BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
a persons perspective is subjective

My opponent"s first point is that because we do not stop feeling, our perspective is bias. But see the thing is, just because we are feeling a certain emotion when thinking about something, does not mean that the feeling is necessarily affecting the view of something. For example, I could be having a bad day, but if my perspective of something is that it"s made up of atoms, then it"s clear my feelings didn"t affect it. My opponent"s logic would mean that every single point someone made, couldn"t be factual. Therefore nothing anyone has said could be objective because everything which one has said would be affected by feelings, but of course that"s not the case therefore in some points feelings do not affect points, thus not being subjective. "Would you say that are first action on anything as human beings is to be objective or are we subjective first? Do you not feel before your thoughts arrive, good example is anger, it rises so quick, we as human beings need a coping strategy to subdue are primal instincts." Does it matter which one is first? As long as there are such perspectives which can be objective, my side of the resolution is proven. If humans are hardwired to be subjective, that does not remove the perspectives of individuals to be objective. As my opponent said, there are some cases in which tools are used to make someone"s view objective, therefore that view is objective. Even if we didn't have these tools my opponent talks about, if humans have the ability think about a fact, then that person has the ability to have an objective view about something. My opponent"s last paragraph is about an article in which feelings affected someone"s view of something, but yet again, if one person is able to have an objective perspective, then it disproves my opponent"s side of the resolution. If someone"s perspective is that something or nothing exists, one of them has to be right, therefore since there are people on both sides of this contradiction, one side has to have an objective view.
a persons perspective is subjective

Could one be without feelings when speaking about a certain subject, sure we can hide our emotions but do we ever actually stop feeling. I am sure that my opponent would agree that emotions drive us in ever day life on a primitive level and yes we are able to consciously try and deal with them but it does not stop us from feeling them. That said does that alone not make us just a bit bias on any material we see, touch and examine in turn makes us subjective by nature. https://physicalspace.wordpress.com... Would you say that are first action on anything as human beings is to be objective or are we subjective first? Do you not feel before your thoughts arrive, good example is anger, it rises so quick, we as human beings need a coping strategy to subdue are primal instincts. https://brocku.ca... Unfortunately for us we are hard wired to feel. Feelings are subjective. I agree we have tools and strategies to make our perspective objective but are human nature is to be subjective and that is why these tools have been put in place. That said without these tools, which could be psychological strategies to scientific measurement equipment we remain subjective by nature which in turns makes our perspective subjective at every turn. https://intentionalworkplace.com... This is a quote from the article linked above "It was clear to Damasio that as a result of his surgery, Elliot was incapable of making decisions, "Elliott emerged as a man with a normal intellect who was unable to decide properly, especially when the decision involved personal or social matters." Even small decisions were fraught with endless deliberation: making an appointment took 30 minutes, choosing where to eat lunch took all afternoon, even deciding which color pen to use to fill out office forms was a chore. Turns out Elliott"s lack of emotion paralyzed his decision-making." Without emotion (which is subjective) we are unable to function correctly. Due to our emotions we will always remain subjective as well as our perspective.
a persons perspective is subjective

By definition someone's perspective is someone's view, and my opponent is arguing that in all situations someone's view is subjective. But what if they saw something factual? If they saw something factual then it would be something objective, thus proving my side of the resolution. Unless my opponent tries to argue that no one can see anything factual. However someone's perspective does not necessarily mean it has to be a judgment or an opinion, someone's view of something could be for example, "that chair is made up of atoms".
Crime and mental health are linked.

I disagree, Just because a person with a mental health issues mind isn't all there it doesn't mean that they commit such a violent and heronduse act, There are many motives a person could have them make them want to commit a crime. Some of those include revenge, Frustration, Hate, Money, Jealousy, Conflict, Pasion, Drug addict, Rational choice, For the fun of it, Religion, Etc.
Crime and mental health are linked.

It is known mental health can cause behaviour that hurts others. People are not their true selves when associated with a mental health issue and many people forget their purpose on earth when their mind is distracted and influenced by something else. This is why crime can be committed because of mental health issues. Since people's minds can be so intensely associated with a thought or emotion in their head, Violence, Theft or other crimes may be committed since it allows escapism from their mind. In Australia, 8% of males in prison are recorded to have a metal or psychotic disorder and 14% of women according to the AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT. This is proof we cannot rule out mental disorders as a cause of Australian crime.
Crime and mental health are linked.

Not all crimes that are committed because you can't cope with emotions and difficulties. The majority of crimes have no link to mental health whatsoever. The percentage of someone with a mental problem and committed a crime is 18% out of 100%. Research was conducted that the three major types of mental illness include major depression, Schizophrenia disorder which affects a person's ability to think, Feel and behave clearly and lastly bipolar disorder. However these people with these illness are most of the time more dangerous to themselves than other people around them.
Crime and mental health are linked.

Crime is linked to mental health issues and is caused by not being able to cope with emotions and difficulties. In particular, Strain in a person"s life is the major cause of crime in our world. A strain is what fear and anger stem off and this causes all sorts of violence and impulsive actions. Strain can result from losing something of value, Such as a career or marriage, Personal relationships went wrong or from failing to get something of value. Strain into someone"s life leads to negative emotions such as sadness, Depression, Anxiety or anger and when a person has a negative emotion from the strain they become unable to cope with their difficulties. Violence and crime by adults is a childlike response to a frightening world that they believe has been unfair to them and is deserving of punishment. Also, Anger from not knowing how to cope with difficulties is associated with violent acts, Including homicide, Aggravated assault, Rape, Domestic violence, Child abuse, Bullying, Torture, And even terrorism according to leading criminologist, Dr Robert Agnew.
Jesus wasn't a sacrifice for our sins.

The first definition Pro provided for sacrifice is: The offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. Notice that this definition explicitly includes offering a human life, and there is no mention of who does the offering. There is nothing in this definition which suggests that someone else must offer my life for me to be a sacrifice. According to the definition of sacrifice Pro provided there is no reason say that I could no offer my own life in self-sacrifice. Then Pro openly admits that "Jesus himself had to supposedly do it himself." Pro has first established the definition of sacrifice, and then told us how Jesus sacrificed himself. By Pro"s own admission Jesus was a sacrifice. Now, to address some of the other points Pro made. Pro says it is "somewhat inconsistent" that an innocent person would sacrifice for a guilty person. However, there is nothing inconsistent about the idea. For instance, imagine that my friend hits a baseball through his neighbor's window, but he does not have the money to replace the window. I could pay for the damages. I could sacrifice my money to pay for what my friend has done. Obviously the cost of a life is a more extreme example, but it follows the same principle. We owed a debt we could not pay, so Jesus sacrificed himself for our debt. In his second paragraph, Pro seems to move away from the topic of this debate, but I will address what he wrote. A perfectly just God cannot simply ignore sin. That would be a crime against justice. To ignore sin would not be an issue of power. To ignore sin would a violation of God"s nature, a self-contradiction, and that is something God cannot do. Justice must be satisfied. So to satisfy justice God took the punishment on Himself. He came to earth as a man, lived a life that in no way deserved death, and sacrificed his life to satisfy justice and provide mercy for us. People are not built to sin. We are built to have moral freedom - the freedom to choose between good and evil. God cannot "fix" free will. He can remove free will - make it so that we cannot choose between good and evil - or He can deal with the results of poorly used free will. However, it is logically impossible for us to be both "free" and "not free" at the same time. Either we have moral freedom, which comes with the risk of doing evil, or we do not. Finally, I would like to point out that the Bible repeatedly says that Jesus is a sacrifice for our sins. Hebrews 7:27: Unlike the other high priests, he (Jesus) does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. Hebrews 9:26: But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. Matthew 20:28: The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many. John 10:15: The Father knows me and I know the Father-- and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Jesus wasn't a sacrifice for our sins.

I don't like having a very complex, elaborate, or long argument for the second round for the sole reason that people don't respond. http://dictionary.reference.com... 1. The offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2.: an act of killing a person or animal in a religious ceremony as an offering to please a god |Jesus (the son of god) supposedly died for sins committed by man so god would be able to forgive mankind for the atrocities they have done.| < Can the Con agree on this? Jesus being sacrificed isn't even consistent to the term sacrifice. The people who killed Jesus clearly didn't intend for him to be a sacrifice ( this is very clear....) . Instead Jesus himself had to supposedly do it himself. If man willing gave up Jesus's life so god could forgive mankind then that would have at least some consistent logic ,this is still somewhat inconsistent too because why would some innocent person be held accountable for a guilty mans deeds?. But this is how it went down: Romans who weren't even christian arrested, tried, sentenced, and killed Jesus in one of the most painfullest ways possible Crucifixion. But then lets say Jesus was someway magically a sacrifice. Then it would still be the most illogical thing ever. Jesus or God sacrifices himself, to God (himself), in order to forgive mankind and protect it from God (himself). God is said to be all powerful but how can he not just forgive man for what he has done instead of have a innocent person die for mankind's actions. THIS DOESN'T MAKE any sort of sense. God is also omniscient ( all-knowing) so God should know man was built to sin and he should of fixed it on the spot.......
Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty

Hello, there!!! Today, I will be debating on the motion that purchasing milk from super markets doesn't endorse animal cruelty, instead it dissuades us from doing so. Now, if you go deeper, you will understand that purchasing meat from markets endorses this cruelty, not purchasing milk. Because, for exracting milk, you need not do anything which imposes serious kinds of threat to those domestic animals. And if somebody like you or I do that, the feeling will grow among you that we should be sympathetic to animals. If milk is not bought from the markets, neither this opportunity nor some other benefits are available. Last of all, if you are benefitted enough from this business, then and only then you will be able to provide it with its necessities, otherwise not possible at all. Now if you cannot provide it with what it wants, it cannot be called mercy/humanity, can it? So come on and understand the fact well. Coming on in the next round.......
Purchasing milk from the supermarket endorses animal cruelty

I Pro will argue for the topic Con will argue against the topic Endorse "a. To express approval of or give support to, especially by public statement; sanction: endorse a change in policy; endorse a political candidate." thefreedictionary Animal cruelty "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse or animal neglect, is the human infliction of suffering or harm upon non-human animals, for purposes other than self-defense or survival." freedictionary.com http://www.thefreedictionary.com... http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...
no one should be left behind

My opponent gets minus S&G points for using more than 7 exclamation points for the same sentence, and having a "1" within all those exclamation points. Anyways, let me defend my case.Defense: "You are wrong with that post it doesn't have that much secarity at the zoo because there are good animals there at the zoo they would behave and it is to wrong to hurt or leave anyone behind."1) Not only is the security for keeping animals from getting out, it's also for keeping civillians from getting in the dens. The child is a civillian, and shouldn't have been inside the exhibit, regardless of Harambe's intentions.2) Alright. I'll give my own example of it being good to leave someone behind. Let's assume lions are trying to eat you and your friend. You both are running away, but your friend trips. The lions are getting close. Do you save your friend (which could get both of you eaten), or do you ditch him, saving yourself? I like living, so I would continue running far away. My friend's probably going to get eaten anyways, so why risk my own life trying to save what can't be saved?"you say to leave harambe behind but I say no.he was protecting the kid not trying to hurt!!!!!!!!!!!!"Only 1 exclamation point's necessary. Also, use the Shift key more. (I care much about Spelling & Grammar) Anyways, you don't know Harambe's intentions. You aren't Harambe, and he died over 5 months ago. I highly doubt he kept a last will or even paper. You're making an unverifiable claim; a claim that's impossible to prove true.If you look up the incident, it says Harambe was dragging the child on the ground. That would hurt, especially if you're under 10 years old. I guess the security staff did overreact a bit. They did shoot a (plausibly friendly) gorilla. But enough about then! Make sure no other being (human, gorilla, or otherwise) gets hurt. Increase security to keep more children from entering any exhibit.Again, if you're not leaving Harambe behind, who is dead, you're referencing him a lot. If you're leaving Harambe behind, you're putting the past in the past, and you can work for a better future. And isn't that what Jirachi wants?#dreamsoutforJirachi
no one should be left behind

I accept. And I disagree with the Instigator's argument. We should leave Harambe behind.Let me explain. Harambe died over 5 months ago. Security was weak, so a child snuck in Harambe's area. The security guards then shot Harambe in an attempt to save the child. All people are now is "y u kill harambe" and "dks out for harambe". Stop it people, he's dead. It's done with. Let's stop worrying about that Gorilla. Instead, let's increase security for our zoos.Think about it: To not leave the complaints behind... what good is that doing? Instead, leave Harambe behind, and focus on the new gorillas, try to make their cages better. Stop worrying about last month, and start worrying about today. What happened then, happened then. Look forward, not back. Jirachi would be proud if you looked towards your future.
Democratic Socialism (Pro) vs. Free-Market Capitalism (Con)

Throughout this debate it was the task of the Pro (through burden of proof) to prove why democratic socialism is superior to free-market capitalism. However the Pro failed to do so on a number of levels to which I will list. The Pro claimed that the global recession of 2008 was caused by the free market systems throughout the financial sectors of the United States. This claim however was refuted when I displayed that the reason for the recession was because of the abysmal interest rate policies of the United State's Federal Reserve. The Pro claimed, "Not only has the free-market system permitted large corporations to wreak such havoc in the economy, but also compelled us, as taxpayers, to save the 'too big to fail' financial institutions: in the USA, the government was forced to pay out over $120 billion in order to keep Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae afloat; in the UK the government spent "37 billion bailing out RBS, Lloyds TSB and HBOS. "The reality of the situation ultimately was that it was the policies of the Federal Reserve that allowed this economic downturn to happen and not from the result of free enterprise. The Pro then continued a string of unfounded criticisms relating to the United State's health care system and how it's so called free market policies made it worse then the democratic socialist models of the European Union. The problem is (like with many of the Pro's arguments), is that the comparisons and dichotomies he presents are inherently false due to the fact that the United States is not a free market economy and to argue off of it as a platform is fallacious. The Pro throughout the debate attempted to hide his errors by dodging them with semantics such as,"Note that in my previous argument, I referred to the US health care system as "free-market dominated" not "free market". It is rather clear that the Pro while displaying a basic understanding of the concepts in this debate, fails to substantiate his claims through the burden of proof that the democratic socialist model is somehow superior to a free market system. Hopefully the errors made by the Pro become clear. Vote Con. All Sources:1. . http://www.princeton.edu...2. . http://www.investopedia.com...3. . http://www.economist.com...4. . http://www.justice.gov...
Democratic Socialism (Pro) vs. Free-Market Capitalism (Con)

I shall conclude by making a full case for democratic socialism.Overall, when one examines countries with predominantly democratic socialist policies, such as Sweden, Norway, and Finland, their GDPs per capita are in the top 20 of the world (according to the world bank). This, in itself, is not particularly remarkable, but what is more important is the relative income equalities in these nations: they have gini index percentages (according to the world bank) of 25, 25.8 and 26.9 respectively (0% meaning income is completely evenly spread for all citizens, 100% meaning 1 person owns the whole nation's income), in comparison to the US's and UK's figures of 45 and 34. This shows that wealth can be created and maintained just as well in democratic socialist economies than in more free-market leaning economies, and what's more, the wealth distribution created by said economies is far fairer- It is only right that, under democratic socialist policies, such as progressive taxation (with Sweden as a leading exponent, with a top income tax rate of 57%) the ones who have benefitted the most from society, from the employers who take an advantage of an educated and skilled workforce, to the lawyer who has studied at a state-funded university make the greatest contribution back to it.What's more, when the vast majority of people are sufficiently above the poverty line (Sweden and Norway officialy have a poverty rate of N.A.%), thanks to policies that provide a decent minimum wage (although due to the power of unions in Norway, Sweden and Finland, there is no need for a formal minimum wage) in, without the government having to subsidise employers who pay poverty wages, this creates a healthy amount of disposable income in economic communities, which, in turn, stimulates further economic activity.Sources http://data.worldbank.org...;http://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.cia.gov...https://www.cia.gov...http://www.forbes.com...P.S. I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting and challenging debate. (Given that it's my first debate) It's been a rather steep learning curve. I hope that he has enjoyed this debate as much as I have.