BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

" Statements like "shooting oneself in the head is wrong" are emotive statements" This is not true. I made the statement as an intellectual one, not an emotional one. I know you can be above straw mans, so please refrain from saying the meaning I intend is other than it is when you know better :). "essentially akin to saying "BOO! to shooting oneself in the head."" This is also not true. Consensual pedophilia I would say boo to. I'd rather people not engage in it, it's inaesthetic and generally icky. But I don't think it's wrong. Therefore there is a distinction. " 1) Define "wrong"" Given the default presumed end I gave above-- "Wrong" is a descriptor of actions that reduce the odds of having one's life to live. " 2) Define "good" Good-conducive to having one's life to live. " 3) Define "the good" - all without using a tautology." Obviously, in the context of the goal of life, there are MANY good things. Therefore, "The good," since "the" is a definite article, HAS no meaning without further context-- in the current context, many things qualify as good and thus no one can be isolated as "the good," i.e. the only good. A medicine that cures an illness you have is good. Food in moderation is also good. Declaring something "the good" would deny one of this truths and many more. :5) How are moral propositions not emotive in nature? If they were, I would make different ones because nasty bits of emotion like to attack some of mine. A moral proposition about any action consists of stating of the answer to the question: "Does this action, in fact, further the end I am seeking?"
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

My opponent's opening statement seems to be only spuriously related to the issue at hand... I have a simple rebuttal to offer... Statements like "shooting oneself in the head is wrong" are emotive statements, essentially akin to saying "BOO! to shooting oneself in the head." If an event occurs, and someone responds by saying, "BOOO!" one does not describe this as true or false. Moral propositions are emotive statements, and as such carry no truth value. In order to defend a cognitive standpoint concerning morality, my opponent must be able to provide a response to: 1) Define "wrong" 2) Define "good" 3) Define "the good" - all without using a tautology. 4) How can emotive statements be described as true or false? OR; 5) How are moral propositions not emotive in nature? If an unsatisfactory answer is given to any of these, the resolution should be AFFIRMED. PS - please hold off on the next round till Saturday =)
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

Moral statements, like any statements, are made within a specific context. For example, stating "Gravity is absolute" without clarifying generally indicates that it is absolute in the physical universe as we know it for matter on a human scale. It is TRUE despite the fact that when one sends a player character to look at Outland in World of Warcraft, one observes rocks (or their representations) floating with no gravitational effects due to the Twisting Nether having flooded in due to the opening of Dark Portals. That fictional universe was outside the context of the statement. Obviously, conduct can only be "right" in view of a given end. That end, express or implied, is the context any given moral statement is made in. When one does not express differently, the default end conveyed in the average sentence is generally the end of living a human life-- after all, this end is shared by everyone, except the dead who are not part of this conversation, demonstrated by the fact that life requires volitional actions. In light of this particular end at least, the question of whether "truth" or "Falsity" can be ascribed to the statement "X conduct is right" or "X conduct is wrong" depends-- does it objectively promote life? Or does it objectively serve as an obstacle?" Are there statements in which "X is wrong" would be an X that objectively serves as an obstacle to one's life? "Shooting oneself is the head is wrong" is obviously true for starters. It is true for any given person, that shooting oneself in the head drastically reduces one's odds of survival, for no benefit comparable to the event. Nature dictates that many vital functions are regulated by one's brain, which would be damaged, and sustained by food circulated through blood, which would be lost, as a result of such an action. Would this be true outside the context of the end? No, it's not wrong for a programmed automaton to shoot itself in the head-- it pursues no end, let alone life (which is impossible to it anyway). But no truth lacks context.
On Balance, Non-Cognitivism is the Proper Moral Model

The proposition on offer is that there are simply no moral truths. In short, morality is non-cognitive in nature. Please note that I would like my opponent to accept and introduce his first round no EARLIER than 6 PM CST on Saturday the 12th. ************************************************ Relevant Definitions: Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. (http://dictionary.reference.com............) Moral Proposition : a statement of the form X is right/wrong. Example: slavery is wrong. Moral Truth : The ability to describe a moral proposition as true or false. Truth Value : the designation True or False. Cognitive : the position that moral propositions have a truth value. Non-Cognitive : the position that moral propositions have no truth value. ************************************************ Contentions: 1) Cognitive morality consists of the following viewpoints. -----a) All moral propositions are false (error theory) -----b) At least 1 moral proposition is true ----------i) Subjectivism (whatever I say goes) ----------ii) Conventionalism (whatever most people say goes) ----------iii) Idealism (whatever John Doe would say goes) ----------iv) Religious appeal (whatever God says goes) -----c) Naturalism ----------i) Analytic (nature describes what goes) ----------ii) Reductive (we can infer what goes) 2) All of the above points have at least 1 problem with them. 3) Until these problems are solved, rational beings should endorse non-cognitivism in theory, if not in practice. ************************************************ I've made this debate 4 rounds because I don't believe CON will want to argue all of the cognitive points, so I'll let him choose which one(s) to defend and we'll start actual argumentation in the 2nd round. As always, comments are welcome before the debate commences to clarify terms, etc...
The Existence of God

https://medium.com..., also Laurence Krauss' book "A Universe from Nothing" will also explain my claims that a universe can come from nothing. Also if that isn't enough, one of the greatest scientific minds in all of history, Steven Hawking, says "because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist". "Also, you say it is not right to assume there is a God with no proof; how then is it right to assume the contrary if there is no proof?" Well the answer simply lies in your question. We can never completely disprove the existence of god. But we can still make the assumption that there is no god because the basis for this assumption is the lack of evidence there is to support gods existence. Would it be reasonable to believe me if I said that I met Abraham Lincoln's ghost last night? Although you cannot disprove me, it wouldn't be reasonable to believe me. You say that everything in the bible isn't meant to be taken literal, but the Catholic Church doesn't make it very clear as to what should be taken literal or what shouldn't be. For example: The Catechism says that "any believer may accept either literal or special creation within the period of an actual six day, twenty-four hour period, or they may accept the belief that the earth evolved over time under the guidance of God."I have realized through all my catholic school career, all my different religion teachers would teach either Adam and Eve were literal or figurative. The problem with literally believing in Adam and Eve is that Evolution completely disproves it. The problem with figuratively believing in Adam and Eve is that it raises the question, where does mortal sin come from? The Bible claims that God created the world in seven days right? Well since it definitely cannot be taken literal, then there must be some deeper meaning behind it. What is that meaning? You say that life is so intricate and detailed that it has to be the work of a higher being? Well why would a designer add useless body parts to the human body such as the appendix, the tail bone, wisdom teeth, etc. These vestiges of anatomy were pointed out by Charles Darwin as evidence of evolution. Although you may not be able to understand how this wasn't designed, there are many more qualified people that do understand it. And finally, you did not understand what I meant when I brought up Santa Claus and the flying teapot and the Easter bunny. I probably could have used better examples. I was just using examples of other mystical characters to explain how you can never really disprove the existence of anything. If I told you that I have invisible fairies in my backyard, you would obviously think I was either lying or delusional. But there is no way you can fully disprove my claim right? So I apologize if my rebuttal wasn't clear enough for you, but it absolutely isn't invalid.
The Existence of God

Do you have evidence to support your claims that "nothing" is not truly nothing? Also, you say it is not right to assume there is a God with no proof; how then is it right to assume the contrary if there is no proof? To answer your question, in interpreting the Bible, not everything is meant to be taken literally. Who is to say that God didn"t simply create the universe to let things take their natural course? This can be put hand in hand with the theory of evolution: believing in God does not necessarily mean denying the theory of natural selection. In this case, God would be responsible for simply the creation of the universe, laying the foundation that the universe was built on, not the time frame in which things evolved and grew into what He planned. In response to your argument against my second contention, I do not think you realize the point I am trying to make. Yes, there are natural disasters and birth defects that are explained by science. While those are unfortunate circumstances, think of processes such as cellular respiration and the nervous system that we as humans would not exist in the same way without. They are so detailed and intricate, it is hard to believe that this was not the working of a higher being. And finally, I did not once in my argument try to prove the existence of any of those characters, as they are fictional and widely believed as such. While it is normal that a small child would believe in Santa Claus, for example, it is for the sake of tradition and not to be taken as a literal belief. Therefore, your rebuttal to this contention is invalid.
The Existence of God

Argument against Contention 1: Yes it is true that we have not completely figured out what caused the Big Bang. There is also many others things about our universe that we cannot explain, but scientists are working on it. Until then, I don't think it would be reasonable in assuming it to be a divine creator because you have no proof. You said that it is unfathomable that something can come from nothing? Well now scientist are learning that "nothing" is really nothing anymore. If u took a clump of empty space and took all of the elements out of it, you would find that it still weighs something. Also another argument is that why would a God create the universe and then wait billions of years until he creates life on Earth? Argument against Contention 2: If the Universe was created perfectly, then we would have no natural disasters on earth such as earthquakes, hurricanes, and tornado's. As well as the many other potential fatalities we will have to worry about in the future, such as when our sun dies. Life is obviously imperfect as well. If life were intelligently created how can someone be born with autism or any number of birth defects? The theory of a divine creator only raises more questions. You are correct in saying it's impossible to disprove the existence of God. But it is equally impossible as disproving the flying teapot, Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, etc.
IQ numbers are meaningless.

Hello, Today I will tell you why the IQ number is a meaningless number and that intelligence is not marked by a person's IQ level.The first point I'm going to make is that the IQ test is outdated. IQ tests have been used for over 100 years in schools and back then they actually did mean what your future was going to be. Having a high IQ reading back then decided your job, your income etc. The IQ test has overstayed its welcome and now some schools still use it but they forget how meaningless it is.The second point I'm going to make is that there are multiple types of intelligence. For example, artists aren't "intelligent" in the sense of the word at first, but in a sense they are intelligent as one of these intelligences is "Picture Smart" Athletes are smart in the sense of "Body Smart" The point I'm making is how vague of a word "intelligence" is. It could mean anything almost.There's a secondary school in the UK called the Richard Hale school which uses the multiple intelligences in its classes where the students can show what happens using their part of intelligence. The whole teaching style seems very successful as you learn more from things which are more interesting and understand how other students learn themselves. Here's a video of that school using the multiple intelligence theory. http://www.youtube.com...The literal meaning of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. So that means a football player who can dribble past 5 defenders and score a goal is intelligent as he applied the skills he has learnt. An artist learns more brush techniques and applies them well, That means that she is intelligent. My point here is that IQ is a very small part of intelligence and it shouldn't be the marker of intelligence and shouldn't mark your future.
IQ numbers are meaningless.

My opponent is now saying he accidentally typed "next to meaningless". He claims he meant to just type "meaningless". I imagine some will believe he is back pedaling from his original back pedal only because he realized he had just lost the debate. I will leave that up to the voters to decide. To be candid, I would be more likely to believe he accidentally typed "pejudism" and "equivelent" (see above). I am not even sure what "prejudism" means. Possibly he meant "prejudice". The point of using IQ scores in the employment process is simple. If two candidates are equal in everything except IQ scores, then the applicant with the higher score will have an advantage. Whether or not this is fair is irrelevant to the question of "Are IQ scores meaningless? " This example alone shows IQ scores have at least some value. And if they have value, by definition, they can't be meaningless. In summation, my opponent has implicitly admitted I was right (round two), misspelled two words, and offered no sources to support his claims. The choice couldn't be more clear.
IQ numbers are meaningless.

You've won have you? Hahah no. You're just starting to get a little over yourself now and I haven't backed down from my original points at all. I still stand by them all. and I haven't admitted defeat and I won't. I will stand up to my beliefs and will not back down. You seem to take what I said with a bit too much salt and focus on that rather than the points I made. If anything, I can see you starting to falter a bit in this situation and instead of focusing on the points you're instead just trying to point out an oversight of mine and bragging that you have already won because of it.Anyway, you're saying if there's a situation where there are two applicants with the required qualifications, where one has an IQ of 80 and the other 150... Okay. Assuming there's just one job position available would the employer choose the person with the higher IQ? Maybe. This situation is still too vague. If the lower IQ person had work experience to compensate then a good employer would be looking out for that more than anything. What about if the job both people was going for was what the lower IQ person had more interest than the other? We can keep asking questions but all that little number is for the higher IQ person is just something for them to brag about on their CV without the employer knowing if it's the truth or a lie more than anything and it may not even be believed by the employer.The thing is though, I've known other people with relatives or themselves like me. So, it isn't only me and there is flat out plenty of evidence out there about being able to detect learning disorders earlier which further makes the IQ test even more irrelevant (Refer to my second argument and it's also what you lead me into for your first argument)Also, you missed my point I was making with the question I think. You support using the IQ number. So by your logic you would support prejudism against people with lower scores. You think that people with 150 IQ ratings and above are all smart assuming your pro stance of this and that they deserve the vacant job spaces more than an equivelent person with a lower IQ number? That's prejudice my friend.Just to make it clear, That was an oversight on my behalf. I still think IQ numbers are meaningless and irrelevant and that's the bottom line so don't bring that up. I posted it without noticing. What's done is done.If you're going to ask for votes, you don't deserve them as you haven't won yet. That's all you're saying with your final point.
IQ numbers are meaningless.

"Well, I'm going to start off with some of my own points and why I think that the IQ score is right next to meaningless. " This debate is basically over. My opponent has now backed away from his original resolution. Now he is saying that he believes IQ numbers are "next to meaningless". Well if something is ALMOST meaningless, it's not meaningless. With this statement, my opponent has implicitly admitted his resolution to be false. And because of that, I have won this debate. " If you have an IQ of 80 (below average) but have the neccecary qualifications you can be much more likely to get the job than a 150 IQ person without the qualifications. " This is poor argumentation by my opponent. What if two people have the SAME qualifications, but one has an IQ of 150, and the other an IQ of 80? In that case, the person with the higher IQ would have the advantage. This example shows that IQ scores have a purpose in certain situations, and are therefore not meaningless. My opponent then goes on to say how he believes there are better measurements of a person's ability than IQ scores. But remember, that's not the resolution we are debating. We're not debating if one measurement is better than another, but rather if one is meaningless. IQ tests are one tool out of many one can use for any number of reasons and as such, they're not meaningless. My opponent's personal story is what is known as anecdotal evidence. This is an unreliable source of information since the sample size is so small. I don't mean to offend, but that's just a fact. I would answer the question posed, but it is irrelevant to the topic we are debating. If my opponent wanted to debate the use of the word "retard", he should have offered that resolution. But he didn't. He chose to debate "IQ numbers are meaningless". And from what we've seen from his very own words, he no longer believes what he originally claimed. The choice is clear; I have won.
IQ numbers are meaningless.

Well, I'm going to start off with some of my own points and why I think that the IQ score is right next to meaningless. I argue that IQ scores are pointless. They don't help your CV, you can put that you have an IQ of whatever on it but what these employers are interested in are your qualifiactions. If you have an IQ of 80 (below average) but have the neccecary qualifications you can be much more likely to get the job than a 150 IQ person without the qualifications. Using the IQ number to judge people is wrong and people should be judged on their abilities and skills and not on a number they got on some measily little test a few years back. That's why I'm against using qualifications to judge people as well but that's beside the point. All the points you referenced below just have better alternatives to go by. The IQ number would barely work for any of them. What the IQ test is, is just a group of problems which seem to not be different, but in fact are very similar to each other and use the same type of intelligence as each other. That's why the IQ number only marks a very small type of intelligence. as I refer to a point I made on my first turn. So it doesn't really help too well at finding strengths and weaknesses.Your last two points can be simply put together as they are both to do with class placement of students but that shouldn't work off IQ either. It makes no sense to run off IQ at all. A far better way for the teachers to do it would be off the student's ability in the class or their past classes of the same subject, how they're progressing in relation to the rest of the class and relegate the student to the class below if there is a good reason to. This brings me back to how schools used to use the IQ score to decide the class the students were in which I already established was a poor way of running schools and education in general.For the students with learning difficulties, I think the teachers would know about that as they were most likely professionally diagnosed at a young age before the IQ test would even be an option to find out how severe the learning difficulty is but again, the IQ test would be beaten out by a simple general knowledge quiz in the situation which would cover a slightly larger area of intelligence.I was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome at the age of 3 because of my delayed speech, repetitive movements and motor issues but I myself have never taken an IQ test as the professional who diagnosed me just didn't see a point as I was three years old. So the IQ test can't even be used for any professional diagnosis really. Also I have a very minor case, I might not even have it bacause of how some qualities came from mum and the others from dad. Saying I was diagnosed at three and that diagnosis is getting easier, it's now possible to diagnose autism at 6 months which is one of the more common of these learning disorders. (Asperger's Syndrome is an offshoot of Autism)I'll leave you with a question, Would it be prejudice to call somebody retarded just because of their low IQ level? Even if they were talented in other areas such as cooking, drawing, sports, music etc.?