BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Religion is Anti-Intellectualism

In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.-It seems Pro has went on with his rambles and has not fixed the problems associated with his original argument.Pro is making up his own claims without any evidence. He his stating his own opinions without backing them up.He is basically saying X is X because he wants it to be. That is not a way to debate, especially intellectually.Pro has not even defined what is religion.I will argue that religion has nothing to do with whether you are intellectual or not. An intellectual according to Wikipedia is "...a man or woman who engages in critical study, thought, and reflection about the reality of society, and proposes solutions for the normative problems of society, and by such discourse in the public sphere gains authority from public opinion."[1]There are and were many many religious people, in the past and today, who are critical thinkers, those who engage in much thought and reflection upon the society that they live in. Religious people of all faiths have written books of knowledge about their society, problems, and solutions.And there is no doubt that religious people have proposed solutions for problems that exist in the society, and many of these solutions are used today under different labels.The Pro claiming that intellectualism is only exclusive to non-religious people is a very high form of arrogance, and anybody who agrees with Pro is far from being an intellectual.I'll give one example. Take a look at the Islamic Golden Age. That was an era before the Rennaiscance where many scholars and scientists of the Islamic religion in the middle east rose to great heights in power and intelligence.As Jeffery Watkins puts it, "The result was an era of stunning intellectual and cultural achievements."[2]The Islamic Golden Age advanced many things in the world:Arts & LiteraturePhilosophyMathematicsThe SciencesMedicineEconomic AchievementsLaw & More.Some specific achievements were in the mathematics field. Algebra and the Algorithm were contributed majorly by the Muslim mathematician, Al-Khwarizmi. The words Algebra and Algorithm come from the Arabic language. Algebra = Al-Jabr for example.The reason we have computers today is because of the work of Muslims, religious folks, during the Islamic Golden Age.I'm not going to dive too much into specifics, if the Pro desires, he can do his research on this Golden Era of human civilization and the contributions it brought to the world.The final point is basically, intellectualism is open, and anybody can be an intellectual regardless of what you faith you believe in. Religion does not stop a person from being an intellectual.I highly advise Pro to fix his arguments and provide evidence for what he wants to prove.Peace.Sources:[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.regentsprep.org...
Religion is Anti-Intellectualism

Religion is the blind acceptance of god(s). Intellectual conclusions are based on evidence. One would not support stricter gun control because he/she had faith in the viewpoint. No, statistical evidence would have to be provided for an intellectual to draw conclusions. The foundation of religion as a whole is blind faith no matter which specific religion. Therefore, intellectualism cannot be a part of someone's religion as religion is opposed to intellectualism. Religion does not follow intellectual, logical guidelines. Therefore, I do not understand why a generalization cannot be made about religion? Faith and rational thought (a necessary component of intellectualism) are polar opposites. Faith is blind, it is based off of assumptions and emotion, never evidence. Faith tells you to believe without proof. Therefore, religion teaches anti-intellectualism as it discourages rational thought, questioning and the need of evidence before coming to conclusions.
Religion is Anti-Intellectualism

In the name of God, the Gracious, the Merciful.-3 problems with Pro's starting argument.1) Pro says: "Religion is parasitical, conforming followers to anti-intellectualism."Problem: Pro did not define what specific religion he/she is speaking of. How can this be a proper debate if we are going to be generalizing?2) Pro says: "Recent meta-analysis demonstrates atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people."Problem: Pro has made another generalization. He attributed a human reality to supposed religious doctrine. In other words, Pro is blaming an idea by the actions of people. So even if a religion(s) (Pro has not specified) were to teach its adhenerents to be intellectual and open-minded, Pro will still point fingers at the religion(s) for the few bad apples that don't happen to be intellectuals.3) Pro says: "Religion encourages acceptance based purely on faith, whereas intellectualism encourages the act of questioning. Questioning dismantles religion as it has no rational answers."Problem: Which religion is Pro talking about here? What if intellectualism was part of a person's religion? A religion is a set of principles and ideas, everyone has their own religion.The debate cannot continue until the foundation is firm.Peace.
In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

The purpose of this round is to rebut my opponents points and then give key voting issues. Attacks: 1. CV reduces the quality of election results -The gist of this argument is that people who are uninformed or lack information are now required to vote. This supposedly will make elections less valid. I have three main responses (a,b, and c) a) The argument is non-unique because there's no possible way to prevent uninformed votes from being cast in a voluntary system b) There's always someone who is more informed than you does that mean you no longer should go out and vote just because you are not "more informed". If anything mandatory voting would incentivise people to become more informed. c) The quality will actually increase. Republicans of Pennsylvania passed restrictive voter ID laws to try and restrict younger voters (largely Democrat) from voting for their advantage. Politicians will no longer be able to achieve this if voting becomes mandatory. Democracy increases when a fuller range of voters actually go out and vote rather than a noisy minority. 2. CV infringes on the rights of the voters -Citizens have a right to choose how they vote and that includes not voting -violation of freedom of speech (two responses a and b) a) My previous argument about all citizens have certain duties such as jury duty and paying taxes was dropped, so extend that argument through the round. In a democracy citizens have certain duties CV is just another duty. b) Again dropped, citizens can always vote "none of the above", so CV doesn't force you to make a choice between two candidates. Defense: 1. Political Polarization -Over extremes in primary elections bring people away from the middle, gerrymandering, electoral system in the U. S. flawes a) I would like to remind you this topic is not U. S. specific. But ultimately in primary elections more votes would be cast due to CV, and thus bringing people politicians away from the extremes to take views more aligned with their electorate. b) I agree gerrymandering is responsible partially for polarization, but also voluntary voting is also at fault. When politicians have to appeal to hard-core partisan beliefs just so they can get the turnout and vote, we know there is a flaw in the supposedly democratic system. c) I agree the U. S. electorate system has its flaws and there's no 100% guarantee that CV will completely solve for polarization at least in that system. It can at least help whereas voluntary voting will actually increase the problems. Also the resolution is not U. S. explicit, so in other countries CV might be a key factor in decreasing polarization. If you truly value democracy, then CV is the only system that protects the rights of voters in all voter groups. In a voluntary system, politicians will continue to pass laws to restrict an individuals right to vote.
Religion is not the best strategy to achieve worthwhile human goals

"I would say that the first paragraph is fraught with assumptions that work toward your point without consideration of any alternatives" Not at all, look at my last sentence. Regarding my point about conscience. I am not saying that conscience is logical or that its not and I am not saying if it came from religion or not, all I am saying is that it seems to be a factor in our well being that we must take into account when we consider our well being. Would you not agree its a factor of our well being ? "You argue that if we lie to ourselves while studying this, we can't find out the truth about maximizing our well-being, and therefore somehow can't attain wellness" Close -- but that's not what I said. What I said was: "If we lie to ourselves while studying this, then we will not be able to find the truth about how to maximize our well being." This doesn't mean you can't attain some wellness by other means, its just that you can't know that you have really tried to maximize it. For example if I tried out something on myself, and it didn't make me feel so good, but I lie to myself that it did, and so I conclude that it makes me feel good, then I would not be able to ever achieve my goal. Isn't this true ? "In other words, your argument tries to state that we have to understand wellness in order to be well with no real logical connection as to how that works" Same problem, I am not talking about just attaining wellness, I am talking about maximizing it. "In other words, people are quite capable of understanding the truth about what makes us well, and if that wellness stems from something outside of normal logic, that does not in any way affect their ability to enjoy it and feel satisfied." Yes, of-course but to reach any conclusion you must be engaged in an honest study of your well being and things that may affect it, so what tools would you use to do this study ? The answer is, the best tools you have for the job. Your final argument is: "The third argument, in light of the above fallacy, becomes much weaker. If a person understands the truth about what makes him or her well, and the truth is that faith in religion makes him or her well, then partaking in religion is therefore the best way for that individual to attain self-actualization." That is theoretically possible, of-course, but in reality no one can really claim that he found out for certain that this is the best strategy to achieve his well being. It is only when one can truly claim (without lying) that he has completed his study and has full knowledge of the world and his own nature when he can honestly make that informed decision to start lying to himself and to discontinue the study of truth, since he already found the answer with pure certainty. So all I am saying is that we need to be engaged in the truthful study of our nature and the universe to really know what the best strategy is, until this research concludes we should not make any claims on best strategies, but to keep seeking the truth. Note that I never said that religion is not a good strategy to achieve well being, I just said it is not the best.
Religion is not the best strategy to achieve worthwhile human goals

My argument starts by saying that most of us, even if unaware, define our goal in life to maximize our own well being. Note that when striving to maximize our well being, our conscience is also a factor, thus harming others is usually a bad strategy. Moreover our strategy for maximizing our well being should not necessarily be greedy, just like a when a financial company wants to maximize profit, it would still make investments that do not return immediate profit. Herein, so far we have a goal: to maximize well being. Now we need to decide on an effective strategy to achieve this goal. In order to understand what affects our well being we must engage in the study of the truth, which means the study of what really effects our well being. If we lie to ourselves while studying this, then we will not be able to find the truth about how to maximize our well being. Note that it is possible that in the conclusion of our sincere study of our own nature we will find that maximizing our well being requires lying to ourselves and abandoning the truth, but that can only be concluded by means of truthfully studying our own nature. Now in religion a certain truth is assumed by way of faith. The word faith implies belief in the absence of evidence. Therefore this can not be the best strategy for studying the truth, and so it follows that it also can't be the best strategy for maximizing well being. Science is our most sincere effort in the study of the truth, therefore the means by which we study our nature and our universe must be scientific in order to achieve our goal. If anyone has a better goal or a better strategy you are invited to make your arguments.
EUTHANASIA BE LEGALIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES

haha, well I do believe in my arguments. Hope to see you in future debates. There is a mininum of 100 characters befor eyou can post, so im just filling the spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee... See ya
EUTHANASIA BE LEGALIZED IN THE PHILIPPINES

Firstly, I disagree with your definition of euthanasia. Euthanasia is the putting to death, by painless method, of a terminally-ill or severely debilitated person through the omission (intentionally withholding a life-saving medical procedure, also known as passive euthanasia) or commission of an act (active euthanasia), as defined by the leanlegal dictionary online. I also find your first point confusing; in what way does the legalisation of euthanasia affect the close family ties in Filipinos? I, being a Filipino, can relate, and I fail to see your point. Secondly, define what you mean by "the doctor's ethics"? In a case to case basis, a doctor will not be performing euthanasia if he/she is against it, therefore it is a fallacy to generalise to all doctors. Lastly, euthanasia is against the constitution, that is why the topic is should it be legalised. Saying it is currently not legal is restating the topic, no relevance. Now for my arguments. Firstly, the financial costs of keeping a person on a life support machine are enormous, not to mention hospital bills and 24-hour medical care. 80% of the Filipinos live in poverty, how many people can afford this? What happens then if the family cannot afford keeping the relative on life support? Do they get arrested? Secondly, the emotional distress that is caused by seeing your loved one in a vegetative state for an extended period of time while doctors continually tell you that there is no hope for recovery is potentially traumatizing. Some people who consider this as suffering for the vegetable loved one will want euthanasia, but they haven't the option. Legalising this will not force everyone to take this course, but rather only provide an option. Lastly, the medical facilities and time that is devoted towards the vegetative patient with low chances of recovery could be spent helping someone else in greater need. Already in the Philippines we have a shortage of medical personnel and equipment, this additional burden will only cause more damage.
The Genesis account of creation is not mythical

The resolution is not "Genesis is scientifically accurate", it's "Genesis is not mythical." I have already fulfilled my burden of proof. I simply answered your points because you diverted the debate into a different direction, therefore i will only refute your arguments. "This is important because virtually all of Pro"s argumentation given in the previous round can only ever hope to support the second wording of the resolution. The default position is not to assume Genesis is true and then try to justify it, but rather to decide whether or not Genesis is true based on the available evidence. That"s how rational investigation is concocted." I did not assume Genesis is true (straw man argument), i simply explained what the text probably said based on the available evidence. Furthermore, you ignore that everything is a possibility (even in science), it's just a hypothesis supported by evidence. Same with Genesis. "Virtually anything can be made "consistent" with science given enough ad hoc reasoning, but we are no longer objectively seeking to see whether or not the original statement is true. " Con falsely accuses me of using ad-hoc reasoning. Ad hoc reasoning is defined as "An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one"s belief or theory" (1). Con uses a strawman argument (literal interpretation of Genesis) in an attempt to discredit it when i presented evidence that it's not there in the original Hebrew. Con proceeds to speak about how the universe doesn't need God, but that's irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the resolution. "As I alluded to last round, all these processes that we talk about regarding the origin of species, of star accretion, galaxy accretion, the formation of Earth"s water and the evolution of planets, trees and humans all have compelling physical explanations. Natural selection and mutations coupled with a changing environment are compelling enough to explain the life that exists enough without introducing a God," Con appears to resort to a debate tactic known as appeal to nature (2). Just because it's more compelling, doesn't follow that it's true. "Is Pro seriously asserting that because something is ancient it is more likely to not contain contradictions?! I beg Pro to clarify his logical progression here" I mean to say that because modern interpretations have distorted what the Bible originally said, now that we have discovered what ancients believed, no contradictions are found. Sources: 1. http://skepdic.com... 2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Resolved: That Scott Walker's recent budget bill is a wonderful, much needed idea

Unions have ruined industry,. especially the auto industry, since unions contribute almost all of their money to the Democratic Party, who always oppose any capitalistic, pro-economy, pro-business measures. Mark J. Perry, professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, found that the average compensation for employees of the Big Three (unionized) car makers, including benefits, came to $73 an hour!! That is an unreasonable wage.In 2007, the legacy costs (pensions, health care, etc) for union-made vehicles was $1800 per car, which is now much higher due to inflation. Think about what that does to American companies completing with non-unionized (but still fairly paid) workers at foreign car companies (workers, by the way, who still have jobs). When the American cars (same cars) would cost around 2,000 dollars more per vehicle, something has to go. m This something, far too often, is quality. When quality goes, so does consumer confidence, which drives even more buyers to foreign companies. So the demise of our auto industry is the fault of the unions. This bill did not require teachers to contribute MORE...It required them to CONTRIBUTE. Why should state employees get free pensions and health care when the state is in a Democrat-caused budget crisis? Everyone has to take cuts, including the responsibility to lose the dubious right to bargain for more outlandish wages. Why should unions walk about untouched? Furthermore, unions need to be forced to have an open-shop mentality, not force workers to unionize and contribute to radical socialist ideologies of the union leaders
Resolved: That Scott Walker's recent budget bill is a wonderful, much needed idea

My opponent will argue that Scott Walker's budget bill forcing public worker unions to contribute to their pensions and health care and removing some collective bargaining right is a bad idea. Good luck! My argument is that the unions have attained too much power and they need to accept concessions, not carp about them in the state capital. And yes, the unions have ruined our industries with their unreasonable demands and their closed-shop mentality that hurts workers. The unions are the four-handed monster: One hand around the worker, one hand waving to the public, one hand stabbing the middle class in the back, and one hand grasping in their pockets for the wallets. Unions need to accept cuts along with the rest of us.
Resolved: That Scott Walker's recent budget bill is a wonderful, much needed idea

Unfortunately, my opponent forfeited the last round. I extend my arguments from the previous round. As a matter of intellectual debate, a third argument needs to be stated. III. The budget debacle could have been resolved without cutting teachers' benefits. Several local professors and economists came to the conclusion that the situation in Wisconsin is not as bad as politicians like Walker make it out to be. Wisconsin has a strong pension system and the deficit it faces is only average among other states. [10] Governor Walker actually had several other options to address the deficit. Oregon, for example, raised taxes on the wealthy and corporations to cover part of the budget deficit. [11] He could attempt to reform the judicial system to reduce the amount of non-violent prisoners. Additionally, they could borrow from segregated funds or funds to use until the budget is balanced. [10] Each of these options would take a significant chunk out of the budget deficit. Walker actually worsened the budget situation by passing business tax cuts that will cost the state $117 million in the next two years. [12] Details like this, and Walker's refusal to accept unions' financial concessions, indicate that this is not a move motivated simply by a desire to fix the budgetary problems of the state. This move is heavily motivated politically, and Walker's general rhetoric toward the protesters and the teachers during the budget fight reflects that. The negative has sufficiently shown many reasons for why this bill is neither needed nor wonderful. The resolution is negated. [10] http://host.madison.com... [11] http://www.csmonitor.com... [12] http://factcheck.org...
Should College Campuses allow CCWs to students/staff

Guns and schools are not usually associated with each other, but when they are, it"s often under tragic circumstances. The shootings at Columbine High School in April 1999, Virginia Tech University in April 2007 and Northern Illinois University in February have one thing in common: armed students gunning down their unarmed classmates. Now some are arguing that students or teachers should be allowed to have guns at school. While it once would have been unthinkable for firearms to be allowed in and around schools, that"s no longer the case. The state of Utah now allows students, faculty and visitors to carry firearms on college campuses if they have permits to carry concealed weapons. Earlier this year, the Harrold Independent School District near Austin, Texas, began allowing employees to carry concealed firearms to school as long as the employees have permits. Texas doesn"t allow firearms on school grounds except under certain conditions, but the district"s trustees claimed that the school"s rural location near U.S. 287 makes it vulnerable to possible incidents. The school district appears to be the only one in the country with the policy. The argument for guns in schools is self-defense: Armed students or teachers have the opportunity, not only to defend themselves, but to stop an assailant before other people are killed or injured. That argument is highly controversial. E. Floyd Phelps, the retired director of fire safety at Southern Methodist University and current chairman of the Fire and Life Safety Council for ASIS International, says the Harrold school district is suggesting that, because teachers deal with students regularly, they are as qualified as police officers to carry a firearm. But police officers are tested about the types of situations where a firearm may or may not be needed, whereas the average person carrying a gun, including a teacher, isn"t, he says. "No teacher would think that a police officer could come in and teach their class," Phelps says. "It"s the same thing with security, guns, schools and hostile situations.