BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Bio-Environmental determinism is compatible with free will.

I will begin by assessing that if determinism were true, then we could not have free will. As you can obviously see, I am a Libertarian Incompatibilist in regards to determinism and free will. Hence, if determinism is true, then free will is not true. They cannot coexist. Since you have apparently taken liking to the other argument in a different debate, I will begin by explaining how if determinism were true, despite his so called "choice", he would not freely chose which hand to raise. For in your example, you state that if it is already determined that he would raise his right hand, then he would freely choose to raise his right hand, unless in a different situation it were reversed. This is clearly untrue, for if it was already determined, due to the laws of nature and past events, that you would raise your left hand, then for determinism to be true, you must indeed raise your left hand. You dont even have the choice or free will of raising your right hand, because that would make determinism untrue--which i believe it is to some degree. I am not saying some things are not already determined, however, I do not believe that ALL our actions are already determined, but some - like early childhood, does indeed play some determining roles. However, this said, if determinism were true, we would have no "choice", no "rationality", and no "moral responsibility for our actions". Here is my argument: 1.We have free will (of the kind required for moral responsibility) only if we are the ultimate sources (originators, first causes) of our choices. 2.If determinism is true, then everything we do is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside our control. 3.If everything we do is ultimately caused by events and circumstances outside our control, then we are not the ultimate sources (originators, first causes) of our choices. 4.Therefore, if determinism is true, we are not the ultimate sources of our choices. 5.Therefore, if determinism is true, we don't have free will (of the kind required for moral responsibility). This argument, taken from Robert Kane, shows how determinism cannot be compatible with free will on the basis of moral responsibility. For, as you believe, if person x decides (free will) to Z (murder someone), and say does murder someone, he is morally responsible for the death of that particular someone--assuming that the "someone" is the same in both parts of the sentence. However, you also agree that determinism is true-that what hapens is all that would happen given the situation, and outside what happens nothing would happen. So if it was already determined-that this person x would murder someone, then he cannot be held morally responsible because he is not the originator of the decision to kill someone. The decision to kill someone was made long ago given the laws of nature, and thus, he has no way of changing the past, so he cannot change the present, or future for that matter. Thus, he cannot change the fact that if determinism were true, he could someone not kill this person, unless it was determined otherwise.
Bio-Environmental determinism is compatible with free will.

After reading my opponent's debate with enkaaladiyilboomi under the same topic, I was thoroughly disappointed by the contender's arguments. I like to revisit this topic and provide a trying debate for both parties. I have also narrowed down the topic such that both parties are on the "same page." Bio-Environmental determinism, defined as the union of biological determinism, the belief that one's genetics determines one's actual actions, and environmental determinism, the belief that humans follow stimulus - response, and free will, the idea that humans choose their actions, are not mutually exclusive. Determinism is a theory that states that what happens is all that would happen given the given situation, and outside what happens nothing would happen. Bio-Environmental determinism states that, and only that, what a person will do is all the person would do; if a man is asked to raise his right hand or his left hand, he would only raise one hand. For simplicity, we will say that the hand raised was his right. The hand he raised would be the only one he would raise. For a different hand to have been raised, either his external or internal environment would have to be different. Free will, the idea that the man chose to raise his right hand, is compatible, if not supplementary, to the idea that he would choose to raise his right hand without different circumstances.
Indians Should Not be Allowed to Use the Internet

Introduction: That was shorter than I expected. lol Rebuttal: India being overpopulated has nothing to do in here. China is overpopulated too. A lot of country actually; Still not an excuse to cut off their internet. It seems there is really some hatred for Indians going on with you. You need to fix and address it mate. Also, the amount of Indians using the internet will never affect yours or our usage of internet. As long as internet service providers can provide a decent service and stable towers for signal reception then we can have internet no matter how many the number of users will be. If you don't want to use debate.org then simply leave and don't hate on others lol. Note: Your debate challenge might be a joke. But like what I've said; Benefit of the doubt. If you're indeed trolling then you've gone too far that its already subtle that you're just being satirical or sarcastic. But if you're serious then man you need some therapy.
Indians Should Not be Allowed to Use the Internet

I don't know if you're serious or not on your challenge but i'll give in to the benefit of doubt. First things first: Just because . Reggee or whoever Indian guy is it or it will be: he/she/or they would never represent the majority or the whole of the Inidias population. We cant blame them if sometimes they tend to mess up words. English is not their main language. Least you can do is inform them if they did something wrong or you've found a flaw in their wordings. Its just really lame to generalize a whole nation for the mistake of one to the point of even requesting for the banning of them. Mind you;some Americans still confuse you're and your, this and these, who's and whose, etc etc. Not just on Americans but also any people from across the globe commit similar grammatical mistakes and vocabulary discrepancies, even to the point of being a d**k sometimes. Even here in Philippines , my country, I have witnessed a lot of them. But I know that I cant generalize cause a lot of the good and decent guys exist; and they are the majority. Fact is; There are A-holes where ever you are or whatever country you are from. You can never present a country that never have people committing low moral approach at things. Always someone out there. But its him, not his family. Its him/her, not their friends, Its him/her not their country. Don't let some black dots distract you to the fact that the paper is white. That being said. I'm not in favor of banning Indians in the internet just because of the mistake of some or even if there's a lot of them. Because(Let me just summarize and add some points on it) 1: One will never represent many; there's a thing called "Hasty generalization" and that is a logical fallacy you have already committed before the start of the debate. 2: In connection to number 1, there are still decent people or Indians out there. 3: Your wish will never be granted by the people whose in charge in the world wide web. With the amount of the people in India; It will be a lost cause since more people means more money and capitalists would never dare to do the unthinkable just because of some oppressive opinion, also; It will be easily branded as racism and suppose you are an employee with such suggestion; Its one way ticket for being fired. And finally number 4: Suppose that they did ban Indians in the internet due to the behavior of the few. Then every country who's found to be guilty of those things should have their internet cutted off too. In just a span of 1 hour I assure you that no country will be using internet anymore. lol. And seeing that you are driven by bigotry,discrimination,and racial oppression ,your country would be banned too. So be careful what you wish for. Now's your turn
Indians Should Not be Allowed to Use the Internet

Okay. I think that Indians should NOT be allowed to use the Internet, because they are filled with bullcrap. IP addresses should indicate the person's ethnicity, and if his/her ethnicity is South Asian/Indian, the Internet will be disabled on their device. The prime example of Indians f*cking up the Internet is this guy named reggee. http://www.debate.org... Even though he himself is Indian, he wants Indians to be illegal. http://www.debate.org... Also, he confuses the terms "gay" and "lesbian." It is pretty obvious that a gay is a homosexual male and a lesbian is a homosexual female. Reggee also thinks that whether or not someone plays Fortnight is an indicator of whether or not they are homosexual. That's bull-crap. It's like saying that if you don't like eating Chinese food, you have depression. Or if you don't play the saxophone, you have autism. Again, I'm pro, and I believe that Indians, and South Asians in general, should be banned from using the Internet https://en.wikipedia.org...
If it takes 2 hens 2 days to lay 2 eggs, then how many days does it take 50 hens to lay 50 eggs? 2.

Thanks for the challenge, Jackie-Chan! I will argue against your conclusion for this reason: If it takes 2 hens 2 days 2 lay 2 eggs, the following situations could happen. d/ both hens could lay one egg each on the second day but not the first. e/ one hen could lay one egg on the first day and the other hen could lay one egg on the second day. Since we did not assume that the 50 hens were homologous to the 2 hens, it could take 50 hens 1 OR 2 days to lay 50 eggs. Therefore, it would NOT necessarily be true that it 50 hens 2 days to lay 50 eggs.
If it takes 2 hens 2 days to lay 2 eggs, then how many days does it take 50 hens to lay 50 eggs? 2.

If it takes 2 hens 2 days to lay 2 eggs, how many days does it take 50 hens to lay 50 eggs? Well, let's see. Let's call the first hen (out of two) to be A and the second to be B. A takes two days to lay 1 egg. B takes two days to lay 1 egg. If we continued this 25 times, we would establish that 50 hens lay 50 eggs in 2 days.
Veganism is immoral

= Disambiguation = Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes. = First round = This round is acceptance and clarity only. If you the as the contender decide to accept this debate, you may only post the phrase 'I Accept.' in the your first round. Anything else will constitute a full forfeiture of all 7 points of the debate. If Con is in need of clarity, is should be inquired about in the comments prior to accepting the debate. I repeat posting anything other than 'I Accept.' will lose you the debate before it even starts. = Rules = 1. This will be a public debate. The emphasis will be on clear communication and effective on-case arguments. There should be no discussion of framework, or use of debate jargon in the round. 2. The BOP will be shared between the Pro and the Con. Neither side will maintain presumption so if at the end you believe the debate to be a tie no vote should be cast. 3. No semantics! = Definitions = [1]Circumstance: a condition that accompanies or influences some event or activity [1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu......
Veganism is immoral

Normally when an opponent forfeits a single round I would just say 'Extend' and be done with it. However this is the last round I have in the debate and in the event that my opponent decides to argue in the next round I wouldn't have an opportunity to respond to him. That said, do not allow Con to bring new arguments in the last round, and do not allow him to continue arguing things he's dropped. I'm not going to be beat a dead horse and re-hash all of the arguments I've already made, I just wanted to make absolutely clear that this is my last round. I will not be able to respond to whatever Con writes on in the next round. So, Extend, and Vote Pro! Thanks for the debate MikeyMike!
Veganism is immoral

Many thanks to Pro for presenting the opportunity to debate such a unique topic; this should be fun. Arguments as to why a Vegan lifestyle is perfectly moral. 1. Vegan lifespan vs. Meat Eaters Vegans, on average, tend to live longer than meat eaters by an average of 3.6 years. That's almost 4 more years to love your wife, hug your children, watch your grand kids grow. Almost 4 years on average to enjoy your life, and all I have to do is eat healthy? I'll take it. http://www.livestrong.com... 2. Being vegan is economical, healthy, environmentally friendly, helps prevent animal abuse, and far less wasteful than eating meat(contrary to what my opponent thinks). I have so many points on why a Vegan diet is moral, that I don't have enough characters to elaborate on each one, so I'll just leave these sources here in order of least to greatest, and let my opponent pick whichever ones he wishes to dispute. http://www.peta.org... http://www.vegansociety.com... http://www.rd.com... Rebuttals: I would like to bring to the audience's attention a quote from Pro: "Pro will argue that a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential. Con will argue that a vegan diet is moral by whatever paradigm he or she wishes." Based on Pro's own rule, he has to forfeit the points he made regarding market demand and waste by omission seeing as how it has nothing to do with "a vegan diet is immoral as it deprives the human body of nutrients necessary to maximize health and human potential." This leaves only one points for me to argue are his points on Vegan health, and the health of a vegan baby. 1. Vegans are malnourished.(false) My opponent made the claim that vegans, due to their diets, cannot naturally obtain complex proteins, zinc Vitamins A, D, B12 and are malnourished in comparison to those who eat meat. Evidence against that: The complete range of proteins can easily be obtained through a vegan diet from plant products such as nuts, legumes, grains, and vegetables: http://www.theholykale.com... Excellent sources of Zinc include peanuts, pumpkin & squash seeds, dark chocolate & cocoa powder, and toasted wheat germ: http://www.healthaliciousness.com... Vitamin A can be found in plenty of vegan foods. Carrots, sweet potatoes, cantaloupes, lettuce, and dark leafy greens are all very good sources of vitamin A. One could even make the argument the vegans probably get more of this vitamin than the general population: http://www.healthaliciousness.com... Vegans can't get Vitamin D?? Aren't mushrooms, spinach, and potatoes a good source of vitamin D?? Ha! Read it and weep: http://www.thirdage.com... But what about B12?? Where on Earth would a vegan ever find such things, wait a minute, let me check the Internet: http://www.vrg.org... 2. Vegan Diets put babies at risk(false) Everything a pregnant mother needs in order to have a healthy baby can be obtained through a vegan diet by making sure the diet contains a wide variety of plant based products: http://www.vrg.org...
Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television

Children should use technology like a computer, mobile phone, and television because they can use it for researching information, doing projects, using e-books instead of old and heavy textbooks, it also makes the world closer and smaller by talking in social media programs, also the social media programs can make your child speak up and be confident to talk, it also, improves your communicating skills, last, this is another way to teach children, and the children are interested in. Although people might say that these children will be cyber-bullied, as long as they are taught to prevent it and stay away from it, this will not make a problem. Some may say:"They will get attracted to it and they will not be concentrating in school" But I think, if your child can self-control it, let most of the kids do, that will be not a problem. If your kid cannot control themselves from playing games, you can tell them the negative ways of getting addicted to playing games, and they will probably stop playing and control themselves from playing games. Some people may say "It makes your child's eyesight bad" but, if you use the media in an appropriate way of using it in a certain amount of time, and you can decide it and write on something, called Media Schedule, you can write the time that your child can use media and let them decide when to use the time. So, your child can still have a good eyesight. And, your child will be happy that you give them time to do whatever they want on technology items. Also, if you are still not unsure to let your kid use technology, there is some kind of apps that you can install to the media and you can always spy on your kid using the media. And take this serious
God is not real

Enough said I think: We cannot claim that God is not real because we simply don't know. Any claims that a particular God is real are very likely going to be wrong. Organised religion is thus illogical to its very core, however if a God does exist then our logic wrong. I think our logic, due to it being demonstrable, is correct and so live my life without a God. If you want to live your life logically, as I do, then don't believe, however this doesn't provide any evidence or argument that a God doesn't exist.
God is not real

I would like to point out that all of my opponents arguments are founded upon the assumption that the Christian God exists. Such arguments must be thrown out as that is the topic that we are debating: "Is God real?" Nevertheless, I will refute the points that my opponent has brought up ~Different interpretations of morality~ "There is no reason to claim that we know the morality of this God, and so in his eyes any 'unjust' thing may be completely just". This is completely irrelevant. We may not know the 'morality' of strangers yet we still understand what is 'bad' or 'good'. While I must agree with my opponent on the fact that 'good' and 'bad' are both subjective terms, it can not be argued that mass genocide (Noah's Ark) is most definitely not the actions of a 'good' or benevolent God. ~We can't understand what God is thinking~ The argument that we as humans cannot comprehend the greatness that is God should be thrown out as it is what is considered as an 'escape hatch' argument. Such an argument is irrefutable because as of now humanity can not even confirm if a God exists let alone understand what this God's plan is. ~We can understand the Bible~ How can a Christian not understand the Bible, God's own words illustrating his plan for humanity? The answer to this question is: they can't. The Bible is perfectly understandable as it was designed to be understood by humans in order to understand God's master 'plan'. Moreover, you concede the point that the Bible has inconsistencies. However, you say that this is due to the fact that the Bible was written by humans and humans make errors. This point is also completely irrelevant. It does not matter who or what wrote the actual Bible because the Bible contains God's own words. Wouldn't an omniscient God make sure to proofread what his followers have written to ensure everything is 100% accurate? If you answered no to that question then you just contradicted yourself. If the Bible is not 100% accurate then you are using the Lord's name in vain which is forbidden by the Ten Commandments. ~Religion is NOT based on interpretation~ Religion is humanity living out God's plan. God only had one plan, thus any "interpretations" of Christianity that are a derivative from God's original plan can be considered as blasphemous. God's word is not open to interpretation as doing so would place you on a higher pedestal than God hereby removing this entity's title of "God". ~A tyrannical God does mean he does not exist~ The Bible consistently tells us that the Lord 'loves' us and only wants the best for us. We must assume that the Bible is 100% true due to the reason stated above. If this god acts in a tyrannical or evil way in any manner, we must assume that this God is not real or at least not as the Bible describes him.
God is not real

Your entire argument is based on the idea that the Christian god shares our own western morality. Asking why a benevolent God would do something is comparing his actions to what we in the 21st century deem moral and just. There is no reason to claim that we know the morality of this God, and so in his eyes any 'unjust' thing may be completely just. To claim God is only good if he falls in line with our current morality in the West is simply wrong, as morality has changed enormously over time, there's no reason to say we have reached true good and justice. Moreover you claim to comprehend the mind of this God in saying that if he were real, he would not do this or he would do that. This is a God that makes the rules themselves, it is entirely possible that we are wrong. Logic is a human creation and is our best attempt at explaining the universe before us. As such it is possible that we are wrong, which would be true if God's actions make no sense to us. If this God is omniscient, then it would surely know what does or does not make sense, meaning that we of course would be in the wrong. The fact of the matter is that religion is based on interpretation and so we would never know what the Bible truly means, nor will we know what the initial message was considering humans were the ones that documented it. We have no idea what this God intended when scripture was written, and so to claim there are contradictions would be true, but would not disprove the God, but simply prove that either humans made mistakes when they wrote the Bible, or simply that what we perceive as sense and logic are simply wrong. It is extremely unlikely that what most Christians believe is in fact true as their idea of God is founded on their own opinions and interpretations, which being only human are probably wrong. We may think that this God because of his rules is tyrannical and evil, but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist. There is no logical step from 'I don't like what he's saying' to 'therefore he must be wrong'. Of course things wouldn't make sense to us, considering we are not benevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent, and so have no possible means of empathising with a God. Regardless of whether you agree with scripture teachings, or if they don't make sense, this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, but could mean that our view of morality, and our view of sense and nonsense, is wrong.