BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The Human Predicament

This debate is challenged to CosmicAlfonzo as he offered his Con position in a forum thread. If CosmicAlfonzo for some reason cannot accept this challenge I’ll be glad to debate this with anybody. Objective happiness must be based on something objective. Moreover objective meaning, value, and purpose are the areas to contrive objective happiness. These, in order to be objective, would have to be transcendent from man, external from our subjective parameters pushed onto these ideas, and therefore come from God. So under this thought an Atheist could not be objectively happy if he were consistent with the idea that God does not exist. Or he could at some level lie about his worldview (making his worldview inconsistent) in order to be objectively happy in relation to real meaning, value and purpose. This is what has been titled “The Human Predicament.” The Human Predicament: Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. In instead if we manage to live happily, it is only by giving lie to our worldview. This will be a purely intellectual and logical debate. I don’t appreciate, and feel that swearing and personal attacks subtract from the search of higher understanding in these issues so please don’t. Quotes or listed sources are not necessary, but if you wish to add them they would add to your case. You can list them in the debate or on the comments section…your choice. The debate will consist of 5 rounds. 8000 characters will be permitted for each round. The rounds will be structured as follows: Round 1: Acceptance. If you accept this challenge you are agreeing to the structure I am identifying in this round. You will be taking the Con position to the truth of the human predicament. No arguments presented here, just your acceptance. Round 2: Both will be presenting their side’s initial argument. Round 3: Attacking the opposition’s initial argument and further establishing their own. Round 4: Attacking the opposition’s defense of his argument, and attacking any new evidence presented. Round 5: Attacking the opposition’s defense of his arguments again, and attacking any new evidence provided in round 4. NO NEW EVIDENCE CAN BE GIVEN IN THIS ROUND. Bringing in a new line of evidence not previously identified is not allowed in this round due to the inability of the opposition to refute it. Finally you can finish this round with your conclusion. Good luck Con!
The Human Predicament

No, this is not an argument over semantics. There is no argument here, this is fact. There is no such thing as "objective happiness", as by definition it is a word that describes a subjective assessment of a state. Measuring "objective happiness" is as absurd as measuring "objective beauty". There is no argument that objectivity is what is true despite human opinion, yet you still, despite saying otherwise, assume that a belief in something makes it true. The belief or lack of belief in a god is irrelevant to happiness or even objective happiness, whether or not god exists or not. A belief or lack of belief in objective happiness has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on whether or not someone is objectively happy. This is not a debate over the existence of god, and we are not assuming the existence or non-existence of god in this debate. We are not assuming the existence of objective happiness. The existence of the theistic god is unknowable, and so is whether or not this god even deals with absurd things like "objective happiness". To recap my arguments... -I have shown that the very idea of "objective happiness" is an absurdity, as happiness is a subjective evaluation of a mindstate. -I pointed out that this is a debate over what someone believes, not the truth of these beliefs, and that objectivity stands independent from what one believes. -I have demonstrated that I am both consistent in my lack of belief in a theistic god, and have asserted that I am at the very least, subjectively happy. -I have pointed out that it would be ridiculous for someone to believe they were happy in this life, only to be told that they were not happy by god(who is the only one who can know if you are happy) -I have shown that what my opponent considers to be objective is actually "objective from a relative standpoint", and relies on far too many subjective evaluations that are impossible to measure. To conclude, I personally find pro's position to be fundamentally presumptuous, and offensively ignorant. We are dealing with absurdities. This debate is nonsensical. Contrary to what pro thinks, this is not because I am assuming an atheist position, it is because I am looking at this from an epistemological perspective. This is a debate over whether or not someone who does not believe in god can be happy. This is not a debate over whether or not objective happiness is possible if a god exists. This not a debate that assume a person's belief system is true if it is believed. This is a debate over whether or not someone who does not believe in god can be happy. My opponent's attempt to turn this into something else is fundamentally misleading. This debate is over the truth of what Pro claims to be the "human predicament". "Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy."
The Human Predicament

Sorry for the late response, and thank you for yours Cosmic.Well it seems to me that we are mainly arguing over semantics here. If you think that I’ve only been arguing about relative happiness then I’d like to refer you to round 1, in my opening definition of objective happiness, and see there how the objective happiness I was talking about there would be the form of happiness I would be defending. This is why I started round 1 with my definition of objective happiness so no one would be confused at what I meant when the words profoundly unhappy came up in the human predicament.I feel that most of the points to be made regarding this subject have been made on my part. I will just summarize them so one can recap on my arguments.- I have shown how objective happiness can only come from objective measures of worth, or better stated as objective meaning, value, and purpose.- I have shown how God can provide these objective realities.- I have shown how only a Theistic God can provide these objective realities thereby making them unattainable to the Atheist.- I have shown that the actual existence of God or objective realities, don’t need to exist for one to become entrapped in the human predicament. I have stated that the Theistic God is the only God that could even hypothetically dictate objective meaning, value, and purpose by being external from our reality, and the creator of it. - I have shown that the question of what is objective meaning, value, and purpose are not what is absurd, but how under the Atheistic worldview, life itself is the absurdity. There is no ultimate meaning, value, and purpose making everything we do and think objectively worthless. - And lastly I have shown how when an Atheist is confronted with this predicament, he has a means of escape by excepting the idea of God, even if at some sub-level of consciousness.To make clear I’m not saying Cosmic, or any other individual, Theist or not, can’t be happy. To fully understand the Human Predicament you have to understand what objective happiness is, and then you would realize that the Atheist’s happiness is actually, and relatively subjective. Even if the Theist is wrong about the existence of God, this would only make his actual happiness subjective, but his relative happiness under objective concepts in his mind gives justification to call his happiness objective. The Atheist here still must say his happiness is completely subjective under both categories. I hope the voter enjoyed this debate as I know I have. Thank you CosmicAlfonzo for your engaging arguments and rebuttals. I look forward to future debates with you hopefully in subjects of like material. Good luck!
Comment a Topic!

Ok then, my topic proposal shall be: which is the better ice cream flavour, chocolate or vanilla? I personally believe that vanilla is a far more desirable flavour as it not so high in calories, yet still has the same great taste that many other flavours attribute. Additionally, chocolate flavour can be too rich for some people to enjoy and can have detrimental effects on those who have high cholesterol and other health problems who want nothing more than to still enjoy a good ice-cream.
Comment a Topic!

My personal philosophies involve the abolition of revenge - it is legally detestable and religiously immoral. Also, the abolition of capital punishment as I view it as revenge and not justice, it is also theoretically a form of torture which incidentally is a crime against humanity. I also rebuke animal abuse (except for meat production as that is merely nature and religiously permissible) for it is egregious and Machiavellian, I also believe it should be considered a crime against humanity as it would take an individual with no humanity to intentionally kill an innocent creature fir their own sick pleasure. My religion is non-denominational Christianity and I strongly believe that the theory of evolution is erroneous as it has never been explicitly explained as to what preceded the big bang. Also, I find the theory of evolution to be cruel, what about those suffering in developing countries - do they suffer their whole lives and are never given an afterlife? That is a glimpse of my philosophical and moral doctrines. Am I a worthy opposition in this... well... debate.
Comment a Topic!

I don't care if we play a game of who who would be better at something, or if we debate a topic. I am looking for more of a conversational argument, not a traditional debate. you can argue your own personal philosophies but have to back them up well. First round is just acceptance and statement of pro or con since there is no topic yet. To be helpful i would argue anything thing from Coke vs. Pepsi, to should gay marriage be legal. Post a comment and i will pick one that is interesting!
legalization of marijuana

Evidence will show and who ever is to argue with me will hear that making marijuana a legal drug will be one of the most critical mistakes this country shall make. Marijuana has been one of the most commonly illegal drugs to be consumed by people through out the world. Statistics show that the death toll of marijuana consumers is at a very low state compared to the deaths of cocaine and tobacco consumers. Despite the fact it may not cause death, marijuana has been proved to have had many medical effects on people. For the United Sates to make a drug that has had many negative effects on our society an accepted product for our people is quite frankly, one of the worst mistakes our country has made.
In the Eucharist, the bread and wine become Christ's literal body and blood.

I would like to issue this challenge to Mr.Infidel. His last debate on this topic wasn't debated well by his opponent, so I'd like a chance to do a better job.Transubstantiation -- the Catholic doctrine in which during Communion the bread and wine because Christ's literal body and blood.As a Protestant I reject this doctrine and hold that during Communion (commonly referred to as The Lord's Supper) the elements do not change but are purely for memorial purposes.For the purpose of this debate, God is assumed to exist and the Bible is assumed to be the Word of God.If Infidel accepts, he may make the first argument, if he wishes.
The United States should withdraw from the United Nations

I have been presented an opportunity to make the case for American involvement in multilateralism, world peace, human rights, humanitarianism, international law and open discourse between nations. Ah well. Winning isn’t everything. I want the debate more than the win. Therefore, I will argue that the US should continue to contaminate the UN with its up-endery and insolence. This should be a fairly easy win for my partner, as there is no convincing argument that I can think of for a US role in any of these matters. In fact, there is no role for any member of the United States citizenry to have any more than a passing interest in such outlander concerns as genocide and mass starvation. This, and we should – at all costs – prevent our elected servants from extending an enabling hand (holding the inevitable sack of rice) to those lazes who choose to relax all day instead of gainfully working for their food. The intricacies of international treatydom are arcane – and quite beyond the ability of most Americans to grasp. (Americans are, after all, well-known for their feeble intellects, and inability to breathe through their noses rather than mouths.) I agree fully with my “opponent,” that our nation, populated as it is with ignorant country rubes, is far too unwise to meddle in such things. We are better advised to leave such matters to those expert in such Byzantine machinations. Such as the Bosnians, Iranians, and the Syrians. Americans…. Americans do not belong at the “Grown-up Table” of the International Community, and we should learn to accept that fact. Nevertheless, even though my partner and I agree fully in every respect, and there exist no differences of opinion of any size in the matter being debated, I will, with a heavy heart, accept this challenge.
The United States should withdraw from the United Nations

This debate will be centered on whether or not the United States should withdraw from the United Nations. An understood assumption is that this probably will not happen in the near future, but the arguments will be focus on whether or not it OUGHT to happen. I will be arguing that the U. S. should withdraw from the U. N. , my opponent will be arguing that the U. S. should remain an active member. The first round will be for acceptance, second/third for contentions, defense of contentions, and rebuttal, fourth for conclusions. No new ideas may be introduced in the fourth round. Please have at least two contentions and keep things somewhat organized. Contentions do not necessarily have to be rebutted. Definitions: 1. Should: "ought to" 2.
Face masks for ugly people

Rebuttal: the very idea of searching facebook pages to "blacklist ugly people" is an incredibly ridiculous rule because of its many flaws such as the fact that having people be forced by law (i am assuming in this situation it will become a law) to post a picture of themselves online is a straight invasion of privacy. what if I am a person who does not want random strangers knowing what I look like? All I can assume this would do is keep children of facebook out of fear of pedophiles. Another point is that as soon as these people post a picture of themselves many as you call them "uglies" would be immediate targets for cyberbullying lowering their self esteem overall (probably leading to suicide.) But I will now continue with my points 1. The idea of making ugly people wear masks is a horrible lesson to enforce. What do we teach our children? That people who are not beautiful should have their faces hidden? that anyone who is not perfect should be treated like an outcast? 2. The concept of this is similar to a racist mob lynching a black person. Think about it, a bigoted group of people punishing someone for just the way they look. 3. do you really think after years of ugly people being forced to wear masks it will become "fashionable"? all it will do is promote censorship, force people to hide away their true selves and lower their self-esteem even more which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to do with this. Now you have asked for me to provide a better idea to solve the "ugly epidemic" and the self-confidence epidemic Here are my ideas, the first to solve the "ugly epidemic" the second is to the self-confidence issue 1. doing nothing now I'm sorry for how many meals have been ruined by "uglies" but I can't think of a better solution to this problem than to do nothing. allow me to elaborate. If you saw a dog every day of your life than what would happen? Simple, you would become used to the site of seeing dogs, and would not be bothered by them. the same situation apply's too ugly people. 2. charities because there are many different charities that support people going through these issues. off the top of my head are charities that help people going through suicidal thoughts like Beyond Blue, Lifeline and the Kids Helpline. others that help people gain self-confidence are charities like I AM BEAUTIFUL, and The Be Real Campaign. Eagerly awaiting your response.
Face masks for ugly people

Hello, thanks for accepting. Before I start my argument, I would like to point out that in society, people already wear masks daily. You see many women cover their faces with make-up, they mask their face with foundation to hide blemishes and spots. They are to some degree wearing a mask to hide their ugliness, or, if you'd rather word it differently, they're wearing masks to appear more attractive. Why should ugly people wear masks? People now a days are growing increasingly concerned with how they look, it makes many people self concious. I aim to restore confidence back into people by making it socially acceptable to go out wearing a mask. If it were socially acceptable to wear masks then people with self confidence issues would improve drastically. Because these self concious people will no longer be self concious, I believe they will function better in society and improve society as a whole. I would also make a second argument that it is unfair to have to walk down the street and get a fright by a real ugly f***er. Have you ever eaten at a restaurant and looked across the table, only to see an inhuman crumpled face staring at you, and at that moment you feel sick inside and it ruins your meal? Because I aim to fix this issue as well. How will we determine who is ugly enough to have to wear a mask? Everyone will be required to sign up to Facebook and post an image of themselves on-line. Then, a large voluntary team will sift through the enormous amount of pictures and black list the most ugly. These ugly people will be required to purchase a mask from a local store, and be required to wear it outside of the house.Those that don't post on Facebook will be fined heavily. What sort of mask should uglies wear? We would begin with very basic masks and gradually, I believe the design will evolve. I think much like clothing, people will begin to use these masks fashionably. It will be up to companies to design and market masks. This, I believe will create hundreds of jobs and stimulate the economy. To begin the production of the initial, basic masks, we would have to liaise with companies to produce them. To sum up my opening argument. After society has accepted these uglies wearing mask, It is my hope that companies design the masks to be attractive enough for regular people to want to wear. This way, ugly people will blend back seamlessly into society. If my opponent disagrees with my proposal, then I would like him to propose a better solution to the "ugly epidemic" and the self confidence epidemic. This source shows that self confidence is at an all time low. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... This source shows that the percentage of ugly peopel is quite high. It is objective of course. http://www.returnofkings.com...
Face masks for ugly people

I think that we should enforce a law that makes really ugly people (Like butt f**king ugly) wear masks. The reason for this debate, is because I'm sick and tired of walking round the mall eating a sausage roll or something and then I see an ugly fu**er which makes me feel sick inside. Also spanked face uglies scare the sheit out of me sometimes. Make them wear masks, I say! -If Vi_spex accepts this debate it's an automatic loss to him/her, because he can't debate for sheit. No rules other than that. Accept in round 1
If you are certain that there is a god, then I am certain that you are delusional.

Wow! My opponent's conclusion is full of contradictions, false assertions, and confusion. To be clear, the premise reads: If you are certain that there is a god, I am certain that you are delusional. To elaborate, my opponent begins with a contradiction. "The gods I am referring to are those that are mentioned in the organized religions...", and then "I would like to focus on Yahweh, the god of the Old Testament". This is a two part premise- Con must be certain that God exists, and Pro must be certain that this certainty is proof that Con is delusional. My opponent claimed "you are by definition delusional". He has not proven that I am delusional. He has not even attempted to argue that point based on the true definition of delusional. He gave examples of what he considered delusions- a five year old believing in Santa Claus: not a delusion because he was taught to believe in Santa Claus and was never presented with indisputable proof that Santa Claus does not exist, and the "flying spaghetti monster". I made a personal claim to the certainty of God's existence. That is my only criteria to fulfill that part of the Con premise. Now Pro must prove this makes me delusional. He does not. He does not even try to prove that God does not exist. He claims it is un-provable. If something is un-provable, you cannot present indisputable proof that it does not exist, and therefore belief in such a thing is by definition NOT a delusion. He asserts the following: "one can believe in god and not be delusional"; "yes they are deluded/does not mean that they have a disorder"; "So a simple belief or non belief cannot fall into the two main categories of true and false beliefs"; "in reality I do not believe my opponent is delusional". My opponent claims there is a criterion to declare a delusional disorder, but does not elaborate. I did elaborate: I elaborated on the definition of delusion from several sources, and on the definition of delusional, which IS in fact a disorder. My opponent has not proven I meet the criteria, and he has presented no indisputable proof that God does not exist in order to evaluate whether or not I meet the criteria. My opponent has no argument. His argument is completely moot. My belief in God is a certainty, and what I consider evidence may not be accepted as evidence by others, including him. In the end he would have to admit he cannot prove the non-existence of God, and I would affirm that what I see as evidence of his existence is sufficient evidence for me to be certain of his existence. He would not, however, be certain of his non-existence. Is my opponent delusional because he does NOT believe in God? Of course not. Just as I am not delusional because I am certain that God exists. There is proof that the Earth is not flat, but before that proof it was believed it was flat. That was not a delusion- that was ignorance. IF I am ignorant, then so be it. I am certainly not delusional. Thank you.