BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Emotion is the basis of all decisions

I will try to keep it as simple as possible, so I do apologies beforehand If I would go too technical and detailed. Let us begin then. To clarify, I want to make sure that me and PRO are on the same side here in terms of definition of emotion. {1. A mental state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is often accompanied by physiological changes; a feeling: the emotions of joy, sorrow, and anger. 2. Such mental states or the qualities that are associated with them, especially in contrast to reason: a decision based on emotion rather than logic. } (. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...) I hope this defines emotions well enough. However, there are still some issues. Animals do experience emotions as well. A dog would start barking when experiencing anger, or wiggle its tail when experiencing excitement. It is a different questions whether they are aware of those emotions. However, it was proven by the famous Mirror Test, conducted in 1972, that animals are not fully self-aware, at least to a human extent. What that would mean is that animals cannot make decisions. They would follow they basic instincts without any hesitation. And those instincts come from emotions. (getting angry, getting excited, getting sad). So, personally I would completely agree to PRO if this the topic of this debate concerned every life being apart form homo sapiens. BUTHuman Beings are primarily different to every single other animal because of its self-awareness. Because of this paranormal phenomenon our emotions spectre is much wider and more contrasted, than those of animals. We can mostly understand what we willl, and hence can understand what making decisions based on those emotions would lead to. Now, I am not sure the point that PRO is making. If the title was debating whether 'For every single decision human being experience an emotion', that would be hard to debate. But human beings are so often forced to make decisions that have nothing to do with emotions on a daily basis. If we take a simple idea of Utilitarianism, created by John Mill and Jeremy Benthem, we see, that sometimes a person would sacrfice a life of a dear one, in order to save sakes of the many. That decision would go against emotions. Therefore, to sum up, I am saying that what makes us different to animals, is that we can segregate emotional decision from rational decisions, and the choose the one that we consider necessary.
The Death Penalty

(Hi there. Just for the record I agree with you. I just want to practice debating, and see if I can argue against what I believe in.) First of all, the death penalty is for those who have committed horrific crimes against humanity. It's hard to imagine how much the family of the victims hurt after learning about the murder/other crime committed against someone they love. The death penalty allows them to feel that they have gotten even. And when serial killers end up serving a life sentence instead of taking the death penalty, things end even worse. There are many records of them being killed brutally in prison, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, who ended up being bludgeoned to death.
The Death Penalty

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... Yes, death by electric chair is guaranteed, but not always that fast. Prisoners do have other inmates to talk to, actually, every day. And there are several advantages of staying in prison for life that sickos could take, such as having free access to food and shelter, which is a good thing to them, as well as rehabilitation. Just killing them off doesn't give them a chance to learn anything either. I'm not saying that if a killer says that they regret their actions, just forgive them and set them free, but time in prison could allow them to reflect on their actions. Yes, some of those laws are ridiculous, but it's better to do something than nothing even if it doesn't make a significant change, don't you agree? And just because escape is hard doesn't mean that it isn't impossible. http://www.crimelibrary.com... There is Ted Bundy, for example, who killed after he escaped. It's better to ensure that that won't happen, and just eliminate the problem completely. Ted Bundy actually evidently feared the death penalty greatly, as he exhausted every legal point just to get a life sentence instead. I'm just using Ted Bundy as an example though, since he is well known. His behavior can represent many inmates who have committed atrocious crimes. Honestly, the horrible criminals don't know that jail is a bad place. They actually fear the death penalty, which can prevent the crimes. And once again, I think I should stress that it provides closure for the victims' families, which they definitely deserve.
The Death Penalty

You're willing to not punish someone in this life, where everyone knows they are being punished, because we "don't know" what happens after we die? We could also be in an infinitely happy place for eternity, nobody can prove that place doesn't exist either. We can't prove hell exists, and nothing suggests it does that can back it up with any kind of evidence, so we have really absolutely no reason to believe it does other than "it's a possibility," which is why I believe it is better to punish someone in this life (one we know exists and is real, etc) instead of just winging it and seeing what happens after you die.Sorry, not sure why I said girls. Either way, he's a sick pos.Even with the electric chair, although barely used anymore, death is still quite fast, and guaranteed. It isn't anywhere near as bad as being locked in prison for decades and possibly (probably) being beaten a lot.There is no guarantee, but simply being in prison is bad enough, or good enough for society. They are locked away, alone, in a dark cell, with horrible food, nobody to talk to and really no reason to be happy. It really isn't a good place even if nobody picks on you.[1] The reason we have prison overpopulation is not because of the millions of mass murderers, it's because of the millions of petty crime charges; possession of marijuana, sale of alcohol to a minor, illegal downloads, petty theft, etc. Things that a lot of people do that don't actually hurt anyone. Using illegal drugs sends you to jail, even if you haven't hurt anyone besides yourself. People are branded pedophiles, pedophiles for having sex with a 17 year old when they themselves are in their early 20's. Ridiculous laws (especially the last one) are the reason there is a prison overpopulation. Killing a few hundred (or even a few thousand) people is not going to change anything.A lot of the time, the people who are being considered to go on death row are also being considered to spend life in prison - with no chance of parole. Parole is almost never an option if someone is a serial killer, rapist, terrorist, etc. And it is hard as hell to escape prison.Would you agree that it is better to be punished in this life time than just hope something happens after they die? That makes sense to me. [1] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
The Death Penalty

Exactly. You don't know what happens when you die, so you can't just assume that they slip away just like that. Who knows, it hasn't been scientifically proven that hell exists or not. And Jeffrey Dahmer did not murder girls, he murdered boys, as he was a homosexual and wanted to feed into his sick fantasies. http://www.angelfire.com... And even though most U.S. states don't allow it, use of the electric chair still exists, however rare. The electric chair is a bit more uncomfortable way to die, to say the least. (not that I am approving of torture. The electric chair isn't as bad as that.) Yes, and there is no guarantee that they will be treated badly in prison. And there have been problems with prison overpopulation as well. Why not just do away with them, and have them not be a problem anymore? And what if they get a parole, or even escape? That gives them another opportunity to kill or commit other crimes.
The Death Penalty

It's always good to debate against something you believe in; it helps a lot with your perspective regarding that topic. Thanks for accepting! It's perfectly acceptable for families or friends to wish the same fate upon the offender that took someone they love from them. I thought the same thing, that if someone killed someone, they too should deserve to die. However; who knows what happens when you die? For all we know, it's nothing. To some, that could literally be taken as a reward - a freedom; especially since in most cases, the person is injected with a fast acting serum that kills them painlessly. If I can ask a question - what would you, personally, consider worse: being set free of all pain and hardship, or suffering for your entire life (or most of it)? Now I know that is biased to an extent, as we don't know for sure what happens after we die, but we do know for a fact what happens when we are alive. And to punish someone in their current life would make a lot more sense than to let them slip away and cease to exist. You brought up Jeffrey Dahmer, someone who I had in the back of my head when thinking about creating this debate. He was a sick POS who brutally destroyed the lives of not only the 17 girls he raped and dismembered, but their families and friends, and scarred people who heard about the events. Although my gut instinct would say take him out of existence, we need to consider how, what happens when you do, and what would happen if you don't. How - Lethal Injection [1] is the most commonly used form of execution. It puts the inmate to sleep before shutting down his organs and stopping his heart [2]. What happens if you do - Like I mentioned before, the inmate simply falls asleep and dies in their sleep. We don't know what happens to someone after they die. What happens if you don't - Take Jeffrey Dahmer as our primary example. He was meant to spend 16 terms of life imprisonment, so in other words, he wasn't ever leaving prison. Variables - Dahmer was brutally killed after spending almost 3 years in prison. Now if we take all these factors into account, what would have been a more appropriate punishment for someone who raped and dismembered 17 girls? Putting him to sleep, or letting him rot for the rest of his life? And considering he was probably beaten and picked on constantly during his stay in prison until he was beaten to death, I would say that's a pretty fair punishment. Mind you, maybe I should have made this clearer, I'm not saying strictly imprisonment is better than capital punishment. I'm including what happens in prison; how you're treated by guards and other inmates is included. Looking forward to hearing your side of this! [1] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org... [2] http://www.deathpenalty.org...
Is catholism better than christianity

so it's better to wear a belt with thorns on it? or to hurt yourself if you sin? or to catrate yourself if you struggle with impure thoughts? i could introduce you to many sects of christianity that are not catholic, or to musltims... all that are harder on themselves. this proves nothing though. "better" teaching is too vague to mean anything. it's a respectable organization, sure. but there's plenty of people who are more talented than catholics, or even popes etc. and id argue there's better teachings outside of the catholic church. if you want to argue it's a better organization, or why we should be catholic, you're doing a terrible job of it.
Is catholism better than christianity

stricter rules do not make the cathooic church better. if that were the case, there's plenty of christian sects that are even more strict and your argument would mean they must eb better. it's like aceticism... people think just because they are hard on themselves that it must be better for GOd etc. even modern saints have said this old way of thinking is outdated. and there's plenty of way and people who are harder on themselves physically and otherwise to think they are better for it. in reality, none of this stuff should be a standard of proof.
God Probably Exists

The topic for this debate is fairly simple: Pro will argue that it is more likely that God exists than not, and I will argue that it is more likely that God does not exist than he does.The BoP in this debate is shared.God will be defined as the tri-omni God described in the Old and New Testaments. Rules:1. Both sides should respect the intention of the debate, therefore semantic and abusive arguments should not be counted.2. Drops shall count as concessions.3. No new arguments in the last round. 4. First round is for acceptance unless Pro wishes to begin arguments. If he does begin in R1, he or she shall not make any arguments in R5.
We should judge religions by empyrical evidence in lieu of religious texts.

The short answer, as I said in the comments, is that we should judge a religion based on a combination of understanding the tenets of the faith and analyzing the actions of its followers, with the actual tenets of the faith being more significant in my opinion. You write that empirical evidence of followers' behavior is the only way to 'decipher the attitudes and values of a religion', with the contradictions present in religious doctrine given as a reason that using the texts is not the appropriate approach. This varies by religion of course, but I'll use Islam as my example here as I read the Quran more recently than any other scripture. The Quran, as with the books of other faiths, does indeed contain contradictions and other kinds of internal problems, but not to the point that there is no coherent narrative. Certain themes pervade throughout the book and certain commandments are given - underneath the surface of your point is the idea that the books are SO contradictory that we can't even know what they're saying for certain. As I said, I disagree...at least for the major religions, there is enough internal coherence for a basic guide to emerge on how to live one's life, what to believe, etc. Given that we can learn many things, or at least not nothing, from scripture about how the followers of that religion should live and act, i.e. what their attitudes and values should be if they followed the religion's teachings appropriately, it seems clear to me that we can't judge a religion based solely on the behavior of its followers. If a group violated every tenet of the faith and acted in a way for which no justification at all could be found in the texts, and at the same time claimed to follow a religion that had codified texts, said group would be inappropriate to consider if trying to judge the actual attitudes and values of that faith. It's also important to recognize that no religious community is a monolith...like all communities, they basically form a bell curve. Given the significant differences in how varying groups, sects, and individuals practice the same religions, I don't see how we could exclude the scriptures from an analysis of what any faith tradition actually teaches. I'll leave it there for now until you've had a chance to reply. Thanks for the debate.
We should judge religions by empyrical evidence in lieu of religious texts.

Intro, I have had several frustrating debates on how to judge a religion. Is this religion warlike or peace like? Is it cruel to animals or not? Is it overall good or evil? Here is the latest debate. [0] These debates are annoying because it feels like we are completely missing each other. My opponent calls all my empirical evidence red herrings. I contend that empirical evidence of the followers of the religion is the only way to decipher the attitudes and values of a religion. That religious texts are too contradictory and canonize themselves too often and therefore are a poor source to understand a religion. Thanks for the debate. 0. http://www.debate.org...
We should judge religions by empyrical evidence in lieu of religious texts.

Again, this comes down to definition of terms. You're trying to have an argument about how we should judge religious people, or culture, but the debate you put forth was one about how to judge religion. What you're describing isn't religion, it's the impact of religion on life...which is different than religion. Religion is a system of belief based around revealed truths from God. People did plenty of reading (those who could read) without the Bible. But if you want to have an argument about whether or not reading is a good thing, and you appear to think it's a bad thing, I'll leave that for another time. The last part of your argument...I'm not really sure what you're getting at. "Why go to church and read the Bible when you can play a video game and learn about what religion is about?" As I've said, you're not really talking about religion anymore, if you even were at the start. You're talking about culture and the influence of religion on culture. Think I'm content to leave my side of this where it is, I said plenty in the first two rounds.
We should judge religions by empyrical evidence in lieu of religious texts.

"As a quick rebuttal to your first rebuttal...what if a large group rather than a small group has 0 morality? There's no way to know if a group's actions are representative of their religion without checking the sources (religious texts)." ritchie.mgThat's why we use the mean of mathematics. A larger group would affect the average morality of the religion. Let's say that now the large group is 50% at morality 0 and the other is 50% at morality 40. With a total size of one billion. 500 million * 0 + 500 million * 40 / one billion would give the morality. Which would end up being 20. As for the Catholic church and reading. Remember they didn't have T.V.s back then. If the Bible had not come along, the priests would have read a lot less. Religion has a huge impact on culture. Think of the religious songs, Christian businesses, movies, and so on. Ben-Hur just for starters. There is a good chance this movie has a bigger impact on culture than the Bible in modern culture. How many movies have you seen where a vampire or werewolf is repelled by a Christian cross? This definitely has at least as much impact as a church leader preaching inside a church. That's why I see reading the religious texts as silly. We should instead being watching werewolf and vampire movies and seeing how often holy symbols are used to repel them. This is what I view what religion is truly about. Think of the movie the Exorcist. [2] This movie is incredibly popular. Thus having a huge impact. That's how I learned religion. From watching werewolf, vampire movies, and the Exorcist. This is what religion is about. Any video games with angels or demons is taking from religion. I mean why go to church and read the Bible when you can play a video game and learn about what religion is about? Here's an example of what angels are about. Picture should be below from league of angels 2. Sources.2. http://www.imdb.com...3. https://images.duckduckgo.com...
Plagiarism is moral

Plagiarism viewed as wrong is really a modern development [1] (17-18th century), comparative to the total time humans have spent on earth. According to dictionary.com, Plagiarism is 1. an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author: It is said that he plagiarized Thoreau's plagiarism of a line written by Montaigne. Synonyms: appropriation, infringement, piracy,counterfeiting; theft, borrowing, cribbing, passing off. 2. a piece of writing or other work reflecting such unauthorized use or imitation: "These two manuscripts are clearly plagiarisms," the editor said, tossing them angrily on the floor. Moral is 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conductor the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. 2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel. 3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations. 4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being. 5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man. Accordingly, it must be noted that if all man"s ideas are equal, no moral code can be above another. Hence the idea of right or wrong is merely relative to each person. Since this is the case, plagiarism is right because of the following reasons. 1. It is not illegal. No law or statute currently in existence has the word "plagiarism" in it. Hence it is not a breach of the law to do so. [2] 2. Intellectual property. IP is "creations of the mind for which exclusive rights are recognized in law." [3] Now, the whole idea of IP is absurd. Suppose that I stated a well known fact without crediting the idea creator. For example, I say that the earth is revolving around the sun to a young child. It would be absurd to say immediately after this, "according to Galileo" or to provide citations to his original works. Since it is not illegal and IP is impractical, it is not immoral. There are three ways of dealing with such an issue: immoral, amoral, and moral. It is not amoral, because it does not lie outside the sphere to which moral judgments apply[4]. Therefore, the only other logical alternative would be moral. References. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://www.theaoi.com... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Those responsible for Benghazi where Four Americans Died should be made to answer for the debacle.

My opinion is that The State department heads are responsible for what happend in Benghazi because they were more worried about not offending Muslim officials than they were about protecting the Americans in the embassy. Will those responsible for Benghazi where Four Americans Died ever be revealed and made to answer for their failures to protect those Americans there with American military protection to the Embassy Will the heads of the State department be made to answer for their role in that shameful debacle. "Hillary"s State Department Hired al Qaeda Linked Security Group Who Helped Attack Benghazi Compound...."Shameful, that Americans weren't protected but instead of concern for American lives the state Department was more concerned about possibly offending Muslim officials in Benghaz.i Read more at http://lastresistance.com...