BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Objective morality requires the existence of a god.

Sorry for the forfeit. I forgot this debate had a 24 hour time limit. == Pro Case == Objective morality is essentially a set of transcendental prescriptive facts regarding the actions of human beings. Just by examining the definition of objective morality, three points in favor of the resolution can be raised. (1) Atheism mandates physicalism (I will elaborate more on that later, if Con contests it), which means there is no room for transcendental constructs like morality to have any sort of objective existence (as they are inherently non-physical). This is not a problem under theism because God himself isn't physical, and therefore physicalism is obviously false. Moreover, the existence of transcendental concepts must be grounded in the existence of a similarly transcendental source. (2) The fact that morality only applies to human beings indicates that they have some sort of special status compared to the rest of the inanimate & amoral universe. There is simply no basis for this under atheism, because humans would essential be no more than highly-evolved animals. This is not a problem under theism because, as many religions preach, God could have specially created human beings in his image, thereby granting them their exceptional moral significance. (3) Prescriptive facts are, by definition, commands on what we should or should not do, and are therefore inherently communicative. However, communication necessarily involves intelligence, implying that the source of prescriptive facts must be an intelligent being of some sort -- i.e. God. == Con Case == Con's fallacy is circular reasoning, as he is already presuming that some sort of objective morality exists independently of God's existence in order to make this argument. Out of the two option presented by the Euthyphro dilemma, I choose the former -- an act is "good" because God deems it so. Con's only objection to that is: "this would mean that rape, murder, torture for fun, etc. would be morally correct if the god tells us to do those things... that makes it possible for acts that do nothing but harm to be called righteous acts". However, there is no real reason to see this as a problem. Con is assuming that his ethical intuitions and utilitarian reasoning hold some sort of objective moral significance -- he is assuming that there is already an objective moral standard in place which can govern whether or not God's commands is "right" or "wrong", yet that is exactly what he has to prove! I have provided three reasons to believe that objective morality requires the existence of God, while Con has provided a single fallacious argument. The resolution is affirmed.
Objective morality requires the existence of a god.

The simplest form of the objection to the claim that objective morality depends on the existence of a god is the Euthyphro dilemma. Is an act good because a god deems it so, or does a god approve of it because it is good? If it is good because god deems it so, then morality has become defined as divine command theory which is to say that whatever a god tells us to do counts as good because he said so. This would mean that rape, murder, torture for fun, etc. would be morally correct if the god tells us to do those things. If the god approves of it because it is good, then its goodness is independent of the god. An common defense to this is to say that god's nature is goodness, so what he tells us to do is good not because he decided it, but because his very nature is goodness so anything he tells us to do will be good. This, however just brings us to a second form of the Euthyphro dilemma. Is god's nature good because it is his nature or is it good because it causes him to approve of good acts. If it is only good because it is his nature, then you are still stuck with the problems seen with divine command theory. If his nature is good because it causes him to approve of good acts, then that type of nature is good independent of the existence of a god and the acts that are approved would still be approved whether or not he existed. Thus if objective morality exists, it is either something that is absurd that makes it possible for acts that do nothing but harm to be called righteous acts or it is something independent of a god. I do not yet have a completely sound argument for objective moral values, but I never claimed that I did. If I did I would have worded the argument as "Objective moral values exist" without reference to a god.
Objective morality requires the existence of a god.

I will be arguing against the premise that objective morality requires the existence of a god or any other supernatural being. For the purpose of this debate, I will define objective morality as true moral values that apply regardless of the opinions or beliefs of any human being. I would say any rational being, but then I would be defining objective morality as something that does not depend on a god which would be dishonest since pro is meant to argue that objective morality depends on a god, and most gods are thought to be rational beings. Round 1: Acceptance only Round 2: Arguments offered for and against the premise Round 3: Rebuttals, no new arguments. Round 4: Closing statement.
Minecraft is better than roblox

Minecraft: Unlimited Possibilities Not only can you include free texture packs (created by the people for the people) but various Modding packs ( Techninc, Tekkit, Feed The Beast, Hexxit etc.) but also an unlimited amount of servers. With regular updates and inclusions in the Minecraft world, Minecraft itself is an overall great game. Minecraft is better : Here's why I believe why minecraft is better: minecraft has mods that even roblox doesn't have in its personal game, secondly there is a reason why they added days so you can have a day and night like in real life (survive the outdoors 'go figure') lastly, BEST SERVERS EVER Minecraft is better! Minecraft is better because you only have to pay $25 for it. Robox you have to pay $300 for OBC which is stupid. And a item is 400 robux which NBCers can't even get robux. When you trade 20 tix you get 1 robux. And roblox only cares about money. They don't care about NBC or BCers. They should just get rid of the game. Mine craft is better here are the reasons I am the creator of this question and I will give you facts and reasons why roblox sucks like crap roblox: 1. Roblox is a game that is not made for kids most the time once in a while you see a game that kids younger then 18 should not be looking like this game 'da clubz' was a perverted game about have sexual intercourse 2. Roblox moderates don't care. When someone bothers you or online dates and go to report menu it says chat logs will see what happens which is a total lie and sometimes they wont even ban you sometimes. And the time you try to ban someone they get banned for 2-4 days that's it. 3. Roblox has complete noobs ,hackers, exploiter and online daters, plus spammers here is info on all :Online daters are boys and girls looking for companions online and do not know who they are dating. Most online daters are found in hangouts and City games. :Spammers are people who constantly do things over and over which can happen almost every where :Hackers and exploiter are people who just have a bad life and want to ruin it by changing game settings and ruin places. Most group recruiting plaza are being threatened by hackers :Noobs are new people or a dumb person who thinks they rule everything and think they can follow they're own rules. Not all noobs are bad 4. The military groups on the site are very bossy and rude a try to think they are military leaders when they are really not. 5. Roblox could cause cyber bullying.
Minecraft is better than roblox

I believe that Roblox is in fact a better game overall, as I have played both games on the PC. However I do not play these games anymore, as I moved to LoL but in any case If I am outdated by the games' features then my bad, in any case allow me to commence my case. Now, according to pro's reasoning for why he/she thinks that Minecraft is better than Roblox, I will rebuttal his/her reasons. "Although many might say Roblox is free, it's really not. You need what they call "Builder's Club" to really do anything. It costs about twenty USD for a month. around what you can get Minecraft for. Minecraft, one paid for, is never renewed and is permanent" Allow me to provide a definition of the word "free" (free: without cost or payment) Now according to this definition of free, in reality Roblox has in fact a free entry, free sign up, but if someone wanted to build more than 5 games on Roblox then they would have bought the bc, but again that is optional and not forced to play, while for Minecraft, it's not a free entry at all, it's not even a free game, and let alone Minecraft itself has currency which you can buy via online with real money. "Minecraft's gameplay is also better, in opinion. Roblox has to be the slowest game I have ever played. On the same computer, Minecraft worked outstandingly! " I have honestly have no words for this, but pro has absolutely NO right to make a bold statement like this without any facts or evidence, his/her statement is all opinion. "The Community also seems to be better. Roblox seems to be populated by seven-year-olds, while Minecraft is full of mature people. " With my experience of Roblox, I know in fact that Roblox's community is weighed heavily upon the groups which are made and members within in; I will not go into details about group system on Roblox as it is very complicated, but Roblox is not always populated by 7 year olds, in fact their is a thing called war groups where Robloxian create groups and recruit members to fight for their war group and go to war with other war groups, and this is what makes the community unbelievable as there are many things that brings everyone together, but I can assure all of you that 90% of war group members are 14+ as I used to be in one, and members go up to as much as 30k members. Plus if Roblox were full of 7 year olds, then why do 60% of Robloxians use Skype or Teamspeak 3. "Really everything is going Minecraft's way. If you don't like something, install a mod(ification) or texture pack. " Really the basis of your argument is mainly involving your opinion (which is fine) but there are no facts to back them up.
Minecraft is better than roblox

Although many might say Roblox is free, it's really not. You need what they call "Builder's Club" to really do anything. It costs about twenty USD for a month. around what you can get Minecraft for. Minecraft, one paid for, is never renewed and is permanent. Budgetwise, Minecraft has the advantage. Minecraft's gameplay is also better, in opinion. Roblox has to be the slowest game I have ever played. On the same computer, Minecraft worked outstandingly! The Community also seems to be better. Roblox seems to be populated by seven-year-olds, while Minecraft is full of mature people.Really everything is going Minecraft's way.If you don't like something, install a mod(ification) or texture pack.
When it comes to listening to music, digital formats are never going to sound as good as vinyl

I would like to see some evidence as to why you think music is better on analogue formats? If you play a i-pod through a good hi-fi, it won't sound worse than the same track played on a vinyl record. Then there are the problems of the format itself which is prone to scratching, warping, and skipping. A file stored digitally will last for as long a you want it to, and will never degrade in quality. In fact styles of music such as classical music sound much better in digital formats, because there is a much better signal/noise ratio, as far as I know its around 60-70db with vinyl, and 90db with standard CD quality. This means you get much more clarity in sparse, quieter sections of music, as commonly found in classical compositions. Also, I am aware that when converting a sound to a digital format you are essentially chopping off some of the extreme highs and lows of frequencies. For example at a sample rate of 96Khz, you don't get any frequencies over around 48Khz. I don't see this as a problem at all, since most healthy people are only capable of hearing sound up to 22khz, its not like the missing frequencies can be picked up on whatsoever. To conclude, I set out to say Vinyl and analogue methods of listening are not superior to digital, and I haven't seen any evidence or argument to change my mind. I have pointed out the downfall of vinyl in terms of the signal/noise ratio, and can't see any actual reasons to prefer vinyl other than a sense of nostalgia, which has nothing to do with the quality of the format. I'll keep an ear out for that fourth young one!
When it comes to listening to music, digital formats are never going to sound as good as vinyl

My argument is that there is no discernible improvement in quality when listening on music on vinyl compared with digital formats. I do think there is a percieved quality difference, due to thickening effect that the hiss from vinyl gives to any sound. There is a technique used in digital recording, known as dithering. Dithering is adding white noise, or other kinds of noise, to a track. You don't hear it clearly, but it has the effect of thickening up the instrument sounds you hear. The quality that most people think they hear when listening to their favourite LP's, is just that thickening dither effect that you get from crackles, pops and vinyl hiss. Therefore I would say there is a percieved difference in quality, but no actual discernable difference. I think there is a difference in percieved quality when recording to reel-to-reel tape, when compared to a digital recording of the same thing. I also have no doubt that recording using high quality analogue pre-amps on certain desks are much better for a pleasant tone on certain instruments, but thats not the point here. Once the recording has been done, listening to it back as a vinyl compared with on a CD is not going to make any difference anyway, other than that nostalgic crackle.
No Homework:)

Lets just say why not, there's no serious thing in homework Because it's just students revising on their work that is all so If there is anyone who wants to argue feel free but think realistically about people voting. "See only life fill will oppurtunities and homework as your worst nightmare get it. Hahahahaha" Homework is pointless for me because I don't get it at all why waste time if It's useless in real life.Seriously who injoys homework I hope no one Otherwise we're all doom HAHAHAHAHAHA:)
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

Time for the realness to kill you the illest, the flows that come out are the purest and realist. That whack rhyme you spittin no one is buying, my stuff is so cold you feel like your dying. Seen and heard better stuff found in the garbage, my stuff is the freshest like a summer harvest. When I spit its natural off the top of my head, the weakness your ripping already been said. By the fifth graders still at the bottom, hit you so hard you gonna call me Bin Laden. If you wanna do this to yourself we could go all night, but its david vs. goliath when you step to the mic. Go back to the drawing board and jot something better, until then my friend you going through the shredder. My flow so drastic wrap you in plastic, gonna put you six feet under in the casket.
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

Let's begin this Even though everyone knows im gonna win this I'm better than a entire crew And I'm known as an MC which is a title I honestly live up to I hope you realize this is more than a argument And when you lose you'll be in a slump which will be permanent Dude I hope you realize lyricist That you can't win or even get close to But I guess you can't because your delirious I say this now I hope it is clear You that this was difficult to beat Well this is just the premiere
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

Rules: 1. My opponent shall begin in round one. 2. Profanity is allowed, but make your rap youth-appropiate and I urge voters to decide conduct if me or my opponent uses profanity excessively. 3. To my opponent, enter no argument in round four except possibly: "Thanks for the battle" (it's fair since I had no round one argument.) 4. Forfeiting a round (except round 4 for my opponent) is an automatic 7-point loss. 5. Your rap must be written on DDO. (you cannot post youtube videos of you rapping)
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

After this post I'm outta here I'm done with this site and if I win I hope it's clear That suck at rapping you fucing quer Fuc conduct and fuc logic and I miss having a life I'm nostalgic And fuc what everybody thinks im finished with this sh!t None of these so called "MC's" are legit Ya that's right I'm dissing everybody, besides Godchooseslife ,softball_32, and zendayalover156 I don't give a sh!t about anybody And I don't give a sh!t if you think I'm terrible, cuz you and me are incomparable B!tch I don't give a sh!t if I use profanity excessively, I just want to make stressed out overwhelmingly Your a nobody I'm an entity, no even a fucing maggot would try to steal your identity Little homo, fucing weasel, get it through your head that we will never be equal, and just like the rest of family in a competition you won't live to see a sequel
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

It's clear i've been wasting my time with you, this battle was one-sided through and through. It must feel bad knowing you've lost as you read every word, You don't even reach my tier, your inferior style is absurd. This battle was a mismatch unworthy of my time, In 3 rounds you couldn't make one decent rhyme. I've taken my time and focused on every rhyme, you've flung desperate insults and wasted the reader's time. By know you surely know I have a greater flow, do you even have a flow? If so, then WOW. You try to act cool with a turned hat, son you best back off when I step to the mat. Can you even interpret the words I write? You use a 3rd graders vocabulary when you step to the mic. Your rap is generic my hefty blows run deeper, you have been killed..... call me Grim Reaper.
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

Dude wow it's obvious that choking , seriously man I ain't even joking And the sh!t you say ain't even working , so stick to watching p0rn and jerking Cuz I know man you've never had a girl hug you who isn't in your family Man I feel bad for you, but your flow, now that is a tragedy, rapidly I'm making you see reality And making you realize that you'll be a forgotten casualty Cause I'm going to be going in for the for kill, until you realize I got more skill So I hope your listen to this appeal, you better quit before this sh!t gets real
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

I don't know why DDO says you're the contender, based off that garbage you're just a pretender. No need for the waste of a copy and paste, so far you barely even got a taste. Honestly must say i'm surprised you replied, once again your weak flow has been denied. If you think you can win you're delusional, you losing is pathetically the usual. Call your miserable rap as you wish sure round two, just got started handing your backside to you. Barely have to try to have a comeback to type, side of your mouth check it then wipe. Moral of the story write your stuff first, because the abomination you wrote was the worst. After this you'll have 3 wins 21 losses and no life, get yourself together you just got gutted with no knife.
DDO Rap Battle (part one, open challenge)

Oh your are bad at rapping thank you for saying it to my faceYou used the internet and then used copy and paste Man look at talking trash and thinking your the real dealDude might be Osama bid ladenBut I'm a navy sealYour a 51 year old man trying to convince a 16 year old girl to leaveDamn dude what are doingI'll make sure you get some schooling You say you got the best flow but your the one losing I like your profile picture with the microphone where there is a gleamBut you ever rapping on one is an impossible dream
Should guns be allowed in the US

So, my contender has stated that people kill people for no reason. However, even without guns, people kill each other. Please look at this following site for more evidence; http://listverse.com... Also, even if the US bans guns, how would they confiscate all the guns? And how can they be sure of the job? Also, he has failed to state the reason on how to control the gun manufacturers, which are a important factor in this debate. Also, there is the fact that criminals don't follow laws. They are well, outlaws. They have no reason to follow laws. they will most probably not give up their firearms. Therefore, guns should not be banned in the US (Lunch times over I will forfeit the next round sory)
Should guns be allowed in the US

So, I'm on the side that guns should be allowed To start, I would like to state the very reason why guns are allowed in the US It is in the law somewhere, and it allows guns so that people can have power to stand up against their government when needed. Other than these reasons, there are things such as protection from other people. You would be better off handling a burglar with a shotgun than with nothing. Also, we can't ignore the gun industry. When saying that we should ban guns, my contender should give a way to pacify this industry, which will most certainly cause uproar if a law like this was even suggested. There are also smaller, more private reasons like enjoying hunting.
The UN should give Iran an atomic weapons-backed guarantee against a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

Your assertion is that the UN Security Council members should enter into a defense pact with Iran such that if Israel ever launches an attack on Iran then the Security Council members will launch a military retaliation against Israel on Iran's behalf, to include the use of nuclear weapons. In essence, if the Israeli government was stupid enough to fire a missile at Tehran, then Washington, Paris, and Beijing should nuke Jerusalem. First, it is highly unlikely (though not impossible) that this apparently very aggressive and stupid administration in Israel would ever initiate military hostilities with Iran. The only country Israel has ever attacked is Lebanon, and they have somehow managed to fail in even that endeavor. The wars in the 60s and 70s were defensive actions. Second, Iran is one of the most abused nations of the 20th century. They have been invaded by both Middle Eastern and Western nations, repeatedly; been the victims of WMD and genocide; been robbed of their only natural resource (oil); had their democratically elected governments overthrown by the US/UK; and yet still have been branded an "Axis of Evil" nation. Iran has never invaded another nation, has never employed any type of WMD, and has tried to spread peace and democracy throughout the Middle East. Their aggressive president is no more evil than our aggressive president, the primary difference being that our president has actually initiated wars because "God told him to do it." Viewed in the light of history, Iran would be insane if they didn't want nuclear weapons as self-defense deterrents. Third, Israel is already surrounded by military enemies. For the leaders of the Western world to announce that they too are declared enemies of Israel will not increase stability in the region. Instead, it may prompt other Middle Eastern nations to take action against Israel in the belief that the world is on their side. Fourth, Israel has no pressing need to attack Iran. They have no actual interactions below the political sphere. Iran has much more pressing matters than Israel, such as the religious civil war on their border. CONCLUSION: Forming nuclear defense treaties with Iran would only escalate the violence and instabilities in the Middle East.