BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nihilists are hypocrites

"1 - A person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 - A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings" I accept definition #2 of hypocrite. Sorry about the lack of clarification. "A nihilist challenges value systems, and truth values many take for granted to be true in society. In many ways, nihilism is similar to atheism or skepticism. " Nihilism is total rejection of the social mores, but everyone participates in the social mores. Thus, anyone who claims to be nihilist is a hypocrite. "A nihilist argues that existence is without OBJECTIVE meaning/purpose/value. There is no final destination, no destiny, no higher power who has placed an intrinsic value on our life. However, there are SUBJECTIVE purposes, for which many nihilists, and atheists, and many other philosophies embrace. " Everyone participates in life in order to reach some destination. Everyone does this because of the objective meaning of the destination, the value of the destination, and the purpose driving them to the destination. If you deny that these exist, then you are hypocritical. "Society does not require OBJECTIVE meaning/purpose/value. It is a population of humans characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture and/or institutions. [1] Exactly how would believing there are no objective purposes be hypocritical for nihilists? People play a role in society, because society needs that to function. Society as a whole may have some desired goal or objective, but is there INTRINSICALLY an OBJECTIVE goal of society? Of course not. Each society determines what it's objectives will be, just like humans, and just like nihilists. " You just pointed out a goal. ;) Society's intrinsic goal is to function. Yes, there are more superficial goals, as you have pointed out, but the intrinsic goal is to function. In society, we determine group goals that satisfy all of our individual goals. But if you wish to further discuss intrinsic goals, let's must divest the many layers to get to the most basic parts of society: humans. I argue that the intrinsic purpose of every human (every animate being) is to live! How can you say that life has no purpose? Everything you do is to achieve something in life.
Nihilists are hypocrites

"A nihilist is a person who does not bow down to any authority, who does not accept any principle on faith, however much that principle may be revered." - Ivan Turgenev. My opponent has a dreadful misunderstanding of nihilism, and I will explain why. My opponent's definition of nihilism is a philosophical position, and not a political position nor a synonym for anomie in individuals. [Definition - hypocrite] http://mw1.meriam-webster.com... 1 - A person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion 2 - A person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings ~Counterarguments~ A nihilist challenges value systems, and truth values many take for granted to be true in society. In many ways, nihilism is similar to atheism or skepticism. 1. Nihilists and Society A nihilist argues that existence is without OBJECTIVE meaning/purpose/value. There is no final destination, no destiny, no higher power who has placed an intrinsic value on our life. However, there are SUBJECTIVE purposes, for which many nihilists, and atheists, and many other philosophies embrace. Society does not require OBJECTIVE meaning/purpose/value. It is a population of humans characterized by patterns of relationships between individuals that share a distinctive culture and/or institutions.[1] Exactly how would believing there are no objective purposes be hypocritical for nihilists? People play a role in society, because society needs that to function. Society as a whole may have some desired goal or objective, but is there INTRINSICALLY an OBJECTIVE goal of society? Of course not. Each society determines what it's objectives will be, just like humans, and just like nihilists. 2. Nihilists and Basic bodily needs The purpose of life is not to live. There is no purpose for life. For many people they have a reason for living but there is no inherent or intrinsic meaning connected with existing. There was no purpose for the Big Bang, no objective meaning for it. It just happened. And from that, led to abiogenesis, and evolution, and us. Existence is. That's all, nothing more, nothing less. Ergo, anyone who claims nihilists are hypocritical are douchebags :) ---References--- 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Nihilists are hypocrites

Wikipedia says, "Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical position that argues that existence is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value" Contention 1: It is impossible for one to be fully nihilist. Nihilists cannot participate in society. Everything in society requires purpose, objective meaning, or intrinsic value. All people play a role in society. Contention 2: In addition, all basic survival skills stem from purpose, objective meaning and intrinsic value. We drink to quench our thirst; we eat to satisfy our hunger; we protect ourselves to avoid death. Nihilists cannot escape from the inherent needs of humans! Ergo, anyone who claims to be nihilist is hypocritical.
A World Without Lies

This debate is about whether a world without lies would either (Pro) morally correct/good or (Con) morally incorrect/evil. I will take the position of con. Good-beneficial to the human race as a general whole. Evil-detrimental to the human race as a general whole. Lie-a deliberate deception engineered to hide or conceal truth, for any reason. Truth-a fact, something that is inherently correct; the manner something clearly is/the way it clearly occurred. In this debate, morality will be assumed as subjective.
Resolved: Government in the United States ought not function through Biblical principles.

Please excuse the rather late posting of my argument, but I am glad that my opponent has decided to debate this with me, and I must affirm the resolution. My only definition from the resolution is the following in order to clarify it as such:Function (v.): "to carry on a function or be in action : operate" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)With these definitions established, we move on to the iteration of my case. Contention 1: Biblical principles are unjust. To utilize the basic principles of the Bible in order to perform government functions of policymaking and interpreting justice would be counterintuitive because the principles themselves are inherently unjust when analyzing it through the perspective of granting fairness and equal rights to all people. Sub-point 1a: The Bible is prejudiced against women and homosexuals. The nature of prejudice is inherentle unjust because it denies essential rights and equal treatment to a group of people simply because of their being in that group of people without reasonable explanation of why this group of people is less deserving of said rights and privileges. This is exactly what the Bible does with the following clauses:Colossians 3:18; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Genesis 3:16; Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:23; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Romans 1:18-32.Sub-point 1b: The Bible promotes violence against members of other religions. Deuteronomy 13:13-19; Deuteronomy 13:7-12 Regions in the United States that are generally more socially conservative tend to have higher incidences of suicide and bullying rates among homosexual teenagers, according to not only the study explained in the article "Pediatric study: suicide among gay and straight teens higher in politically conservative regions," but countless other articles as well that detail the effects of conservative environments on homosexuals. Bullying is also higher in said regions. The Founding Fathers were adamant in belief that religion is negativeJames Madison had the following to say: " Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together." Thomas Jefferson had the following to say: " I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state."Benjamin Frankling had the following to say: "I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
Reason is necessary for building strong faith

In my opening argument, I mentioned that the Bible will be used as evidence in this debate. As I pointed out previously, faith is based on accurate knowledge. In the examples you have pointed out, its easy to see that they look contradictory when the passage is not understood and taken out of context. Consider the imagined contradiction between light and the sun and how it is resolved. The book of Genesis was written with a point of view of a person on earth. A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one "day" continued into one or more of the following "days." For example, before the first creative "day" started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth's surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first "day," this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere. On the second "day," the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth "day," the atmosphere gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear "in the expanse of the heavens. " (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually. In the second instance where the uncertainty of which was first, man or trees or animals. A careful analysis of the bible reveals that the 2nd chapter of Genesis is about the creation of a "home" or garden for the habitation of humans(Gen 2:8,9). It became necessary to create that home for humans to live and so before the place was created, it was barren, devoid of life. This does not mean that trees, birds were not in existence, rather they were not in that particular area. And in the area of external evidence supporting the bible, I think you will be amazed at what you find if you search for it. So when dealing with contradictory looking passages, it is wise to understand the passage contextually, asking questions and comparing with other passages. This logical approach to study will build faith.
Reason is necessary for building strong faith

I notice that definitions seem to be lacking beyond "Reason, so I shall rectify the situation. Contradiction: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something {1} Logic: a proper or REASONable way of thinking about or understanding something. {1} Using these definitions, avoiding Contradictions is a self-evident component of being reasonable or having reason, as contradictions cannot be simultaneously true, therefore any contradiction should be thrown out by the reasonable mind. The bible is riddled with contradictions might I add. Among them "Trees were created before man was created. " and "Man was created before trees were created.". Let's not forget "On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. " and "The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.". In addition "God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's. " and "God shows no partiality. He treats all alike." {2} That being said, you cite the Bible as evidence, yet the bible has never been peer reviewed. We've never found the Ark that Noah supposedly built, nor have we found Geological evidence of any flood. In continuing with this theme, the bible has only internal support. Stephen Hawking, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, etc have never found evidence to support the idea of religion. This lack of support, in conjunction with the vast number of contradictions, leads us to the conclusion that Faith in the Bible is independent of Logical Reason. Therefore, you should negate the resolution. {1}:http://www.merriam-webster.com... {2}:http://infidels.org...
Reason is necessary for building strong faith

The first evidence to show that reason is compatible with faith is the biblical definition of faith. Hebrews 11:1 defines it "faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities that are not seen"( New world translation). Consider the phrase "evident demonstration of realities that are not seen". Let me give an example. You are in one of the forests of Africa when suddenly, you feel tremors and hear a deafening noise. When you raise your eyes, you see a dense screen of dust. You know what these signs mean; a stampede. Here, the tremors and dense screen of dust with the noise together form an "evident demonstration " of the yet unseen reality, the stampede. Your faith thus moves you to flee. So such faith is the act of believing in something unseen for which we have a good reason. So, rather than being naive, a person with true faith bases his beliefs on careful scrutiny of all available data, enabling him to have a conviction that even things that cannot be seen with the eyes are realities. The next is the words at Romans 12:1."...your worship of God should be done in a way worthy of thinking beings" ( The Jerusalem Bible). So the faith mentioned in the bible must be thought through carefully, resulting in trust in God and in His word firmly based on reason. And such reason is needed to "make sure of all things" (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So our religious beliefs must be subjected to logical examinations with the light if the Bible before it provides faith that can stand the test of time. This should be done so that we are "always ready to make a defence before everyone who demands of you a reason for your hope"(1 peter 3:15). And so, when faced with perplexing questions regarding what we find in the Bible, one does well to understand the situation, context and try to discern the reason behind an action before we draw conclusions. This will help us to build a stronger faith than one who just accepts it because he is a Christian.
Reason is necessary for building strong faith

I accept this topic and wish a fair and impartial debate. Merriam-Webster defines Faith as: A strong belief or Trust in someone or something. Using this definition, Reason isn't a prerequisite for Faith. Merriam-Webster defines reason as: The power of the mind to think and understand in a logical way. Using this definition however, faith cannot coexist with reason in all circumstances. Using this definition, contradictions become an impediment to true reason. Proverbs 12:22 "Lying Lips are an abomination to the lord". However, in I Kings 22:23, the bible says " The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." These verses cannot be simultaneously true. If you accept Proverbs, then the prophets have sinned and are thus not fit to be the voice of god. If you accept I Kings, then the prophets are liars by default, and thus you should throw out religion until a clearer authority can be found. If you don't accept these verses, than you cannot be truly religious. Accepting them however, is contradictory to the idea of Reason. Therefore, reason is not integral to one's religious belief.
Reason is necessary for building strong faith

I am bringing back this topic as the previous opposition pulled out. As stated earlier, I feel sad when a respected religious individual uses faith as a reason not to confront the shaky areas in his beliefs. So I wish to use the Bible to prove to Christians why faith is compatible with reason or logic.. Round 1: acceptance Round 2: arguments Round 3: rebuttals Round 4: rebuttals. I await your acceptance.
Who won the War of 1812

The reasons for war was a bit more then this.. The United States declared war for maritime reasons. The United States failed to achieve any of their objectives that they set out to win. Britain maintained the right of impressment. Britain maintained the right of blocking neutral trade. Those actions stopped not cause the United States made them too but cause the British defeated their much larger enemy in Europe. By the end of the war the British still occupied 40,000 km2, a crushing blockade that nearly ran the US to bankruptcy, won majority of the battles both on land and at sea, retained their 'rights' that the United States fought to end, and kept Canada. Status Quo kept everything as it was prior to the war. Hence, The United States failed their primary objectives and the British Empire didn't.
Who won the War of 1812

The goals of the British Empire in the War of 1812 was to prevent the U.S from annexing Canada, and than invaded the nation, but didn't gain or lose any land. The U.S's goals was to annex Canada, and was pushed back, but prevented the British from conquering them, and was deemed the Second War of Independence, and also lost no land, but got fishing rights in the Great Lakes. Canada, with British help repelled the U.S, but also, like the others, gained nothing of importance. If the British/Canadians forces really won, it would've been by invading and annexing the U.S.
Who won the War of 1812

The War of 1812 was a war between the United States of America and the British Empire that lasted between June 18, 1812 " February 18, 1815. Pro will argue that the British Empire won and con will argue that the United States won. Burden will obviously be shared. Winning a war is to be defined as "The desired territorial, economic, military, political or other benefits expected following successful conclusion of a war"
"You take their guns, I'll keep my gun"

You should be able to have hunting rifles, but nothing else. Why do you need an assault rifle? You can put as many regulations and background checks as you want but there are too many people out there with problems that we don"t know about until it"s too late. The background checks and regulations should still be put in place to reduce the amount of mentally ill people with guns, but someone will still get a gun, and it"s better that that gun is a hunting rifle that can not cause mass shootings rather than an assault rifle that can. Even in Colonial times when the Second Amendmant was first enacted, the amount of gun powder you could have was regulated, and that"s when they only had Muscat"s! It"s not denying your right to bear arms if you still have a hunting rifle, but with more advanced guns must come tighter restrictions and reforms.
"You take their guns, I'll keep my gun"

Gun violence is all over the news. The topic of gun control has come up again an again, more recently because of the high school shooting in Parkland, Florida. People want the government to take more extreme actions in gun control. These people are acting irrationally, they are letting their current fears cloud their common sense. Someone says that a US citizen should not be allowed to own guns and that all existing firearms should be taken away. Well, if the government apprehends the guns, the only people who will give them up are the law abiding citizens. The criminals who we want the guns taken away from, who have possession of illegal firearms, will not give them up. It would be a futile move on the government to prohibit the ownership of guns.
roblox is a bad game for noibs

Uou are shpwign me that I have won and are breaking down into a frenzied fit, but i shall pound you futhur! Minecraft has one thing ing to do in it, and that is build and use barebones fight. RABlx, has litmitless thibgs to do as there are an infinite amoute of "quality" games and it doesn't cost money. As a 9 year old, im too poor for mine cap because my mom wont give me money >:(. Plus, roblox has guns and better graphmics. So HA
roblox is a bad game for noibs

minecraft is bnot feull of bulleis ur the only b ulkly man what the heck!??!? also ur pretty gay BC U have a gf thats probably a frickin T R A P which is like super dumb XDDDDDDDDDD. also people on roblox are not nice soem one kalled my mum kinda dumb on roblox not rlly but i thought they did and i reported them and they didnt get banned so like yeah ur sinnedful
roblox is a bad game for noibs

U call me a meaniehead, yet u call my cute baby that i adoted and raised U G L Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT'S REALLY MEAN!!!!!!! U know who's ugly? U! HAHAHAHA! Roblx cant get boorin because ur just not looking hard enuf for the best games!! Wuth mine craft there is a limit to what u can do. Plus, roblox is free so everyone can play it! Eat that u stinky! Don't talk to me or my cute baby ever again or else my roblox girlfriend will sue u! She is 25!!!!
roblox is a bad game for noibs

No u minecraft is the baddest and most overrated game ever made. In myne craft you can do nothing because I don't know what to do and it iis boring . With the robox you hav like 4024984249250300140140249232923023 quality games like ____ tycoon, escape the jail, pokerman dick bronze, and so many more!!!!!! While minecraft is one dumb and bad boring and stupid gay stinky game, roblox is like a trillion "quality" ones!
roblox is a bad game for noibs

Time to finish this! Mine stab is for children! People who play minecraft are 5 years old! Like u XDXDFXDXDXDXDDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXDXD! Roblox is for teens and adults! HAHA! BABY!
Resolved: The United States federal government should require all states to legalize gay marriage.

Pro Case First, you said: “The right to marry isn't in any documents like the Bill of Rights, but it is somewhat implied in the United States Declaration of Independence.” The point here is that unless you can prove that the Declaration of Independence determines which laws are enacted then this point is legally meaningless. Second, yes we do. It is protected under the 1st Amendment right to speech. Anything which expresses our thoughts, desires or viewpoints as long as it is not dangerous or can incite violence or disruption is protected. But moreover, you misunderstand my point because the substance of your argument derives from negative rights, which as I pointed out does not apply in the case of marriage. My argument wasn’t a strawman but rather a logical extension of your argument. If it is true that negative rights necessarily entail positive rights or privileges then they only way to actualize this concept is to have a statist welfare society. The problem with this however is that in order to pay for all these positive rights, the negative right to property must be violated. It thus becomes a contradiction. Expanding the benefits of marriage means that the use of taxpayer money, i.e. property is being diverted to other causes outside the primary function of governance. No warrant to his claim that society has a problem if marriage costs too much. He concedes the Christian argument. Con case C1: Constitutionality – the 10th Amendment He ran out of time to respond to this.