BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Stability is the noblest of all virtues

"con does admit he would espouse utilitarianism. can't say he's necessarily wrong for his beliefs, but i disagree, and draw attention to his lack of concern for ethical and moral actions, usually 'means' to an 'end'"\Ethical and moral actions are meant to be judged by each individual society differently. This is in fact what makes societies differ, and in a stable socioety the established ethics and morals would differ from the common morals, which would allow the individuals to feel comfortable in their roles.\"so it seems that con concedes that there are better attributes than stability, given he admitted bill gates would be better to do what he does while unstable. con merely was able to argue that bill gates would be better as stable. cant argue wit that, but what we've concluded is that there are other attributes that trump stability. namely, ecnomomic stimulus, productivity, etc. it would be merely better that stabiilty be included too, but we see they are indeed better attribtues." How can you say that economic stimulus and productivity are harder to come by in a stable society and in fact impossible to include in a perfectly stable society. This is because the competitive nature of business causes individuals to encourage diadvantagment and the segregation of wealth, which in fact anger the masses and eventually cause rebellion. This can be seen in hundreds of cases across time. Competition encourages happiness in the few and unhappiness in the many which in fact is the massive problem in capitalistic society. Happiness should be encouraged rather than wealth and happiness in itself both encourages and is a byproduct of stability.
Stability is the noblest of all virtues

con does admit he would espouse utilitarianism. can't say he's necessarily wrong for his beliefs, but i disagree, and draw attention to his lack of concern for ethical and moral actions, usually 'means' to an 'end' so it seems that con concedes that there are better attributes than stability, given he admitted bill gates would be better to do what he does while unstable. con merely was able to argue that bill gates would be better as stable. cant argue wit that, but what we've concluded is that there are other attributes that trump stability. namely, ecnomomic stimulus, productivity, etc. it would be merely better that stabiilty be included too, but we see they are indeed better attribtues.
Stability is the noblest of all virtues

"he is espousing utilitarianism." I am espousing stability at all costs, as even though it may be detremental in the short term to many individuals it will help many more in the future. "'spread as much happy as you can'." Spreading happiness as a first step isn't the most efficient way at causing happiness. Bringing about conditions for happiness which are inherently stable is a much more efficient way of causing happiness among the masses along with stability. The happiness itself will work as a form of operant conditioning in which the individuals are constantly being reinforced by the behavior of stability with happiness."also, con has not adequately rebutted the last point, which measured outcomes by his own standards. con argues that bill gates would be better off as stable, sure. but he misses the point, that he and everyone would be better off, if he wasn't stable, but was still able to produce mirosoft and do his humanitarian efforts, and everything else. con's own standards are economic output, contentment, predicablity. while maybe there are some downsides to bill gates being unstable, the overall benefit would be best if he did what he did, but was unstable while doing it." I do not argue that progress cannot come through instability. Progress can in fact happen more in instability through competition, but it is at the cost of the happiness of many individuals and the detriment in being able to cause happiness in them through proper means in the future that this is payed as. Perhaps slower progress and happiness are what this society needs. It could lead to things such as reduced stress levels and longer, happier lives, which in fact many say the human goal should be.
Stability is the noblest of all virtues

con argues more benefit can be achieved by stability than by treating others as yourself. this is an issue of a fundamental nature, an inherent value, that i as wit hmost society value that sort of do unto to others stuff highest. there's nothing i can say that would change your mind if you view it otherwise. though, outside of a religous context, and into philopsy moe generally, he is espousing utilitarianism. this philsophy necessarily must have a 'evil means be damned' mindset to it. if it didn't, then everyone could claim to be a utilitarian, 'spread as much happy as you can'. the fact that con wants to place stability on such a high pedastal shows that even by moe secular meaasures, he is sacrificing inherent good and evil. also, con has not adequately rebutted the last point, which measured outcomes by his own standards. con argues that bill gates would be better off as stable, sure. but he misses the point, that he and everyone would be better off, if he wasn't stable, but was still able to produce mirosoft and do his humanitarian efforts, and everything else. con's own standards are economic output, contentment, predicablity. while maybe there are some downsides to bill gates being unstable, the overall benefit would be best if he did what he did, but was unstable while doing it.
Stability is the noblest of all virtues

"nobility often has the connotation of self sacrifice, as it should. it is better to treat others as you would like to be treated, than to always seek your own interest above theirs. focusing too much on stability would allow one to put themselves above others, in order to achieve their main goal, of stability. "Stability comes when the situation is beneficial for all. This is due to good conditions for all. This in fact makes it a virtue, as it is beneficial to all. Beneficial to all doesn't in fact mean all are happy, but it means all are content, which means as generations progress within the same structure of stability the children of these individuals will be happy due to the fact they will naturally be conditioned. Stability is in fact noble as it makes all happy over the long run. If an individual puts himself above others in order to cause stability he will benefit all individuals eventually if stability is created. "even aside from that commonly accepted virtue, we could look at the reasons stability are good, and find better virtues. stability brings economic benefit and predictability to oneself and one's friends and family, and country. but it says nothing of the degree of those things. wouldn't it be better to find a way to maximize your contribution to society and oneself but be unstable? he might have invented microsoft, then went on vacations, then maybe got himself admitted into a psych ward, then maybe abused drugs and alcohol, and then lived a normal life, but with lots of roller coaster of this stuff. it is still better that he do what he does than to be stable. "The "roller coaster ride" you speak of is in itself an argument for stability. During his highs and lows he reaches no more happiness than a stable individual would but in fact becomes much higher in sadness at times. This means that the unstable individual in fact suffered more.
Stability is the noblest of all virtues

stability is for sure a virtue. but there is no reason it should be considered the noblest. nobility often has the connotation of self sacrifice, as it should. it is better to treat others as you would like to be treated, than to always seek your own interest above theirs. focusing too much on stability would allow one to put themselves above others, in order to achieve their main goal, of stability. even aside from that commonly accepted virtue, we could look at the reasons stability are good, and find better virtues. stability brings economic benefit and predictability to oneself and one's friends and family, and country. but it says nothing of the degree of those things. wouldn't it be better to find a way to maximize your contribution to society and oneself but be unstable? he might have invented microsoft, then went on vacations, then maybe got himself admitted into a psych ward, then maybe abused drugs and alcohol, and then lived a normal life, but with lots of roller coaster of this stuff. it is still better that he do what he does than to be stable. i might add, it is just an odd, random, argument to make 'stability is the noblest of virtues'
My 99th Debate: Kids and Corporal Punishment

Please do not accept unless you intend to invest effort and not forfeit. I look forward to an interesting discussion. You must've completed 3 debates to accept this and you must have a minimum of 2,500 ELO to vote on this. Full TopicOn balance, parental use of corporal punishment is beneficial for the child. Rules1. Pro accepts the sole BOP2. No forfeits3. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate4. No new arguments in the final round5. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere6. No semantics or trolling7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Pro's presents his CaseR2. Con presents his Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's CaseR4. Con defends Con's Case, Pro rebuts Con's Case and CrystallizesR5. Con rebuts Pro's Case and CrystallizesThanks. .. .. .to whomever accepts; I eagerly look forward to a good debate!
The sun rises in the west

Okay, I took some time to think about this, and here is what I've concluded. If our eyes are indeed mirrors, I encourage you to do this simple trick. Stand in front of a mirror and wave your right hand. On the mirror, the right hand appears on the right side, and in reality your hand is on the right. I have to admit, this stumped me for quite a while, but that's just not how the brain processes light.
The sun rises in the west

Both perspectives agree. My retina and my brain tell me that in reality the sun rises in the west. The image captured on my retina is inverted both upsidedown and left to right. From my perspective it wouldn't make sense for me to be hanging in the air with the earth resting on my feet, so my brain flips the image upsidedown. But it has no reason to flip the image from left to right. That is why astronauts have problems distinguishing up from down in space but not left from right. Occum's razor states that the simpler of the two is logical. Invert vertically and invert horizontally or just invert horizontally. Left is in fact right. North is south and east is west. You are reading and writing from left to right. .ytilaer ni ekil skool ti tahw si sihT
The sun rises in the west

It is universally accepted that the sun rises in the East, and while you have a fine argument about the light captured in our eyes, it doesn't matter, as the sun only appears to rise in the East, even though it doesn't rise at all. Here, let me try and simplify that a bit. Why try and say the sun rises in the West when it doesn't even rise in the East? Are you trying to prove that the sun rises in the West from your brain's perspective or your retina's perspective?
Seahawks will make it back to the Play offs

I agree the NFC West is heated up but really the only threat is the Cardinals. Seattle has made it back to the Play offs due to the Defense they have, but this season the defense will get help from the offense. Russel Wilson and Doug Baldwin will have that connection through out the year like they did the second half of the season last year. Seattle is one of the biggest threat to the NFC, if Seattle maintains a excellent defense and a comeback offense then they will make it back to the play offs.
Seahawks will make it back to the Play offs

The Seahawks wont make it to the playoffs one reason being the way they started their season off last year. They showed the world that they can be beaten. They started off their season with an 0-2 losses with the St. Louis rams beating them then the green bay packers for the second. Also the NFC is heating up with other teams like the Panthers having their record twice last season. And the cardinals who are looking to get back to the NFC championship and hopefully win it all. Also teams like the Cincinnati Bengals and the Carolina Panthers beating them they have slim chances they'll make it back to the playoffs. Also they will loose a number of good talented players to larger teams. Players like Doug Baldwin and Jermaine Kearse being locked onto different teams radar and eventually leaving the seahawks tight end and receiving positions pressured.
Agnosticism is a more more plausible belief than atheism.

You are a very formiddabble opponent, I will admit. But there is one flaw with your argument. You said that I have to be able to prove something. All I have to prove is that atheism is more plausible than atheism. I don't have to prove the innerworkings of how a God does or does not work. So you are in fact the owner of the terrible, terrible logic. Both atheism and agnosticism challenge the existance of God in a way. As you said earlier, all we know right now is that God is just a notion in a man or woman's mind. About the human mind; everything is just a conception of the human mind because the human mind is the only reality we know. "Wrong. Even if that were true, you can't prove that God didn't let/guide humans to conceptualize God's existence." If you are making this assumption that God leads humans into conceptualizing his existance, you are making the assumption that free will/human conciousness is influenced by God, which would mean you believe in his existance.
Agnosticism is a more more plausible belief than atheism.

"The idea of God is a man-made notion that exists only in the human mind." 1 - Wrong. You cannot prove any of that. You cannot prove that God does not really exist and is only a fabrication of the mind. 2 - Wrong. Even if that were true, you can't prove that God didn't let/guide humans to conceptualize God's existence. These points - especially the first - only support agnosticism. You're making this easy. "why would I have to prove that it exists if I am backing up a BELIEF." Uh, all arguments are beliefs. You're supposed to defend those beliefs in a debate. "I am not trying to prove anything..." Well, with your lack of evidence/contentions, that's pretty obvious. "I am literally just saying that it is more likely that God does not exist which is why it is better to believe that no, he does not exist." This is terrible, terrible logic. Just because something is "more likely" (which you also have not made any attempt to prove, by the way) doesn't mean that you should be comfortable or confident in choosing an absolute, ignorant ideal over the reality that there is not enough evidence to either prove or disprove the notion of God. Sure, if one side has far more evidence or appeal than clearly it should affect your personal beliefs. However to ignorantly claim for a certainty that which has no absolute proof is not sensical. It's also hypocritical. If the argument against God is that there is no proof to the claims, then why should one reasonably argue that God absolutely does NOT exist when there's no absolute evidence of that either? Sure logic and reason can persuade you to believe in an atheistic point of view (I personally identify as an atheist). However, realistically, agnosticism is the more plausible and matter of fact POV.
Agnosticism is a more more plausible belief than atheism.

Agnosticism says that there is no way to know if God exists. There is something that is known pertaining to God however. The idea of God is a man-made notion that exists only in the human mind. It is possible to gain knowledge from a man made notion by conversing, reading, and using your senses. Since it is only a notion, you can know something about it. That is why atheism is plausible. And about the free will thing; why would I have to prove that it exists if I am backing up a BELIEF. I am not trying to prove anything, I am literally just saying that it is more likely that God does not exist which is why it is better to believe that no, he does not exist.
Agnosticism is a more more plausible belief than atheism.

The only argument my opponent made pertinent to the resolution was that it is "it is very plausible to believe that God does not exist based on all of the science and knowledge we have gained in the modern realm." A simple rebuttal is the fact that my opponent nor modern science has any evidence whatsoever that God or some Divine Creator - an omnipotent deity, if you will - had a role in ensuring that every scientific act, and all of the laws of nature and physics didn't exist according to or based on a specific plan, or at the hand of someone (something) else. I'd also like to note that my opponent has not proved the concept of free will nor disproved pre-destination. And finally, even if he did, he has not made one valid argument whatsoever concerning atheism in its direct relation to agnosticism, let alone its superiority.
Agnosticism is a more more plausible belief than atheism.

God cannot exist, because if he did, there would be no free will and everything would be predetermined. I think that it is very plausible to believe that I have complete control of my life and that my future will change based on the decisions I make. I also think that it is very plausible to believe in all of the laws of physics and natural laws. It is true what agnosticism states, but it is very plausible to believe that God does not exist based on all of the science and knowledge we have gained in the modern realm. As time moves forward, people are becoming atheist more and more because it is becoming clear that what is written in the bible is not true.
Agnosticism is a more more plausible belief than atheism.

First and foremost, I ask that my opponent accept the definitions of Atheism and Agnosticism as defined by the Oxford Dictionary: [1] Atheism -- The belief that God does not exist [2] Agnosticism -- The belief that nothing can be known concerning the existence of God That said, I affirm the notion that agnosticism is more appropriate or plausible than atheism. My premise is simple: An atheist, by definition, is certain that any concept of God is irrational and/or invalid. Meanwhile, an agnostic is certain that you can't be certain. There is currently no way to prove or disprove the very concept of a deity or its purpose, so to believe that God absolutely does not exist without evidence is no more intellectually superior or logical than believing without absolute evidence that God [in various descriptions or forms] *does* exist. [1] http://www.askoxford.com... [2] http://www.askoxford.com...
Crime and Mental Illness are linked

Have you ever heard anyone claim that committing a crime is evidence of having a mental illness? We think that only a mentally ill person would kill someone? So this means that anyone who kills another human is mentally ill? Think about it, when did the linking of mental illness and crime come into our lives? It came when we became afraid of the individuals predictability of committing a crime. We don"t know what they are thinking or how they think, so why don"t we just blame the peculiar person? It"s the easier way to solve the case" We shouldn"t discriminate against people who are mentally ill, healthy people are just as capable of committing a crime as mentally ill people are.
Crime and Mental Illness are linked

The rate of violence by the patients with psychotic disorders is 4.8 times higher than among their siblings, and 6.6 times higher than among the general population.This is something that should not be taken lightly.It is absolutely unacceptable that any person, whether they are mentally ill or not, commits a crime and is violent against others, but this is the reality that we are faced with in our society today.Yes, I must agree that not all mentally ill patients act violently, but if you consider the major to the minority, the minority is largely outnumbered.Psychopaths and sociopaths are people who are mentally ill. They have no feelings, no remorse and no guilt, and are the main cause for violence and criminal activity, especially murder.People like this are more dangerous than the general population of criminals, and justify the point made that crime and mental illness are indeed linked.People with schizophrenia are also more likely to become violent and act aggressively as they can not tell the difference between what is real and what is fake, this causes them to become paranoid and then causes them to want to hurt people based on what they think is true. They act upon delusions, not reality, and this is something that can"t be stopped.Borderline personality disorder, antisocial personality disorder, conduct disorder, and other personality disorders often manifest in aggression or violence. When a personality disorder occurs in conjunction with another psychiatric disorder, the combination may also increase risk of violent behaviour.Take for example, the well known Australian criminal, Martin Bryant. The perpetrator of the mass shooting and killings in Tasmania and the victim of a mental disability, known as asberger's. Having not received the proper medication, his symptoms began to get stronger and the voices inside of his head began to fog his thoughts.This caused him to become violent towards others, thinking he was doing the right thing.This is just one example of how crime and mental illness are linked.
Crime and Mental Illness are linked

Within a study of crimes that were committed by people with severe mental disorders, it was shown that only 7.5% actually had common symptoms of mental health disorders. It was found that 429 crimes that were committed by 143 people had only 3 mental disorders, they found out that 3% of their crimes were committed because of their symptoms, 4 percent to symptoms of schizophrenia disorders and 10 percent to symptoms of bipolar disorder. The rest of the crimes were committed by average people that weren"t diagnosed with mental disorders. Yes, some people that commit crimes have had mental health issues in their past, although it"s just like saying they have eaten pork before, or owned a Toyota brand car, it may be true but it doesn"t mean that"s why they did it. It"s just like saying that people that don"t have mental illnesses are incapable of committing a crime of any sort.