BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
should we stop giving Israel billions of dollars in "defense"

Premise I: Financial SacrificeThe US contributes $3.15 bn a year to Israeli Defense (1). This may seem like a lot, but it's very cheap for the US. That makes up only 0.0008% of total US Spending (2). The benefit of removing that money from Israel must outweigh the negative effects.1) http://www.businessinsider.com...2) http://www.usgovernmentspending.com... Argument I: Benefits v NegativesIt's not a question of how much the Arab nations hate Israel. Palestine especially. Numerous nations have threatened Israel, like Iran. These nations have the backing of groups like Hamas and Al Qaeda, who recently conquered an entire Iraqi city of 325,000+ people (3). This becomes a major issue for a nation like Israel, where the West Bank and Gaze Strip bulge into Israel. A quick look at the city of Jerusalem should give us insight.It's a sensitive situation in Jerusalem, and wars between Arab nations are not known their emphasizes on preserving civilian life. To allow an opening for war would be a disaster. The US being so involved is what prevents such an issue. If Hamas got the chance at Jerusalem, an easy target, 511,000 Jewish/Christian citizens would be at risk (4). There is a total population of 8,000,000+ in Israel, 6,062,600+ of whom are Islamic and Christian. Putting them at risk to save 0.0008% of our budget which be a crime against reason and humanity.3) http://news.yahoo.com...4) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Sense Data

"CON provides nothing to refute the claim that "nothing exists independent of the self"." Extend Beginner's assertion that sensory data is pushed through our senses and extend my analysis of his position stating that, "sense data exists externally to the self, that our state of being is independent of the sense data's state of being. Because Beginner argues against the claim nothing exists independent of the self in his opening argument, do not allow him to change his stance later. His official stance is that objects exist externally, but we cannot understand them until they are internally processed." Extend that language is internal to the consciousness and that even a blind, deaf, mute has the capacity for internal monologue. This is not refuted. This means that even if nothing exists internal to the self, we may still use language to determine the physical properties of objects. Further extend my analysis that "If everything that exists is dependent on the self, and we are talking about the ontological nature of these objects, then these objects exist internally to the self. If that is true, then sense data is irrelevant because we create it internally within our own consciousness." This isn't refuted, if solipsism is true, then we disregard sense data entirely, and as sense data is the basis by which Beginner attempts to attribute physical properties - i.e., we only know of physical properties via senses - then the empirical basis for determining physical properties is also disregarded. Beginner states that if all humans were to no longer exist, physical objects would still have properties. This is true, but his extension is incorrect, that linguistics cannot be relevant in determining the physical properties of an object. Remember that determination is a process, it has a beginning and end. If no humans exist, then the determination of physical properties cannot occur, even through empirical data because there can be no beginning of the determination process. Keep in mind that this argument is a direct rebuttal to a statement made in my opponent's last round. Feel free to gut check, but to disregard it as new is to give his new rebuttal a free pass. Here are the voters: Extend the reasons that my opponent arguments fail: 1. He argues against it. 2. Language is internal. 3. Language does have to be externalized to define physical properties more accurately than sense date. 4. Even if it does, our conception of externalization is internal. He does not refute any of these. Extend the three-step process for precisely determining the properties of physical objects: understanding, interpreting, and asserting. This isn't refuted. Extend the color-blind example, that empirical sense-data isn't always internalized correctly, therefore we must re-externalized through discourse.
Sense Data

SolipsismCON provides nothing to refute the claim that "nothing exists independent of the self". Thus this point of view is still very valid. As CON points out Solipsism does mean that everything is processed internally and that objects external to the self do not exist. However, this does not fundamentally negate my argument. We cannot know the properties of an object, even if its internal, until it is empirically presented to us. Thus, solipsist knowledge of an object created by the conscience point of view is locked until the solipsist is able to empirically register the object.Solipsism stands as a valid affirmation to the resolutionAgain, if CON rejects solipsism, the opposite of solipsism: that objects exist independent of the self, must be true. Thus objects exist independent of all empirical and linguistic definitions. Think of it this way: The human race can be wiped out with no one left to define anything and the objects would still exist and still have its physical properties. Thus linguistics cannot be a factor.And that is why if Solipsism is rejected, CON negates his side of the resolution along with mine. The best result CON can attain in this debate is a tie.
Sense Data

SolipsismStands. Solipsism is a very valid point of view.ExistenceIf Solipsism is rejected, an object's existence must be independent of the observer thus regardless of empirical or linguistic trappings, the object is defined. Therefore the object's properties cannot be defined by empiricism or linguistics. If my opponent accepts solipsism, PRO wins the debate.If my opponent rejects solipsism, he refutes the existence of the linguistic definition of an object's very existence and its properties. CON cannot win this debate. RefutationsMy opponent elicits several analogies.His door analogy has us consider a door. However, for us to even know that a door is a door, we must first have been introduced to the door empirically. English is necessarily learned empirically thus even if we have not seen the door and have been given 3rd part descriptions of its attributes, the existence of the door, the word the door itself even, came to us empirically.Everything exists in empirical trappings. Thus to be able to place any significance on any object, one requires empirical exposure.
Sense Data

I assert that the physical properties of an object are determined linguistically through a three-step process: understanding, interpretation, and assertion. Humans possess a pre-reflective nature. Understanding, as a result, is a state of being. The way we navigate the world is indicative of this quality. To say that one lacks understanding is to deny their basic humanity. Take, for example, a door; when opening a door we do not think about the qualities or nature of the door, at least not necessarily. We understand without thought that by turning the door knob and either pushing or pulling, the door will open. We exist in a state of understanding. Now let's imagine that the door does not open when we turn the knob and push/pull. What then? We are overtaken by a state of conscious consideration. This is the state of interpretation. We begin to bounce around in our head the possibility that the door may be locked, or jammed, or broken. The awakening replaces the unconscious process of opening and closing the door with the conscious consideration of the door's purpose, the door's as-structure, the door as a door. It is thereby concluded that through interpretation we attribute meaning to physical objects and properties. This does not however determine the absolute nature of a physical object's properties. Assertion is a process of synthesizing both understanding and interpretation into something of value. Truth, therefore, is the melding of judgment and the world itself. A more complex example will allow us to understand this. Take a person who is red-green colorblind. What he understands to be red and what he understands to be green is different than another individual's understanding of the same colors. One cannot argue that the sense-data property of a red object that allows one individual to interpret it as red and another to interpret it as red-or-green is any different. Empirical evidence is not enough to attribute this property to an object. It is through the verbal, linquistic assertion that, "this object is red" that we can collaborate the quality with other human beings who equally exist in a state of understanding and therefore can truly understand the property of the object. A further value of assertion is that is verbalizes the abstract faculties of the mind into concrete images. We can process images without being able to describe them, but through verbalization we require our mind to truly display a grasp of what they mean, in a way that is meaningful internally to ourselves and our conscious and externally to other human beings.
Sense Data

SolopsismThings' existence are fed to us via our sensory data. EVerything we know, from our knowledge of language, the things we see, touch and hear determine what we know. How do we know if these things existed before we saw them? It is possible that everything is a creation of some kind of our conscience. There is no absolute evidence to prove otherwise.Thus solipsism, the idea that nothing exists independent of the self, is very valid. We only know a thing exists when it is pushed through our senses. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that empirical data determines all an object's properties.ExistenceIf we were to reject solipsism, then the opposite point of view: that objects exist independent of our senses, must be true. An object's physical properties thus exist independent of our senses, but we cannot necessarily know that an object contains properties that we believe it has until it has been empirically presented to us.Say you've never heard of a uhieta. What physical properties does an uhieta have? You don't know until you've seen one. An uhieta's properties must first be empirically presented before you can necessarily know them.
The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

Hello! This is the second debate is a series called "The usual arguments" where I take the most common arguments against atheism and try to debunk them. In this debate, I will try to prove objective morality doesn't exist. objective morality - the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true[1] This debate is impossible to accept. Leave a comment if you would like to debate this topic. Structure: Round 1: acceptance Round 2: arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: conclusion [1]http://rationalwiki.org...
The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

I will try to keep this short so my opponent will be able to post his rebuttals and counter rebuttals in a single round. First of all, rational thought is actually used in deciding morals. Just look at abortion or the death penalty. They are constantly debated because you don't sense what is morally right. Rational thought has a very important role in deciding what is moral and what isn't. As long as our actions are based on the interpretation of the moral code, then the moral code is not objective. The interpretation is itself the moral code. Thinking that marriage is special doesn't have anything to do with morality, it's just an opinion that differs from person to person. Not even thinking marriage is special is objective. Many believe marriage is not special, so even if it was part of a deeper moral code, it would still be subjective. Also, there is no deeper moral code. For example, murder is wrong is the interpretation of a deeper moral code ( since there are suicide bombers who believe murder is the best thing in the world) As long as there are 2 different interpretations, there should be a deeper, objective moral code. That would be that human life is special, which is again just an opinion that some people don't agree with. Desire of the happiness of others is a very interesting topic, because we are educated in that way. Modern society as well as religion remind us we should all love each other everyday. We just accept this and mostly pretend we care about everyone, but we know this is not the case. How much do you care about a hobo? Do you wish happiness to a serial killer? Since morality justifies one's beliefs, it is of course very hard to explain why that is your moral standard. Just like you use you taste in music to justify the bands you listen too, but you can't explain why you have that taste in music. Subjective morals are just as hard to justify as objective morals. I would like to thank my opponent for a very interesting debate. I really enjoyed it.
The usual arguments #2: Objective morality

I don't want to do this. I have a feeling this debate will be close and that I very well could lose strictly based on conduct points. However, life circumstances force me to forfeit this round. Just to give my opponent a chance at rebuttals, before I actually post my argument, I will tell him what I'm arguing. I will be arguing for moral sense theory. I believe moral sense theory can prove objective morality. I'm sorry con, for having to forfeit this round.
x-men movie version would win in a battle against avengers movie version

I start off with Proffesor Charles being old. You forget that his machine, Cerebro, made by beast, enhances his power ten-fold. He could kill all members of the Avengers that have a brain, and turn Loki's soldiers back to his side. Magneto couldn't defeat sentinels as they could adapt to any mutants' powers. Nightcrawler has teleportation abilities to match Loki's mirror image ability. Blink can open teleportation portals and Bishop can fire with energy-absorbing powers. Deadpool and Deathstrike would make good soldiers. Gambit would do good too. Havok can absorb repulsor rays and hurl it back. Jason Stryker can create telepathic illusions to confuse the Avengers. Quicksilver is a mutant as well, so we can keep him aside for this one. Rogue can absorb powers of captain america maybe, and Kitty Pride can slip through any structure. Wolverine's half-brother Sabretooth can do good damage as well, and don't forget mighty Weapon-X. I don't see how could the Avengers hold this threat off. source-http://screenrant.com...
x-men movie version would win in a battle against avengers movie version

I'm starting right off the bat with your comment on Wolverine being immortal. By acknowledging age in the debate, I will have to address reluctantly the fact that Magneto and Charles are both very old, so much so that they would find it very difficult to fight or exercise their powers on such a large scale, and wouldn't last very long. Sorry about having to say that. Don't forget who else was in the Avengers 2 trailer; Scarlet Witch. She's an Avenger now, and she's also Magneto's daughter, and while it's difficult to say what her powers in the film will be, her comic powers involve being able to manipulate the universe itself. Cyclops can't really aim the full blast either, and friendly fire would be a given there. Mystique can't really match Loki's own power as the God of Illusion, as well as the mind control staff he uses (which might even have its own infinity stone). And you can't really sow chaos in the Avengers; there'd have to be order first.. Not sure who you mean by Spikes, but Quicksilver? That's Scarlet Witch's brother. She can easily beat him. Beast is a low rent hulk at the end of the day there. Don't forget Blade is technically an Avenger, he had his own film, and he's a vampire (daywalker to be precise). What use is Banshee's sonic waves and gliding be compared to armies upon armies of both Tony and Ultron's mechs, and before you say Magneto, remember if he really could stop the house party, then Days of Future Past would make no sense because Sentinels are made of metal, so there's a clear limit to what he can control. The X-men may have outnumber named characters, but the Avengers would have both an army AND a hulk this time.
x-men movie version would win in a battle against avengers movie version

As for iron man, magneto will lock all his metal suits up. I don't have information on the Avengers 2 villains yet, but don't forget professor Charles can turn half of the human-heroes to our side. Iceman, Pyro and Storm can work together a fire-ice-lightning beam. We also have nearly immortal Wolverine, and power-absorbing Rogue. If we aren't considering dark phoenix, cyclops as a last resort can open his eyes for a mega-laser blast. The Juggernaut is a good match for hulk as well. Mystique can use disguises to infiltrate and create chaos in the avengers team. Spikes and super speed(forgot their names) are some good soldiers as well. The Beast would provide them support. And there was this flying bird guy similar to the falcon, the x-men would overpower the avengers with sheer numbers.
x-men movie version would win in a battle against avengers movie version

If you intend to use X-Men villains here, don't forget the Avengers have Loki, and Ultron and Thanos as enemies, the latter being the would-be wielded of the infinity gauntlet, if currently incomplete. However, the Avengers ready have the Aether and Tesseract, both of which have planet destroying potential. Tony also has that house party protocol too, which now has the Hulkbuster added to it. Numbers aren't' a problem for the Avengers. Not even Dark Phoenix could stand up to that kind of line-up.
x-men movie version would win in a battle against avengers movie version

While the Avengers are quite Over-powerful, the x-men are simply more in number. Also this battle would include villains as well, and the avengers don't have much of a villain. Even hulk can be taken care of by Collosus fist and wolverine, and magneto can immobilize iron man. Even if the phoenix is not active, the avengers would stand very little chance against this mutant army.
x-men movie version would win in a battle against avengers movie version

Perhaps the memories of the films are rusty in your memory, but cerebro based under the university (aka in the most vulnerable position for a SHIELD airstrike which would level the building with all the mutants inside). That would be the first target in their fight. It may suprise you that the whole "teleport people into the air" thing won't work on most Avengers, as the ones with powers can all fly. by the way, did you know that Gambit can run out of cards? Funny enough, Quicksilver is an Avenger in the comics. Iron Man 3 featured the Extremis soliders, who can easily melt the metal from Wolverine's bonees wipe the floor with anyone regenerating mutants, after all, they can burn wounds shut. Kitty wouldn;' be able to reach the Helicarriers, as she can't fly. Rogue would have to make physical contact with a hero to drain them. and continue draining over a period of time, which is difficult during a fight, hell, all credit to Cap, but he's not exactly the star player here. The stars will be any Avenger capable of flight, considering little to none of the X-men have that power. The Avengers can just bomb Charles School, ambush everyone fleeing it and have Hawkeye pick off each mutant with a bow, easily killing Magneto who would most likely try to begin by tearing down a helicarrier, only to receive an arrow to the throat. Don't forget the Tesseract, and the Aether, both of which the Avengers have control of. Hell, since Sony made a deal with Marvel which means spidey is now in the Marvel cinematic universe, that means both Peter and the Sinister Six will be in this fight. Oh and Spiderman brings me to my last point. Deadpool's not a mutant. Technically he's a mutie; mutants are born with their powers, Spiderman and Deadpool got their powers externally, and so the merc with a mouth wouldn't be joing that fight unless all he did was annoy Wolverine, which would only be a hindrance. See, the Avengers actually end up having to fight in a lot of the cosmic series of Marvel, so they can basically hold their own against anyone. the X-Men have much smaller stories and never fight anyone except normal humans or each other. They're not on the same level.
The United States Is a Faltering Nation. It Is On The Decline

It's true that I haven't made any arguments, but take my assurances, this was all due to a lack of time. I certainly wouldn't hold it against anyone if I lost, but I really do feel that this debate was a simple judgement error on my part, which shouldn't cause a match loss (though I admit, I lack any legitimate reason WHY it shouldn't). Honestly, this debate is probably better off left alone. I guess this wraps things up, and I'll see you later, Rousseau.
The United States Is a Faltering Nation. It Is On The Decline

Well, I'd be more than happy to get further in depth after my opponent brings up his points, but here are mine: The United States is on the decline. This is because of several reasons. 1. Lack of serious global competition, power-wise. 2. Severe Lack of Soft Power, and Hard Power that may be faltering 3. Enemies that are transboundary and practically invisible 4. Dependence on Foreign Oil and Oil in general 5. Economic stagnation 6. Policing policy failing 7. Lack of a strong candidate to further neccesary goals 8. Usurpers, surpassing us in areas we used to excel at. I await the arguments.
Mothers have more rights than fathers when it should be 50/50

I am new to the site and this is my 1st debate so please bear with me. I hope I'm doing this right :/ I've noticed lately dealing with my husbands issues with his kids and seeing all the problems my male friends have been having, that mothers have more rights than fathers! Mothers and fathers should have equal rights. Its both of their kid(s)! I believe its worse on the kids when one parent has all the say so over their well being. Child Support/DNA/Visitation: In the state of FL the non custodial parent most of the time being the father because for some reason when the child is born it is automatically determined the mother gets the child whether they are deserving or not. The non custodial parent pays 52% for the child and the custodial parent pays 48% how is this fair! Shouldn't it be 50/50! And why is rent part of the determining factor when the mother will have to pay rent whether they have the child or not! Also in Orange County Fl you have to pay child support without a DNA test unless you ask for it but if you want visitation/rights you have to have a DNA test...so they will make you pay without knowing your the father but wont let you have anything to do with the child your paying for! If you do pay child support that still doesn't mean you get to see your child you have to go before another judge and ask for the right to see the child that your paying for! The mother doesn't have to go thru all this and be approved to be in their kids life! In fact a lot of them will have their kids taken away and they get them back over and over again and still don't have to go thru all this! There are so many fathers that want to be fathers but are being held back by the mother and the system, or because they cant afford to play the game! Then the mother goes around slandering the father when they do really want to be a father! Adoption/Abortion: When it comes to abortion and adoption the mother has all the say. Why is it the father doesn't have the right to say he doesn't want his child aborted or given up for adoption? He's not even notified most of the time! But if the mother keeps the child than he's obligated to pay for the child...how is this fair? Overall it seems like there are a lot of double standards and every law to do with this subject favors the mother but why? And why is this accepted? Shouldn't everything be 50/50? Why is a mother more deserving than a father?