BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Students should never have homework on weekends.

Pro implies that having homework on the weekend will significantly decrease the amount of leisure time that a student should have; furthermore he states in the comments section that homework gets in the way of work as well. As I mentioned earlier in my argument section B.1, Many students are going to complain about their leisure time on the weekend. However the fact of the matter is that:Students do not spend that much time on homework in the weekend. This is of course true if the child has a fair grasp of time management. Once again in a study by Mary Allard, they found that on the weekend, 15% of students spent an average of 5 hours working, 75% of the students watched more TV on the weekends than the weekdays (up to 3.3 hours), and students that did homework on the weekend averaged 2.5 hours total [1]. In addition to work, students also slept more on the weekends, with an average of 21 hours (Saturday and Sunday). Thus, we have an average of 29 hours of a 48 hour weekend spent on sleeping, working and television, and only 2-5 hours (accounting for students that take twice as long to finish homework) doing homework on the weekends. Leaving 14 hours to have family time, play, or any other leisure activity. Clearly there is sufficient time for students to conduct in hobbies and leisure activities if they are given homework on the weekends. Another study measured the amount of time that students did leisure activities versus homework to determine a correlation between reading comprehension and studies. In the scope of activity times, the students spent significantly more time watching television, going out, listening to music, and eating dinner per day [2]. Students spent, on average, just as much time doing homework as they did doing chores, or playing games. This is consistent with the scholar recommended amounts of time to spend on homework. As students get older the homework increases up to a recommended 1-2 hours per day [3, 4]. Thus this pushes teachers to find more effective and useful projects/task for students to do and gives students more time to do after school activities. I would bring up more arguments however since my opponent is focused on leisure time, for now I will focus on that scope of the topic. Thank you, I look forward to seeing the next argument. Sources:1. . http://stats.bls.gov...2. . http://www.palmbeachschools.org...3. . http://www.lincnet.org...4.http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org...
Legalizing Euthanasia

Hello, We will be debating "Legalizing Euthanasia." It is defined as: "The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma." We will be pro, or for Legalizing Euthanasia. ROUND 1: Acceptance ONLY ROUND 2: All arguments, NO REBUTTALS! ROUND 3: Al rebuttals and concluding statements, NO ADDITIONAL POINTS! Also, the rebuttals can only be on content stated in the second round. No rebuttals on rebuttals. Unless you break conduct and state rebuttals in the second round. Remember, Euthanasia is only for people with a terminal illness or endless suffering. NOT depression. It would have to be approved by professionals first. Thanks, DDD
logical rational for moral without god

Responce- Just like in previous rounds, I'll agree with my opponent. "a) it is not always true." It doesn't have to always be true as the challenge was not every Atheist, but only plural Atheists. " b) to be moral only in a case where people will probably find out is not very moral." It doesn't have to be very moral, only moral in general. So while we can agree that it isn't very moral, it is still moral. Summarizations- I never really had to make much argument, as my opponent made them for me, from saying that Atheists reach moral decision based on genetics and social pressures, to saying that it isn't very moral, but still moral. The agreed definition of moral was, "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong." (my Round 1) So the challenge was met and never refuted. I thank my opponent for starting this debate and look forward to more in the future. Thank you.
logical rational for moral without god

I remind my opponent to see the rules stated at the beginning regarding the last response. I will now proceed with my closing arguments which I direct to you the voter: Response: I would like to address the 2 main points that my opponent made in the previous round. 1)It is logical and rational for an individual to be moral bec. There is a high chance that he will be caught. 2)"Meanwhile, we still have millions of atheists operating under a set of morals without a belief in God. Whether these morals were reached individually, or as an agreement with society doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that they reached these morals through reasoning and logic, and without the belief in a God. " Regarding the 1st point, my response is that: a) it is not always true, and b) to be moral only in a case where people will probably find out is not very moral. Regarding the 2nd point, I don't see much of a point at all. The challenge was "to provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in god. ". That was not done in this statement. Summarization and clarification: I challenged any one to "to provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in god. "As far as I can tell it was not done by my opponent. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant to the voting of this debate what is relevant is that my challenge has not been met. Any attempts on my opponents part were refuted. I thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this and the reader/voter/commenter for their time and impute. In my humble opinion I encourage all voters to vote con, primarily in the section marked off for best arguments, the other categories are tied. Thank you all.
logical rational for moral without god

My opponent states again, "I specifically anticipated and addressed that in the previous round and stated it makes sense for a society to adopt such behavior however for the intelligent individual it makes no sense to abide by these rules as a moral standard. For ex. If no one will ever find out about what was done." He then states that "for the intelligent individual it makes no sense to abide by these rules as a moral standard." I would first like to point out that intelligent =/= logical. I would secondly, like to point out that it is still wrong. An intelligent (and a logical) person would understand that there is actually a high chance that they would get caught and convicted of murder. To claim that they know, for a fact, that they will never get caught implies a much higher understanding of every influence factor around them (to what people will be where, and see what, at what times to how long it will take for the person to be viewed as missing, to the odds that the body would be found, compared to how long that may take, and various other factors) so that no one qualifies under that label. Meanwhile, we still have millions of atheists opperating under a set of morals without a belief in God. Whether these morals were reached individually, or as an agreement with society doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters is that they reached these morals through reasoning and logic, and without the belief in a God.
logical rational for moral without god

My opponent states I did not respond to the point that most atheists believe murder is not moral. I would like to quote myself from the previous round, "Regarding your second point I argue not with your facts but your conclusion. The fact that many people don't believe in god yet have a standard of moral, doesn't mean much. We count reasons not people." It's the equivalent of saying since most people believe in god it must be so. Furthermore I presented reasons why people would believe in morality despite it being illogical. One was cultural influence/indoctrination, another was genetic. Please see previous round. Regarding your next point I specifically anticipated and addressed that in the previous round and stated it makes sense for a society to adopt such behavior however for the intelligent individual it makes no sense to abide by these rules as a moral standard. For ex. If no one will ever find out about what was done. I eagerly await your response, (I will not be online for the next 2 days).
logical rational for moral without god

My opponent states that from an Atheistic view, murder is not immoral. However, he does nothing to reconcile the fact that most Atheists do believe that murder is immoral and wrong. As for the rest of the argument that my opponent makes. I completely agree with his three points. However, those three points only further my claim. He makes three arguments for the existence of morals in our society WITHOUT BELIEVING IN GOD. Since nothing was argued that God is needed for a logical belief in Morals, I have nothing to refute. So I will pass and let my opponent post their next argument.
logical rational for moral without god

I personally agree from a theistic point of view that murder is immoral. However from an atheistic view I state it is not immoral as there is no such thing as moral. Regarding your second point I argue not with your facts but your conclusion. The fact that many people don't believe in god yet have a standard of moral, doesn't mean much. We count reasons not people. After this I don't believe that I must explain the data but I will do so any way. This data can be explained in1 of 3 ways: a) cultural influence. b) Survival of the fittest. c) genetically through evolution. a) Life continues better in a moral society. Therefore intelligent beings created something called morals, and inculcated it into society through a number of means including punishment of criminals and the education of people from early on. It is interesting to note young children have much less moral if any. It is comparable to Plato's idea of creating a perfect society through fabrication. On a social level, its good but for an individual to bind himself to it I consider that to be not based on logical reason. b) Similar to my previous point in that I assume moral creates a better society more capable of survival. From there it follows using the laws of survival of the fittest and natural selection that the more moral societies will dominate the less moral. c) People with "moral genes" work together better and there for create better society in terms of survival. This created moral societies in which the more moral a person was the better liked he was which increased his survival and continuation abilities. From there it is standard evolution. Here as well morality is only shown to be logical in situations in which people will find out. However, for a person to abide by a set standard of morals I maintain is not rational. I apologize if any of this is unclear I am in a rush now. Please state any points you would like clarified and I will clarify in the next round. (I will respond in approx. 35 hours from now. (that is sat. night or Sun. morning.))
logical rational for moral without god

Will my opponent agree that murder (the un-justified killing for another human life) is immoral? Only 78% of Americans (according to a recent Gallop Poll [1]) believe in a God. This is not specific to a particular religion or particular God, but just a God. That means that 22% don't believe in a God (though 15% believed in a higher power, but not a God). However, most of those 22% that don't believe in a God, still believe that murder is wrong. Therefore, they have reasoned some degree of right and wrong without believing in a God. If my opponent wishes to dispute this, he is free to try to show that the 22% that don't believe in God either don't see anything wrong with murder, or reached those conclusions without logic. [1] http://www.gallup.com...
logical rational for moral without god

All I have to do is "provide a logical and rational reason/ motivation to be moral without belief in God." First, lets do some definitions, since they were omitted. Morality [1] - "Concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong." "Ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong." Logic [2] - "Reasoned and reasonable judgment." Reason [3] - "Is a human mental faculty that is able to generate conclusions from assumptions or premises." Before starting my argument, I will give my opponent the opportunity to challenge these definitions. [1] http://www.google.com... [2] http://www.google.com... [3] http://www.google.com...
New Smash Bros Fighters: Special Edition

This is another Smash Bros debate. We each choose a character we want for the next Super Smash Bros. This time, I'm adding a few rules.Rules:1) Your character must be from a video game. I've seen too many TV characters!2) You must come up with an entire move set for your character. It must include 4 Special Attacks, 3 tilts (side, up, down), 3 Smash attacks (side, up, down), the grab (whether it's a ranged grab or not), jab attack, AND the Final Smash. I prefer you choose your character and move set before accepting.3) You must say why you chose that character. Is the character worth being in Smash? (Saying "They're cool/cute/sexy" doesn't count, as that's subjective, and means nothing.4) Be ready for any turnabouts that may happen. Running out of time is an instant loss.5) Your character can't have been from any official Smash Bros game. So you can't choose Pichu, Mewtwo, Bayonetta, Roy (Fire Emblem), etc.My chosen character is Phoenix Wright from the Ace Attorney series.
The state is a faux necessity and should be abolished

Let me clarify. The burden of proof is actually on you. It is your job to prove governments naturally form. That they are intrinsic to humans. I can already refute this claim. For 90% of humanity we have been hunter-gatherer tribes. We lived in stateless societies. Societies without any centralized institute. This already refutes that governments are some how natural in humans. The burden of proof is on you now to explain why it is needed for a functional society. To me and to many other anarchists, the state is an institute with an unjustified monopoly on Force, violence and many services. The only power the state has to control it's people is the illusion of power. The state has no power without people to govern. Because the people is the only source of state power. I believe if you are truly a capitalist you would see the government as pernicious and a cancer to the market. I would like you to tell me why, as a capitalist you think the state is needed. Sources: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com... https://en.wikipedia.org...
The state is a faux necessity and should be abolished

My opponent claims that "the state is a faux necessity and should be abolished". I will argue points counter to that. Seeing as my opponent is making an affirmative claim, and since he did not clarify burden of proof, it is only natural to assume that he has accepted said burden of proof.To make clear my position, I will be arguing that the existence of the 'state' (a centralized governing force), should be valued as a societal good above such governments that aren't centralized in any way (no state.).I assume my opponent is a reasonable one and will not attempt to make semantic arguments. Rather, the main argument in this debate will focus upon the value of a "government of electives" versus a "government by the people".To fully explain my position, I'll be arguing that a capitalist democracy is preferable to a "zero-centralized" government, often referred to as anarchy or "near-anarchy". I look forward to my opponent's arguments.
The state is a faux necessity and should be abolished

I will admit I got a bit off topic on the burden of proof. Now i will refute your claims on the necessity of the government. "From an economic perspective, a government is necessary to insure that market abuses cannot stand. For example, monopolies. A monopoly is a total control of the output of some good. Monopolies have the ability to charge exorbitant prices for said good, since no other vendor is capable of producing that good at any other price. This creates a problem in the market, which is ultimately driven by competition. If the government can't regular market failures, the market failures will continue, to the detriment of society." The MisesInstitute actually debunked the myth of the "natural monopoly". Governments are actually the main cause of monopolies. I will give you the link to the article in the sources because the refutation is very hard to summarise and it would be too long to put in this argument. "Everyone seeks the protection of their own life, ultimately. After all, what matters more than you own life? The existence of the government increases actual and perceived safety. Without a government, there are no meaningful laws. Ie, there is no governing force to enforce them. Without laws, we are reduced to our animalistic nature, creating great dangers for all peoples in the society that are not already advantaged toward success. The existence of a government insures that laws are enforced, to a degree necessary, in order to increase actual and perceived safety." You don't need the state to be your protection. For the Anarcho capitalist protection would be given via private security corperations. The anarcho communist will argue we have a majority of crimes due to our commodity fetishism and poverty. There is a large correlation with crime and poverty. People in poverty have a significantly larger chance to commit crimes. Communism abolishes poverty and thus abolishes a large portion of crime. Saying you need the government to enforce laws is asinine. Laws are just arbitrary rules put out to protect the interests of whom control the state. A good example of this is the criminalization of weed. The demonization of the cannabis plant was an extension of the demonization of the Mexican immigrants. In an effort to control and keep tabs on these new citizens, El Paso, TX borrowed a play from San Francisco"s playbook, which had outlawed opium decades earlier in an effort to control Chinese immigrants. The idea was to have an excuse to search, detain and deport Mexican immigrants. You have given no evidence of this "animalistic nature". Sources: https://mises.org... http://www.jacksonfreepress.com... http://www.drugpolicy.org...
The State Has Rights that the Man Does Not

Darris321, Welcome and thank you for giving me the opportunity to debate this intriguing topic. I look forward to helping you shape your opinions about being an anarchist. Hopefully, in the end I might change your mind :) Before I begin establishing my position, there are several aspects of your perspective that are vague to me and need to be clarified: 1) Does the ‘State' refer to any body politic or does the ‘State' in this instance specifically refer to the United States of America? a. Different political entities (i.e., States) have different degrees of power and can afford its denizens with different rights and as such can have a profound impact on the interpretation of the issue we are discussing. 2) Does ‘Man' include all citizens of the ‘State'? a. Some ‘States' limit the rights of men and women differently as is seen in Kuwait (1) and thus would have to be addressed accordingly. 3) Does ‘Man' imply individuals or a collective of individuals (eg., corporations, political action committees, etc)? a. Both individuals and collectives of individuals have rights that have different implication for this discussion. Thus, it would be helpful to identify whose rights we are discussing. 4) Are we discussing natural rights or legal rights? a. The ‘State' has no natural rights, but ‘Man' does; and both the ‘State' and ‘Man' have legal rights, but the legal rights of the 'State' are far more limited than the legal rights of 'Man'. My aim is to proffer evidence using the United States of America (US) as an example to counter the claim that the ‘State' has a "right" to deprive ‘Man' of liberty. The US is a constitutional based federal republic with a strong democratic tradition (2). Its government has three separate branches of government whose members are sworn to uphold the constitution. The natural rights of its citizens, and those within its jurisdiction, are codified as legal rights within this document as part the Bill of Rights (3). In particular, the 5th and 14th amendments of the constitution guarantee due process, which ensures that no law of the ‘State' can impinge on the liberty of individuals (4). Further, if the "State' does creates a law that impinges on the rights of individuals, the Supreme Court vis a vis Marbury v. Madison, which established judicial review, can deem such laws as unconstitutional (5). In addition, if a law needs to be established to protect the rights of citizens, the 1st Amendment of the constitution guarantees the right of free speech and the right to associate with whom one chooses to foster changes as was seen with the civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's (6). Finally, the claim that the ‘States' have rights that ‘Man' does not is moot in the US since the ‘State' derives its authority from the people (i.e. ‘Man') whose natural and legal rights the ‘State' is designed to protect. I am eagerly awaiting my opponent's response. (1)http://en.wikipedia.org... (2)https://www.cia.gov... (3)http://en.wikipedia.org... (4)http://www.usconstitution.net... (5)http://www.lawnix.com... (6)http://www.watson.org...
The State Has Rights that the Man Does Not

This is my first debate here at debate.org. Let me tell you that I am fascinated that bastion of rationality exists on the internet which is not clouded with flame wars. The potential for this website is incredible. I have chosen this topic because I have been researching anarchy and voluntarism recently. It has interested me and I need to bounce the ideas of it off of somebody before I call myself an anarchist. Well, let's get started. The state is an entity which, at least in the United States, has evolved into something that is able to deprive a person of liberty. I believe that the state is NOT justified in this deprivation because I don't see the majority as having more rights than the individual. Whence cometh that right? If X thinks Y did something wrong, X can't just kick down Y's door then put Y involuntarily into a cage for the arbitrary time that X has decided is good. X in this case has decided that he will be the judge and prosecutor. Y has never accepted X's decisions, so why should X's decisions affect Y? It's difficult to start an argument from the con side. I look forward to seeing the response from my opponent.