BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

The sun moves (well more accurately, We move around it, But the appearance is the same, So we can say that the sun's position relative to any point on Earth moves in an arc around the earth. ) in an arc over the course of the day. If you look at a cliff or hillside during the sun set, You will see the shadow climbing vertically, As the sun goes downward, Not further away. If the sun was getting further away to explain night, Then it would get uniformly darker, Not a clearly defined growing shadow. NASA does make a lot of money, But what about other countries' science organizations? There are also a lot of nonprofit organizations that aren't benefited by this conspiracy. Even if a few higher ups at NASA were hiding the truth from their employees, Than some amateur scientist should have noticed. Or a rivaling country would have published the truth, In order to discredit the American government.
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

Sorry for taking a while to respond. I was busy yesterday. Now for the horizon part. The people who strongly believe the earth is a globe always use the boat going over the horizon or the sun going over the horizon proves theirs a curve however I already proved that the horizon is not the curvature of the earth but our perspective and eye limit. Therefor the sun is not going over a curve but moving further away from us. We can zoom into the boat that goes away from us even tho it disappears over the horizon. "its simply moving away from us" The sun is moving away from us and we are starting to not be able to see it with our limited sight. It is going above us. NASA makes a lot of money from taxes and other sources. I researched they were funded about $400 billion a year. Its good that you don't believe the Big Bang right away as it is just a theory and not proven but the globe is also a theory. Not one real photo. We don't even know if we have a core as humans can only dig down 7 miles deep. We never even explored the depths of the oceans yet. The thing with space is its endless imagination. They can pull anything from their asses (excuse my language) and we will believe it. "How else would one part of the earth get light but another not" The sun is simply not 93 million miles away and not as big as we think it is. Same with the moon. The sun and moon being the same size would make more sense for the lunar eclipse than their explanation on how the distance makes it so they look the same. . . Thank you
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

I'm sorry but I'm confused about what you're saying with the horizon. You have to look down (slightly) to see it from an airplane. I understand the part about not being able to see past it. That fits the definition of horizon. I've never seen more horizon than from the ground. The problem I have with your video is that it could be much more easily faked than the decades of satellite footage that NASA shows us. How does NASA make money from tricking everyone? " Its simply moving away from us and we cannot see it. " can you explain this please? Finally, There's this. "we are a spec in the universe made from rocks clashing together. " I don't agree with that. The Big Bang Theory I don't agree with. But I believe that the earth is indeed a sphere. How else would one part of the earth get light but another not?
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

First of thank you for replying with respect and not sarcasm. I'm new to this topic as I really never took it into consideration. I'll start off by talking about why NASA would lie. Money and it helps their agenda. Making it seem like we are a spec in the universe made from rocks clashing together. I can't say they are living 100% because as I said I'm not 100% sure the earth is flat or round but is closer to the flat slide. When it comes to them faking it. We are not saying all of the people in the organization are lying and faking it. The people at the top which is a few people and the rest are being fooled. You can see online many videos of interviewing astronauts gone wrong because they are caught out. They get super angry and fear something but we don't know what. . . When you said the horizon is not at eye level that is false. The horizon always rises up and down to eye level. It's to our vision. We can never see over it because its not a curve. Also I know why they tell us we can't feel the spinning or moving in infinite space. That's my point we trust their explanation but don't experience it. Its blind faith. You cannot prove the earth is round. The sun is not going over the horizon as I just proved that the horizon is not the curve. Its simply moving away from us and we cannot see it. If the sun was 93 million miles away it wouldn't get smaller and smaller as it moved away. Watch this video : https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=aQ7_9eIAlT4&t=1469s
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

"We cannot also feel us spinning and moving in infinite space. " This has to do with inertia. It's the principle that keeps you from being pressed into the back of your seat all of the time when driving. As long as you retain a constant speed, It will feel as if you're motionless. And in relation to car, You are. The same goes with the earth. Since you move with the earth, You can't tell that it's moving. The reason this doesn't produce any wind or move you when you jump straight in the air is because the atmosphere is also maintaining this constant speed. So it's the same as being in an absolute, Fixed position. "When you rise up the horizon is still up to eye level meaning the curvature is moving or the earth is flat. " No, It isn't. When you are in an airplane, The horizon is not at eye level. It is below you. Finally, There is the problem that I always hold to in the case of these conspiracy theories. Why would NASA lie to us? It's not like it's just that single organization either. Everyone agrees that the earth is spherical. It would be impossible to hide the truth from those at NASA who review satellite imagery. And if you think that every single one of those thousands of employees would keep the secret, You're most definitely wrong. I have no such faith in the confidences of the human race. Furthermore, There is no perceivable benefit to a cover-up. Faking all of that satellite imagery would be expensive, And I can think of no reason to want to make everyone think that the earth is a globe, Unless that is the case.
Globe, Not Flat. Don't accept this debate unless you LEGITIMATELY beliexe that the Earth is flat

Ok at first I would always laugh at the flat earthers but after looking into it myself I noticed something fishy. One proof is the perspective. Our eyes work in a way where we have a vanishing point which is the horizon. The horizon is not the curvature of the earth. When you rise up the horizon is still up to eye level meaning the curvature is moving or the earth is flat. So the proof of horizon being the curve is totally false. We cannot see the curvature with our own eyes. We cannot also feel us spinning and moving in infinite space. We have blind faith in Nasa. The first evidence is perspective and how it works. The boat going over the curve. . . Is nothing but perspective. Look at the clouds outside they will start being under one another but you will see the clouds from the side meaning it is not curving but just perspective. Water is always level and flat meaning the water is not curving. They state gravity curves the water but that's just destroying basic physics with non-sensical science and there is no real explanation of gravity on its own. They only know it's there as a force. Flat-earthers state that density and buoyancy is the reason why things fall down as we are heavier than air and when a hot air balloon flies in the skies its because it's less dense than the air. I'm not actually sure what shape the earth is but I'm closer to the flat atm.
A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities

I did not "misinterpret" you, though you might have misinterpreted me. When you advocate requiring a given course at "all colleges and universities," as you have now clarified, "public and private," There is no other means to accomplish this at "all colleges and universities" but through government use of a gun for purposes of robbery and/or slavery , and I challenge you to provide one that will not involve that. An end's validity must account for how it can be accomplished and whether those means are valid. The racism bit was a reductio ad absurdum on the same line of reasoning, not something related to the topic but your method of argument. In English, I wasn't accusing you :D. This topic is about debt, and therefore clearly the debt of the United States is relevant. You cannot expect people to act consistently in a more responsible method than the institution trying to get them to act responsibly, and the United States government is the only institution capable of enacting such a common standard for all universities. Do you have a statistic to back up "99% of college students?" And who determines what "good financial management skills" are and how they can be taught? People are constantly informed of the consequences of debt these days, it hasn't had any noticeable effect, why would one college course help where all the advertising campaigns in the world have failed? The state will not in the long run save any money, even if the courses do somehow "improve" financial management, because it will simply embolden government officials to expand subsidized credit even more and keep it longer, by narrowing deterrent consequences. And by what means do you intend to force private universities to do this?
A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities

In fact, I didn't say anything should be uniform, I didn't even state that all colleges should have the same financial management course, just some form of one. Second, how do you get slavery, robbery, and racism out of this topic? It is absolute absurb to correlate financial management to any one of those topics. Third, this debate isn't about government bashing and the debt of the United States, it's about students and their need for sound financial management skills. Now that we have cleared all of those misinterpretations up I will get back to the issue and the valid points you have brought up. While it can be debated that some college students have strong financial management skills, 99% of college students do not. Therefore the need for a financial management course is validated. For those that do have the knowledge that this course provides, good for them, they will get an easy A and be able to concentrate on their other studies. Financial management is a skill that takes practice and a lifetime to learn. There are always ways to better your financial management skills. The additional dollars that would need to be spent to conduct this course would be minimal and the money that would be saved by the states from not "having the government subsidize loans", as you stated, would easily offset any money spent by the states on this course. We aren't only talking about public universities in this debate, either. Private universities have more than enough money to implement this course into their curriculum without any adverse effects.
A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities

By what right do you assert to make uniform this course? When you state that "all things should be uniform, what you are speaking of, ultimately, is either pointing a gun at those who run colleges and telling them to either demand the course or stop operating; or you are using that gun to extort money from taxpayers and subsidize the course. In the first case, your crime is slavery, in the second, robbery. You cannot expect people to take lessons of financial management seriously when they come at the behest of a government that is this deeply in debt. You want to lower debt rates? Stop having the government subsidize loans. The market will clear out those who offer loans to those unlikely to repay them. Every time you force a new course on all students, the students who already know what they would learn in it are forced to waste time on learning nothing and drop courses they would learn something from. So who is the beneficiary? Idiots who won't take the courses they need without prodding? At the cost of slavery, robbery, and the waste of intelligent people's time? What's next, force people who aren't racist to sit through diversity training that teaches them that people's value is determined by the color of the skin,in the hopes of sending those who are racist in a less offensive racist direction? Oh wait, some school districts already do that.
A Financial Management Course Should Be Required Curriculum At All Colleges And Universities

Loan default rates and bankruptcy rates are at an all time high in the United States. Americans are maxing out credit cards, borrowing money that they can't pay back, and taking out student loans with abnormally high interest rates. Basic financial management skills of even college educated people have become laughable. I believe that a financial management course should be part of the required curriculum at all colleges and universities. This course would allow college students to gain valuable financial knowledge that could be used for the rest of their lives. Basic financial management knowledge would help to lower bankruptcy and loan default rates. It would also help young, impressionable adults learn the dangers of credit card debt and high interest "student loans" that anyone can get. By not having a financial management course as required curriculum at all colleges and universities we are leaving the doors wide open for the continued abuse of our countries' financial system.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.

It seems evident to me that my opponent doesn't believe in MMR, but actually something akin to emotivism, the "view that moral judgments do not function as statements of fact but rather as expressions of the speaker's or writer's feelings[1]." I'll explain why this is so in my following responses: I want to first touch upon an issue that has become a pet peeve of mine: people misusing logical fallacies. My opponent accuses me of committing a straw man (when I claimed his position entails epistemological relativism), but this is an inaccurate response even if my argument were false. I properly represented his argument (when he claims that moral statements are entirely relative and subjective), and in this case no straw man appears. The step that my opponent has troubles with is the fact that I drew the conclusion of epistemological relativism as a logical entailment of his position. He can argue that this doesn't follow, but sticking the "ha, straw man" label is silly. Now about MMR...my argument will shift, as it has become evident to me that his position is more akin to emotivism than MMR. If I can therefore demonstrate that this is the correct interpretation of his stance, then his arguments crumble as he isn't even properly arguing for the correct position. And in accordance with this strategy, defining MMR and emotivism will be crucial in highlighting my opponent's mistake: ==================== MMR & Emotivism ==================== If you refer to the previous rounds for the definition of MMR (I won't re-copy&paste), it maintains that though moral values are relative on factors such as social upbringings, economic standing, religious influences, etc., moral statements are STILL TRUTH-APT. This is the crucial element, because though MMR claims moral values are relative, they are still capable of being truth or false. On the other hand, emotivism is specifically a non-cognitivist position that asserts moral utterances are representations of the speaker's feelings and are NOT truth-apt. A clear analogy to this are sentiments concerning favorite food dishes or music - there is no superior song or superior flavor of ice cream. So how does my opponent's position align with either of these two positions? Clearly the latter, as he claims: "To reiterate, morality varies from person to person, there appears no objective yardstick to estimate what right and wrong is...[moral statements are] a matter of taste. Even when someone has attempted to create an artificial external code of morality these will always be based on axioms that are not objective." However, to confuse the issue even more my opponent has claimed in his argument that he still believes one can have morality, despite believing morality is subjective. I ask of him: how can you have truth-apt claims when their epistemological standard is relative? In fact, this is the point of my accusation concerning epistemological relativism -- is you accept the thesis of moral relativism, this would damn you to make a similar claim about truth altogether. ---References--- 1. http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.

My opponent argues, "According to your reasoning, all statements are "entirely relative and subjective", This appears to be a straw man or a misunderstanding. No where have I argued that all statements are 'relative and subjective'. I have stated that morality is relative and subjective, I have given examples as to why, and I have demonstrated why I regard mathematics to be objective. To reiterate, morality varies from person to person, there appears no objective yardstick to estimate what right and wrong is. The Universe is indifferent to such matters. Moral statements such as, "Abortion is evil" are equivalent to "I hate chocolate cake". It is a matter of taste. Even when someone has attempted to create an artificial external code of morality these will always be based on axioms that are not objective. The basis of one moral code may be religion, the basis of another moral code may be the respect of the rights of sentients, yet another moral code may be based on what causes the least harm. The fundamental basis of such codes all appear to be subjective and relative. My opponent further states that, "if you deem truth to be relative, then effectively you are even denying the validity of the law of identity." I do not deem truth to be relative, though a moral issue may be true or false, right or wrong within a given subjective moral code, in objective terms it is not. Morality is analogous to taste, taste is a matter of subjective truth, not objective. None of this has any bearing on the Law of Identity, the law of Identity is a statement of objective reality, not personal perception. My opponent further argues, "In essence, your entire position turns on itself as moral relativism entails epistemological relativism, which in turn invalidates itself. " I am sure my opponent will correct me if I am wrong but epistemological relativism is the argument that all knowledge and belief systems are relative. It is clear that Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism does not require this assumption. It is clear that I have not made this assumption. 2+2 = 4, This can be demonstrated by objective logic. It is not equally valid to claim that 2+2 = 57. If one culture claims that slavery is a moral requirement, and another considers it abhorrent, what are the objective moral criteria that we can use, irrespective of our own feelings to determine the moral truth? I argue that there are none. If would like to point out that I am not arguing against having morality, simply arguing that morality is subjective, relative and that Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism is simply a fancy grandiose terms for obvious observable reality. My opponent has failed to make an opening argument demonstrating that this claim is false, has failed to address any of my points and is arguing against epistemological relativism and not against Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.

I accept his inclusion of a further addition to the definitions acknowledge in this debate. Further, I accept the truth of descriptive moral relativism - it is a relatively uncontroversial anthropological theory (albeit some discrepancies involve the possibility of universal moral virtues). However, after affirming what I found to be obviously true, he strays right off the road and states the following: "How can one judge what is moral, amoral, or immoral? We can do this only by our own personal judgement, which is the result of socialisation, religion, philosophy and is entirely relative and subjective. " Oh really. ==================== Criticism of MMR ==================== "How can one judge what is moral, amoral, or immoral? We can do this only by our own personal judgement, which is the result of socialisation, religion, philosophy and is entirely relative and subjective. " According to your reasoning, all statements are "entirely relative and subjective", given how can one make a moral judgement without it coming from their personal perspective? Of course, outside sources of knowledge can inform their perspective, but it's still ultimately their perspective. From this premise, you want to claim that this would alter their judgement to be entirely relative and subjective. .. whereas to me, this seems to be simply be an absurd estimation. Anyway, following my original point this would damn all statements to be relative -- even ones concerning mathematics (which you deem to be objective). And if so, if you deem truth to be relative, then effectively you are even denying the validity of the law of identity. In essence, your entire position turns on itself as moral relativism entails epistemological relativism, which in turn invalidates itself. This is my main criticism of MMR, and I will expand on it depending on your response. "There does not exist a single code of conduct that is agreed to by all rational people. " Simply because there is no universal agreement on moral issues does not make the nature of morality relative. Analogous to this would be calling truth relative simply because there is no universal agreement, which is clearly bogus reasoning.
Meta-Ethical Moral Relativism Is An Incoherent Position.

My position in this debate is not only is meta-ethical moral relativism unsound, it's logically incoherent. From here on out, I will refer to this position as meta-ethical relativism, and to be more precisely it's abbreviated form MMR. The following is a definition of MMR[1]: "The truth or falsity of moral judgments, or their justification, is not absolute or universal, but is relative to the traditions, convictions, or practices of a group of persons. " I believe this is a core tenet for my opponent that allows him to advance his belief in cultural relativism[2]: "Cultural relativism . .. maintains that morality is grounded in the approval of one's society – and not simply in the preferences of individual people. " Since I'm interested in taking this debate mainly because I want to hear what my opponent's argument is (not just hoping to win a debate), I will set aside my opening argument to hear my opponent's case. Note that I DO acknowledge that I have a burden of proof, and thus I WILL make an independent case against MMR in my forthcoming rounds. What I simply am asking is to hear my opponent's case, so I can focus my criticisms to address all of his arguments (albeit there won't be too many I need to employ). If my opponent won't extend me this courtesy, then simply notify me about this via comment sections and I'll promptly edit the debate, albeit with a sad face whilst doing it. ---References--- 1. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 2. . http://www.iep.utm.edu...