BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
If God does not exist, life has no ultimate objective purpose value or meaning.

Look at the topic of the debate: it is "if God does not exist life has no ultimate objective purpose value or meaning". Showing that we can live happy and subjectively fulfilled lives, without believing in God, does nothing to show that life has any ultimate objective meaning value or purpose. this. In fact, you agreed with it. "And while I agree that there is no overall purpose to life". Asking for the objective meaning of life is God does not exist, is as silly as asking "What is the meaning of this rock". There is no reason why it is there, no greater purpose or end to its existence. It just is. We can try and make up ways to romanticize this situation, but ultimately in the grand scheme of things we exist for no reason whatsoever. To make matters worse, Human life, and the entire universe as well is ultimately doomed as well[1]; meaning that in the end, nothing we do ultimately matters. We do not even have the satisfaction of knowing that our in some deeds will live on forever, even if we don't. Sure our lives may be important relative to certain events, but what is the ultimate significance of any those events? We can make up all of the meaning we want, but pretending your life has objective meaning by pursuing even the noblest of goals, doesn't give it any objective meaning. It ultimately amounts to playing pretend. [1]http://www.spaceanswers.com...
Mauritius is not real.

Before I begin, I'd like to take a moment to praise our honorable leader, Kim Jong Un. (xXMa5terDebat0rXx tebows gently while Matt watches in appreciation) Why must you deny the existence of dear, beloved Mauritius?? It exists!!!11!!!! Look it up on teh Googles maps (Google Maps is the best #TruDatDoubleTru) or the quite reliable Wikipedia. I know some people who know people, and can you say the same? I didn't think so. That's cause you are a filthy non-believer scum, no offense. Seriously, please don't take offense. If I can quote one of my favorite quotes: """Mauritius Exists" -Bill Clinton" -Jesus" -Me right now Checkmate, atheists. #GOML
Mauritius is not real.

Why, I never!!! HOW DARE YOU DISRESPECT EVERYONE IVE EVER LOVED! AND MAURITIUS! https://en.wikipedia.org... https://maps.google.com... https://www.google.com... WHAT DO YA CALL THAT, MISTER? huh? HUH?? UMM??? MMHMMM???? YESSSS????????? OH YEAAAAA? WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??????OOOOOOOOOOOO?????OOO????? EAT IT
School Uniform

1. By "It just is",I meant that we have no control over the school district and what they say goes. It's not like we an protest or anything. 2. I really don't see what the deal is with uniforms. People act as if the uniforms are the most distasteful and disgusting outfits ever. The clothes they would wear if there wasn't a uniform probably look worse. 3. Thank you for this debate! This is one of the first debates I've had where people don't take it very seriously.
School Uniform

I'm not trying to prove that school uniforms are bad, I'm trying to argue that they should be a free choice. I think that a uniform is a piece of clothing and therefore itself isn't good or bad. I , in a sense agree with you that doesn't matter whether somebody wants to wear a uniform or not and therefore think that schools shouldn't force people to wear uniforms. People don't always want to just 'Deal with it". They shouldn't have to put up with this nonsense. Pupils get sent home and the like for having uniform errors. You say "It just is", things are put in place by people. Not everyone wants to compete with the latest fashion craze. They just want to not have to deal with this meaningless hassle. Also what you wear affects how you feel, people have the right to choose how they feel. The only bad thing that happens because of uniform is it annoys people. For this reason people should be allowed to wear what they want. You might say 'It wouldn't matter if people didn't care about it'. People care about making their own decisions. I think that uniforms don't matter and people should therefore be allowed to wear what they want. You think that uniforms don't matter and therefore people shouldn't care. People should vote for the approach they agree with most I think my way will solve the root of the problem rather than just writing the problem off. Thanks for the debate.
School Uniform

Okay. I have no way of proving uniforms are good, and you have no way of proving uniforms are bad. The reason for this is because neither are true. Everyone hates uniforms for some odd reason. To me, uniforms really don't matter. I don't know. I think I may be the only one who doesn't care about uniforms at all. If your school makes you wear uniforms, then you wear the uniforms. There's no proof that a single bad thing could happen because of uniforms. You just wear them. Sure, you may want to compete over who has a bigger hurley logo on their sweatshirt. If you can't, then too bad. Deal with it. There's nothing you can do to change the fact that you have to wear uniforms. It just is.
School Uniform

Unfortunately I don't feel my opponent really provided a convincing argument in favour of school uniforms. He did mention that some schools think of dressing freely as a privilege. Presumably to encourage good behaviour. This wont work for several reasons. Those students who are alienated from the school system aren't going to behave well just so they don't have to wear a uniform. There are many things that cause bad behaviour, one important one is alienation from the school. In fact this kind of threat will more likely alienate them even more as they will see it as a form of blackmail. Those that get given a uniform as punishment could also wear it as a badge of pride in the same way as getting a detention is a way of earning respect. There are several other arguments often provided to support school uniform. For instance, that they promote Unity. They don't because what happens is the independent minded will become agitated by this and will find ways to disrupt the atmosphere of the school. Not good for Unity. Also people claim that Uniform makes it easier for teachers to identify their students on school trips and such. Well if they are looking for a particular student it then becomes harder for them to find the person they are looking for due to all the students being dressed the same. Also most students don't really need to be babysat on school trips as they can look after themselves. Unless of course you mean those aged 10 or under in which case the school shouldn't be taking them somewhere dangerous anyway. I think that It does matter if a school has a uniform or not. If the uniform isn't mandatory then I am fine with it being a free choice for people to wear. However trying to force people to wear a particular set of clothing is unjustified and an unnecessary restriction on pupils. Perhaps if there wasn't a school uniform pupils would feel less inclined to misbehave as they will have less reason to. I look forward to my opponents response. Source and further information: http://www.members.tripod.com...
School Uniform

I think that school uniforms are not good, but not bad either. It all depends on what school you go to. For example, an expensive private school will most likely have uniforms because people think that uniforms keep kids from forming gangs and misbehaving. This is not true, because there is a school close to where I live that has a uniform, yet there is almost always someone with a broken limb due to school fights. A lot of schools think of dressing freely as a privilege. If the students at that school are unruly (which is usually the case), then they give them uniforms. The students are unhappy with the uniforms and start misbehaving even more. This pretty much destroys the chance of getting to dress freely. I don't really have an opinion on school uniforms. I just don't think it matters if a school has them or not.
The Existence of God

You said: < > I do not; and that was not stated as the original debate topic. The original debate topic is "Is there a God?" Now, also from Merriam-Webster, the very same dictionary you are using: pantheism: 1: a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe God, from this perspective, exists. A better, generalized definition of "god" would be: the object of deification. A pantheist deifies the universe. The universe is God to him/her. You and I may not agree that the universe is god, but that doesn't matter: Who are we to say what other people may or may not deify? God is subjective on a per-person basis. The entity that is subject to a pantheist's deification can be shown to exist. Many gods do exist. Many gods do not. The universe exists. The Christian god does not. (I'll probably lose a few votes over that last sentence :) )
The Existence of God

I guess that it is my fault that I forgot to say what I meant by "god" By god I mean a higher being with concious thought. "God" has two main qualities: all seeing all knowing. However, "God" is defined by Merriam Webster as 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality 3: a person or thing of supreme value 4: a powerful ruler Now you said: "Therefore God demonstrably exists." However, the above definition shows us that "God" is a SUPREME reality. A diety that just exists is not a God. That god has to act to be a God. God cannot just exist to be a God. Thank you
Morality is not Realtive

Morality is relative. If the rape was decriminalized and there was no moral standard then everyone would be free to do as they please. This would mean all crime was legal and there would be no legal system and trial of law as well. Same as cheating. For example, it is not okay to cheat on a college exam or paper. This would be plagiarizing someone else"s work and would be reported to school officials as well if this were to happen. Cheating on a paper is to say that you are lazy and not fully dedicated to your college studies. It is morally right for someone to get reported and perhaps expelled from the college. If it were to come out that you cheated, this would just ruin the reputation and the name of the school you attend. This is why universities hold high standards when it comes to morality. Or if you happen to cheat on your spouse. If you were married in a church, in front of a priest and God, it is morally wrong to cheat on your significant other. You promised till death do you part and to be faithful to one another in front of God. Marriage is something between two people that is sacred in religion. You cannot marry someone and then the next day decide to cheat on them because you do not want them anymore. It is wrong to the other person.
Morality is not Realtive

What makes it wrong to kill a human being? It"s how you feel that makes you feel that way to other societies it is normal. There is nothing abnormal about killing someone. Why would you justify a rapist being murdered if you don"t agree with it? So you"re basically having a standard already! And if a guy approaches you and you don"t like his appearance you already have a standard. So what moral code is that? What makes your standard on the type of guy you will like morally correct? If you don"t understand someone"s culture or religion then how can you judge them? If a guy wants to dress like a thug and looks as if he is doing nothing with himself how would you know if you don"t inquire and investigate? He may like to dress and act that way doesn"t necessarily mean he is a douche bag and does nothing with himself. As for why people bring children into the world they don"t want, some people in different parts of the world don"t know what contraception"s are. And as I stated before in the Eskimos society they want more male babies than females because more people are able to hunt as apposed if it were more females. They believe a woman belongs in a household. So how do we separate religion for morality is there a way is it even possible because certain beliefs come from religion.
Morality is not Realtive

In the minds of the rapist it is okay but not to other person. Rape is sexually throwing themselves on someone while the other person does not wants this. Homosexuality is morally wrong in religion. There is nothing wrong with standards, as long as they are morally correct. If a guy approaches me and he looks like a thug that lives on the street and does nothing with his life, I would not even want to bother with that guy. That is morally right because I want better for myself and need someone to be able to support me. I cannot rely on someone from the streets and does nothing with their life all day. It may be right to the eskimos, but is it still wrong to kill a human being that depended on them. This infant did not do anything wrong and did not have an idea of what was going on. If that is the case, then they should not have kids at all. Why bring a human in to this world if they will just be taken out of it so soon? Then why do they kill? For sport?
Morality is not Realtive

If someone you knew was rape you wouldn"t want to their rapist to be punished. Why do you think it is okay for them to live? It is morally wrong to rape people in some societies however, in some rapist mind they believe what they are doing is correct. So in society who decides what is right? People have their own opinion on what is right and what is wrong? There are always standards and always will be because people judge each other and other societies all the time since middle ages. With the Indians and English, homosexuality, and religions. So you"re telling me that you have never judged anyone on appearance or anything? It"s in human nature to judge and hold standards, it doesn"t happen on purpose but it happens. When a guy approaches you or someone wants to date you do you simply just talk to him or does he has to be 6 feet tall and with tattoos play a sport? You already know what you like so you have your standards. People make hard decisions everyday do you think it is easy for Eskimos to murder their children but they know it"s a sacrifice and it is what they have to do in order to survive. If someone is brought up in a certain religion why do you disagree on their customs? You disagree because of how you were brought up and your beliefs. If you were to live in the bush with a different culture would you think that what they are doing is wrong? To them they are morally correct because of how they were brought up. When you go to different countries some Americans are looked at as jack butt because of certain actions we make or say. This is only so because everyone has their own STANDARD. What"s wrong with standards? If you were trapped in on an island with no food and it came down to eating people who died of starvation would you? Or would you think oh no we have to just leave them there and I starve and die along with them?
Morality is not Realtive

Whos to say that there isn't a moral standard. Each society has their own moral standard. Even in Education there is a standard. In education children have to meet a certain criteria to get to the next level. For example, if by a certain time a child doesn't read on a certain level they don't succeed to the next level. Secondly, there is always an moral opinion because in Socrates trail the jury had to majority vote on what is the correct forms of punishment for him. In certain societies murder is not wrong as i stated before some parts in Egypt a man has the right to kill his wife if she is caught cheating on him. In America people are put on death role for rapes etc. now is that wrong because they physically harmed another why should they be able to live ?
Morality is not Realtive

Arguments AGAINST: Morality is relative. This means that you do not rely on the opinion of others because there are already a set of rules for you to follow. This leads to there being an objective moral standard. 1.If morality is relative, then you have an idea of moral progress. 2.If there is moral progress, then there is a moral standard. 3.If there is a moral standard, then you rely on the opinion of the majority. 4.If you rely on the opinion of the majority, then you do not make hard decisions about morality. 5.This implies there are already a set of rules to follow. 6.If this is the case, then there is an objective standard. 7.If there is an objective standard, then murder would be morally wrong 8.Therefore, morality is relative.
Morality is not Realtive

Is it right to judge someone"s beliefs or custom? Most people believe that their customs are better than a different cultures customs. According to Benedict the "Black Magic Island" their customs and beliefs are that they shouldn"t trust anyone because they will kill you. To people in certain society"s this is crazy because the conclusion to their beliefs is that you shouldn"t even trust your mother/father/family members. However, to them that is normal. Being friendly and kind is abnormal for them. Looking into someone"s society people judge others. However, if a certain society was to come to America we would expect them to learn English, get an education, and "live the America dream". On the other hand we look into their society as beneath us. When the English came to the "New World" they thought the Indians were savaged and behaved barbaric. Who"s to say what is moral and what isn"t? What gives people the right to decide? If you don"t want others to judge you why judge others? In certain societies such as the eskimo"s, they kill their female babies. This is so because they need more men to hunt to bring back food and in their culture "a woman belongs in a home". So killing off the female offspring makes it less people to feed and if males are born more people to hunt for food. Some religions don"t believe in eating cows but others do. What makes other religions more superior than others ? In America people do kill their babies, abortions, or literally just killing them. On that note people will still continue to raise their noses to other societies
pro should have won this debate

I have probably learned more from my opponents responses in this debate, than any other. Thank you. Rebuttal: "Throughout this entire debate my opponent has only refuted one part of one of the three questions that make up this question as a whole. " I take issue with this statement as I wrote a 4 point argument in the beginning of R4, (In this debate. ) addressing analysis, of these my opponent only responded to one. Politeness: My opponents point here is irrelevant as this was only one of 4 points that I made, the other 3 stand. (Further more if you look at point b my opponents point regarding point a is shown to be false. ) Analysis and refutation are also related to the dropped argument. Conceded argument: "1. Lack of any organization made this argument extremely difficult to understand. " a) the point of organization was already conceded to. b) If con did not understand the argument he would have said as much. 2. More importantly, Pro did not even make the argument my opponent claims. That's imposable the claim I made was a direct cut and past quote from the original debate. "In this set, Pro does not explain how his quotes are fulfilled prophecies. Simply saying "the impressive eternity of the Jew" is not an explanation. " Being that the last line of the quote from mark twain was, " All things are mortal but the Jew; all other forces pass, but he remains. What is the secret of his immortality? ". It is quite obvious how the quote shows the fulfilment of prophesy. "In this portion Pro did not even provide the quote but instead a reference for the readers as to where they can find it. Pro can not expect Con to research a quote that was never provided in order to refute it. " Then Con would have to make the point that you just did. "And in neither of these examples did Pro explain how a fulfilled prophecy is evidence of God. " I thought it obvious. Since con did not challenge the obvious connection. There was no need to explain. Conclusion: It was not bec. my opponent did not understand the evidence. If that were the case the thing to do would be to write that. But no he did not respond at all. Either bec. he had no response or bec. he simply did not read it.
pro should have won this debate

I do thank him for his response. Analysis: my opponent focuses on pros words "my inability to explain" as evidence that it was pros lack of explaining not cons lack of understanding. I will proceed to refute the Prof: a) POLITNESS: pro was simply being POLITE. It is a custom on ddo for members to be polite, (at least in debates). In fact one of the points is given for conduct. It would not be very good conduct to write my opponent does not understand what I am saying. This is simply the most polite way of expressing the point that the argument was not understood. b)Furthermore it is not uncommon in the English language to speak this way. For example " The teacher could not get the student to pay attention. Doe not necessarily mean the teacher was at fault, it could mean that the student was simply not willing to pay attention. c)Prof that indeed pro was not taking the blame comes from the next sentence. "Perhaps it can only be grasped with time or age. " Implying that it was cons inability to grasp the concept not pros inability to explain. d)lastly it is clear from the back and forth that con did not follow this argument by stating the opposite off what was written: con in R4 quoting pro ( or rather misquoting pro) " "Judaism has been passed down for generations and generations and has gone from just a few people to millions. "" What pro really wrote was: (now this is a copy past quote from R4) ". .. A national experience of god by hundreds of thousands of witness ancestors. .. " con clearly did not understand as he missed 2 fundamental points a) it was an experience of god not just "Judaism" . b)It was many from the beginning never "just a few". As far as the rest of the underlined portions they do not imply in any way that pro is at fault for being unclear. Conceded Argument: 3 Fulfilled prophecies are indeed evidence of both god and Judaism. You might want to argue that they weren't fulfilled or they weren't prophesied or what not. Being that, that wasn't done. The argument stands and pro wins. My opponent writes: ". .. What my opponent has posted are a set of quotes from various people. .. " Okay. I will cut and past the argument again, not the whole thing but just the introduction, please read carefully: ". .. I would now like to get to some other points particularly a combination of prophesy regarding the uniqueness of the Jew with quotes to show the realization of these prophesies. .. " Not just "a set of quotes". It seems that this misunderstanding is what led to my opponents next point: "The oldest quote provided is from John Adams who was born in 1735. A quote from a man born 1700 years after the events of the bible allegedly took place, is in no way evidence for God. " The quotes as I wrote were to provide evidence that the prophesy about the future was realized. ((also the events were closer to 3000 years ago. ))