BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Sermon on the Mount is Bad Advice

"Jesus is basically telling people that no matter how bad things are in this life, things will be better in the next." how is that a bad thing? it's a message of hope. if it's true, that's awesome, is it not? he never said anything about accepting one's lot in life. he's merely saying if you are lowly such as those, keep your chin up. you can control your thoughts for the most part. do not dwell on things that you shouldn't. if you tell yourself not to htink of an elepahnt, you will think of an elephant, sure. but just move on with it. no one expects that Jesus meant even a passing thought. but even if he did, it onlly shows the ideal standard that no one can meet, that no one is perfect. if you choose to become dysfunctioned because of this, that is on you. it is in fact better to respond wiht humility and resign yourself to God's mercy. giving your cloak when someone sues you for your coat. it's just the point that you should not be caught up in a tit for tat mentality, or eye for eye. if someone sues you for something, why not just give them what they want and something else showing that you do not need material wealth, or do not need to make an issue out of it. there are common sense limits on what all this could mean, and to say Jesus is going beyond that is not a reasonable approach. you are essneitally going beyond what would be common sense in the worrying about morrow bit. hes just saying not to get caught up, relax a little, put more trust in God.
The Sermon on the Mount is Bad Advice

The Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) [1] is Jesus’ longest sermon, and is generally considered to outline Jesus’ central teachings [2]. Some Christians claim that the teachings in the sermon are of divine origin [3], or at very least that the sermon contains great wisdom [4].It is my position that the sermon, when taken as a whole, is not good advice. That is to say, the good bits do not outweigh the bad bits. CON will argue the opposite, that the good bits do, in fact, outweigh the bad parts.Round 1 will be for acceptanceRound 2 for argumentsRound 3 for rebuttalsRound 4 for counter rebuttals/lose ends/final statementsSources [1] http://www.biblegateway.com... [2] http://www.thinkingfaith.org... [3] http://www.crisismagazine.com... [4] http://www.gotquestions.org...
A real debate on abortion

I do not believe you have proven that abortion is murder. Here is why: "The elements of common law murder are: 1. the killing 2. of a human being 3. by another human being 4. with malice aforethought. [1] I.Intent to kill, II.Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm short of death, III.Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (sometimes described as an "abandoned and malignant heart"), or IV.Intent to commit a dangerous felony (the "felony-murder" doctrine). [1]" This applies to just about every form of human killing. The death penalty, military action, etc. all fits this definition, yet we not only allow but applaud these forms of killing. "Now the only way I can state that this type of murder is absolutely wrong, immoral, and unethical is to state that the Bible claims murder should not be done." So, in essence, you have no logical reason, you are simply deferring to a book. "You yourself cannot give any justification of why abortion should be allowed" I offered several reasons, you just do not accept them. "Even if you say there is no harm done, in this logic, there is nothing wrong with killing a person in a coma. Even worse, there is no harm with killing your neighbor in their sleep because they are not self-aware." People who are asleep or in a coma still have self-awareness and have formed emotional bonds with others. Bad argument. "If you cannot care for a child, you can choose the following, (1) not to have sex, (2) prevent fertilization, (3) adoption. Murder is not one of these options." The first two choices are moot. Clearly, if we are discussing abortion, the fertilization has already taken place. Adoption is certainly an option, but you have not offered any reason why it is a *better* option that abortion. "Using animals as an example is irrelevant because animals do plenty of things that humans consider immoral, unlawful, unethical, etc." The relevant question here, though, is *why* do we consider them immoral. Thus far, you're only real reason for abortion being wrong has been "because it's wrong". You have not offered a single reason as to *why* it's wrong, other than "God said so". Since one cannot reasonably apply their own personal religious ideals to the whole of humanity, I believe you have failed to make your case.
A real debate on abortion

"Firstly, a human embryo contains the chromosomes and the genes of an individual human. Therefore, it is a human life. Do you decide that it is not so?" You misunderstood. My disagreement was simply with your choice of words. It is important to use correct definitions in a debate, and I feel that you used the word "fetus" when you should have used "embryo". That's all. I admitted right off the bat that, either way, it was in fact killing human embryo. "However, there is no justification of killing an unborn child." Why not? You agree that other forms of human killing may be justified, so why can't abortion be included. You have yet to offer a reason. "No, it everyone agrees it is wrong, immoral, unethical, etc." This is a logical fallacy -- appealing to the majority. "I back myself with an absolute standard of morality." Which is? Where did these morals come from, and why should I trust morals that say one form of killing is justified while another is not? And yes, I believe morals are relative. The point of my first argument is that very little harm is truly being done. "Harm" implies a certain amount of self-awareness, or a taking away of something one is aware they once had. A one year old knows they are alive, they recognize their loved ones, they are known and loved by others, they have working brains, etc. None of this applies to a few-week old embryo. "So you are saying that if a person is in poor environment, you have the right to put them out of their misery?" No, I am saying that if I know I cannot care for something that is not yet born, I have the right to choose that it never be born. "You think it is morally reprehensible that a person should only live if they are brought up in circumstances that you decide and not them?" If I am their primary life and caregiver, yes. This is actually quite common in the animal kingdom -- if a mother or father cannot properly care for their young, they will kill all or the weakest of them. This ensures that any children they do have will have the opportunity to thrive. Now, thus far you have only questioned my own arguments and used logical fallacies. I believe the onus is on you to prove abortion is immoral and why, and you have yet to do so. Please answer the following questions: 1. What makes one form of killing justifiable and another unethical? 2. How does abortion fit into the unethical side? 3. Do you believe it is moral to bring a child into an environment in which they will not be stable, nurtured or cared for? 4. What significant differences do you see between humans and other mammals?
A real debate on abortion

To begin, I will agree that abortion amounts to killing, but disagree with the use of the word "fetus". In most cases, the appropriate term for what is being aborted is a human embryo. My opponent states that killing a human life is murder. What he fails to mention is that not all forms of killing are widely viewed as murder, or even as immoral. Many people find the death penalty, killing as a military action, killing in self-defense, etc. not only morally acceptable but noble or righteous. It seems that humans do not view killing itself as being wrong, only killing for certain reasons. For this reason, I believe the onus is on my opponent to prove not that abortion is killing, but that this particular form of killing is wrong and why. My opponent asks that I explain why abortion should be allowed. I have several reasons: 1. No harm comes to a conscious, independent being. The embryo is not aware of itself yet, no bonds have been formed and the child could not survive outside the womb. 2. Presumably, the parents have reason to believe they are unfit to take care of their child. There is a substantial chance that the child will grow up in a poor environment. I believe it is morally reprehensible to intentionally bring a child into the world that will not be cared for. 3. The government is not responsible or trustworthy enough to make decisions like this on an individual's behalf. I look forward to my opponent's response.
A real debate on abortion

I will be taking the position that abortion is wrong, unethical, immoral, etc. My opponent will explain why abortion should be allowed. Definition of abortion - killing a fetus - aborting a pregnancy To show the gravity of the situation, here are some statistics: "In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. However, between 2005 and 2008, the long-term decline in abortions stalled. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions occurred" [1]. The argument is quite simple. Because a human life begins at conception, and abortion removes the fetus after conception, then abortion is killing a human life. This is widely known in the english language as murder. The Law of Biogenesis states that life-forms produce other life-forms after their own kind. For humans, this happens at fertilization. If then, an individual human is born, which my opponent cannot prove otherwise, at conception, then abortion always kills a human. Humans accept that killing other humans, especially someone killing their own child, is immoral. "I think we have deluded ourselves into believing that people don't know that abortion is killing. So any pretense that abortion is not killing is a signal of our ambivalence, a signal that we cannot say yes, it kills a fetus" [2] - Faye Wattelton, Planned Parenthood's longest reigning president. I am not sure what my opponent will debate here to show abortion is wrong, but I am sure it will be interesting. [1] http://www.alanguttmacher.org... [2] Faye Wattleton, "Speaking Frankly," Ms., May / June 1997, Volume VII, Number 6, 67. [3] http://www.abort73.com...
At least some non-human animals oughta be treated equal to humans.

They are sentient but far less so than humans are so thus shouldn't be treated equal. Intelligence of a less conscious being is not relevant, I wouldn't say to mistreat someone based on their intelligence or lack thereof is sufficient justification. According to Plato it's actually impossible to prove that anything other than human is conscious to a human due to the subjective nature in which we interpret consciousness [http://plato.stanford.edu...] but according to mot scientists animals are consious but just far less so than humans are. Your source merely states that animals do have some degree of consciousness to feel pain but doesn't address or deny the fact that they are not nearly as capable of conscious thought and feeling as humans are.
At least some non-human animals oughta be treated equal to humans.

Animals have plenty of ways of communicating. Think of service and hunting dogs just for starters. The mirror test is just one of many tests. In some ways chimps are smarter than humans. [1] My opponent has not addressed my r1 claim " Animals are sentient and mistreating them paves the way for human oppression." Animals are sentient according to the scientific evidence. New Zealand recognizes animal sentience [3]. Links. 1. http://animals.io9.com... 2. http://www.livescience.com... 3. http://www.worldanimalprotection.org.nz...
At least some non-human animals oughta be treated equal to humans.

Pro says there is no good reason to disrespect animals but respecting animals is the positive act and thus the burden of proof lies on those suggesting proactiveness as opposed to those supporting inaction. Disrespect in the context that Pro is using it is merely lacking respect. The condition he give sia mirror test, not only would this mean that blind humans or humans who are severely mentally or visually impaired would fail it but it also means that Pro is irrationally setting sight recognition as a factor in sentience; it is not. You can even program a robot to recognize itself in a mirror. [http://www.bbc.co.uk...] The simple truth is that since there is no way to prove sentience of animals since they cannot communicate it or seem to be able to make rationally-based decision as opposed to impulse-based ones, the resolution holds false.
At least some non-human animals oughta be treated equal to humans.

First, Plato did not have access to modern technology. MRI scans of the brain and whatnot. "Born circa 428 B.C.E., ancient Greek philosopher Plato was a student of Socrates and a teacher of Aristotle." [4] "Your source merely states that animals do have some degree of consciousness to feel pain but doesn't address or deny the fact that they are not nearly as capable of conscious thought and feeling as humans are." xPrtN00bSn1p3r Pigs are capable of feeling pain at least the same intensity as humans. I contend that as long as animals are able to feel pain at least at the same level as humans, it shouldn't matter how intelligent animals are. [6] So, a pig or an elephant might not be able to pass as many tests for sentience as a human. Yet, how is this relevant? Would we send comatose patients to vivisection labs [5] just because they are less conscious? No, so why humans do such deeds to animals is beyond me. Links 4. http://www.biography.com... 5. https://en.wikipedia.org... 6. https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Resolved: water ought to be valued as a human right rather than a commodity

You stated that "as Americans", then let me ask you this. What about the less fortunate countries such as India and Iraq? They have horrible GDP Per-Capital. You also stated that " if we were to just hand out water to every person out there, regardless of finances, we would end up losing quite a large amount of money in the process", so your saying that we would lose money, but would it not increase our relations with other countries.
Resolved: water ought to be valued as a human right rather than a commodity

As Americans, we should be able to know the difference between those who are are are not less fortunate. For instance, people who have a good-standing GDP Per-Capita should have to pay for a bottle of purified water, while said money should go to giving water to someone who has no job, or is homeless. If we were to sell water to those who can afford it, and split the earnings by giving water to the needy, we can use the other part of the money to do a multitude of things; such as manufacturing new jobs for said needy. Tell me this: if we were to just hand out water to every person out there, regardless of finances, we would end up losing quite a large amount of money in the process. As I've stated, the less-fortunate should get their water for free, but those who aren't need to pay for their water, as it seems only fair.
Resolved: water ought to be valued as a human right rather than a commodity

You stated that "the human body is quite the miracle worker in terms of survival. Recent studies have shown that the human body can go without water", but only for three days. What would happen to people after the said three days? The answer is quite simple they would not survive. You also stated " why not sell high quality water and use said money for something more helpful". What would happen to the less fortunate people in society who can not afford the above mentioned high quality water. The answer is quite obvious, they will not survive. So therefore you are stating that you are willing to let the less fortunate people in society perish.
Resolved: water ought to be valued as a human right rather than a commodity

Edward M Muskie, A U.S. Senator saidIn a speech given March 1, 1966, "High quality water is more than the dream of the conservationists, more than a political slogan; high quality water, in the right quantity at the right place at the right time, is essential to health, recreation, and economic growth."Water is essential to human life, without water, human life is not possible.
An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent god exists

I'm back! There are many possible explanations to the "problem of evil": http://en.wikipedia.org... Possibility 1: Free Will God wanted everyone to have free will. With free will comes the will to make others suffer. Thus, God had to choose between free will and freedom from suffering, and knew that the lack of an ability to make choices was a greater pain than suffering, so free will is the explanation. Just because God already knows what you will do with your free will, doesn't mean that you don't have it. You can still jump up and down twice right now, or three times, or four, but God will have already known what you wanted to do (which I am guessing to be jumping up and down zero times). Possibility 2: Punishment When Eve committed the first sin, God had to come up with a punishment. Thus, he came up with suffering. He doesn't want everyone to suffer, but a punishment was necessary for breaking His rules. Why does a mother put her child in a time-out, or spank him, when he does wrong, when she does not wish for her child to suffer? It is because the child needs to be taught a lesson, and in the end, the time-out will have improved his character. Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft came up with six solutions: "a) God may use short-term evils for long-range goods. b) God created the possibility of evil, but not the evil itself, and that free will was necessary for the highest good of real love. Kreeft says that being all-powerful doesn't mean being able to do what is logically contradictory, i.e., giving freedom with no potentiality for sin. c) God's own suffering and death on the cross brought about his supreme triumph over the devil. d) God uses suffering to bring about moral character, quoting apostle Paul in Romans. e) Suffering can bring people closer to God. f) The ultimate "answer" to suffering is Jesus himself, who, more than any explanation, is our real need." So, yes, there are many solutions to the problem of evil. I only need one of them to survive by the end of the debate. Thank you for waiting.
An omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscent, omnipresent god exists

Alright then. Instead of burden of proof BSing like I did last time, I'll cut right to the chase. The idea of such a god is by logic contradictory for these simple reasons: 1) This god is perfectly aware of suffering 2) Suffering cannot be hidden from this god (hence omnipresence) 3) This god loves everyone and doesn't want everyone to suffer 4) This god has the power to stop suffering 5) But suffering exists It's that simple. Given the current world there is, a god can't be ALL four of these things. Maybe two or even three, but as the resolution implies, it must be ALL four, which is by logic contradictory. Thank you.
the illuminati exist

Again I must deny your "information". The book's table of contents explicitly states a chapter relating to the supposed "Da Vinci Code Fiasco". What relation does Signore Da Vinci have with the Illuminati or any secret society aside from the FICTIONAL references to the Priory of Sion and the Knights Templar, in the book "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown? As such, the book cannot be from the post-Revolutionary War period, but rather from a more contemporary time frame. Furthermore, where did you get this information from? Nowhere on the website was there any reference to a date of either publication or writing. Moreover, you state that the end of the Colonial Revolution marked the formation of the organization. Firstly, the American Revolution ended in 1783, while the Illuminati, existing in Bavaria, not the colonies, was formed in 1776. In regards to the supposed "Illuminati website", I would first ask that you supply a URL to support your statement, and whether or not this website is a reality. Otherwise I must immediately assume you are not being truthful, and simply lying to support your position. Additionally in the matter of the website, there are several possibilities that can exist aside from your claim of it being real: 1. The website is a fake, and simply exists to intrigue or humour people. 2. The website is created by someone that wishes to verify the existence or falsely support their argument that the Illuminati exists in today's world. 3. The website is created by someone who wants to create an organization that imitates or reincarnates that concept that is the Illuminati. Lastly, your argument is, that because there is a website, from gods know who, that this is concrete proof of the existence of this organization. Also, you state: "If they don't exist then what do you become when you join on the website?" Nothing, because it is a fraud. Why ever, would a SECRET society, have a website when it is supposed to be secret. If anything, such an organization would employ recruitment or recommendation, not advertisement and volunteering, I hope you will begin to employ more historical and contemporary "proof" in this debate. I look forward to your reply.
the illuminati exist

I hope all goes well and will be interesting for us both. In this debate I will simply listen first, for whatever evidence you state, and respond accordingly with references to historical fact. In regards to your statement here, I fail to see what substantial evidence this is supposed to be. The Library of Congress has a wide variety books, why should there not be a category for the history of secret societies and such? Furthermore, when was this book published? Because of some of the references to the "DaVinci Code" I would presume sometime not long ago. Also what, besides the single direct reference, does this book have to do with the Illuminati? Upon your response, which I hope will have plenty to respond to, we may begin the proper debate. I anticipate your writing.
the illuminati exist

This is info took from the library of congress http://catdir.loc.gov... Library of Congress catalog Contents Introduction Part One: Mythology and Related Mysteries Chapter 1 " What is a Secret Society? Chapter 2 " Heavenly Bodies Chapter 3 " The Truth Inside Your Skull Chapter 4 " The Secret of the Holy Grail and the Discovery of the Elixir of Life Chapter 5 " The Watchers Chapter 6 " Serpent Sword Chapter 7 " Secret History of King Arthur and Robin Hood Chapter 8 " Here Be Dragons Chapter 9 " Do You Want to Know a Secret? Chapter 10 " Secret Societies and the Links to the Enlightenment Chapter 11 " Serpent Origins and the Real Origins of Freemasonry Part Two: Secret Societies Chapter 12 " Knights Templar Chapter 13 " The Secret Code Chapter 14 " Da Vinci Code Fiasco Chapter 15 " The Illuminati Chapter 16 " The Nazi Code Chapter 17 " Secret Societies Today Chapter 18 " The Holy Vehm Chapter 19 " White Powdered Gold Conclusion Appendix 1 Forbidden Knowledge Timeline Bibliography Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication: Secret societies. Secret societies -- History.
Tobacco had a positive influence on the Jamestown colony

First, id like you to define your argument a little more finite. By that I am referring to: what exactly about the tobacco was a positive influence? what exactly is the term influenced being used for? are you arguing that tobacco was the sole contributor to allowing the expansion of the Jamestown? that without tobacco Jamestown would not have been able to expand? you also stated that before 1614 they already had tobacco, so regardless the tobacco was already there, so define a bit more clearly what tobacco you're referring too, and what that tobacco clarification actually did to save the fall of Jamestown. so are you arguing that the specific strain from south America is actually the only reason Jamestown survived as a settlement?