BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
right+intent=morality

I'm not quite sure what the thesis you're proposing is, so please forgive me if my argument isn't relevant to yours.I'm a Christian, so I believe that "right" and "wrong" are determined by God, the Creator, and not by man's law. You seem to think that whatever is law is "right", which is fallacious in of itself. Can you please provide a clearer argument, or at least provide evidence to support your current one?
Should you compare the mass farming of animals and their treatment to the holocaust

My opponent has forfeited I will still conclude my argument . .. . CONCLUSION To conclude this debate I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and responding to most my arguments. Comparing the mass farming of animals to the holocaust is wrong because not only did the people who were killed/injured suffer, but even today relatives of these people mourn their deaths and are affected by it. It is true that some animals can feel empathy, happiness and sadness but they cannot pass down there sadness for generations to come. Thank you for this debate.
Should you compare the mass farming of animals and their treatment to the holocaust

We can see the relation between us and animals but the animals cannot. I know that animals cannot escape their cages. I said very rarely to avoid a completely separate debate. I am sure that at least one animal has escaped there cage before - but we are getting off topic. I agree that this isn't morally correct. This does not mean that we can compare it to the discriminating and merciless killings of the Jews and other specific groups of people. I am not saying that animals can feel no emotions at all but with a little research I can also tell that although pigs can share basic emotions such as happiness and sadness there memory spans are very short and they cannot pass this through generations. If one pig was killed and another pig shared sadness with it. Then it is most likely that this pig will also be killed. I am not saying that the mass farming of animals is okay but it is inhumane and wrong but comparing to the holocaust is completely different. This topic isn't just about animals. The holocaust was unique to the human condition. What made the holocaust unique was: "The extermination of the Jews had no political or economic justification." "The people who carried out the "Final Solution" were primarily average citizens." "It was the only time in recorded history that a state tried to destroy an entire people, regardless of an individual's age, sex, location, profession, or belief. Sources http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org... http://motlc.wiesenthal.com... http://www.aish.com...
Should you compare the mass farming of animals and their treatment to the holocaust

I do agree with the fact that humans feel emotions that animals cannot, though our primitive instincts are to survive and reproduce which is something that they also can relate to us. You mentioned that very rarely animals escape their cage, but the truth is they can't escape becase they neither have the strength, the inteligence nor the proper genetic tools as we have hands, flexibilty and we can use our body in many ways to aid such escapes. What happens is that they keep animals trapped for whatever time necessary and slaughther them once they are "ready". I don't think this is morally correct, as mentioned above, they don't feel as many but they do feel some emotions. With a quick research I can say that pigs share their hapiness and sandness and feel empathy towards each other. Just like pigs, I am sure there are plenty more and I think it is very selfish of us not being able to compare the holocaust with this mass slaughther. We feel sadness towards other humans becuase we know how to express our emotions and we understand each other and that is why we feel sad when we see holocaust's, mass murders or anything else. I do understand though that this is the way of life but not being able to compare both is just looking the other way, it's bad but we have learned to live through it and just say it's ok.
Should you compare the mass farming of animals and their treatment to the holocaust

Your argument is very anthropomorphic. anthropomorphic -- ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human. In your argument you assume that just because the animals have been subjected to similar treatment to the millions of victims during the holocaust that it is the same. Well it is not. People can fell emotions that animals cannot - at least not to the same extent as us. Yes I do believe in animal rights but I believe more in human rights than animals rights. Very rarely will animals ever escape these cages. In the Holocaust there were many more survivors who have suffered from serious depression and mental illnesses because of it. In your argument you have explained the comparison between the two subjects however you have not explained the why it is right to do it. You must remember to include whether it is morally right. The Holocaust was a horrible event in which six million Jews were slaughtered simply because of their religion, and many additional people were also killed. It is far better to present the basic facts about why animal farming is wrong. It is wrong to make comparisons between the holocaust and the farming of animals because not only because of the previous reasons mentioned but because making comparisons like that is likely to upset holocaust survivors, Jews and people who have relatives who died because of the holocaust. The deaths of individual animals are not recognized today by humans or any species. People who have died during the holocaust who still have relatives are most likely to be missed and remembered today. Sources http://www.jewishveg.com... http://dictionary.reference.com... http://www.hamhigh.co.uk... http://www.breitbart.com...
Should you compare the mass farming of animals and their treatment to the holocaust

History tells us that during the holocaust people we're subjected to science and medical experiments. During this time millions of people we're captive and before their horrible death's, they passed through hard labor. Now, comparing this to mass farming of animals, it's general knowledge that these farms keep thousands of animals trapped in little small cages in which they feed them synthetic hormones. By now, we can find already a relation between both subjects. Giving that these animals are born to just die and cannot live a free life, a life that nature would want them to to live, we can say the same about the holocaust. Adolf Hitler did not give the people he killed a choice, the Nazi's captured the millions of people and kept them in concentration camps till they died. They didn't have a choice. Just like the animals that are victims to these mass farms of animals. When you add the part that they are drugged to later on die, I think that we can compare mass farming with the holocaust.
Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.

Opponents arguments: We have a moral obligation to future generations. We as people have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change to our future generations. Our moral obligation is to lesson suffering for our children and their children and their children. Also climate change is man made so it is our job to mitigate it. Climate change is a small part natural but man has played a big part in increasing the effects. Lastly, it is developed countries have the obligation to mitigate the effects because they have played the biggest part in climate change and undeveloped countries do not have the resources to do so. For those reasons you should vote pro.We don't have a moral obligation since we should be focusing on using less than a fifth of the money needed to mitigate the effects of climate change (500 billion dollars) to eliminate poverty and world hungerextend my arguments VOTE CON
Resolved: Developed Countries have a Moral Obligation to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change.

I am on the Pro side of this argument for these reasons. First I would like to give the following definitions. Developed Country: having a relatively high level of industrialization and standard of living Moral Obligation: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior something that obligates one to a course of action We have a moral obligation to future generations. We as people have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of climate change to our future generations. Our moral obligation is to lesson suffering for our children and their children and their children. Also climate change is man made so it is our job to mitigate it. Climate change is a small part natural but man has played a big part in increasing the effects. Lastly, it is developed countries have the obligation to mitigate the effects because they have played the biggest part in climate change and undeveloped countries do not have the resources to do so.
Quebec City should have its own Hockey Team

I will be playing devil’s advocate, but am more than glad to switch sides if I have to. As mario says: “Let's-a go! ” Rebuttal. “Quebec has been home to many NHL teams before, but none have actually stayed full on in Quebec. It deserves to have its own team. ” I will refute this in a few ways. You say that Quebec has had many teams before but none have stayed. Look at my second point. I say that this is EXACTLY OUR POINT. They have TRIED to have teams and have both greatly failed. You say it deserves to have its own team. How? I, as side Con, am showing you why there should not be one, were as Pro has given no support whatsoever. ARGUMENT 1: Lack of fan base/financial problems. According to a 2011 study, Quebec City has only 696,946 people {1}. How can you sufficiently build a fanbase of of THAT? To get at least 16K people at you games, you would have to get at least 1/43 of your whole city to a) go pay at and average $60 a ticket {2} and b) How many people are actually fans of hockey teams? It is ridiculous to assume that more than 1/43 of the city would go to the games. ARGUMENT 2: Quebec has already tried to have a NHL team before- unsuccessfully. Have you ever heard of the Quebec Bulldogs? Unlikely, because they existed only 95 years ago. They only operated for one year, until they became Hamilton Tigers (Not the CFL team) which only lasted for five years. How about the Quebec Nordiques? (most likely) They have become the Colorado Avalanche, only lasting for 16 years until relocating and becoming much more successful there. Quebec does not have any Major or Minor pro teams, so why should they have one? {3} Thanks. DDD {1} . http://en.wikipedia.org... {2} . http://www.statista.com... {3} . http://en.wikipedia.org...
Students should have right to pick only those disciplines they're interested in

In general I'm talking about University students only (Sorry .. I forgot to clarify this). For the first point: Students in this age are grown ups already so they know how to choose the right discipline. For the other point, the University school curriculum is the core of learning so, the decision to go for a certain discipline should be right and related to their own interest. Any other studying paths can be learned using the internet.
Sonic & All-Stars Racing (+ Transformed) Is Better Than Mario Kart [REMATCH]

Even if I consider all of my opponents point valid it does not prove that they are better games. You can not play a Mario Kart game for years and pick on the new one and know how to play. You can get a 6 or 7 year old new player to play with you that has never played and in a few hours with a little help they will be giving you a run for your money. This makes Mario Kart a game that is enjoyed by people of all ages. Mario Kart has crossed the line from being just a video game in to a game that can compete with board and card games for family game night. I have been at family reunions were every family member is watching the current race or battle of Mario Kart waiting for there turn to play the current champ. The best a video game can do is not just simply entertain but to enrich our lives and the bond of families. Sonic's racing games just have failed to do this. They might be good games but they are not a game that 10 years later you and your friends will still remember that race that was almost lost or that battle that took so long to beat each other. Nor will it be a game that you can call up a friend you have not seen and years and issue a challenge to. In 22 years Mario kart has had to change very little to be one of the top family friendly games because it is more that just a game. There is very few games that can claim they have been around for that long and still are going strong, and most of the rest of them have had to make major changes to keep up.
Sonic & All-Stars Racing (+ Transformed) Is Better Than Mario Kart [REMATCH]

Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing is a complete rip off of Mario Kart. It does not have the great items that allow someone there first time playing to beat a some one that has been playing for years. It also has not been around long enough to have that great moment I get to share with my son someday. Me and him playing to getter at the same age I was when I played on the SNES.
Sonic & All-Stars Racing (+ Transformed) Is Better Than Mario Kart [REMATCH]

Sonic & Sega All-Stars Racing (and Transformed) is far superior to the Mario Kart franchise in every possible way. Better graphics, better music, better controls, better game modes, better vehicles, better items, better track design, better AI, better challenge, better mechanics...you get the idea. With the exception of Mario Kart: Double Dash, Mario Kart DS, and Mario Kart 8, all other Mario Kart games are inferior to the two Sega clones that Sumo Digital has to offer. The first round is for acceptance, position, stance, thesis, and introduction; the other rounds will be for debating and rebuttals only. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: THIS IS A REMATCH OF THE SAME DEBATE; ANYBODY CAN ACCEPT, JUST NOT THE PERSON I DEBATED THIS TOPIC ON LAST TIME. IN THE SAME DEBATE THAT I DID IN THE PAST, OPPONENT FAILED TO ARGUE AND FORFEITED EACH CONSECUTIVE ROUND FOLLOWING HIS FAILURE AFTER FAILING TO REBUTTAL. I HOPE MY NEW OPPONENT WILL ACTUALLY ATTEMPT TO ARGUE EACH ROUND INSTEAD OF CRITICIZING THE STRUCTURE OF MY INTRODUCTION. OF COURSE, THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS AS TO NOT HAVE A SIMILAR OPPONENT ENTER THE DEBATE AND FAIL TO HAVE AN EFFECTIVE DEBATE WITH ME. IF UNSURE ABOUT DEBATE RULES, PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT. THANKS!
The god of the bible does not exist in reality.

What scientists perceive or believe does not make it a fact. Scientists must provide evidence to prove their claims. If Scientists can prove that our current world is the Matrix, then let them demonstrate the bending of spoons before our eyes and then slowing down bullets until they all drop vertically to the floor. Otherwise, these scientists are just feeding off of the same fantastic ideas and imaginations of the film directors for the Matrix. Or playing too much late-night VR games emersed in their VR head goggles. Reality is clarified and confirmed upon the evaluation of evidence and facts, not determined by the things we imagine or perceive in our minds. For example, if one of your loved-ones have been accused of 1st degree murder, would you let the jury and the courts accept accusations based on the testimony of what a witness "perceives" or "believes"? No, you would not. You would insist that the jury and the courts make a ruling based on facts and evidence; not one's perception or belief that your loved-one is the murderer. That's how you can save your loved-one from being sentenced to the death penalty. By insisting in evidence and facts. And that's the reality. It's apparent that you focused a lot of effort in insisting that our reality cannot be substantiated, but you actually have it backwards....it is the non-reality that cannot be substantiated in our reality of existence. Thus, the god of the bible does not exist in reality. Nice try...but better luck next time.
The god of the bible does not exist in reality.

As already mentioned, to understand if something is real, it must be a fact. And for something to be a fact, you must have evidence to prove that it is a fact. "Perception" alone is not the determining factor of whether something is in fact real. If you have evidence to prove that we are all currently living in a dream, then your claim would become fact. But since you are just speculating, then it is not a fact. Hence, everything we have experienced since we were born is not a dream, it is our reality. The burden of proof that I have already presented is the fact that the bible is not written or caused to be written by a god-of-the-bible that exists in reality. It is a fact that writing tools were invented by man. Many thousands of years even before the invention of the bible, Egyptians created tools that could be used to write on stone. Needless to say, it is a fact that man developed language in order to effectively communicate with one another. And when you combine these two facts coupled with the fact that we have been designed by our creator(s) with a brain capable of inventing and imagining anything we can perceive in our minds and onto paper, man can also invent a god-of-the-bible or a Harry Potter that does not exist in reality. Now the BOP falls back in your lap to prove that man does not have the creative mind to invent and create characters that do not exist in our reality, but can still be described on paper. In regards to your curiosity, the god-of-the-bible including the jesus character instructs society to worship the god-of-the-bible exclusively: Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'" - Luke 4:8. And as already described, the punishment for worshiping another god is not spanking, it is for you to be destroyed from the face of the land or 1st degree murder: "and he will destroy you from the face of the land." - Deuteronomy 6:14
The god of the bible does not exist in reality.

You misunderstand my argument. You assume that something is real because you perceive it. How do you know that this all isn't a dream or a vision quest? You can't, thus everything you believe is an assumption. And, though in the debate over the existance of G-d the BOP is on the theist, by making the resolution of the debate "G-d doesn't exist" you basically took the BOP upon yourself which you didn't need to do- but you did, so now YOU need to prove it. In regards to your begining argument- G-d did not create humans as robots designed to worship- instead this is like if you had a son who went off to live with someone elses dad, you'd spank him for running away.
The god of the bible does not exist in reality.

Feel free to cite characteristics described in the bible written by the authors that can help you define the god-of-the-bible. For example, the god-of-the-bible is the creator of all Evil and Disasters as described by the authors in the books of Isaiah: "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and"create evil: I the"LORD"do all these things." - Isaiah 45:7. If you believe that the god-of-the-bible is not the creator of all Evil and Disasters, then you disagree with the opinions and imaginations of the authors of the bible. And by doing so, you would agree that the god-of-the-bible does not exist in reality. To understand reality, simply replace "reality" with "fact". And when working with facts, you shall require evidence to prove your statement is a fact. So simply perceiving something is not enough to qualify as a fact. You need evidence to support your claim. If I perceive myself as the President of the US, does that make it real? No. Does that make it a fact? No. It's only my claim based on personal perception unless I can prove that I am the President of the country. So unless you can reveal to us the time machine you have used to go back into time to prove to us that you are a witness to the god-of-the-bible instructing what the bible authors should write about himself, then you have no evidence and that the god-of-the-bible does not exist in reality as a matter of fact.
The god of the bible does not exist in reality.

Bs"dNot sufficient definition. Look, unless we can provide a way to objectively define reality, we cannot know if G-d exists in reality. For example; you accept what you are perceiving right now as fact since you perceive it- but how do you know that what you are perceiving is real? It is an assumption, just like everything else. So what defines "real?" That we perceive it? If so then G-d is very real since theists perceive him to exist, therefore how can you say this claim is any less valid than any other claim? Literary everything you believe you believe because you perceived it- so how is my claim of G-d existing on account of my perceiving him to exist any less valid than any claim that you believe because you perceive it?The logic is the same; I perceive it therefore I blindly accept it as fact- so what's the difference? How is G-d any less real than you or me?
The god of the bible does not exist in reality.

When the following question is raised, "Does god exist in reality?", it can cause so much confusion. Primarily because the term "god" by itself is ambiguous and does not have a definition that everyone shares and agrees upon. But if you refer to a source that could provide a central definition for such entity, then it helps clarify such question more clearly. A good example that could be used as a common source to identify a particular god and it's unique properties would be the bible: "Do not follow other gods, the gods of the peoples around you; for the LORD your God, who is among you, is a jealous God and his anger will burn against you, and he will destroy you from the face of the land." - Deuteronomy 6:14 The author of the bible has written implications in that the god-of-the-bible exhibits jealousy upon his creations worshiping other gods. As a result of having such emotion to such conditions, his reaction is expressed in anger which shall prompt immediate extermination against your life in this world. As we all know, this would be far too immature and childish for an all-knowing and all-powerful god to resort to such extreme measures against his own creations. It would be liken to you building a robot-worshiper without clear instructions on whom to worship, which upon completion, decides to worship your neighbor across the street who also enjoys building robots. And due to such unexpected result, you react violently in anger until the robot-worshiper you have created is crushed down to pieces of broken plastic and electronic components. Thus, reflecting the indicative characteristics of a god fabricated in writing by the authors of the bible on the basis of their own personal opinions and imaginations....and not from an all-knowing and all-powerful god. With that said, a god fabricated in writing derived from the creativity and imaginations of the human mind does not qualify as a god that exists in reality. So does the god-of-the-bible exist in reality? The answer should now be clear to everyone...which is No.