BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is the best explanation for morality

I would like to appologize for the long time to reply. I've been rather busy and not feeling well. Therefore, I have not had the time to debate/post my arguments. I shall start with my opening thesis.Thesis: The best explanation for morality is that our morals have evolved from time. (1)Examples: 1. Wind back the clock a few hundred years ago, and you will see that slavery was evident in early America. African-Americans were forced to labour for no money and had horrifying working conditions. Now, we can see that very few, if no-one, in America supports Slavery. How can this be? Our morals have changed. If you were to ask a slave owner back in the colonial days if slavery was okay, they would say, “Sure” but if you ask someone today, they would be horrified at the question. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that our morals have changed. Was it wrong back then for one to own slaves? Well, in today’s standards, yes. However, in their eyes it was perfectly acceptable.Sources:(1) http://www.evolutionaryethics.com...Attack on opening argumentIn the opening thesis, you claim the following1. If objective moral facts exist, then God exists.2. Objective moral facts exist.3. Therefore, God exists.This is a weak argument because you need to prove the very first statement. If you cannot prove that "If moral facts exist, then God exists," then your argument and opening "logic" goes out the window. However, if you can prove the 1st statement, then you won the debate. Attack of Premise 1Morality is prescriptive and is expressed to us in the form of statements such as “Do not lie” and “Do not murder." These statements carry with them a degree of incumbency – that is to say, they communicate commands to us.I allow my opponent to this statment as it is true and strong. Both commands and communication, however, can only originate from an intelligent mind. This mind must additionally be a competent authority in order for its objective commands to be binding on us. Again, you are correct. However, you then state that the intelligent mind has to be a supreme legislator (i.e. "God.")Once again, you are under the BOP to show that it IS God. For all we know, the person who originated those commands could have been a ruler that lived long ago. You need to prove that the person has to be God.Attack of Premise 2I shall attack this in the next round. I apologize to my opponent for the poor opening arguments from me. I have had very little time to discuss this and to research this. Back to you, pro. I shall make a better opening argument in the next round.
This House would ban junk food from schools.

However you can conclude you arguments. My first argument was that schools need to practice what they preach. Schools teach you to not eat junk food in health but if they let you eat it, it is just plain odd. .. My second argument is that Schools are the best place to create lasting lifestyle changesSo if you don't eat junk food at school it is a good habit and probably won't eat junk food. My third reason is that better nutrition leads to better studentsIf you eat more like "My plate" then you will be healthier which is for better students. Also I think I will win because he Con forfeited.
Musical Instruments are a way to help with learning.

Thank you for the quick post. The Pro contends that the reasons why musical instruments are a way to help with learning are as follows: A. It can help with school subject learning, such as math. B. You can write songs to help you memorize stuff (lesson, method, ect.) C. It brings you more challenges. If you are in any band, you need to memorize a song and perform it correctly in front of other people. I have to admit that I was expecting the Pro, as the instigator, to give concrete sources to prove these claims first. So to give room for the instigator, I will also not give any sources. I think that Musical instruments are only distractions. A. It can help with school subject learning, such as math. - I think that this is false. Why? Since we did not qualify what Musical Instruments are, I would conclude that these meant all musical instruments such as electric guitars. There are a lot of musical instruments that ceases to produce good music, but rather noise especially in metal rock music. Are these helpful to children? definitely not. B. You can write songs to help you memorize stuff (lesson, method, etc.) - How can you memorize if the instruments you use, like electric guitars, are too loud? This is definitely incorrect. C. It brings you more challenges. If you are in any band, you need to memorize a song and perform it correctly in front of other people. - A challenge to perform in a band does not mean that it could be a base for learning in an academic sense. The time you memorize the lyrics to these songs should be of better use in reading academic books. Your turn.
Musical Instruments are a way to help with learning.

Don't worry, this is only my third debate. The reasons why musical instruments are a way to help with learning: A. It can help with school subject learning, such as math. B. You can write songs to help you memorize stuff (lesson, method, ect.) C. It brings you more challenges. If you are in any band, you need to memorize a song and perform it correctly in front of other people. Your turn.
Musical Instruments are a way to help with learning.

This is the final round. I am going to rebuttal my opponent's rebuttal. A. It can help with school subject learning, such as math. - I think that this is false. Why? Since we did not qualify what Musical Instruments are, I would conclude that these meant all musical instruments such as electric guitars. There are a lot of musical instruments that ceases to produce good music, but rather noise especially in metal rock music. Are these helpful to children? definitely not. 1.It depends on the student. Maybe a project that they have to do is about metal rock music, so they play metal rock music to learn. B. You can write songs to help you memorize stuff (lesson, method, etc.) - How can you memorize if the instruments you use, like electric guitars, are too loud? This is definitely incorrect. 1. Again, it depends on the student. Some kids might not even like electric guitars. Some like, flutes, or trumpets, or drums. Not all instruments are loud if you want to use an instrument in a quieter environment. C. It brings you more challenges. If you are in any band, you need to memorize a song and perform it correctly in front of other people. - A challenge to perform in a band does not mean that it could be a base for learning in an academic sense. The time you memorize the lyrics to these songs should be of better use in reading academic books. 1. Performing in a band is not the only challenge. You need to overcome memorizing a song and using that ability to challenge yourself to making the song a success, just like life. Your turn.
The first amendment Forbids "in god we trust", for good reason

This debate is being created in hopes of moving a 4chan debate to a more controlled environment... The first amendment of the US, the very first one, takes the time to say "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion" And yet, congressionally approved, we have "In God we trust" on our currency. I'm not sure I can see how this isn't a blatant contradiction. This is just the start of our government favoring religion. We have the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court, tax breaks for churches, appeals to natural law in our legislative arguments.... and the public, religious or not, will defend it all the way. Please, my 4chan, opponent, tell me: why?
The first amendment Forbids "in god we trust", for good reason

My responses are always so late... Let me try and do justice to your argument: The Original intent of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause was to ensure a nation free of religious oppression not to mandate trivialities like our nations motto. Basically, you are saying that "The phrase in no way prevents or forces one to hold to a certain, or any, religion." And, I think a seperate claim altogether, "Acknowledging a god is not religion." I do not think the latter is correct. Pedantic reasons: This is straight from the Merriam-Webster website 1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance 2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness 4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Many definitions are similar if not the same. Clearly deism fits number 4 and whether or not we as a nation are doing a religious practice by changing our nations motto to include god, I suppose is debatable, but nonetheless an acknowledgement of a deistic (or, as I argued earlier, theistic) entity is a religious claim. As to whether a motto forces anyone to adhere to a particular religion, I think you are correct in saying it does not. However, the state endorsing an idea is a powerful thing. Public speeches are given constantly by politicians under the assumption that, of course, we, the people, will listen to what they have to say. If you are raised in a state that has endorsed deism, you are more likely to be somewhat deistic. Furthermore, there is no clause in the First Amendment that says Congress shall not respect an establishment of religion THAT FORCES IT ON THE PEOPLE. It is quite clear that there is a wall of separation between the two. In what will now be the immortal words of the all too mortal Christopher Hitchens, "Mr. Jefferson, build up that wall!" The reason I bring up all the other issues (which are probably more important than this one) in relation to the nations motto is that the changing of our national motto is just a symptom of a much larger problem. A hole in the Jefferson wall. Where things like a congressional Chaplain or superfluously adding 'under god' into our Pledge of Allegiance, and all the way to misrepresenting atheists in congress can slip by unnoticed in a culture that has already determined itself to be theistically inclined.
The first amendment Forbids "in god we trust", for good reason

I don't mind belated responses. Many of us have busy lives...I'm sure I'll have many belated responses on this site from time to time. Yes, sadly I know exactly what you are talking about when you're sure you know something so you don't look it up. I don't think churches getting tax breaks violates the constitution. They aren't getting it because the government is supporting religion. They are getting tax breaks for being non-profit organizations. The reason behind the tax breaks does not violate the constitution. If the government had the mentality of, "we love religion...here's a tax break to support you." Then yes, it would be a direct violation. I agree with your "poor old Peter" argument (that is what this argument will now be known as to all who support state/religion separation). It is fascinating that there are 525 members of the House of Representatives and only one has been openly atheist (I'll assume that is the correct statistic as it does not really affect the argument, especially since we both agree). As I like to say, it's hard to run for office in this country without being religious. President Obama even stated, "Jesus is Lord" during one of his speeches. Many times it's a gimmick for swaying votes. It's almost like society is pushing politicians to keep religion mixed with state and they're like, "Well, if that's what the people want." It's kind of strange. I do agree on most parts about what you mentioned. Though the thing I still do not agree with is the phrase "In God We Trust" being a violation to the Constitution. The Constitution never states the the government can do nothing like put a general phrase on a coin. It's putting preventive measures so that the government does not become something that they had finally gotten away from. The phrase in no way prevents or forces one to hold to a certain, or any, religion. Acknowledging a god is not religion. Religion is a structured way to live/worship. Saying "In God We Trust" is in no way more religious than saying, "We Don't Believe In God". The phrase could be summed up as an ideology not religion. I think it's fine if people want to say they don't like it and want it removed, but I believe saying it violates the constitution is a twisting of meaning.
The first amendment Forbids "in god we trust", for good reason

You make a good point that the freedom of speech you mention does not allow Congress to pass legislation that contradicts itself (that would be pointless). You state that the capital "G" has something to do with monotheism and you struggle to believe they meant anything but a Christian God. First of all, it doesn"t matter what they thought, different people can think different things. Roosevelt called it sacrilege, does it mean it's sacrilege because one man claims it's so? Second, all the letters of "IN GOD WE TRUST" are capitalized so your argument doesn't hold up and we can throw it out. I do not hold to the fact that the phrase holds as a "respect to a religious establishment". Giving respect to a religious establishment meant that you would give benefits to a particular religion over another or over non-religion. It in no way meant a phrase couldn't be used. Which makes perfect sense seeing where they had come from. Take this quote from Nationalparalegal, "The "Establishment Clause" was intended to prevent any governmental endorsement or support of religion. While one might intuitively read this to mean that the clause was meant to preclude endorsement or support of some particular religion, it is important to note that the clause also prohibits the endorsement of religion generally over non-religion. As the Court noted in 1947, "A large proportion of the early settlers of this country came here from Europe to escape the bondage of laws which compelled them to support and attend government-favored churches. " Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U. S. 1, 8 (1947). The Court went on to emphasize that "no one group throughout the Colonies can rightly be given entire credit for having aroused the sentiment that culminated in adoption of the Bill of Rights' provisions embracing religious liberty," and that the principles were as apt at the time of the Court's decision as they had been when the First Amendment was originally passed in 1792. Everson at 11. The Everson Court also provides a list of state actions which violate the Establishment Clause. Everson at 15-16. The Court does not present this list as comprehensive, but rather as a minimal list of activities prohibited by the First Amendment. These include: -setting up a state church -passing laws which specifically aid one religion or aid religions generally -forcing or otherwise influencing individuals to attend or not attend church -punishing people for ascribing to certain beliefs or disbeliefs or for attending or not attending church -taxes levied to support religious institutions or activities -governmental participation in religious organizations or participation by religious organizations in governmental activities" Do I think it should be on money? Nah. But the simple phrase in no way goes against "respecting an established religion. " If people are getting up in arms about it, then scrap it. But people have taken the true meaning of what was being said in the Constitution and twisted it. Or they just don't know what"s being said to begin with. I await your next post.
The first amendment Forbids "in god we trust", for good reason

I accept the challenge. Thanks for the interesting topic. I am going to state the positions to make sure we are clear. If I am wrong then please inform me in the beginning of the next round. Pro is arguing that the phrase, "In God We Trust" is a contradiction of the first amendment. I will hold to the view that the phrase, "In God We Trust" is not in contradiction of the first amendment. (Are we debating that phrase or are we debating all the other stuff you mentioned such as the 10 commandments as well?) That is up to you. I also want to state that I am in no way bias (for any religious reason or other) towards having the phrase on our currency or not. So I will not have bias sway my arguments. It will be strictly rational leading the debate not opinion. I'm sure Pro feels the same. This way it can stay professional. Thanks for this opportunity and I hope we have a great debate in which we both learn something new.
Abortion

This is intended as an intelligent debate. I am a Conservative too, but I see abortion a little differently. I hope to keep this a friendly debate. I just wanted to instigate the debate now. You can accept anytime in the next 7 days and post your Round 1 in the next 9 days. The opening shots: Point 1: The prohibition of abortion will just make more deaths due to abortion. It will be in the same fashion as the prohibition on alcohol in the 1920s. The prohibition of abortion will lead some women to seek "underground" doctors, who will abort illegally. These doctors are usually dangerous for mother and baby. So instead in the style of a regular abortion where only the baby dies, under these circumstances, the chances of the woman dying skyrocket. Point 2: Prohibiting abortion will just increase crime and poverty. The kind of people that abort are either young or poor. The young will not take care of the baby for society has already cast her out. She will get rid of the baby. The poor will not take care of the baby either. Because poor tends to breed poor. Crime tends to breed crime. If the woman does not abort, the baby could grow up into a criminal, or live an under-privaliged childhood. The baby would be better off not being born. Plus, chances are high that he or she will be murdered when they are older if they are poor and live in a bad part of town. Point 3: Every woman has rights. Being able to abort is one of them. Rebuttal?
A Bill To Make English The Official Language Of The United States

I wouldn't say that making the dominant language in the United States spoken by most Americans and the de facto language of the US government unamerican. Rather the United States becomes the largest Spanish speaking nation in 2050 or not, English will still be the dominant language in the United States. Bills, regulations, international treaties will still be in English. Even the Constitution of the United States was in English. That doesn't mean that everyone in the United States will have to know English. There will still be duplicates in other languages, translators ect to accommodate other Americans and tourist. Another point I found odd was the assertion that making English the official language was that it would interfere with peoples' freedoms. Slavery was a major part in the American nation until it wasn't. Time changes and passing a bill officially making the de facto language spoken official isn't going to hurt the people that are coming into the country. Rather they talk in Spanish or English or Mandarin ect, their freedoms to say what they want will still exist. It is also a fact that people can learn just about any language in the world for free. I'm learning Tagalog via language exchange sites. They teach Spanish, they learn the language of their choosing. My last rebuttal is if Spanish really does get large enough to the point that some believe it might become then another bill can be passed that will make Spanish an official spoken language in the United States as well. Making English an official language spoken in the United States is common sense that everyone knows to be the truth. 80% of the people in the United States speaks English, those that do not speak it coming in will have to learn English regardless cause the majority speak it. Only Spanish speakers will find it hard to live in a nation full of English speakers, or do you expect the majority English speakers take their time to learn a significantly less spoken language for them to do day to day things when they're out and about? Immigrants should learn English if they are destined to live in a dominantly English speaking nation. That is why when people are traveling abroad they learn that nation's dominant speaking language so that they can do the day to day things there. https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...
A Bill To Make English The Official Language Of The United States

I strongly disagree with this bill for the following three reasons. One, it goes against what America stands for. Two, it is predicted that in 2050 the U.S will be the largest spanish speaking country. And three, it would force immigrants to learn a new language and cost them money they don"t have. With my first reason, it is completely true. If we make english the official language of the United states it goes against why we became the country we are. America is a country for the free and that includes the freedom of speech but this also goes to how you say what you want. America was founded on immigrants and people who wanted a better life and who wanted the right to do as they wish. If you make english the official language then that is forcing others to speak a certain way that they don"t know and this is against what America is for. Secondly, it is predicted that in 2050 the U.S will be the largest spanish speaking country so this bill will only die later on. "By 2050, 10 percent of the world population will speak Spanish and the United States will be the biggest Spanish-speaking country, the general secretary of the Association of Spanish Language Academies said Monday." ("New America Media., Feb.-Mar. 2011.) And lastly, it will force immigrants to learn a new language and cost them money they don"t have. This bill will hurt what America is all about as immigrants come to America to be free and have a chance at a good life but if this bill is passed then they will be hurt with money. This would force them to learn a whole new language or they would have to get a translator and it would cost them $30-40 hourly. If they were to pay for classes it would be for a,"Full time general english - 15 hours number of weeks 13-24. Price per week "175, as cited by ihaberdeen.com. This would be roughly around $190 U.S money. Money they don"t have and this will put them in poverty and put the whole economy down as well as make it hard for them to get or keep a job. For all these reasons I remain in negation on this bill.