BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God Is Unnecessary As A Basis For Morality And Justice

I looked up that quote and the meaning within context seems different than your interpretation. But let's say we go with your interpretation. One can only be a jerk within the context of a society. How could anyone be a jerk when they're alone on an island for example? The point is the principle of don't be a jerk is when your behavior violates the self-interest of others and they bounce back. It is true that people want moral laws that are convenient for them. But what is convenient for them is inconvenient for others and do you think people would let their convenience taken away? Korea is a small country. In order to have a denfense comparable to that of the world (which is critical for their existence) they decided that the national good overweight the individual rights to choose. The bible does not protect the people from all of the immorality like you claimed. In the past the bible was used to justify slavery. It was the slaves acted upon their self-interest that corrects the wrong. This trial and error do not always result in people dying like in the library case. If you don't accept that morality evolves then how did we go from a state of slavery to now?Then and now both derive morality from the bible then whats changed? n if you dont agree with evolving morality, how do you explain stuff in the past that becomes wrong? Your second point seems to point to the significance of religion in the past. There are alot of things significant in the past but has become heinous in the future like slavery. What has been in the past can be regarded as a lesson, not an immutable tradition because of instances like slavery. Regarding your last sentence, think of the transitional time between Aristotlian physics and Newtonian phyics. If, like you suggest, we give Aristotlian physics special treatment for its domination in the past, what would the technology now be like? Sorry if this post is riddled with typos, i posted this from my phone.
Free will probably exists in humans

CON is right, free will doesn't exist. And yet it does exist. How can that be? I'll summarize. I have demonstrated that the very idea of a "free" agent is self-contradictory. You have to wonder though, why would so much of our everyday reasoning be based on the assumption that people have free will if free will were logically impossible? When we talk about how a person chooses to act, we recognize that their unique experience has shaped their decisions. For this reason, I do not believe that CON's definition of free will (in which the decision must be made with no outside influence), is the same definition that others use when they talk about free will. The most elegant solution I can think of is that our notion of "free will" is a model of human behavior. If you break it down, a decision is just electrical and chemical signals traveling through the brain, but we are incapable of reasoning about ourselves at this level. This is why we need models in the first place, and that includes the assumption that other people act because they have motives, desires, fears, and drives. Ultimately, we live in a world of labels and models. Science hasn't even figured out what the "real" stuff of existence is yet, and even atoms themselves are models of quantum processes that we only partially understand. For this reason, sometimes models are as real as it gets. Free will is one such model, and I consider it to be real. Real like a boat.
Free will probably exists in humans

^o^ There are many contradictions in your case. So many that your arguments.... are practically my arguments. "Whether free will exists depends on your precise definition of it. My has given his: A decision is free if and only if there are no outside forces influencing the decision. I will argue, however, that this is a poor definition of free will on the grounds that it is self-contradictory" Or could it be that the concept of free will ITSELF is contradictory, and therefore it doesn't exist. :) "But "no outside forces" means "no outside forces", and this includes information gained from the senses. However, to even make a decision in the first place, never mind if its "free" or not, the agent must already have a conceptualization of the world. This means the agent has in its mind a system of mental objects, the qualities they possess, and their relationships between each other and between the senses." "In summary, to be a rational agent, it must have been influenced by external forces." I couldn't have said it any better myself "You can't define free will as the ability of a rational agent to make decisions that are not based on outside forces. This is similar to defining omnipotence as "The ability of a being to create a stone so heavy that it can not lift it". The phrase itself is contradictory, and if expanded it would include the requirement that something both be X and not X at the same time." Well, it's just paradox. That's like me saying everyone on debate.org ALWAYS tells lies. It's contradictory as I am from debate.org and therefore this statement cannot be true. This is why I have won this debate. My opponent and I have agreed that quantum mechanics doesn't allow room for free will as free will is by definition naturally paradoxical, and yet he continues to insist that free will is something different from the standard conception..... Oh well, I urge a CON ballot. Thank you :)
Free will probably exists in humans

Very, very, clever post by my opponent. ;) To rebut your case (atleast the most important part): "My stance is that "free will" is a label that we assign to the behavior of rational agents. It "exists" in the same sense that humor, intelligence or compassion "exists". They are not things you can hold in your hand, but labels we assign. " Not so fast my friend. As humor is the ability to make one laugh, as intelligence is the ability to react to stimuli, free will is the ability to make decisions without any outside force. These things themselves are not labels, instead we label these things (if that makes sense. ) They exist as capabilities. Although you can't hold 'em in your hand, they're "real" :) As far as free will you admitted yourself that quantum physics doesn't allow room for free will. For free will to exist, there must not be ANY outside forces influencing a decision. As intelligent beings have thought processes, they simply process information based on what they take in from their environment. I think that free will is often confused with intelligence. Though intelligence exists as a capability, it is impossible for a being to be capable of free will and therefore free will doesn't exist. :) I'm out of time (in real life of course. ) I rest my case for now
Free will probably exists in humans

Free will: "...a particular sort of capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) To define further, this means that the choice of this rational agent (in this case a human) is not being influenced by any force, and is acting on its own. I negate the resolution: Free will probably exists in humans. Since my opponent has the burden of proof, I will allow my opponent to make the first argument. If my opponent uses a religious argument, my opponent must first prove that religion is a sound foundation to make arguments upon.
The Evidence Favors Theism Over Atheism

I accept. In this debate it will be up to my opponent to demonstrate that the evidence favors theism over atheism.Some definiitions I'd like to propose for this debate:Theism- a belief in a deity or deities.Atheism- a lack of belief in a deity or deities.And some brief rules:1. Abusive or abusivelly semantic arguments should not be counted.2. No new arguments in the final round.3. Drops shall count as concessions.Thank you.
Black people are significantly less intelligent than white people due to race and genes

Burden of proof lies on any claim made by both pro and con. 2. No semantics, trolling, insults, or logical fallacies. 3. Do not accuse the other party of a fallacy without an explanation. 4. Statements starting in "In my opinion. .. " "Well, actually. .. " or "I think that. .. " etc. are not allowed. 5. This debate is a debate of facts and statistics, not opinions or feelings. 6. No new arguments, Introducing new sources, or accusations of burden of proof in the final round. 7. No forfeiting 8. Be respectful I will be arguing as Pro (for) the argument that blacks are genetically less intelligent than whites. Side note: I've done this debate before, but the con decided to forfeit before the second round was finished.
Television and internet are leading causes of violence in today's society.

Can you prove that stricter laws lower the crime rate? To me, what I see is mass media becoming more popular and violent crime going down. Criminals adapt to laws. Stricter laws can be overcome as soon as someone figures out how. I stand by my previous evidence; crime rate has gone down, mass media use has gone up. I see no way to prove mass media is the main cause of violent crime.
Television and internet are leading causes of violence in today's society.

I appreciate the facts and figures you used to put in front your part, but at the same time I would like to mention this fact very clearly that if the crime rate has considerably reduced, then there are certain factors which have played a significant role in bringing down this rate. Better laws and their stricter implementation are the factors which have played a major role in reducing crimes. Therefore, television and internet cannot be freed from the blame of promoting violence in today's society. Today's society has been greatly influenced by these mass medias. And this influence can be widely seen on the younger section of the society. The presence of inappropriate content on the internet is one of the major causes of deviation of students. Long hours spent in front of TV and Internet is a major cause of irritation in the behavior of teens and a proven reason for lack of social ethics. The exposure of youngsters to Internet at a very young age makes wrong things tempting to them.
Television and internet are leading causes of violence in today's society.

I'll accept your challenge. I hope to have a good debate. In this debate, I assume you are trying to prove a link between violent crime and violent mass media. I will try to disprove your statement of how mass media creates more violent crime. I disagree with your statement. You say media is a the main source for violent crime to begin. However, while media has become more and more popular over the last ten years, the FBI states that the estimated violent crime level of 2012 was 12.2 percent down from the 2003 estimated violent crime level- http://www.fbi.gov... Obviously, television and internet have been becoming more popular over these last ten years-so much that I can check the news from my smartphone and watch shows on a small, very portable tablet. Accessibility has been increasing, but crime has been going down. Therefore, I say violent media is not the leading cause of violent crime.
Television and internet are leading causes of violence in today's society.

Development always comes with some or the other flaw which widely affects the society. In our modern society of ours, television and internet have become inalienable from us. People switch on to television every time for one or the other need, be it recreation or getting updated with day today happenings. the same thing goes for internet too, but to a greater extent. But the point on which one needs to pay attention is that though television and internet help us in various ways, they are more harmful than useful. Children, when exposed to these mass media sources, often get affected because of the presence of enough of inappropriate content available which has become the major source of violence in our society. Children very easily get affected by their so called super heroes and tend to imitate them, completely unaware of the fact that the telecasted things are completely fictious.. Thus I find such mass medias the cause of violence in today's society..
Affirmative action promotes rascism.

Did you really just overtly shift goalposts on the last turn? The first question is, relative to the big picture, how does a significant change in GDP matter in relation to effectiveness of an educational initiative? (hint: it doesn't. ) Fortunately Pro decided to not back that portion and therefore not back the conclusion making it a leap in logic since saying that all person's do better and the GDP actually increases is not equivalent to claiming that the GDP is a sound measurement of the effectiveness of AA. Red Herring and Non-sequitur and shifting goalposts, and then finally my opponent just admits that they don't care anymore in their "final words". What a waste of time.
Affirmative action promotes rascism.

I'm not one for longevity so straight to the points:"The nature of affirmative action programs is such that they cannot provide an opportunity to any person, black or white, without also taking that opportunity away from another person, whether that other person is black or white. No reason to think otherwise has been presented because this fact is built into the very nature of what affirmative action actually is. In the big picture no actual wealth is gained when implementing affirmative action programs, rendering the articles claim invalid."There is no reasoning behind this other than a perceived "swap" of opportunities however this isn't shown to be true (that one person loses while one person gains under AA) and thus is inherently dismissed as mere opinion. A statement alone is not sufficient, that is to say, there is absolutely no reasoning behind this statement nor are their any citations nor are there any arguments. It's just a claim. Because this is true I have no "rebuttal" since there's nothing to actually refute and it is my opponent's job to genuinely prove his claims.Pro needs to somehow solidify these:1. " ... affirmative action is not about helping minorities or impoverished persons."2. "When one or more groups are actually singled out to have opportunities taken away from them (remember, affirmative action creates no new opportunities in the big picture) the racism of such programs is made all too obvious."Until then there's really not much for me to do.
Affirmative action promotes rascism.

"Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance."It turns out that all ethnicities, white, black, asian, spanish, native american, and other benefit from affirmative action (http://www.diversityinc.com...) so using your own definition:"Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance."The presentation of this is absolutely accurate! It just turns out that instead of "group/race" it's just "group" and it's really "impoverished persons". Supporting the idea that yu don't have to live in poverty because those who came before you made poor choices or sadly never dug themselves out no matter their efforts seems somewhat just and definitely no racist. In an ironic bout it is not racist to note that there are a greater number of minorities but it is entirely racist to focus the lamp on those minorities claiming that the majority receives nothing and that it is based entirely on race versus other factors like poverty which are truly universal.
Affirmative action promotes rascism.

And therefore anyone who supports affirmative action supports rascism Affirmatiave action-The policy of legally requiring institutions to favor individuals who are a member of a group/race which the government has deemed to be in need of special assistance. Promote-To encourage, stand in favor of Racism-Discrimination against an individual or group based soley upon race. By accepting this debate the contender agrees that these definitions are valid. If you would like a different set of definitions feel free to propose a change and I will consider it.
Gun control is a good contributor, if not a necessary factor, to keeping homicides at a lower rate.

In this round I am going to do some refutations of the contender's first argument."Guns are not only used for killing, as a person who has used guns for almost my whole life, killing has only been a part of it for a fraction of the time, and human death has never been a part. Shooting as a sport is one of the safest recreational activities one can be a part of, and one of the most fun."Yes, Guns are used for shooting activities, but that doesn't change the fact that it is designed for killing. In a 2005 nationwide gallup poll of 1012 adults, 67% of them said they have their guns for protection against crime, 58% for hunting. This means that many owners intend to shoot animals and other intend to shoot humans if necerssary. Of course, this is only showing the legal side of things and cannot be used to support of oppose the proposition. There are other shooting sports (E.G Archery) and you can shoot as a sport without owning your own gun, entrusting the weapons you use to a group of people (shooting club) to keep safe. This brings me back to south Korea where you can own a gun for hunting or shooting but it must be kept locked up at a local police station. As for shooting being the safest recreational activities, the opponent must realise that almost every other recreational activity is safer. Football, Tennis, Video Gaming, watching a movie, READING, Fencing and even some recreational drugs to an extent."a person who is trained in pistol combat," If you had to train before you get a gun licence, like you would a car licence, that would come under regulation. "When an intruder enters your home," he would be an inefficient intruder if you are at home. On 'Home Security Statistics' one of the facts was "Usually occur in the daytime when occupants are at school or work" and another was, "Choose an unoccupied home with easy access, the greatest amount of cover and the best escape routes." If you are scared about your house being broken into then you have to get house security. "to defend yourself," there is more than one means to defend yourself, others are better in the way that they aren't fatal. Even then, does this mean that we should let people go completely unregulated with their guns?"Thank you.Bummer you didn't use sources for your argument."http://www.justfacts.com...http://www.safeguardtheworld.com...How do you like me now?
Gun control is a good contributor, if not a necessary factor, to keeping homicides at a lower rate.

Well, it looks like I lost control of the debate. Bad puns aside, I am a bit pissed off with your first argument.One, you give a dictionary definition of the word 'Control' even though I was defining it in a certain context.Two, I should have made it clearer that you were only meant to accept in round one.Three, you claim me to be an American citizen, "as you should know as an American citizen." I am not.Four, you're bummed that I didn't show sources. One, why do I need to show my sources when I haven't given an argument yet. Two, in your orginal debate, you didn't show any evidence, let alone sources. There are two extremes at both ends of the debate. One side says that Guns need to be banned altogther, the other say that there should be no regulation at all. South Korea is one of the most restrictive countries in the world when it comes to Guns. Those not serving in the military or police are not allowed to own firearms and hunting licenses are issued but the guns must be kept at a local police station. 2.6 out of every 100,000 inhabitants are killed in intentional homicide. In Honduras on the other hand, 800,000 guns are in the hands of the public, 650,000 of which are unregulated. Honduras has 91.6 people die in every 100,000 due to Homicides, and Honduras noticed. "Anyone visiting a city in Honduras will immediately notice armed guards in virtually every establishment including restaurants, grocery stores, and everyday businesses.[10]"No Weapons Allowed" signs can be seen in certain places reminding patrons to leave their firearms at home when conducting business with them. Besides the common frisk when entering a building, some establishments have gone as far as installing metal detectors to make sure visitors are unarmed when entering. Rise in crime has brought some politicians to think the best way to protect citizens is from entirely banning firearms from civilians." This shows the extremety of the gun violence in Honduras, and if countries like USA decide to let the citizens have free reign over their guns, then problems may arise.Does this mean we should ban guns altogether? Not necerssarrily. If we look at Japan, they have a 0.3 homicide rate in every 100,000. "The only types of firearms which a Japanese citizen may acquire are rifles or shotguns. Sportsmen are permitted to possess rifles or shotguns for hunting and for skeet and trap shooting, but only after submitting to a lengthy licensing procedure.Without a license, a Japanese citizen may not even hold a gun in their hands." Many countries in the world don't ban guns, some are considering, but in america it seems unlikely that people would be happy with the removal of their guns.The conclusion is that when you let people run loose with firearms, problems occur, and that many countries in the world today are good examples that gun control works, and that not having it increases likliness of homicides.http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...
Gun control is a good contributor, if not a necessary factor, to keeping homicides at a lower rate.

Due to me not being on time with my argument on the Gun control debate with the user Gunsbelonginamerica, I am re challenging him to this debate. I will accept all and any argumentation, no matter how bad. Definitions Gun: Weapon used to fire bullets with the intent of wounding or killing. Control: Moderate to extreme regulation of weapons. This can include licenses, tests, required homing in police stations or a ban altogether. Contributor/Factor: helping hand in Good: Useful Homicide: Killing another human being (with a gun, in this debate). If you accept in round one, we can proceed with a three round debate. Thank you.
The Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is false

I have exactly 1376 forum posts (it may be different by the time you read this since I plan to post some more), and since Section 1376 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church contains the definition of "transubstantiation," I thought this would be a good time to initiate a debate on the subject.According to the doctrine of transubstantiation, when the bread and wine of the eucharist are consecrated, they cease to be bread and wine and literally become the body and blood of Jesus.[1] I am going to argue that this doctrine is false.I will have the burden of proof, so my opponent need not prove that the doctrine is true. My opponent only needs to refute my arguments.The first round is for acceptance, clarification, definitions, and well-wishes.The rest of the rounds are for arguing.Please don't accept the debate unless you think there's a really good chance you'll be able to complete it. I don't want anybody to forfeit.I would prefer to debate a Catholic, but if somebody wants to play devil's advocate, I guess that's okay. No trolling.I put a 6000 character limit instead of the usual 8000 to encourage voting and discourage forfeiting.Good luck, whoever you are.************1. Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1376 http://www.scborromeo.org...