BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism

My first point:I can able to reason, but that doesn’t mean I always make the right choices. I can even able reason without atheism or theism. That proves nothing. Able reason is not reason atheists, but able reason is not theists either. Let me math that for you. Able reason =/= theists =/= atheistsTherefore,Able reason = agnosticAgnostic = moral = able reasonExist = agnostic = number 1 = able reason. From what I can tell, my opponent means to say one of two things. Either that the ability to reason is moral and something about atheism and theism, or the ability to reason is what determines morality, not atheism or theism. Just in case you guys don’t like my trolling, here’s a legitimate point. The ability to reason does not generate or determine morality. Watch The Dark Knight. The Joker is very reasonable in that he has a legitimate reason for what he does. However, what he does (murder people, steal, and cause mass terror) are things that we generally consider immoral. Aside from that, most philosophies have a fairly reasonable backing to them, but that doesn’t make them all right, because most of them disagree with each other on some level which breaks the law of non-contradiction. Now that we got that out of my throat, I’m going to move onto my rebuttals. First of all, my opponent asserts that morality is right plus intent. I think we need to clarify that morality can also be left plus intent. Right and left are not inherently moral or immoral. That would be a very petty determination of morality. So it’s not just the right we have to consider. What if you’re a liberal and you tend to reason to the left? That’s not fair. I think my opponent is an extreme rightist. Second of all, it is not necessarily immoral to give your kid a poisonous mushroom. There are plenty of rebellious teens who have murdered a few people in their lives. What if this kid is taking out everyone in the neighborhood? He’s got like 40 tallies in his room. The kid isn’t going to get death penalty because it would be cruel and unusual punishment to kill the teenage Joker, but you could give him a poisonous mushroom (or some hemlock or shove a belladonna down his throat). But yeah, I say the little Hannibal Lecter should probably be killed.
able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism

Thank you for that response. Going back over this real quick. The last two rounds haven't really presented anything new on my opponent's part or have any sort of argument in them. The entire debate, my opponent has not stated any coherent arguments (not from what I could discern anyway). However, I have presented at least two arguments (and even if I wasn't as clear as I could've been up top, this is me making that clear right now).1) Assuming that my opponent's resolution means "The ability to reason determines morality, not atheism or theism" then my response to that is that reason alone is not enough. I provided the example of the Joker in The Dark Knight (essentially a pyschopathic anarchist). He actually has reasons for doing things, and they're actually very well thought out reasons. The fact that he is reasonable does not mean that he is in the moral right. To this my opponent just said that the Joker is as real as Bugs Bunny, and if the Joker was a nice family man who didn't break the law then he would've been a morally good person. That's not a proper rebuttal for a few reasons. The first is that most people in American aren't family men (most are children or women. Male adults get the minority for that reason). Also, being a nice family man doesn't mean you're always a good person. You can still lie or cheat in some things. You can be selfish. These things are generally considered immoral (at least like one out of the three in that list is considered immoral). I also presented the argument, that many different philosphies are technically reasonable, but because of the face that they disagree, they cannot all be right. That would break the law of non contradiction.2) If my opponent means "Being able to reason is moral, not atheism or theism," then that really doesn't make any sense, and the arguments above still sort of defeat that. So thank you ladies and gentlemen for reading this.
The switch of BC/AD to BCE/CE is pointless.

You can't say that Jesus did great things if you don't believe that he is the Messiah and Son of God. The only alternative is that he's delusional or a straight up liar. Furthermore, If the Christian religion is false, Then Jesus and his followers are cultists. My example event, The fall of the Roman Empire, Had a similarly large effect on the world as Jesus did, Especially from an atheistic viewpoint. Afterward, Europe's living conditions became much worse. Roads, Plumbing systems, And law and order all fell into civilizational squalor. The countries that resulted from this fall and their conflicts have defined both European history and the exploration and connection to all other parts of the world. I would say that the fall of the Roman Empire was a huge event. More significantly, It has a definite date. More influential events, Such as the creation of the universe, Whether from a Christian or scientific standpoint, Is not a very specific date. Even if scientists are correct in their current guess, They are at best within a hundred million years of the exact date. Until recently, Events couldn't affect the entire world, Because places like Australia or the Americas were undiscovered. Even the "World" Wars didn't actually affect every country that much. You say that the change of acknowledgment is what's important, But from a nonreligious perspective, That's like saying that he's only a successful cult leader. It is pointless to remove any acknowledgment of his divinity while still saying that he's more or less the most important person in the world. "Just because we use the birth of Christ as the beginning of our calendar for the sake of convenience does not mean the switch to the BCE/CE system is pointless. "Now you're saying that we kept it the same because people are lazy. That's not really a valid reason.
The switch of BC/AD to BCE/CE is pointless.

If Jesus was a real person, It doesn't mean we have to be Christian. We can just believe that he was a man who did great things. Instead of acknowledging him as everybody's "lord, " we can just say that we mark the beginning of the calendar to the birth of a great guy. Even if he didn't perform miracles, He was still a great guy, Right? He helped a lot of people. Why not mark the beginning of our calendar after a guy we should all set as our role model? Keep in mind that the BCE/CE system is just a notation system adapted for a common Gregorian calendar. Also, The events that were given as an example did not affect too much of the world. The topic for this debate is how the BC/AD to BCE/CE switch is pointless, Not anything more specific. Just not acknowledging Jesus as "our Lord and savior" has a great meaning to it. Here's a quote from Wikipedia: In the later 20th century, The use of CE and BCE was popularized in academic and scientific publications, And more generally by authors and publishers wishing to emphasize sensitivity to non-Christians, By not explicitly referencing Jesus as "Christ" and Dominus ("Lord") through use of the abbreviation[c] "AD". That change of acknowledgment isn't pointless. Here's another quote from Jim Jones from the Westchester university: The abbreviations "BCE" (Before Common Era) and "CE" (Common Era) have replaced "BC" (Before Christ) and "AD" (Anno Domini; i. E. "Year of our Lord") respectively. If the change really was pointless, Why is the BC/AD system replaced now? Just because we use the birth of Christ as the beginning of our calendar for the sake of convenience does not mean the switch to the BCE/CE system is pointless.
The switch of BC/AD to BCE/CE is pointless.

What I'm saying is that 1 CE is still the estimated year of birth of the man (and to some belief's, The Holy Messiah) named Jesus. It is, I believe, A proven fact that such a man existed, Even if he didn't perform miracles or anything. So under the scientific/non-Christian view, Why does this year represent the beginning of the Common Era? Nothing significant happened except for the Christian belief of Christ's birth. This is why the switch doesn't make sense. I actually am fine with us changing the date system so as to have no religious context, But changing BC to BCE doesn't cut it for me. In order to fully remove religious context, It should be centered around a different historical event that could be said to represent a change into some "Common Era. " One of the dates I believe would be acceptable is the year the Roman Empire fell. The Rennaissance would be a better one, But the exact year that it started is a little trickier, Whereas the Roman Empire fell on a specific year.
The switch of BC/AD to BCE/CE is pointless.

I didn't say that I wanted to impose a religious calendar system on atheists. I justsaid that BCE/CE failed to remove religious significance. It's still centered around Christ's birth, So saying that Christ's birth ushered in the "Common Era" is not really that different from "Anno Domini. " There are several countries that use a different calendat system from the standard Gregorian. In Japan, It is 31 Heisei to our 2019. They also use the Gregorian calendar, Especially in international dealings.
The switch of BC/AD to BCE/CE is pointless.

If you're going to bury the voices of anybody who doesn't believe in religion, Then go ahead. There's no way to put aside religion for this topic because the BCE/CE system was made to not enforce religion. It might be pointless to others who believe in religion, But for atheists like me, This system is a way we can show dates without always having to use a date system based on religion. How has the BCE/CE system failed? In my eyes, It's a better alternative. Both sides (religious and non-religious) can use this system without offending anybody.
The USA needs to sort itself out before trying to help everyone else.

I, Pro, will be arguing that the US needs to step out of the global spotlight and focus on its own people before giving aid to other countries. Con will be arguing that the US's support on the global stage is necessary and by pulling out troops and ceasing financial aid will be economic suicide. PLEASE REMEMBER TO SITE SOURCES. Definitions: World superpower: A nation or group that has great economic influence and/or militaristic strength. A nation or group that can give aid to other countries and care for it's own people as well. Synonymous with "world leader." Poverty level/line/rate: The approximate bottom line of income needed to secure life sustaining necessities. Financial aid: Giving significant funds to another nation/group without expecting return payment. Military aid: Supplying troops/munitions to other countries or conflicts that the US was not priorly engaged in. The USA is no longer a world superpower and we can't act like it anymore. We'll sooner run to another countries aid than to our own people's. Our poverty level is currently over 16% (as of 2013)[1] yet we still send financial aid to 96% of all countries (as of 2012)[2]. We (the US) can't afford to provide 96% of the world with aid when our own people still struggle to stay afloat. A 16% poverty rate doesn't include the middle class working from paycheck to paycheck and still trying to give back to the community. It doesn't include the terminal patients that only want to be healthy once again, even for just an hour. We need to pull out of other nations, no more military aid or financial aid until we're stable again. Our cities are crumbling and we seem more worried about other nations than our own. sources: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.forbes.com...
Resolved: the action of protesting at funerals ought be prohibited

You challenged me. If you honestly expected me to pass up the challenge and give you the points or however this system works simply because to argue in the precise format that you wanted was a bit more awkward than usual and my reply didn't seem to completely agree with what you were prepared for then you really really don't know me very well. I told you precisely why they shouldn't be prohibited. That to do so wouldn't sway these people even one bit, it would be a legislative waste of time, a method of appeasing bereaving families temporarily, but the time spent making such legislaon could have been better spent actually combating the problem rather than just putting down a flimsy barrier and hoping that'll stop them. These people are not exactly the humane type and they have beef with the Government as it is. Give them a reason to go further and they will go further. Try reading my post again. If it hurts your eyes then have someone else read it for you. Or you could try throwing holy water on it but that'd just mess with your computer.
Resolved: the action of protesting at funerals ought be prohibited

I stand resolutely, adamantly, firmly, that prohibiting protesting at funerals is immoral and violates every fiber of human liberty. I also stand resolutely that the pro shouldn't have accepted the debate if he was just going to be rude and (unfortunately expletives such as the one I would normally use won't post). If you don't see why they should be prohibited than you are against the resolved statement saying: protesting at funerals ought (should) be prohibited(outlawed).
Resolved: the action of protesting at funerals ought be prohibited

Oh wow. Fine, don't come crying when you don't like what you're hearing. Philosophically speaking I don't think you know what the word resolved means. Philosophically speaking I fail to see why the protests should be made illegal because there's absolutely nothing to stop these morons from protesting something that happens to be very close to a funeral, the specific church that the funeral is held at, for instance. Philosophically speaking I don't think you realise that a debate about ethics, law and morality can contain any mother******* ************ examples of ******* philosophy because if those **** ****** philosophers have taught us absolute ******** anything it's that ***** like the ******* ***** with ********** morals and ********* up attempts at morality know precisely **** all about morality, ethics or philosophy. Self censorship, all the cool kids are doing it! You want to talk philosophy about how dumb people are. Ok. I think therefore I am. They lack thought, therefore they do not exist. They don't exist there's nothing to outlaw. Case closed.
Nothing is Actually Important, It is a Choice

Greetings one and all - however from myself, it is specifically to my opponent (As I within this platform, he is the entity that exists from this point). I look forward to our Candor and prosperous discussion. I would like to begin my rhetoric by classifying that in this debate I will assume the role of "Devil's Advocate" - I personally agree with the meaning of.... meaning - However have a fundamental differing that I look forward to arguing. I also personally applaud your part regarding the optimistic outlook that is available once this realization - and enforcing your opinion against the pessimistic side available to that thought avenue. It's a tough task to struggle with, and the more it is expressed that you can choose which outlook to subscribe too, the more that avenue will appear, be recognized, and ultimately walked by others struggling in a similar situation. My metaphorical hat off to you, dear human. As stated, I agree with the meaning of important in the Human Language. With the meaning to "Import" ones value into X (be it a physical or mental projection). Things only mean things to us, because we make them mean them. However I disagree in your declaration that nothing can be deemed important, without it being subjective. Within our subjective reality - you cannot disagree that we value bee's (As much as we fear them), for their beneficial boon to any ecosystem they are present in (i.e. the primary cross pollination platforms for flowers). We gain benefit, therefor the value of that benefit is imparted into the creature - thus bee's are important. However, you cannot disagree with the hypothetical scenario of a creature with the perception (not intelligence, just the ability to see the creature and record it), to acknowledge a bee for what it is, what it does, and what it is to the ecosystem and environment - they can objectively (As it has no meaning too them, they can simply understand it), agree that that creature is 'important' - standing on its own, and not because it helps the observer at all. Priorities corrupt our perception of importance, however the actual reason the word was created - to express something that physically or metaphysically exists - has not changed, differed or even been relegated to a singularly human experience. Importance is important - merely because of its own importance standing it up. 'Our' important is usually important - it means something too us, because it is important. Slightly different, yet expressed the same.
Nothing is Actually Important, It is a Choice

Anything that is important to someone is because said someone chose for something to be important. People usually say "important" rather than important, in the sense that they are missing the terms, "to them." Something that is actually important "stands" to be important on its own, without anything else that makes it important. History is "important" to some, but history wouldn"t be "important" if there were no humans. Nothing is actually important because it"s impossible to define whether there is a god or not, so the only information we are sure of is that everything is just particles flying around. (This leaves life as "meaningless," which is most commonly associated with negativity, even though "meaning" is something that wouldn"t exist if there were no humans. "Meaning" is a "made up" thing.) I wanted to ramble on about the positive mindset one can draw from this information rather than the usual, "motivationally-barren" assumption, but I realize that"s not relative for a debate.
Abortion

The comparison of a living, growing person to that of a dead person is sickening. Do you also look down on the disabled because they don't function the same as you? A person is a person inside the womb or out and nobody has the right to kill it. Every human life matters and has meaning. There is a reason women who have abortions are three times more likely to commit suicide than other women of the same ages and ten times as likely to commit suicide if they are still in their teens. Eighty-one percent of them have mental health problems develop after they abort. Forty-five percent of women report having suicidal feelings immediately after the abortion takes place. Two in three women or sixty-seven percent can be diagnosed with PTSD following the murder if it occurs after the twelve-week mark (eight weeks before you view it as a human). The risk of alcohol abuse rises by one hundred and ten percent for women following the abortion. http://healthresearchfunding.org... Murder kills the soul and as millions of people have found out abortion is murder. The cost of killing your own child is often not just the life of your unborn baby but also that of yourself. The choice to have the child takes place before the penis ever enters the vagina. By that point as consenting to sex, you take on any risk that may come with your actions. If a person is too immature to take care of a child maybe they should think about that before having sex. As a man, you should be shunned by society if you don't marry the woman who you knock up. Stop abortions. Stop the meaningless slaughter of babies.
Abortion

Life starts when the embryo develops grey matter, and then it'sneurons start firing. Just ecause it has organs and limbs, which I seriously doubt about embryos, that doesn't mean it's alive. A dead corpse isn't alive, but it likely has limbs and organs, what is the difference between shooting a living person, and shooting a corpse? What makes one murder and the othr not is this magic thing called "brain activity," which doesn't start until 20 weeks after conception.
Abortion

To every person the time when a child is considered to be living changes. So at what point is this child actually considered to be a person? Not at conception when the magic begins as you claim. How about six weeks when it starts to form ears, a mouth, and a nose and has a heartbeat pumping what is often a different blood type than that of the mother. Or at seven weeks when it begins to form hands and feet. How about week ten when it begins to grow organs. By the end of week thirteen, it has its own unique fingerprints and working kidneys. By week eighteen, it has developed its reproductive organs and may not even be the same gender as the mother. The rest of the time the child is growing bigger and maturing its brain and lungs until it comes out for that first sweet breath of air. So again I ask when does a person become a person. When you have a pregnant friend you ask them how the baby is coming not "How's the sex cell doing today". The child's DNA is different from its mothers from the moment of conception. While this child is still attached to its mother it itself is not a part of her body. It is a separate life form that will have a close bond with this person for life. I do not care if a woman gets a tattoo, piercings, breast enlargements/reductions, plastic surgery or whatever. What a woman can not do however is get away with murder, and that is what abortion is. "pro-choice" advocates get upset when pro-life people hold up a picture of the dead child recently aborted or will try to lock away the people who showed how Planned Parenthood was harvesting the organs of the unborn children instead of the monsters at Planed Parenthood. There is a reason Norma McCorvey known better as Jane Roe spent the second half of her life fighting for life. The immoral action that is murder kills the sole. I see no difference in the act of having an abortion that the despicable act that Dylan Roof made when he shot up that church. One hundred from now we will look back on abortion the same way we look at slavery today. https://www.babycenter.com... http://www.lifenews.com...
Abortion

Abortion is the biggest moral sin that we as a society have accepted since slavery. A woman's "right" to choose whether her child lives or dies is unacceptable and should be prohibited. Every person's life has meaning and to rob an unborn child of their right to life is a horrendous act that should never go unpunished. I am not saying I want to control what a woman does with her body but I am saying that everyone must follow the law and not commit murder.