BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Morality is objective.

I'd like to start by thanking my opponent for setting up this challenge and providing such a comprehensive round structure / set of definitions, though I think it needs to be made clear that objective and subjective are mutually exclusive - a moral cannot be BOTH objective and subjective. I'm very excited to be able to debate against such a high-calibre debater on such a consequential issue, and wish him the best of luck for his opening round.On a quibbling note, I don't believe having equal burdens of proof is actually possible, but the term is used so loosely in debating nowadays that I doubt any voters would care if I explained it, so I'll just do the debate as I usually would and ignore that for this debate.Also, if either debater forfeits, I suggest that should count as an automatic loss. Just to up the stakes a little bit.And now, on to the debate!
Morality is objective.

The PropositionThe full proposition is as follows: "Morality is objective."As Pro, I will be arguing that morality is objective. As con, my opponent will be arguing that morality is subjective. That means the burden of proof will be on both of us.DefinitionsObjective: independent of personal opinion. If something is objectively morally good, then it is morally good no matter how many people think otherwise.Subjective: dependent on personal opinion. If something is subjectively morally good, then it is only morally good by certain individuals' standards.Morality: the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad (right and wrong) behavior.Debate StructureRound 1: Introduction and Acceptance onlyRound 2: Opening Arguments/RefutationsRound 3: RefutationsRound 4: Refutations/Closing statementsIn ConclusionI'm sure almost all of the viewers (if not all of them) have already formed an opinion on this matter. Whether you believe in subjective or objective morality, however, please keep an open mind and judge fairly based on who presents the strongest arguments for his/her case.I look forward to a fruitful debate.
The Second Amendment does NOT protect the individual's right to Bear Arms

I thank the opposition for continuing the debate. You have made it very clear that a well-regulated militia can also be seen as a well-trained one. However, only 14 hours of training are required to apply for a gun license, according to the Department of Consumer Affairs. Hardly enough to consider an individual a well-trained militiaman. Furthermore, as soon as you get your license you are not required attend classes in any way beyond renewing your license. According to www.benning.army.mil, (exact URL: http://www.benning.army.mil...#), BASIC combat training lasts 10-26 weeks for infantry. That's well trained and well organized, not two school days' worth of instruction. Furthermore, to quote the Iron Man movie, it's not a "ready, fire, aim" business. It's preposterous to think that the 2nd Amendment gives people the right to bear arms on the premise that they have the potential to become a well-trained part of a militia. I also have the potential to become the President. That doesn't mean I should be given a White House, no matter what Alexander Hamilton thinks. A collection of individuals with a minute amount of training romping around with their firearms in hand in neither a well-regulated militia nor a well-functioning one. Until such a time comes as all these individuals band together to function well and efficiently on behalf of the people, not a single one of them is protected under the second amendment.
The Second Amendment does NOT protect the individual's right to Bear Arms

In no way, shape, or form, is this argument a debate about whether or not it is morally right or wrong to allow the citizens of the United States to own firearms (although it's easy to see my stance on the argument from the first round), but instead on whether or not the interpretation of our forefathers is correct. They define the militia as all able-bodied males ages 17 to 45, a law that is clearly sexist and outdated. There's a reason why people are opposed to the draft. While this may be the official definition of militia, it's a far from a well-regulated one. Every single individual in this nation, ages 17 to 45, doesn't have the training to be able to use a firearm. Not all of them have ranks; not all of them want to. We only have one regulatory measure for the purchase of guns, a gun license, which is easily attained and doesn't affiliate you with any "militia" whatsoever, organized or not. And the supposed right to bear arms doesn't just apply to the young. You could be 90 and still have the "right. " The founders' intent was obvious; we've both already stated that. However, your entire case is brought down by two words. Well regulated. Who's to regulate it? The people? Joe Shmoe from next door can suddenly declare himself a militia officer and go on a rebellious rampage? Who's to regulate it but the states? In order to effectively rebel, yes, you must have guns. And yes, it is in the best interest of the American people to have the chance to rebel. But the Second Amendment specifically states that any person within a militia that is well regulated and organized has the right to bear arms, and not the unorganized hillbilly living by himself in the middle of nowhere.
The Second Amendment does NOT protect the individual's right to Bear Arms

I will be arguing that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not protect the random individual's right to bear arms. For reference, I will post the exact wording and punctuation of the Second Amendment, as ratified by the United States Congress. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The Supreme Court interprets this as giving any US Citizen the right to own and use arms, and upon brief inspection, many tend to agree with this definition. However, the Supreme Court appears to completely ignore the first four words, "A well regulated Militia." The obvious intent of the amendment is to allow the people to rise up in rebellion, should the government ever become tyrannical and unjust. While this cause is noble enough, it by no means says that any random person is allowed to buy and own a gun. The government may allow guns to be purchased by civilians for use in hunting, target practice, etc., but it's not a constitutional right. A single person with enough firearms to start World War III isn't a "well regulated militia," and neither are a collection of untrained, unofficial individuals who own firearms. The National Gaurd is, in a sense, our "militia," because it gives the power to individual states to start a civil war and rebel against the federal government. And, therefore, the federal government should have no right to take away the right of the men and women of the National Gaurd to bear arms, as it would allow the federal government to do whatever they want without fear of rebellion or an uprising.
If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible.

I apologize, but time constraints do not allow me to type the final round of this debate. work, school, and running the politics club are simply taking up too much of my time, and I am unable to dedicate the time to typing a 10,000 character round. I assert that my opponents rebuttals are results of lack of understanding and I quite frankly believe that this will become clear to the voters. I realize that my lack of time constitutes a breach in conduct, and I fully expect to be penalized by the voters for it. I only ask that the voters also weigh my arguments and sources against my opponents, and award votes as they see fit. Again, I apologize to both the voters and my opponent.
If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible.

I just typed up a 10,000 character round, and it was somehow deleted when i clicked the review button. I am at college and between classes, and I do not anticipate having enough time to retype this round within the 22 hours left on the time limit. I ask my opponent and the voters not to view this round as a FF, but rather as technical difficulties. If my opponent wishes to continue with more arguments, I will reply to both of his rounds in R4.My apologies.
If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible.

C1: Me and pro agree here.C2: The logic here is better formulized in a syllogism like this: P1) If A enables B, A is impossible (j. Nothing can enable impossible events, as they are impossible) P2) A enables B (j. Going into the past - where your granddad/nan is but you (from that time frame) aren't and you (from the present) are, you could kill your granddad/nan) C) A is impossible (j. Follows logically from the two premises) SECTION 2: Pro's third source, a link to a page on Stanford University (1), states: "So, time does 'stop' at relativistic speeds, but you have to get to practically the speed of light itself to get the most extreme situation." Relativistic speeds are defined as "a speed that is a significant proportion to the speed of light" (2). Pro's third source never mentions the time passage going negative, only slowing down. From these last two points, we can disprove time passages going negative: P1) At a speed proportional to the speed of light, time would 'stop'.(j. (1)) P2) Speeds above the speed of light are proportional to the speed of light.(j. By definition, proportional means "Properly related in size, degree, or other measurable characteristics; corresponding" (3). Speeds (slightly above the speed of light) would certainly be proportional to the speed of light because they have measurable characteristics) C1) (from p1,p2) At speeds over the speed of light, time would 'stop'.(j. The logical conclusion following the first and second premises) P3) If time 'stops', then time passages do not go negative.(j. This is pretty self-explanatory. Stopping cannot be the same as going negative, as proved by my point about the law of non-contradicition, which is applicable in this scenario) C2) (from c1,p3) Time passages do not go negative.(j. The logical conclusion following the first conclusion and the third premise) So let's look at pro's second source (4), which is on the same subject. Under the heading "Is time Dilation true? How big are the effects?", the page talks about clocks slowing down (yet not time passages going negative), and also talks about a certain speed that electrons can travel at, but never mentions speeds that would enable time passages to start going negative. Thank you. Sources (1) http://einstein.stanford.edu... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org...(3) http://www.thefreedictionary.com... (4) http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au...
If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible.

I'm sure that you understand how we see things. Light bounces off them and then into our eyes, allowing us to see that object (1). C1: Seeing the pastThere is a way that would allow us to see things from the past. There are places in the universe in which the light that bounced off our Earth (or any object) has not reached. If we travelled to that place in the universe in a speed faster than the speed of light (another way of doing this would be to warp spacetime, but that would be dangerous), and the looked at the object whose light had not reached that place yet, and we were able to see that object, then what we'd be seeing is the light that had actually reached that place, so we'd be seeing what that thing looked like in the past (2).Then, if we travelled at a speed above the speed of light to the object, we'd obviously be seeing things that happened in the past.However, everything we heard, smelt and touched would be from whatever was happening in present day, because it wouldn't actually be the past, we'd only be seeing things that happened in the past when the light hadn't yet reached your eyes. Otherwise, it's the present.C2: Paradoxes in travelling from the present to the pastIf time travel into the past were possible, then you'd be able to interfere with the past in such a way that changes the future. For example, you could go back in time and kill your granddad. Since your granddad is dead, he could never give birth to your mother and so you wouldn't be able to exist. But, you couldn't have killed your granddad because in this scenario, you don't exist. This is one of the many paradoxes with travelling into the past. There are many more you could think of, this is just one. See, if you interfered with the future (present), as you likely would, it would be different. But the present cannot be one thing and not another in accordance to the law of non-contradiction (3).Therefore, being able to travel at speeds above the speed of light wouldn't make it possible to travel into the past as an impossible thing cannot happen.In summary,a) The ability to travel at speeds over the speed of light does not make it possible to time travel into the past.b) Travelling into the past is not possible anyway.Sources(1) http://www.engineeringinteract.org... (2) http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...(3) http://quod.lib.umich.edu...
If it's possible to go faster than the speed of light, then time travel (into the past) is possible.

I am con.Today I'll be debating whether the ability to travel at speeds faster than the speed of light means that it's possible to travel (into the past) through time.First round is for acceptance. DefinitionsTime travel - n. travelling through time to the past or future (i).The speed of light - 299,792,458 m/s (ii)Sourcesi. http://bit.ly/1dJBQkzii. 2004. Penrose, Roger. The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe.
God Opposes Abortion

Over in the "God always creates souls at conception" Debate (see address above), the person taking the "Pro" side basically argued that preachers don't make mistakes in describing God's actions --even after I pointed out the silliness of such an attitude. The most relevant thing there, to this debate, is something I called "the lightning rod incident". htt.....ww.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html There is a fundamental thing that Christian Religions "pushed" prior to that incident, which was the notion that practically all day-to-day events happened because God was behind the scenes, making them happen. And what was written in that other Debate by "Pro" simply shows that at least some Religious are still stupidly pushing that notion. But the way a lightning rod worked proved that that was a false notion. The fact is, almost every macroscopic physical event occurs as a direct consequence of some prior macroscopic physical event. (I'm not specifying "all events" partly because we don't yet know everything about how the Universe works, and partly because we do know, at the nanoscopic level, that total randomness rules --and partly because I'm leaving open the possibility for God to tweak events, say in response to prayer, once in a while.) One might say, "God need not concern Himself with the day-to-day operation of the Universe, because that is how the Universe was Made." Which makes perfect sense if you want people to believe God is smart, rather than moronically saddling Himself with quintillions of quintillions of boring physical events to cause to happen, over and over and over again, all across the Universe. Actually, things are set up such that God can, in essence, relax and enjoy the show, and the built-in randomness of Quantum Mechanics, at the foundation of the Universe, provides unpredictable variety. Well, one of the logical consequences of such a description, of what we know about how the Universe works, is simply that God is not at all involved in human conceptions. They are purely physical events that happen as consequences of other purely physical events. And if conception events sometimes happen imperfectly-- Quote: "up to 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive" htt.../ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su96/Feature/Feature-The_Facts_of_Life.html --it just doesn't matter to God at all, because it is part of the Universe Show. If humans choose to make a big deal out of failed conceptions and miscarriages (and abortions), then that is humanity's stupidity and egotism and prejudice and selfishness being exposed, nothing else --which God can laugh at, of course.
God Opposes Abortion

As I've indicated elsewhere, almost all the foundations anti-abortion arguments are badly flawed. One such foundation is the notion that God has a negative opinion of abortion. Sure, the Bible and other religious works make various claims that can be interpreted as opposing abortion. But God didn't sit down and write any of those religious works. Humans did. And humans are known to be able to tell lies to benefit themselves. If this Challenge is accepted, then, based on the title of this Debate, the Contender will be Pro and I will be Con. What evidence can Pro offer, besides the mere claims of various religious works, which were written by self-interested humans, that God opposes abortion? I need to clarify my Debate position a bit. I am against the idea that God opposes abortion. But I am also against the idea that God is pro-abortion. That is, being Con to one notion does not automatically equate to being Pro of the opposite notion. Personally, I think God is laughing at the stupid humans, perhaps literally rolling in the Heavenly Aisles, over the Abortion Debate. The topic doesn't matter to God at all, because abortion is about human bodies, not human souls.
You shouldn"t believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Insufficient evidence is not harmful, because in order to believe in something one must believe in insufficient evidence in order to turn it into sufficient evidence. The base of our sufficient evidence is created through believing in insufficient evidence. Every belief doesn"t start off with concrete and profound information that is backed up by precise material. Thus, the very and exact start of our beliefs is developed through the insufficient beliefs transpired through our natural passion resulting into sufficient evidence later on. For example, William James states, "Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions." Proving that insufficient evidence is not harmful through saying that, we need insufficient evidence to guide us into making decisions from sufficient evidence. Subordination: MP [re]: Insufficient evidence is not harmful └> SP[ec]: In order to believe in something one must believe in insufficient evidence in order to turn it into sufficient evidence └>SP[s]: The base of our sufficient evidence is created through believing in insufficient evidence └>SP[q]: Every belief doesn"t start off with concrete and profound information that is backed up by precise material └> SP[ri]: "Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions."
You shouldn"t believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Debate topic: You shouldn"t believe anything on insufficient evidence. MP: You do need insufficient evidence to believe something. Argument: According to Gomberg, you need insufficient evidence to form a belief because insufficient evidence requires trust and modesty, which is an underlining basis to believing. Therefore, insufficient evidence is required because it aids in trusting the acquired knowledge that helps us from our identities and a sense of whom we are. Insufficient evidence is most prominently used during childhood which leads to us create a foundation to our beliefs. If we don"t believe in insufficient evidence and only believe in scientific evidence we would never have the basic knowledge to grow into a better individual through understanding that maybe what we believe isn"t always correct. To contain the assumption that your beliefs are never faulty, Insufficient evidence doesn"t always have to be right but it allows you to question your beliefs which allows you to gain a better perspective and understanding of what you believe in which will actually enhance your beliefs. Subordination: MP [re]: You do need insufficient evidence to believe in something └> SP[ec]: Because insufficient evidence provokes trust and modesty └>SP[s]: trust and modesty forms the foundations on what we should believe in └> SP[ri]: Trust and modesty is essential to acquired knowledge, which is essential in developing our identities. └>SP[s]: Therefore, insufficient evidence is acquired into developing what we truly believe.
You shouldn"t believe anything on insufficient evidence.

Exactly, no belief contains an ounce of insignificance; because we find passion and understanding in everything we decided to believe in, especially our beliefs that have been created through insufficient evidence(MP). Of course, no one man"s belief is in any case a private matter(Q), because every starting point to a belief is based off of insufficient evidence, which is developed through others input(S). We form our beliefs from insufficient evidence, which have been transpired to us through the ideas, thoughts, and beliefs of others. Beliefs that have been molded through insufficient evidence are the ones we develop the most attachment to, because we have developed them through our passional nature. Just because they don"t contain sufficient evidence doesn"t mean they aren"t important to whom we"re. These beliefs are justified to us personally, because even though they don"t hold sufficient evidence doesn"t mean they don"t make sense to us, which justifies that it isn"t foolish to believe in them, because these beliefs are the ones we understand and reason with the most, because we define their importance in our own terms. If you only believe in sufficient evidence you"re developing a bias standard to your way of thinking and living(S). If you are bias than you"ll never enhance, or form your own beliefs(S). In times, this can cause you to not understand your beliefs(S), which will provide flaws within them. According to James, he states, "As a rule we disbelieve all facts and theories for which we have no use (RI)." Thus, proving that we use insufficent evidence even when figuring out the proper sufficient evidence to believe in. That no matter what we use the underlying bases of insufficient evidence all the time in order to develop the thoughts we desire.