BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
One can have morals without God

I will begin with addressing your last paragraph and then return to the original order. "Add to that the obvious fact that atheists, agnostics and people with non-god-based beliefs still adhere to some sort of moral code despite their lack of god, and I think it is clear that morality can and does exist without God." Now, I was NOT debating whether one can have morals if they believe in God, but rather if God exists. I am not denying the existence of moral codes in atheists; I am not denying the fact that everyone knows right and wrong. I. The two other sources say that animals do not exhibit morals as well. "...Primates may not possess morality in the human sense..."[1] "Many philosophers find it hard to think of animals as moral beings, and indeed Dr. de Waal does not contend that even chimpanzees possess morality."[2] Empathy is not the same as knowing right and wrong. Chimpanzees have no conscience and therefore, what they did was not wrong in their eyes. You aren't going to punish them. On the other hand, if they did have morals, then why isn't it moral for them to further their group and why weren't they acting for the good of the species? Ultimately, in my original argument, I claimed that universe never gives us any real basis or reason for morals. What is wrong with someone doing whatever was most beneficial for himself and not caring about society? I'll leave it to the voters to decide if my opponent disproved this argument. II. "First, not all animals would possess morals..." As the sources say, animals do not possess morals like we do. And yes, I do recognize that its only the highly developed animals that exhibit empathy, meaning the snake and antelope analogy may be wrong. But let's assume that these animals have what you call "morals" or empathy as an example. "Second, since part of the basis for morality is societal benefit, the morals of each species would logically differ, as what benefits one species may not benefit the next." My evil chimp argument shows that it is not simply societal benefit, but also individual survival as well. These apes actually destroy and eat their own kind for their own individual survival. This is not benefitting the entire species, or if it is, this confirms the Nazi argument (benefit of the species at the expense of a few). I think this is what you miss in the next few paragraphs. Again, we may have gotten a little away from the first argument, which I still think is valid. III. What I said is relevant because you claimed that morals are explained by empathy and necessity. I was trying to show that I don't think this is valid. A terrorist leader's motive can be explained by both of these. Like I said in the beginning, I totally think everyone knows right and wrong. Only, I argue it's from God, because evolution, which is based on chance (nothing), is not an adequate explanation. Also, no one can hold out true moral relativism and I argue that there is an absolute right and a wrong in every situation. Otherwise we get contradictions. Anyhow, thank you for the debate. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org..... [2] http://www.nytimes.com...
One can have morals without God

I. I would argue how we came into existence has a ton of influence on how we live today. Many people see themselves living in a universe without a cause and consequently without a purpose. For a lot of people life is about drugs, sex, and money. This person will live a life different than one who sees life as an opportunity to love God and others. You believe that we are animals, social animals whose existence is by evolution. While I am not a sociobiologist, I do know a bit about animals. None of these animals exhibit a sense of right and wrong or guilt associated with humans, and each of these sources confirm this. They never do anything immoral in the sense that humans do something immoral. One source says: "Professor Frans de Waal, a primate behaviourist at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, said: 'I don't believe animals are moral in the sense we humans are – with well developed and reasoned sense of right and wrong...'" [1] This kind of contradicts the rest of the article. II. a. Like I said, I think these are not really morals at all. Anyway, the original argument still stands because this still constitutes logical contradictions. Let's say animals do have morals and eating offspring is moral for snakes and immoral for antelope, there is still a contradiction. Or maybe you meant only some animals show morality such as chimpanzees. But it turns out, chimps kill each other, eat each other, eat their babies, and different groups go into all out wars. "Scientists believe the drive is survival. The primates, recognizing that larger numbers means greater chance of survival, take over new land in order to have access to more fruit trees." [2] Is this moral? It does not sound like it. If this was the case of humans, then a society that is out of resources has the right to move into a more abundant area and kill everyone who lives there. They are optimizing their chance of success and survival. b. If you equate morals with what is "harmful" and "helpful" then we can argue all sorts of scenarios. The holocaust is one of them. Hitler viewed the Jews as an inferior race. They were detrimental to the Aryan race, thus he should kill the Jews. He was helping the Aryan race and more importantly, helping evolution along. His whole philosophy was based on evolution. So he was in the end, helping not just the Aryans, but all of human society. III. True, humans rely on society for their utmost happiness. But let me give an example of some very "happy" people. Leaders of terrorist groups get paid from tons of sources. They use their terror to get rich and they're so crafty, no one can stop them. Is morality explained by empathy and necessity? You see, not everyone feels empathy. And taking advantage of others is some times much more beneficial to these people. Is this immoral? [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://kotaku.com...
The term "Rape Culture" is not beneficial to society

I strongly believe that sexual objectification of women/men and victim blaming is highly unethical and should not be practised in society. Rape is something that is so very sensitive and highly impactful both physically and psychologically on the victim. Blaming the victim by saying that "He/She was asking for it" or "Boys will be boys" is not only irrevocably detrimental to that individual but it is also severe gender policing. RAPE is NOT something that should be NORMALIZED. It needs to be eradicated because it is an unthinkable crime against humanity. It is monstrous and tolerating or even condoning a heinous act such as this is preposterous.
Hitler and the Nazis are solely responsible for World War II

"Soley Responsible" I will list below the many many reason why this statement is bogus and that WWII was actually the result of many factors. I. Ideological polarization: Liberal Democracy, Communism, and Fascism were raging a world wide and often violent struggle to become the dominant model for the future of mankind. We can see this in proxy wars throughout the 1920's and 1930's like Spain and China. Furthermore Fascist nations like Romania, Italy, Germany and Nationalist Spain had strained relations with nations like the Soviet Union and the British Empire. These tensions dominated the decade before 1939 and many could see the writing on the wall. II. Imperialism -The British Empire controlled 1/4th of the world and intended on keeping it. -Mussolini aimed to seize Greece and North Africa to build a Fascist Roman Empire. -Japanese militarists and Shinto fundamentalists dreamed of creating a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" free of Western ideals and materialism. That would have required the liberation and consolidation of the entire Far-East. -The Soviet Union still very much believed in the international revolution of Communism and Stalin himself was very keen on expanding his reach of power. All of these goals along with Hitler's goal of building the Greater Reich inevitably lead the world on the path towards war. Even if Hitler had not launched the invasion into Poland Mussolini and the Japanese Empire were still going to expand and eventual spark grander conflict. While Hitler certainly had a very large role in causing the World War there were many paths on the road to war and Hitler was not solely responsible.
Hitler and the Nazis are solely responsible for World War II

-Treaty of Versailles gave Hitler the motivation to set motion to his plans of restoring Germany to its former glory -Depression and the horrible political status of Germany gave Hitler the edge to gain support for his arguable beliefs about immigrants and social structure of Germany. By promising people basic need such as food and shelter, he fed them the ideas of Antisemitism. -The Allies underestimated Hitler. They didn't even bother to read Hitler's plans which were openly publish in his book "Mein Kampf" -The Allies ignoring Hitler's conquests of Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia due to fear of sparking another war lead Hitler to believe he could get away with anything. The Munich Agreement re-illustrated this point -No matter what you can say, Britain and France were the ones who declared war on Germany, thus officially starting the war.
The NY State Exam is completely unnecessary

Yes I mean its unnecessary and i think that (yes i put two spaces) it puts ridiculous amount of pressure, stress, and worry on my fellow classmates and other students. I'm calling it right now your counterclaim is going to be (to apply to high school they look at state test grades) but they also look at ACTUAL test grades and overall averages of 6th and 7th grade. R3 lets go.
The NY State Exam is completely unnecessary

My opponent has still not specified what exactly the "NY State Exam" is, though I'm assuming from their Round 2 post it refers to a state exam administered to middle school students to apply to certain high schools? This is no different than any other standardized test from what I can see, so I fail to understand why it is *completely* unnecessary. From my perspective, it seems entirely logical for the state to want to assess student comprehension with a standardized state-wide administered exam. "...[The NY State Exam] puts ridiculous amount(sic) of pressure, stress, and worry on my fellow classmates and other students." I highly doubt a test is that detrimental to your well-being. I think you're blowing this a bit out of proportion. You're going to be expected to take many more standardized tests and exams in high school and college, along with final exams and entrance exams. "...[To apply to high school,] they also look at ACTUAL test grades and overall averages of 6th and 7th grade." Yes, I'm sure they do. However, I'm sure at the middle school level, teachers design their own tests individually, while adhering loosely to the state curriculum standards given to them at the beginning of the year. However, the state has no way of knowing if one teacher has a more lenient grading policy or an easier test than another, so a standardized test for all students levels the playing field and ensures a more accurate check for comprehension since they all get the same questions to answer. In order for Con to make a real argument, they need to demonstrate why this exam is utterly and totally unnecessary, and they have failed to do so. Back to Con.
Israel Is Wrong

Listening to Netanyahu's defenders in the media (and that is pretty much all you get as objective reporters are yanked off the air), I'm struck by how Americans are indoctrinated into ignoring the most significant fact about Gaza. That is the cause of the "war." Yes, Israel has the "right" to defend itself but Palestinians have the "right" to resist occupation. Those conflicting rights are leading to perdition and, in my opinion, the loss of the Israel many of us have loved and identified with our entire lives. At the time Ariel Sharon withdrew the settlers, when the Palestinian Authority was still in charge of Gaza, he refused to coordinate Israel's withdrawal with Mahmoud Abbas who, despite his pleas, was not even told when the pullout would take place. Abbas wanted to ensure that the militants (who he effectively subdued in the West Bank) would not seize control. Sharon refused and the militants took over. Ultimately Gaza separated from the West Bank and Israel was free to enter Gaza at will, killing or imprisoning whoever it considered a threat, and, in the process, hundreds who weren't. Militants launched rockets at Israel and Israel responded, disproportionately as always. As now. JJ Goldberg, editor of the Jewish Forward reports here how Netanyahu, knowing that the kidnapped Israeli teenagers were dead from day 1, maintained the fiction they were alive for 18 days in order to ignite the atmosphere for war. He even lied to the boys' parents. Is this irrelevant now? No, not when the current situation directly stems from the murder of the one Israeli leader determined to achieve peace with the Palestinians. Netanyahu's rise is the direct result of Rabin's murder. My fellow Jews who support this war are entitled to. But they should not kid themselves. They are supporting Netanyahu for one reason alone: ethnic solidarity. Just like every other nation on earth that cheered wars sold to them by liars. Fine. But that is all it is. The cause of the war is the occupation and Israel's adamant refusal to end it. How long will we be duped? Questions that don't exist for Congress and the media.. 1. If there had been no occupation that transmuted into imprisonment, there would have been no rockets being shot at Israel. 2. There have been six Israeli invasions of Gaza justified by the rockets and the existence of Hamas. 3. Where did the Israeli-designated terrorists come from. In 1948 750,000 Palestinians were forced to leave the Israel of that time. Their property was seized and 450 villages bull-dozen so they would have no place to which they could return. Very quickly passed a law forbidding them the right to return. Israel felt no responsibility for the horrors they inflicted on the Palestinians. 4. The reservoir of recruits was expanded in 1967 when two hundred thousand West Bankers fled before the advancing Israeli forces. 5. Israel's manipulated narrative has included successfully branding the Palestinians as terrorists, when they have been simply trying to free themselves from first an occupation and then a blockade. They are the victims here.
The Earth being flat, which can go beyond our limited pretense of it.

My opponent's counter-arguments both fall under the logical fallacy category of bare assertion, in that both are asserted without evidence or sustained argumentation [1]. Due to this shortcoming, due to all of my opponent's counter-arguments being logically fallacious, I only need to extend my arguments and counter-arguments. Reference[1] . http://www.toolkitforthinking.com...
The Earth being flat, which can go beyond our limited pretense of it.

Okay, I know that in the common sense that the Earth as we know it is to be called round, but did you know that aliens who inhabit worlds may use the term flat as to say that when they view the world from the outside that they can size themselves up to a planet and come up with the term flat as the world is big enough to provide flat land for them? Or there could be the thought that the Earth is not perfectly rounded, and thus is cast down to be in the category of the flat worlds, if you are a perfectionist.
police are racist

Thanks Con. I wouldn’t pretend to say that all police are racist, but I will defend the black community which I believe has been unfairly targeted. C1: Stats Statistics don’t lie: African-Americans comprise only 13% of the U.S. population and 14% of the monthly drug users, but are 37% of the people arrested for drug-related offenses in America. In New York City, 80% of random traffic stops made were made on blacks and Latinos, and 85% of those people were frisked, compared to a mere 8% of white people stopped. After being arrested, African-Americans are 33% more likely than whites to be detained while facing a felony trial in New York. In 2010, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported that African Americans receive 10% longer sentences than whites through the federal system for the same crimes. In 2009 African-Americans are 21% more likely than whites to receive mandatory minimum sentences and 20% more likely to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics concluded that an African American male born in 2001 has a 32% chance of going to jail in his lifetime, while a Latino male has a 17% chance, and a white male only has a 6% chance. In 1969, you were eight times as likely to be shot and killed by police if you were black. Currently, you are three times as likely. In 2012, 51% of Americans expressed anti-black sentiments in a poll; a 3% increase from 2008. C2: Training Part of the problem is that police training isn’t always constructive. In the words of Seth Stoughton, an officer who wrote an article for the Atlantic: “Officers aren’t just told about the risks they face. They are shown painfully vivid, heart-wrenching dash-cam footage of officers being beaten, disarmed, or gunned down after a moment of inattention or hesitation. They are told that the primary culprit isn’t the felon on the video, it is the officer’s lack of vigilance. And as they listen to the fallen officer’s last, desperate radio calls for help, every cop in the room is thinking exactly the same thing: “I won’t ever let that happen to me.” That’s the point of the training. More pointed lessons come in the form of hands-on exercises. One common scenario teaches officers that a suspect leaning into a car can pull out a gun and shoot at officers before they can react. Another teaches that even when an officer are pointing a gun at a suspect whose back is turned, the suspect can spin around and fire first. Yet another teaches that a knife-carrying suspect standing 20 feet away can run up to an officer and start stabbing before the officer can get their gun out of the holster. There are countless variations, but the lessons are the same: Hesitation can be fatal. So officers are trained to shoot before a threat is fully realized, to not wait until the last minute because the last minute may be too late.” Sources: https://www.dosomething.org... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.alternet.org... http://www.motherjones.com... http://www.theatlantic.com...
Allow Inmates On Death Row Or In Life Without Parole The Option of Suicide

As I've said it's a simple economic argument, this will save the state money. Oftentimes when people try to argue for a right to commit suicide one rebuttal is that by killing themselves they are depriving society of their productivity and so the state has an interest in preventing suicide. However, this interest does NOT exist when it comes to people on death row or serving for life. They will never become productive members of society. Furthermore, this is "win-win", society wins by saving money and inmates win by getting to die as they choose. Prison costs are enormous. "Vera researchers found that the total taxpayer cost of prisons in the 40 states that participated in this study was 13.9 percent higher than the cost reflected in those states" combined corrections budgets. The total price to taxpayers was $39 billion, $5.4 billion more than the $33.5 billion reflected in corrections budgets alone." http://www.vera.org... This is a very simple way we can reduce costs without violating anybody's rights, and in fact granting a right and alleviating some inmates' discomfort. It's win-win.
Allow Inmates On Death Row Or In Life Without Parole The Option of Suicide

It's simple. The more inmates there are the more it costs taxpayers and if the person is on death row or life without the possibility of parole there is no chance the person will rejoin society.If the inmate wants to die in that case then it is a win-win to let him/her do it. Taxpayers save money and the inmate is spared further suffering.But there must be (a) formal way(s) of doing this. This is to make sure it is voluntary. We could allow the inmate even if they are serving life and not on death row to voluntarily use the execution chamber. A better way would be to retire lethal injection and electrocution and introduce guillotines, whether the state has the death penalty or not to provide a painless method of death that also allows for "organ donation" if the inmate so chooses. EDIT: We could even allow "choose your mode of death" for people who want suicide. Note: This debate does not concern the validity of the death penalty, it is just saying that as long as we have it we might as well allow death row inmates to volunteer to kick the bucket early, and whether we have it or not inmates serving life without parole should have the right too.
The existence of god

Ok. Hobby. There we go :) You can learn to spell: " because " (not cuz) " you'll " (not ull) " know" (not no) " saying " (not saying) " don't " (not dont) " what " (not wat) " Satan " (not saten) " you" (not u) " religion " (not religin) " because" (not becase) " people " (not ppl) " salvation " (not salvashin) " to " (not 2) And remember to put captial letters at the beggining of you sentences and full stops or some other form of ending punctuation at the end!
The existence of god

I believe that god does not exist. I have absolutely nothing against people believe he does exist however i believe there is no scientific evidence that could lead you to a logical conclusion that god exists. I am an anti theist which means i disagree with religion itself. I believe that theism is one of the biggest causes of suffering on this planet and whilst there are some good aspects of religion, I feel the bad aspects out do them by miles. As the phrase goes which sums up my belief against religion itself: Science flies people to the moon. Religion flies people into buildings. This debate is about the existence of god AND whether religion causes suffering.
Resolved: The "War Against Religion" is justified.

I shall have fun with this :P Definitions: The War Against Religion: the Christian Crusades called by the Catholic Church between 1095 and 1291. This was a series of wars between one group having a religion and another group with a religion. The Catholic Church was against religion (in this case Islam). And the Muslims were against a religion (Catholicism). (1) Is: "3rd person singular present indicative of be." (2) Since this tells us absolutely nothing... Be: "to exist" (3) So basically the resolution is Resolved: The Crusades of 1095 to 1291 has existing justification. Now with this revised resolution my opponent must 1) prove the Crusades of 1095 to 1291 to exist in 2012 and 2) prove the crusades have justification in 2012. Have fun :D 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. http://dictionary.reference.com...