BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Technology used only for entertainment should've never been invented.

I believe technology used only for humans to be entertained is not very beneficial to anyone. R1 Opening statements. R2 Arguments R3 More Arguments and some rebuttals R4 Rebuttals and closing remarks. Rules 1. No forfeits 2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be individually provided in the text of the debate 3. No new arguments in the final round 4. No profanity 5. No trolling or semantics 6. No accepting other debates. ( If you have an ongoing debate it's fine if you accept this debate.) 7. Violation of any of these rules is loss of a conduct point. Please keep your arguments organized and sourced.
Humans have not advanced beyond their technology for its entire existence.

Our argument seems to be going in circles because you can't grasp one key point: In order for their to be technology, humans had to evolve certain features that allow there to be technology, and it is these unique features that make humans special. Your point about humans not surviving with no technology couldn't be more wrong because, 1. Humans had to survive without it. 2. People live today with virtually no technology. Why would the elements kill us? Wouldn't you look for a cave or some type of natural shelter? Your point about the tiger: If you put a human against a tiger in a bare room to fight a tiger, the tiger will win. But this is no more natural than having a human in a tank fight a tiger. Couldn't it be that humans band together to frighten the tiger, or outsmart it? We have evolved very complex language that would facilitate this process. "The brain using the body makes it. But that does not make the tank an entity in itself." Look up the word entity before you use it. Besides, a tiger's tooth by itself doesn't kill prey by itself any more than a mind without a body builds a building. It's because the mind, like the tooth, are all part of a complex system for reproductive success. See, you don't really have a deep understanding of evolution. You seem to think that only if you evolve poisonous quills are you advancing. Evolution is not about being at the top of the food chain. It is about reproductive success; the change in allele frequency. If the tiger is faster than it's prey, the prey will die. But if the prey can avoid being consumed either by speed or intelligence, the tiger will die. Being at the top of the food chain does not guarantee reproductive success. Even if we could not survive without technology (which I have shown is not true) it is just a banal, uninteresting point. A tiger can't survive without it's teeth. Birds can't survive without building a nest. Your argument could just as well be, "Tigers have not advanced beyond their teeth for their entire existence." The point about changing ourselves in the future is that it undermines what we think of being natural: Suppose a girl could get a tit job before she was born, i.e. her genes are engineered such that her breasts will develop in a desired way. Would we say this girl has fake tits? So your whole idea that we are useless without technology is wrong, because we will keep on evolving and adapting, even if it means we have to resort to primitive means to do so.
Humans have not advanced beyond their technology for its entire existence.

My reasoning for pointing out all these traits animals share is this: we have done nothing truly special. Three examples (predatory, structural, and intellect) where brought up as the three main factors human beings seem to believe we alone hold a grasp over. We don't have any claws, thus without guns, knifes, or otherwise, we are not predators, but prey. We like to imagine or structures to be superior, when while they are larger and on a grander scale to a bee hive or beaver dam, are nothing to truly boast about. Intellect is the only factor we have over animals. But what can you physically do with a brain? Can it kill prey? No, it would just get it wet. But the brain develops a spear. DOes the brain build sky scrappers? If they did, then New York would be nothing but raw materials. The only thing that makes us is our technology. Not us, but what we make. The only leeps and bounds we make beyond animals is the manipulation of what is already around us. So then, beside our technology, what sets man apart? The answer is nothing does. If everything we have was striped away we would die in an instant. What advancement have we made to ourselves? None. We are no better than the apes of Africa. We have not advanced beyond our technology for our entire existence. There is a man versus a tiger, who will win? The tiger obviously. But now there is a man with a tank versus a tiger. Who will win now? The tank will. What did the man do? He built, and that's it. The tank holds the real power, not the man. So then it comes down to intelligence. What have we really done with our brains to advance man kind? Well, we still kill though we don't need to, so that's out. We still cling to Territory, even though they're mostly lines on a map now, not hunting grounds, so we can't say that. Many have moved past migratory systems, but some still do. In the early days, nearly all human trades where nomads. I'm not sure what this "sweetness of food" deal has to do with anything, thus I won't touch it. We don't have a superior living method, true. In fact, we eat food as do animals. Drink, another shared animal trait. We also mate, as do every single other thing on the planet, so that doesn't make us special either. Computers are just another human made thing, which does not advance man kind in itself, save for better communication. In a sense, a louder "whoop". So yes, I do say we are animals. My outlook is not on the bleak future but of the all to clear present. We are no different than our ancestors from the trees. We have not developed any more as a species in its whole beyond the common principals of our roots. Our only accomplishment is what we make, not who we are.
Humans have not advanced beyond their technology for its entire existence.

Is this an impossible idea? Seemingly so, but it's not. That is my position. People, primarily those of homo-sapien decent, like to imagine that they are the most advanced creature on the planet. The top predator, the best melder of the world around it, the most intelligent. But is this really so? Look at your body. Do you see claws? How about fangs? Poison quills? I sure don't. Odd, these traits are usually found in dangerous predators in the natural world. Well, we'll come back to that. I assume that your in a building of some kind since your reading this from a computer. I bet that makes you feel better about yourself, since there is a structure with walls, a roof, floor, and your species made it, and only they can do that. But wait, what's that out the window? Its a bee's nest, a termite mound, and a beaver dam. What a weird coincidence. But surely all those things just grew from the ground and those animals decided it would be a nice idea to live there, right? Intelligence. There's the infallible thing that makes my entire argument fall to pieces. What other creature was able to make weapons of such extremes that makes claws laughable? Nothing else has made shelters of such magnitude to conquer nature in any climate. What animals mere presence can be seen from the night sky's? Well, yes, that is all great. But that is not people, that's the stuff that people make. How have we as a species developed in the last 40,000 or so years since we first appeared? Have we truly outgrown any primal instincts that keep us connected with our animal ancestors? No, I do not believe we have. Any advancement we have is not ours, but a better crafting of what has already been there. Prove me wrong.
Is the United States a democracy

Would like to apologize for my forfeit. I did not mean to it is the weekend and I am a teenager so I completely forgot to check this debate. My sincere apologies. Here are the reasons why the U.S. may not be a democracy. "The Pledge of Allegiance includes the phrase: "and to the republic for which it stands." Is the United States of America a republic? I always thought it was a democracy? What's the difference between the two?" Here is the definition of Republic.- "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch." "The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy." "A republic is a form of government in which power resides in the people,[1] and the government is ruled by elected leaders run according to law (from Latin: res publica), rather than inherited or appointed (such as through inheritance or divine mandate). In modern times the definition of a republic is also commonly limited to a government which excludes a monarch. Currently, 135 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the word "republic" as part of their official names." "A distinct set of definitions for the word republic evolved in the United States. In common parlance, a republic is a state that does not practice direct democracy but rather has a government indirectly controlled by the people. This understanding of the term was originally developed by James Madison, and notably employed in Federalist Paper No. 10. This meaning was widely adopted early in the history of the United States, including in Noah Webster's dictionary of 1828." "Beyond these basic definitions the word republic has a number of other connotations. W. Paul Adams observes that republic is most often used in the United States as a synonym for state or government, but with more positive connotations than either of those terms. Republicanism is often referred to as the founding ideology of the United States. Traditionally scholars believed this American republicanism was a derivation of the classical liberal ideologies of John Locke and others developed in Europe" These experts show how the United States does not only fall under these categories but was in a way created as a republic. These show how the U.S. is a Republic with democratic ideologies mixed in with it. It is not a pure democracy which is said to be feared by the founders of our great nation. Thank you. http://www.1215.org... http://thisnation.com... http://en.wikipedia.org...
Is the United States a democracy

The resolution is "Is the United States a Democracy" I have shown that it is a democracy. Just because it is two things does not mean I loose the debate. I win because you have conceded that it is a democracy and a Republic, but all i had to show is that it is a democracy. THe resolution is NOT "Is the United States only a democracy" I have won because i have shown it is a democracy. You were con on the grounds that it is not, and you conceded that it is a democracy and a republic. I win,and i fail to see your logic on how you win.
Is the United States a democracy

So there is two ways we can go about this 1. being this ends in a simple tie because well it is not just a democracy nor is it just a republic. 2 I can take credit because the topic is "Is The United States a Democracy" which it is not it is a "democratic republic. " as you stated. I will honestly be okay with either but I find losing this debate highly improbable since you stated that the United states is a democratic republic. Not a democracy. Thank you.
Is the United States a democracy

The United States of America is a democratic republic. Yes we are a republic because we fall under the definition: a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. BUT We are a democracy as well because we have fair contested elections which directly determine who holds the most important political office or offices. Also we have wide suffrage. The United States is both a Democracy and a Republic. We state that only republics can enter the United States, BECAUSE we support the freedom of individuals, and a democratic state. We do not want non-democratic states in the United States. "Here is the definition of Republic.- "a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch."" Yes, elections are included in this making it a democracy, as long as the elections and state meet the requirements above which they do for the United States. The jury evidence has no precedence, also the united states protects the minority against the majority this way which is good. It does not matter how many states have REpublic in there name, this is about the United States, Also North Korea is actually the Democratic People's Republic of Korea Lack of Pure democracy does not mean it isn't a democracy, only another form of democracy. We are both a republic and democratic state
Theists do not have objective morality

I agree with my opponents argument, but only in the sense that it represents a very small percentage of the actions theist make. For example, when the world sits down to eat, some of them will be eating pork, which for some is immoral. But, what about all the other food on the plate we all eat? It's okay, it's really objectively moral to eat that food, whereas considering pork immoral is not objective morality. Most of the time everyone is eating what everyone else eats. Only a small percentage of what theists believe is immoral to eat is being eaten. So, most of the time, theist are being objectively moral when they eat. That argument could be applied to all the minutia of the average person's day. It would be unnecessary to write all those arguments for a person to see that point, nor do I have the time to. My opponent argues that morality is purely subjective and has no genetic origins. Morality has genetic origins. I will give a couple of examples: We may say it is immoral for woman with a child with one man to sleep with another man. Well, if she does, she may get pregnant. Now, the first male who wants his genes to survive just got competition from the second male. The first male will see now that this woman will have to split her energy between his child and a child that is not his own. The second male was too dumb to get his own woman and now threatens his own offspring. This means the first child will loose attention for a child that is of offspring that is stupid enough to create this situation. At this point, the father may even find it moral to throw it all away and find a woman who won't do this. Another example is that polygamy is moral for some. A male who practices polygamy can spread out his genes faster than one who practices monogamy. The men who attract the women most likely will be the ones with the wealth and probably are the smartest. So, the smartest genes get spread more than the genes that loose out. Another consideration. If a woman tries to have many husbands, there are practical limitations with sex and having offspring. When she gets pregnant, how long do you think these men want to wait to have their children? Genetics obviously has influenced morality in religion. Because morality can have a genetic origin it's not purely subjective. It also means objective morality does exist. My opponent should make a deductive argument that proves cooperating cannot fit in the category of moral. I will make an argument proving cooperating is moral behavior. Here goes. Morality fits into the category getting alone with one another well. Immoral acts fit in the category that is contrary to human cooperation. Cooperating therefore is moral behavior. Every human act can be considered cooperative or non-cooperative. All human acts can be judged to be moral or immoral. Cooperation is human behavior that has a practical basis. A practical basis requires objective thinking. Therefore cooperation is objective morality. Cooperating is what most humans do most of the time. Theists are humans. Therefore, theist have objective morality.
Theists do not have objective morality

Alright, to refute the claims my opponent made in argument 1: Genetics help determine how our opinions will be shaped and molded. However, these are still opinions and thoughts. Morality, when it comes from opinion, is subjective. As I pointed out before, the definition of objective is "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" Morality, itself, is pretty much always determined by a person's feelings and thoughts, so I would actually argue that no one has objective morality because morality is dependent on how you feel a particular thing is good or bad. Killing is not objectively wrong, because you never know what that person was going to do in the future. For all you know, that person could have been the next Hitler or Stalin, and you just prevented them from coming to power. Nothing is really objectively good or bad, and that is why cultures and religions differ so much about the topic of morality, since it is subjective. When my opponent argues in round 2 that cooperating is moral, what makes it moral? How is it objectively a moral thing to do? What if the person you're cooperating with plans to massacre many people? How is massacring people objectively wrong? Is there really any way to objectively measure morality?
Theists do not have objective morality

A day is 24 hours. The average person sleeps 8 hours a day. This means the person waking hours are 16. When considering moral actions of a person, every action during every minute and hour counts, except when they are sleeping. So, it is fair to judge the average human of any culture and any religion for 16 hours on whether or not they have objective morality or not. The general categories on how a person spends their day can be broken down into: Sleeping Personal Care Eating and Drinking Education Work Household Work Household Care Non-household Care Shopping Pro. Care Services Leisure Sports Volunteering Phone Calls Misc. I am not considering sleeping in this argument because conscious decisions are not made during sleep. Theists and nontheists will be doing all these things in the above list in a way that practicality demands. This means we all pretty much will do all these things in basically the same way. Most people cooperate during these times, almost all of the time, which means most people are being moral. This morality doesn"t have to be taught, so it"s fits the definition of objective morality. Somes time religion influences the way we do things, but rarely takes a significant percentage of the time of the day. Since humans time consists of actions that are mostly morally objective and this includes theist and non-theists, theists are morally objective. https://flowingdata.com...
Theists do not have objective morality

I'm redoing this debate since the last person didn't respond in time. Please, if you're going to accept this debate make sure you have time to actually complete the debate withing the next 7 days or so. You'll probably need an hour or so of free time every other day at least to complete this debate. Alright, let's get started with definitions: Objective: "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" [1] Morality: " Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" [1] Rules: Logical fallacies will be pointed out Kritik will be pointed out Round 1: Acceptance, state your position, agreement on definitions of terms. Round 2: Main arguments Round 3: Rebuttals Round 4: Conclusion/state why you believe you won, no new arguments here. I am arguing that theists do not have objective morality, my opponent will be arguing that theists do have objective morality. Alternatively, my opponent may begin their argument in round 1 if they so choose, just remember to waive round 4 if you do so in order to keep the arguments even between us, since I'm not using round 1 for argument. Basically just get rid of round 1 as acceptance and move each round up for the order you now have. Source: [1] https://en.oxforddictionaries.com...
Theists do not have objective morality

I had difficulty with my argument, but I think I made it clear enough to understand. I think I won because I consider the person's actions as a whole and it was fair to consider all actions as either objective morality or not. I was able to find that everyday boring behavior was clearly natural and genetically based and fell in the category of objective morality. My opponent clearly understands there are differences, and I agree with those differences, but those differences could only allow my opponent to win if they consisted of what people where doing most of the time. Religion would have to completely undermine their behavior most of the day. Then it could be said they don't have objective morality because they are only driven by their religion. No religion could do this. Genetics and physical laws are the main cause of our actions as humans most of the time, not an organized set of beliefs. Most of the time, no matter what religion or belief system, peoples actions are quite the same. This natural behavior is what I feel fits the definition of what my opponent stated at the beginning: objective morality.
Theists do not have objective morality

You can restate previous arguments here too. As I showed, morality differs from culture to culture and religion to religion. While my opponent brought up a genetic aspect to it, I argued that genes only influence what we think and feel is wrong/right. It's still ultimately our own thoughts and feelings that still determine what we consider to be moral, which means it is not objective since, as I defined objectiveearlier, it is "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" It's still our feelings that determine what is wrong and right, even if those feelings are determined or influenced by genetic factors, which I stated this in round 3. Therefore, I believe I won this debate because my opponent didn't sufficiently argue how thoughts and feelings are not what determines our morality, and while they argued genetics create our morality, as I stated, they just influence what we feel about something. If it's based on how we feel, then it's not objective.