makes him a justification for anything. He does exist than who created him? There is no real way to justify anything. Why should Christians beleive in absolute morals? Becauase there is a God? He doesn't justify anything. Anyone should beleive in absolute morals because they are good, and help humans. I will wait for you to make another point for me to counter now...
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

Okay, first off, I'd like to point out something. You brought up a "basic right". Why does this right exist? Choose any right. Actually, I'll choose one, since I don't want to waste rounds with too much dialogue. Let's say the right to life. We start at the right. Everyone has a right to life. Why? What is the justification for this? There are several answers often given, but those answers must be justified with another reason, and those answers must be justified with another reason, and this keeps going on and on. This creates an infinite chain of justifications. Without the existence of any omnipotent and omniscient god to create moral absolutes, there is no justification for saying something is a moral absolute. Now, there are reasons that an Atheist might ACCEPT moral absolutes and live with them, just for pure pragmatism. For example "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Living by this might be a good rule for a functioning society. However, if there is no God, then there is no absolute reason why this rule should be followed. It is just as likely that the "Do unto others as they do unto you" should be followed. Or, it is just as likely that a "Survival of the Fittest" scenario be followed. There is no absolute reason why any of these belief systems is morally absolute. Remember, in order for them to be absolute, they must be justified. But then their justifications need justifications. And it just keeps going. And if you want to argue that Atheists should believe in moral absolutes to keep society running smoothly and peacefully, then the question arises, "Why should society keep running smoothly and peacefully?" There is no absolute reason. Who says chaos is not the correct moral "path"? The point is that outside of a god there is no justification for any moral absolute, whether it is something we commonly believe is good or evil.
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

Like you said, it does not include any pantheisms or whatever those other things are classified as. You mean secularlists. Since I am a human secularlist (which is a bit long to type so they will be known humanists) i will be arguing from that standpoint. Humanism a large section of atheism, which does include, but is not limited to pantheism, budhism, etc. It is the disbeleif in any diety etc. but the bleif in the values and non-religious beleifs in the religion. Essentialy they beleive that all should be treated fair and equally because were all human in this world. Other than that we go about skipping around our merry atheist ways. Also, other 'sects' of atheism beleive that all humans should be treated euqualy, as a basic right. Of course not all do beleive that, but it is essentialy the golden rule of humanity.
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

First, let me tell you why I'm doing this debate. After reading the debate about "Atheists are more kind than Christians", it seemed to me that XsamacadoX is an Atheist that believes in moral absolutes (for example, he claims that people should do things that are right because they are the right things to do). I thought this would be an interesting topic for debate if I am right in his beliefs. If he accepts, I'll present my first argument after he makes his first statement (if he wants to post an argument, great), so I'll be using four rounds. But first, some simple framework: We are not debating whether moral absolutes actually exist, we are debating whether an Atheist should believe in them. Also, for the purpose of this resolution, the term "Atheist" does not include Buddhists, Taoists, or other types of Non-theists.
An Atheist should not believe in moral absolutes.

Okay... an atheist SHOULD beleive in moral abolutes. He/she does not always do so, but they SHOULD because there is a diety that seperates good from evil. is that not what you said? phear teh loophole! now, everyone just going to remind you, vote on the debate and not your views. also vote on convinient loopholes in my opponent's speech and title for this debate.
Behavioral change is the key to environmental sustainability

I will go ahead and make my case since the con has the first argument in each round. However, first I would like to lay down ground rules. The Pro (me) will have the responsibility of demonstrating why changes to behavior key to environmental sustainability, particularly in regards to climate change, however I will touch on other areas. The con will have presumption.In the first and second rounds both teams may bring up new arguments, in the third and fourth rounds, no new arguments, no exceptions. Fourth round, both teams will respond to any final arguments made previously, and conclude their arguments and show why they should win the debate.Additionally we must define several terms before we begin.1) Behavior shall refer to how individuals and society act and function.2) Change shall be defined as an alteration3) Environmental Sustainability shall refer to maintenence of the factors and practices that contribute to preserving the quality of the environment, and its ability to support human life, on a long term basis.Moving on to my arguments.First Argument: Mitigating Climate Change requires behavioral changesClimate change is by far the greatest environmental issue we face in our world today. Climate change is caused by rising global tempertrues (ie Global Warming) which is caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases (chiefly CO2) in the atmostphere.Human activity has been linked to the accumulation of Greenhouse gases in the atmostphere, through our consumption of fossil fuels.According to the UN, humans must severly limit CO2 emissions in order to combat climate change. This will mean that humans will need to end the practice of burning fossil fuels and transition to renewable energy. This would be a behavioral change as fossil fuels have been used to power societies since the industrial revolution. http://www.theguardian.com...Second Argument: Over consumption harms biodiversity, Biodiversity is keyIn our world today, fish stocks are being rapdily depleted thanks to overfishing. It is belived 70% of fish stocks have been depleted or exhausted. Bluefin Tuna stocks alone have dropped 96%. This is havgin serious harmful impacts on marine biodiversity. Biodiversity is vital to earth's "life support systems", and losing it has severe consequences of the long term sustainability of life on earth. In order to stop this loss of biodiversity, we must curtail our consumption of fish, thereby reducing demand and allowing stocks to replinish.http://www.seaweb.org...http://www.un.org...;
Atheism is An Untenable Position

I take the most difficult position to defend: that of Hard Atheism as defined by Wikipedia. There is not god, absolutely and categorically. Everyone is born with no concept of gods. A desire for gods, yes, as evidenced by the many tribal religions. This can be attributed to the social nature of man, and the fear-based response desiring a pack leader. A child has no concept of gods except as taught by his parents. Many believed that the parents lived on to protect the children. Ancestor worship was commonplace, as was worship of the elements. I use gods in the plural as this has historically been the most popular stance. Monotheism is distinct to the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. It has been stated that there are thousands of variations on the idea of gods. I suggest from the mere quantity of religious beliefs, a point becomes obvious. All religious beliefs except the beliefs of the individual are incorrect. There are some exceptions to this of course, as found in Hinduism. Note that the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims, can all be proven to be incorrect. Where does this leave us. Nothing. Atheist.
Atheism is An Untenable Position

(A) Response to the Negative My opponent rightly identifies that "Everyone is born with no concept of gods. " While this is most notably the case, my opponent seems to later then go on a red herring issue and address tribal religious matters about the relationship between parents and their children. This is irrelevant to the debate at hand since it does not substantiate atheism anymore validity to be considered "tenable". My opponent later states: "I use gods in the plural as this has hiistorically been the most popular stance. Monotheism is distinct to the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims. " I will not be expected to refute each major/minor religion in order to substantiate another, since, particular religions (Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. ) are not relevant to my case or even the resolution. I am saying theism is far more tenable of a position than atheism. Not that one religion is over another. (B) Appendix; The Inconsistency of PolytheismPolytheism is inconsistent on the grounds of what we mean by God. If (a) god is to be such, then some crtieria must be met in order for consistency to take place. This God must be:(1. a) Not restricted by time or space(2. b) Cannot be changed by anything other than itself(3. c) Did not have a beginning in time(4. d) Does not need things other than itself to continue its existence(5. e) Whose attributes are not influenced by other things (which means that it has essential attributes, not accidental ones). This was stated in my first affirmative (see 1.3). However, if polytheism is true, then a plurality of gods would have to meet this criteria (and given religious dogma, other personal predicates would also apply). The inconsistency comes in once we understand that this cannot happen. For, if you are going to distinguish between two gods, then one god must lack something that the other one has, and thus would cease to be [a] god. Monotheism does not face this problem. (C) Concluding Thoughts To conclude my rebuttal, my opponent has not only committed a red herring in addressing these eligious issues (something I never discussed in the first affirmative), but has also not offered any arguments to substantiate the resolution as false. To be blatant: No evidence No arguments No rebuttal/response Irrelevant tangents Given these issues I urge a vote in favor of the coherency of theism and the untenability of atheism by virtue of the negative's lack of arguments to establish his own case.
Abortion is injustice and morally wrong,

For my opponent states that it is both an injustice and immoral. "is" referring to as existing to the present, injustice referring to legally just or simply being justified by law, and morally wrong referring to a state of being immoral. Definitions: Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. Injustice: lack of fairness or justice Justice: rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason Lawful: allowed or permitted by law; not contrary to law Law: the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision. Murder: 1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U. S. , special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder) 2. Law. to kill by an act constituting murder. Good luck