BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
morality

Opening Statement: I am PatrickTheWise, this is my first debate on Debate.Org. I will be representing the idea that there are specific concrete moralities that are apparent to us as cognitive beings. Before I delve into my initial arguments I would like to thank the instigator of this debate, vi_spex, for posing something that is actually contestable. Thank you. Opening Counter: "[If gravity were less intense, it wouldn't be immoral to push someone off a cliff...]" This statement suggests that the only way to determine morality is based of the consequences of an individuals actions. Meaning that because the person who is pushed doesn't fall to their death, the pusher is not as immoral as a if a 'pushee' had died. The significance of this is that it lays the concept of morality outside of humanity. Cognition, is defined as, "the ability to develop knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses". We, as humans, rely solely on cognition in order to develop any and all concepts that we have about reality. Without it we would not be able to form societies or the rules of etiquette within these societies. These rules of etiquette being what morality is. The distinction between right and wrong. Cognition may also become deranged from societal standards. This is where we see those that we call dysfunctional. Human beings tend act in accordance with what they deem as individuals is the correct or "good" course of action and generally this follows the societal norm. However when we see the morally deranged act, they too are still within the confines of "good" morality within their own minds. All actions we take seem justified and good until proven wrong, this is how cognition works. Society is required to establish means of creating these normative moralities. Reality is being used in your opening statement as a description of the physical natural world, without consideration to human cognition. This is a non sequitur because without the consideration of human involvement and cognition morality could not exist. Your morality is not innate, it is taught to you by the society that you are raised into. So while you maintain that you as an individual do not choose what is moral or immoral, you do however belong to a society that chose what morality and immorality look like. I will await your response and look forward to rebutting it.
Schools should give out less homework

"I think it would be fair if students when to school for 4 hours a day and got homework. The only thing is, we can't compromise! The government decides how long students should go to school and they aren't going to change the hours. And we certainly can't change their mind..." It is fair, and essential you just agreed with con. And the government is allowed to change the hours. School districts have the power to cancel school for snow, schools have the power to send legislation to congress. "As to teachers giving our homework to ensure that students are learning... I can guarantee you that at least half of the students in a classroom don't learn anything from their homework that they already didn't know. " That may be true, but in that situation, this debate wouldn't be an issue. If the homework requires no effort because you already know all the material, it will only take a few minutes. In math, you get homework to ensure that you can work problems out on your own, which you also have to do on tests. teachers don't help on tests, they don't help on homework, its a system designed to help us. "Many students get their homework out and then race through it so they can be done. They certainly so t take their time and make sure they're learning something." Your generalizing. You think there aren't people who take their work seriously? If you want to rush through your homework and just not care, be my guest. Your wasting your own time. But there are people who take it seriously. Homework is important, but and abundance is not. That is why I proposed my idea. Thanks
Schools should give out less homework

I think it would be fair if students when to school for 4 hours a day and got homework. The only thing is, we can't compromise! The government decides how long students should go to school and they aren't going to change the hours. And we certainly can't change their mind... As to teachers giving our homework to ensure that students are learning... I can guarantee you that at least half of the students in a classroom don't learn anything from their homework that they already didn't know. Many students get their homework out and then race through it so they can be done. They certainly so t take their time and make sure they're learning something.
Schools should give out less homework

What if I offered a compromise? Instead of going to school for 7 hours a day, we go for 4 hours, and each class can give up to 15-20 minutes each? It seems fair, and were actually using less time on school as a whole. Of course school is going to have homework, it's the teachers only way to be sure your learning. By minimizing wanted time, we can ensure that our students are learning more. Thanks
Schools should give out less homework

Students are already at school for about 6 hours a day. For many of those hours, they are given assignments by their teachers to complete and then turn in. Why should they be given more hours of work to do at night? Students' life should not be about school. There is much more to life than school and homework. Students certainly aren't 'wanting more by even doing homework in the first place. So why should they be doing so much homework? I think that if a student doesn't finish their work during the day, that work should be the only homework they have that night.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument is sound

My opponent will assume the burden of proof by demonstrating that the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God is using valid logic, and that its premises are true. I will be rebutting my opponent's claims, and attacking the Kalam Cosmological Argument in anyway possible to undermine it. This first round will be used for my opponent's opening argument, while in this first round I am just stating the rules. In the last round however, my opponent must not reply with any rebuttals or arguments after mine, but rather with:"No argument will be posted here, as agreed."Failure to follow the rules, will result in an automatic forfiet.
Ultimate Team Battle: Empty Earth

MY TEAM CAPTAIN AMERICA [1]: Captain America, after being administered the Super Soldier Serum, is the absolute peak of human potential, border-lining on super-human. With his famous shield [2] and expert combat skills, he is a formidable opponent. YODA [3]: The great jedi master Yodi, armed with his green light saber and mastery of the force. Up, he will fvck you. CLOUD STRIFE [4]: The main protagonist of Final Fantasy 7. By the time he confronts Sephiroth, he is extremely powerful. Armed with the Ultima weapon, he is ready to fight. JON IRENICUS [5]: The main villain of the game Baldur’s Gate II. A ridiculously powerful mage and later able to turn into the Slayer form. BRUCE BANNER [6]: Mild manner scientist Bruce Banner, exposed to Gamma rays, turns into the Hulk, a green smashing machine. THE BATTLE The battle begins, with my team in Melbourne, Australia. First, Yoda does his Battle Meditation [7] (A skill Luke Skywalker is never shown to have). This (to quote the source): "a FORCE ABILITY which considerably boosts the morale, stamina, and overall battle prowess of an individual's allies while simultaneously reducing the opposition's combat-effectiveness by eroding their will to fight." Jon Irenicus casts [8] Absolute Immunity and Spell Trap on himself, essentially making him immune to physical and magical damage until the spells wear off or are dispelled. Yoda, having finished his meditation, uses the Force to convince Bruce Banner that Master Chief raped and murdered his wife Betty and as one would imagine, he promptly transforms into a very, very angry Hulk. Irenicus then teleports The Hulk (using the gate technique he is shown to use multiple times during the game) to teleport the Hulk right to where my opponents team is. While the Hulk is busy smashing the crap out of everything, trying to rip Master Chiefs head off and kick it in to the sun, Irenicus casts a Group Invisibility spell over the rest of the team and teleports them around 100 metres away from the battle. Cloud prompty attacks Fenix with the fully powered Omnislash with the Ultima weapon. Despite his futuristic armour, this would definately distract him enough for... Yoda to leap over Clouds shoulder and decapitate the stunned Felix and move on to attack Zeratul. Irenicus casts Power Word: Stun on Kerrigan (who has no magical defense) and Captain America charges her, smashing his shield into her throat repeatedly. By this time, The Hulk has surely destroyed Master Chief. This leaves my entire team against Luke Skywalker. Irenicus casts Flesh to Stone and The Hulk smashes the statue to pieces. SOURCES [1] http://marvel.wikia.com... [2] http://marvel.wikia.com... [3] http://starwars.wikia.com... [4] http://finalfantasy.wikia.com... [5] http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com... [6] http://marvel.com... [7] http://starwars.wikia.com... [8] http://www.sorcerers.net...
Ultimate Team Battle: Empty Earth

I shall accept your Ultimate Team Battle. As the opposing team, I shall introduce my first three team members. - a. Master Chief of the Halo series [1] b. Luke Skywalker of the Star Wars Hexalogy [2] c. Fenix (Dragoon) of the Starcraft universe [3] Sources: [1] http://halo.wikia.com... [2] http://starwars.wikia.com... [3] http://starcraft.wikia.com... Descriptions: a. Master Chief Against impossible odds, Master Chief has ousted the covenant, the flood, and has saved countless lives. Master Chief is equipped with Mjolnir armor, which envelopes the user with protective energy shield. With his armor, and with his augmented strength, he can lift even a tank. His main choice of weapons are varieties of ballistic weaponry issued by the UNSC navy, but his tenacious nature allows him to use nearly anything as weapons. b. Luke Skywalker He is the son of Anakin Skywalker, and is just as powerful as Anakin. His force (mediclorian count) is highest of all times in the Star Wars universe, and is a very formidable user of lightsabers. c. Fenix A prelate of the Protoss conclave, as a Dragoon, his entire body is engulfed in a cybernetic shell. It is essentially a tank, however is wielded with an incredulously advanced Protoss technology. It's structural integrity is very powerful, and furthermore equipped with the protoss Plasma shield. It's main weapons are the powerful phase cannon, which disintegrates materials near instantaneously. My tracker will be one of the 4th or 5th character. I'm not clarified on what a 'target' is though.
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

Let it be known that this is not the topic I designed this debate to follow, so I am not putting a lot of effort into it. If at some point I were to engage in a debate with my opponent's argument as the central theme, I will put a lot more effort into defending my position. However, as he requested that I put some of my comment evidence into the body of this debate, I will list some very basic resources below. Sunlight kills microorganisms, it does not create them. (1) The early earth atmosphere did not have enough ozone to block the UV radiation that destroys DNA, and that ozone layer did not form for about 2 Billion years after life supposedly formed (if you use evolution's time scale) (2, 3), therefore life could not have formed in the early Earth environment. Energy applied to an already ordered system can maintain the order of that system, but the addition of raw energy (sunlight, lightning, meteor impact, etc) damages the existing order and causes that order to break down (4, 5), it does not increase the order. 1. http://www.spectralinnovations.com...... 2. http://www.csun.edu...... 3. http://www.albany.edu...... 4. http://www.icr.org...... 5. http://www.christiananswers.net...... 6. http://www.apologeticspress.org......
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

Many people quote Eph 2:8 to say that we are saved when we believe, and no action is required on our part. I find this contradictory to other Scripture. I would challenge my opponent to prove that Scripture indicates no action is required on our part to fulfill the faith portion of the passage referenced above. I, on the other hand, will prove that Scripture is very clear that there are certain actions commanded of us before we are united with the cleansing power of the Blood of Christ (saved). BoP will be equally shared. Con may begin debate arguments in round 1 along with acceptance of the debate.
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

Ah, what an odd debate. I felt especially proud of my arguments, providing scientific evidence and valid sources to support my thesis on why faith is not a real thing. My opponent is complaining and prattling about how me and my logic is "highjacking his debate." He also complains about how, in this debate, we must assume that the Bible is true, even though he never mentioned this rule in the beginning of the debate. Furthermore, he babbles on about how the Bible and God's words are "infallible." I find this awfully funny, seeing as my opponent struggled to provide any evidence on how these things are "infallible" and real. My opponent struggled to refute my claims and failed to create an argument of his own, and in his last efforts to try and "win" the debate, being the unsportsmanlike person he is, my opponent concluded the debate in the most uncivil way possible, resorting to complain about how I was no less than a brute impeding onto other people's precious debates. Good debate, Jonny.
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

And I find it sad that Con feels the need to hijack debates on religion in order to find a market for his evolutionist nonsense. I said from the beginning that this debate assumes the validity of the Bible. The only reference needed for this debate is the Bible. It is a waste of my time to debate the foundational assumptions of the case. If you did not accept the idea that the Bible is the infallible Word of God (not stated in the opening, but implied by the positions), then you should not have accepted the debate.
Faith is active and visible, not something that just occures "in your heart".

What a pity! My opponent practically ceded from the debate, saying "I am not putting a lot of effort into [the debate]." Clearly, my opponent fails to bring any solid evidence of his own proving that faith is real. His only evidence arefew Biblical texts, to which I responded by discussing how the Bible is not a valid piece of information for numerous reasons. He failed to refute my claims, and could not make any of his own that further supports his argument. Irregardless of the arguments which he presented in Round Three, he failed to present anything that rebutes any of my specific points or support his own argument about faith and such. In fact, his claim about how "sunlight kills microorganisms" is not entirely true. Yes, sunlight, or UV rays, can harm or kill microorganisms, but only if these organisms are exposed to the UV rays for particularly long times. This is why we're given protection such as sunscreen when we go outside during the Summer for long periods of time. Being that we're nearing the end of our debate, I am unsure if my opponent wishes to proceed and make an attempt at supporting his argument, but I do not mind. I do believe, however, that it is such a damper that a debate with such potential was cut short due to mass confusion and Pro's failure to present arguments of his own with proper evidence.
Space Exploration or Water Exploration? (Neither)

The point you seem to be making is that until we have fully explored what is beneath the surface of the Earth we should not be exploring either space or the oceans. This viewpoint is very harmful to progress as essentially it's saying that because we are not doing what productive thing, we should not do other productive things either. I do agree that it is important to explore beneath the Earth's surface, but this is largely impractical at this time. Also contrary to popular belief, we do know a good amount about the interior of our planet. I am not sure if you are implying that you think our believed composition of the Earth is false, but we do know to a high degree of certainty the general characteristics of the core. Much like we can not objectively study an atom, we are currently not technologically able to get anywhere near our planets core. However, like the atom, we can study the core of our planet in other ways. Through data on Earth's magnetic fields, gravitational pull, and mass we can derive the general composition of our Iron cored planet and the whereabouts of each of the layers. We would also be missing out on a fantastic opportunity by not studying space and our oceans. We for one, do not know much about our oceans, similar to how there is still much to explore beneath the Earth's surface. It is much more technologically feasible, and beneficial to study the Earth's oceans at this point. Understanding the effects of the oceans can significantly increase our understanding of weather, life on Earth, and the environment. Space may have the most unexplored potential of any field. The discoveries and advancements that are currently being made by organizations like NASA, SpaceX, and Orbital Sciences are astounding. It is likely that we will have sent humans to Mars by 2030 and advances in this type of technology have many benefits for everyday life. From rocket technology, to GPS, to water purification the world is a much better place for the exploration of space. The study of space is also important to the future of our race a la Elon Musk. Being a multi-planetary species is a vision we can all live with, and could potentially be an advance we live with in the very near future.
Space Exploration or Water Exploration? (Neither)

Why explore either? We don't know as much as about water as we do space. However, why explore either of these things if we know nothing, yes i mean not a thing! About what our earth is really made out of! The farthest anyone has ever dug was about 7 miles! That was Russia! If the Earth was an apple that wouldn't have even broken through the skin! They had to stop this exploration because the heat was at least 350 degrees! The things you have been lied to about along with your children, that this is correct; Crust, Mantle, Outer Core, Inner Core. Then you have been cheated! This is complete speculation. We have no clue what our earth is really made out of! So, why explore anything else? ( V5;" B2;Q5; V5;")
Capitol Punishment

Capitol Punishment is just because: 1. The offender has just taken away another individuals right to life therefore the only reasonable punishment is for them to have their life taken. 2. If someone takes a human life than they should have their life taken too, because if you give them any punishment besides death you are saying that the dead person's life is worth less than the murderer's life 3.When they take away someone else's inalienable rights they give up their own therefore it would be just for their life to be taken
Gun Control

My opponents main argument is that the United States needs gun control on the simple fact of background checks, and in doing so has asked me to give a reason why background checks are wrong. I have one reason and it is the most important thing to the United States its Constitution. In the 4th Amendment that people have the right to be secure in their papers, persons, and privacy without probable cause. Thinking that someone might be a felon is not probable cause that is called treating everyone like they are your enemy which is wrong. Sources http://www.law.cornell.edu...
Gun Control

According to the definition of "gun control" that I offered (my opponent does not offer a competing definition so my definition should be accepted), requiring a background check on anyone who wishes to purchase a gun is a form of gun control. My opponent has not provided a single reason against requiring background checks. In fact, my opponent seems to agree that requiring background checks on people before they buy guns is a good thing. Under this logic, my opponent is essentially agreeing that gun control is a good thing. If we had no gun control, there would be no background checks. And if there were no background checks, felons would be able to acquire guns with relative ease. Background checks make it more difficult for felons to acquire guns. This is why gun control is good.
Gun Control

I will first refute my opponents arguments. p1) Keeping evil people from getting guns p2) Mental ill people from getting guns p3) My argument hasn't proved anything p1) Keeping evil people from getting guns. My opponent brings up doing background checks while this isn't gun control, it isn't stopping people from getting guns it is just doing quick research on individuals. If the background check does bring up that the individual has a felony that isn't gun control because the person that has the felony brought it on them selves. p2) Mentally ill people from getting guns. My opponent brings up that mentally ill people shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. The problem with this is that if someone is truly mentally ill they will be in a hospital or giving medication making them not a threat. One problem is that what would the government consider a mental illness. You see what the government considers a terrorist in the NDAA bill (http://www.ibtimes.com...) what would they consider a mental illness. Is it having an unpopular political opinion, religion, or having a different culture. This would be wrong. p3) I haven't made an argument against gun control. I have if you read my argument I use statics, reasoning, and the Constitution. My opponent on the other hand just put a definition and said that crazy people shouldn't get guns. That is more of an invalid argument than if anything less valid than mine.
Gun Control

Thanks for the debate utahjoker. Wikipedia defines gun control as follows: "any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens." [1] I agree with my opponent that some people should be allowed to own guns. The real issue here is whether "evil people" should be allowed to own guns. The reason gun control is good is because it would establish laws that would help prevent bad people from acquiring guns while ensuring the availability of guns for good people. A simple example of a form of gun control that would be effective would be requiring background checks before people can purchase guns. This would prevent guns from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Another example of good gun control legislation would be the requirement of a psychological profile before purchasing a gun, thereby ensuring that the people who get guns are good people. My opponent said it better than I could: evil people are the problem. The issue we face is keeping guns out of the hands of evil people. My opponent says gun control would be ineffective because of the black market. What my opponent fails to realize is that gun control could potentially target the black market. For example, one form of gun control would be establishing a branch of law enforcement that deals with keeping guns off the black market. This would be yet another form of gun control that helps prevent bad people from getting guns while still allowing good people to buy them. Point is, gun control helps keep bad people from acquiring guns. Guns would nonetheless still remain available to good people. My opponent's arguments are thus not in contention with gun control. My opponent has not really provided any argument against gun control thus far. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...