BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Common Core

Firstly according to the rules of Common Core, parents do not have a say in their child's education. If parents wont have a say, then what is the point for them spending their tax money on it. Secondly, teachers will not have a control over what to teach. They will be forced to teach what the standards suggests which were made by a federal bureaucrat. I mean who would know better on how students would learn. A person who is with them all day, or someone who sits in a office and signs bills?
Noah's Ark is not true

There have been countless "flood" stories in numerous cultures that don't even have contact with each other at that the time that all depict nearly the same events so something global involving a flood and an ark may have been involved. Many archaeologists have found evidence of what they believe the actual ark is http://www.huffingtonpost.com... In 1959, Turkish army captain Llhan Durupinar discovered an unusual shape while examining aerial photographs of his country. The smooth shape, larger than a football field, stood out from the rough and rocky terrain at an altitude of 6,300 feet near the Turkish border with Iran. Capt. Durupinar was familiar with the biblical accounts of the Ark and its association with Mount Ararat in Turkey, but he was reluctant to jump to any conclusions. The region was very remote, yet it was inhabited with small villages. No previous reports of an object this odd had been made before. So he forwarded the photographic negative to a famous aerial photography expert named Dr. Brandenburger, at Ohio State University. Brandenburger was responsible for discovering the Cuban missile bases during the Kennedy era from reconnaissance photos, and after carefully studying the photo, he concluded: "I have no doubt at all, that this object is a ship. In my entire career, I have never seen an object like this on a stereo photo." from: http://www.viewzone.com...
Three Philosophical Topics - 1C

I haven't really put much time into this. And I haven't looked up any sources. Why? Because suicide is the very dictionary definition of free will. Random House Dictionary, ï¿½ Random House, Inc. 2009. free will –noun 1.free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will. 2.Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces. Suicide is the free and independent choice to kill yourself. "So your example of suicide can simply be rationalized from the incompatibilist in the same framework - those who suicide probably do so from a chain of painful experiences or circumstances." That is true--however, you can't be forced to commit suicide. Therefore it is your choice to commit suicide. Therefore suicide is an example of free will falling under the 2009 Random House Dictionary definition.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1C

"Are you saying that the person commiting suicide isn't exercising control over their actions?" ----> No. I finally see what the point of your argument is, and all I have to say is that if you were attempting to catch me in a semantical trap it was unsuccessful. If you read it carefully, it refers to free will as the ability rational agents *HAVE WHEN* they exercise control over their actions. This definition already assumes people are exercising control (a better term is intentionality), because free will is this supposed element of decision making. The point of this debate was an attempt to figure out what free will is, and then figure out if it exists. Since you haven't even touched upon either part, I will supply a short argument against free will as you have wasted our rounds. The argument I am presenting is the famous consequence argument by Carl Ginet[1][2]. P1. If determinism is true, then we have no control over the events of the past that determined our present state and no control over the laws of nature. P2. Since we can have no control over these matters, we also can have no control over the consequences of them. C. Since our present choices and acts, under determinism, are the necessary consequences of the past and the laws of nature, then we have no control over them and, hence, no free will. Furthermore, I will remind my opponent that as stated in my profile, I am a Source Incompatibilist. I deny the existence of free will, and conceive of the notion of control in the framework of the Source model. In contrast to the Leeway model, the Source model conceives of control as being the source of which one's actions originate. Here is a breakdown of how the Source model views free will: Any agent, x, performs an any act, a, of his own free will iff x has control over a. x has control over a only if x is the ultimate source of a. As you can see, put in conjunction with the consequence argument the Source model can easily reject free will. I will be ready to defend either claim. ---References--- 1. http://www2.drury.edu... 2. http://maverickphilosopher.powerblogs.com... 3. http://plato.stanford.edu...
Three Philosophical Topics - 1C

Ah, even if you make an argument I don't mind. Free will does not imply you can't make decisions. As I stated before, you can have freedom of action without freedom of will. So your example of suicide can simply be rationalized from the incompatibilist in the same framework - those who suicide probably do so from a chain of painful experiences or circumstances. Whatever the reason may be, suicide is no different from any other activity that involves intentionality.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1C

Ok, that wasn't a round, just a brief explanation of what I was going to do. Would it be fair if I had 4 turns and you had 3? I was't clear anyway, sorry. I did that really really quickly. Anyway, what I am saying is that suicide is an example of free will. Suicide--the action of killing oneself intentionally (Oxford American) Intentionally--Done on purpose; deliberate Show that suicide is not a decision made by the person dying
Three Philosophical Topics - 1C

Since his response was small, and frankly an absurd misunderstanding of free will, my round here won't be too long. "I am going to assume that because my opponent believes free will doesn't exist, then all humans have one choice. There is always the choice of death. " ----> Why would the denial of free will entail that we can only have one choice? If you are referring to determinism and you mean there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences, then I agree - but obviously these mean different things. Even though we don't have free will we still have freedom of action, though the driving force behind it is not "free". If you doubt this then lift up your hand, walk around the room, and get a burger; this would confirm what I mean. "Pro must prove that an external source can be linked to death in every single case ever recorded. So Con wins. " ----> What do you mean an external source? Perhaps by external you mean something that is outside the human body causing death, and if that is so I have no clue how free will even leads to such an irrelevant conclusion. Frankly, I'm not sure why you even brought this up.
Three Philosophical Topics - 1C

I will present three philosophical debate topics and allow my opponent to have the opportunity to choose one of them to debate. The procedure is simple: in this round I list the 3 topics and my position on them, then in my opponent's first round he chooses the topic he wants to debate. From rounds 2-4 we have ourselves a classic three round debate! So here are the topics: ===================================================== PRO - Qualia is not an irreducible, non-physical entity. PRO - Free will does not exist. PRO - Moral error theory is sound/There are currently no adequate meta-ethical theories that secure moral realism.* ===================================================== A little clarification on each topic: *Qualia is the phenomenal character of conscious experience that you as a first person observer is able to access introspectively. There are several different definitions of qualia, some being more restrictive than others, so if there are any suggestions for change then leave it in the comments section. *Free will is the ability that rational agents have when they exercise control over their actions. The definition and interpretation of free will obviously needs to be expanded upon, but that's part of the debate. *Moral error theory is the meta-ethical school of thought that claims nothing is there are no moral facts. I am willing to defend either the global falsity version or the presupposition failure version. Furthermore, you will notice that I included another topic that is closely related to this topic; it's unique because I'm giving the opponent to choose either moral error theory or the claim that there is yet a satisfactory account for moral realism (essentially you get 4 topics). Also, to avoid redundancy if you choose the latter topic then I will refute it not by arguing for error theory (which is definitely viable) but rather by creating a positive attack on your proposed ethical theory (utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, Objectivism, virtue ethics, contractarianism, etc.). I'm PRO on all topics to coincide with the position I actually am for this debate - this is to make everything as clear and free of misunderstandings as possible. I hope we have a great debate.
yes it is

The United States at the moment is considered a democracy despite all the issues with the government. Gerrymandering is a major issue involving the public"s vote. It has caused a lot of grief but is not enough to denounce the US as a democracy. A democracy is a government that has elect representatives. At the moment gerrymandering warps the public"s vote to benefit a party. However we the people still hold the power to change anything in the country. But if we continue down the path of carelessness and allow corrupt Politicians to do as they please than there is a possibility that the practice of democracy can stop in the US. A great example of the people"s loss in voting power can be demonstrated by the Republicans program known as red mapping. This program allowed republicans to hold their power in the house despite the public"s opinion. The Republican Party was able to do so by using gerrymandering to their advantage. This was a disaster for the people since most of the population favored a democratic representative. In fact the Democratic Party exceeded the Republicans vote by millions when it came to voting. The only solution to this dilemma would be to redistrict the states in an organized manner. Of course it will be done according to population and not to a parties benefit as before. On a side note, the US was not founded as a democracy. Not once in the constitution is the word democracy used to describe the Country. The US was originally a Republic.
Abortion

I am not quite sure whose information is correct, but acccording to Life News, more women die from abortion vs. childbirth. Here is a link that I found with a wonderful graph showing these rates. . http://www.lifenews.com... You are absolubtely right that there are many pregnancies that end in misscariage. I saw on Pregnancy Life that 10% of pregnancies do end in miscarriage. But, what happens to the other 90%? Do they just die? When you are talking about it being the mother's choice, do you think it is okay for a woman to have an abortion during the second or third trimester? Why or why not? According to Glen Beck news, 67% of people believe it is okay for a person to have an abortion during the first trimester. Then, when asked if it is okay to have an abortion during the second or third trimester, only 15% said that it was okay. If it is really the woman's choice and if you claim to be pro-choice, don't you think the woman should be able to have an abortion at any stage during the pregnancy. Then we get into the extreme case of, well, if a woman is allowed to have an abortion during pregnancy, don't you think the woman should be able to kill her child after it is born? You know, since it is "her choice. .. " Let me ask you, do you think that it is okay to kill a child one minute before birth? Well, you argue that it isn't a human, it is a fetus. Is there a difference in the baby one minute before birth or one minute after birth? It is completely phycostic to say that it is not a human when it is the same thing, separated by the lining of a placenta. - That is a strong argument when discussing abortion, but there is already tons of back street abortion occuring now. But, this honestly dwindles down to natural selection. A woman may go into a back street abortion knowing what she is doing, just like she knows she is going to have unprotected sex before concenption of the baby. The issue is that most women know the risks at hand when going into these types of dangerous abortions. Should the child die because of this? And with suicidal women carrying child, this unfortunately occurs now and I do not know how that relates to our argument of abortion. - I basically would just like to ask; where are your moral values? Do you think a person should die in the place of another? I do respect your opinion. I can understand where you are coming from. But, being a woman, I just want to think that what if my child is a woman? Should she have rights too? Absolubtely.
Abortion

- Something very interesting when discussing mortality rates: Ireland does not have any abortion- it is illegal. Ireland has the lowest mortality rates in the world. How do you justify that? - When you are talking about death with childbirth vs. abortion, are you talking about the child's death or the mother's death. Becuase, of course there will be a higher death rate with abortion, being that death of the child is the objective of getting an abortion. - Some women would not want their child to be adopted- given. But, do you honestly think that a woman spending nine months carrying a child can go against that child's 73 (an average) years of age? - When you say that no one is blaming the fetus for being conceived- that is exactly my point! Why should we blame this child and see it as a threat, resulting in killing? Why don't we focus more on the person who did the act of rape? Why do many feel that conceived unwanted children are a threat? - How do I define life? I do not believe that we need to look at numbers. Even the president of Pro Choice America said, "we fabricated numbers to add a dramatic touch." It does not matter which trimester a baby is born in- that baby will become a human some day. It just needs time a nourishment. I do believe life of a human being begins at conception. Life has always been in the presence of the father, then transffered to the mother. But, when a sperm meets an egg, that is the beginning of life. - When discussing making abortions illegal, many propose ideas to help young people find a better alternative than abortion. So many organizations such as planned parenthood are not discussing and giving these young people all the information needed. I quote a Planned Parenthood nurse from Illinois speaking to a 14 year old girl, "Abortion is the only way out of this. I do not care what happened to you, how old the man was- it doesn't matter. What matters is that we take this parasite out of your body." lilarose-prolife
Abortion

Thank you very much for your argument. - One point you made was that the baby does not feel pain. I am sorry but this is inccorrect. There have been many scientific studies proving that babies do feel pain. Elisha Peters, president of Pro Abortion Organization even stated that "The argument that babies do not feel pain has been ruled out since that it has been proven that they do." - When discussing the health of the mother, unfortunately studies have shown that there are much greater risks when conducting an abortion than actually giving birth. Abortion is an unnatural process. Women are supposed to reproduce if they are able to. Killing one's young when it is inside the human body is not natural. Please do not get me wrong; pregnancy can be very dangerous! There can be many complications, but according to abortion.gov, there is a 70% higher complication rate with abortion vs. natural birth and c section. - When discussing the matter that some women cannot take care of their child, I ABSOLUBTELY AGREE WITH YOU. But, there are other options for the children. We do not have to look at these children as a threat, instead we need to look at them as humans with rights. There are many great foster care and adoption services provided throughout the entire world. - Rape is absolubtely horrible! We can also gorup rape with incest. Most people do not understand that abortion does not un rape a woman. It brings more violence to the woman's tragic event. There was a woman, Rebecca Keisling who was conceived in a rape act and she stated "Should I have received the death penalty for the acts of my father?" - When discussing women's rights- what are that baby's rights? You said that a fetus is not considered a baby until a certain stage in pregnancy. What stage would you consider that? Is it when the baby is born? Some babies are aboarted when they can survive outside of the womb! - Another point I would like to make is that according to abortion.gov, 45% of abortion babies come out alive- a living person. Then, they are left there to die. Wouldn't you consider that murder? I would! It is a living creature. Sometimes, they are even killed by the abortionist. Look forward to hearing your argument.
Abortion

Many different procedures exist to carry out the process of abortion. According to Birth Mothers (an organization working to help women with unwanted pregnancies), one of the most commonly used types of abortion is a saline abortion. In a saline abortion, amniotic fluid is removed from the woman and replaced by a strong saline (salt) solution. As the fetus"s lungs absorb the salt solution, it begins to suffocate. It may struggle and may even have convulsions. The saline also burns off the fetus" outer layer of skin. Saline abortion can take one to six hours before the fetus is no longer viable. According to Life Site News, 1,200 babies survive abortions each year. About 50% of them die before the age of 12. For those who do not die, mostly all of them have a disability or lifelong impairment. This act is cruel to those babies who survive the abortion. According to Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (an pro-life organization), babies can feel pain from abortion. Neonatologists and nurses are able to see unborn babies at 20 weeks gestation react physically to outside stimuli such as sound, light and touch. The sense of touch is so acute that even a single human hair drawn across an unborn baby's palm causes the baby to make a fist. This clearly proves that a baby can feel pain from abortion. Sadness surfaces when thinking of this fact. Cruelty is a word used in many different scenarios, most often used when discussing murder. Abortion is murder; therefore, abortion cruel. What is a woman thinking when she is deciding to have an abortion? Did she think, before sexual intercourse, about the possibility that she may get pregnant? According to Operation Rescue, 87% of women who have had an abortion admitted that they were thinking only of their pleasure when they were not using proper protection or birth control during sexual intercourse. Most women who have abortions are killing an innocent life to fix their mistakes. Other cases exist for example rape or possible disease. Abortion is a risk because what if that fetus becomes the next president, a wonderful brain surgeon, or possibly will find the cure for cancer?
I really care about the correct spelling of the book of Revelation.

This should be interesting. CONDUCT: My opponent violated the structure of this debate. As anyone can easily see, the first round was for acceptance, NOT acceptance and definitions. I ask the voters to consider this when voting. BURDEN OF PROOF: I agree that the burden of proof is shared in this debate. Having said that, I would like to point out that my burden is easier to fulfill than my opponent's. Here's why: In order to meet my burden, all I have to do is show how my position falls under some combination of the definitions provided. On the other hand, in order to meet his burden of proof, my opponent must show how my position cannot possibly be reckoned among any combination of potential definitions. Definitions: I am fine with the definitions my opponent offered. I am confident my position on the book of Revelation can be reconciled with them. Evidence: Before the beginning of this debate, I commented on another debate my opponent is engaged in. The name of that debate is: "Revelations: A False Prophecy". The link to that debate is below: . http://www.debate.org... If one were to read the comment section, they'd find a comment from me. Once they did, they'd see how I said, "Pet peeve. .. It's the book of Revelation, NOT Revelations. " Clearly I am correcting my opponent about the correct spelling of that particular book of the Bible. Let's now go over certain definitions of each word of the debate resolution, and see how the Pro position is affirmed. Definition of 'care' (v): : to feel interest in something : to be interested in or concerned about something ***Clearly my pet peeve comment shows I'm interested. Definition of 'correct' (adjv): : having no errors or mistakes ***Clearly my concern shows I wish to fix a spelling error. Definition of 'really' (adv): "used to refer to what is true or real ***Clearly my pet peeve shows I want the spelling of Revelation to be the true one. Definition of 'spelling' (n): : the way in which a word is correctly spelled ***Clearly I argued the book of Revelation should be spelled correctly. So when you consider the definitions above, I really care about the correct spelling of the book of Revelation. Resolution affirmed.
I really care about the correct spelling of the book of Revelation.

I accept this challenge. For the purpose of this debate, I will be tasked with proving PRO does not really care about the correct spelling of the book of Revelation, however, the burden of proof rests on both of us. Definition of 'care' (n): : effort made to do something correctly, safely, or without causing damage : things that are done to keep someone healthy, safe, etc. : things that are done to keep something in good condition Definition of 'care' (v): : to feel interest in something : to be interested in or concerned about something : to feel affection for someone : to want to do something or to be something Definition of 'correct' (adjv): : true or accurate : agreeing with facts : having no errors or mistakes : proper or appropriate in a particular situation Definition of 'really' (adv): "used to refer to what is true or real : without question or doubt : to a great degree Definition of 'spelling' (n): : the act of forming of words from letters : the way in which a word is correctly spelled : the forming of words from letters according to accepted usage : orthography : a sequence of letters composing a word : the way in which a word is spelled 1 http://www.merriam-webster.com...