BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
I will not contradict myself

Well done. Here are what I see as some tension spots in the answers. I'll leave it up to the people rating the debate how close they come to being contradictory, if at all: 1-Justification for capitalism: "'Q5: Is Capitalism the best system, or least bad, because it leads to high consumer satisfaction?' In my opinion, that is one of many reasons that capitalism is the best economic system." AND "'Q10: If a person is dangerously drunk and still wants to drink, should the bartender give him/her another drink?' No." AND "'2. Is wanting something a justification for getting it?" Not by itself, no.' The first answer says that preference satisfaction is one of the reasons capitalism is the best system. The latter two suggest otherwise--that getting what you want is not relevant to moral considerations. In more sophisticated terms, this is asking if pareto-improvements (a transaction where both parties have a gain in preference satisfaction without a cost to anyone else) are equivalent to moral improvements. There are several ways to go about arguing for capitalism, but saying "it gives us more of what we want" doesn't seem to be one of them. 2-Philosophy of mind All of the space travel/alien planet questions. You didn't give a precise answer on the artificial brain, so it's hard to say one way or another if these are contradictory. If you had gone with the teleporter on the first one and refused the artificial brain on the second one, you would have had a problem. In the first, taking the teleporter would be supporting a functionalist view of the self while accepting the damage of the virus and refusing the artificial brain would be supporting a physical view of the self. 3-Abortion You said you think life begins at conception. Yet you also don't think first trimester abortions are murder. And you think that double murder for pregnant women should still be the law. This isn't a flat out contradiction, but would take a lot of explaining. 4-Mayor decisions The two questions I asked about being the Mayor and what chances you would be willing to take to save your citizens are the same question, just worded differently. In the first, you're plan is the safe 200 people alive. In the second, you plan to risk those lives for a 33% chance at everyone surviving. Both plans have the same expected utility (200 x 1(or 100%)=200 and 600 x 1/3(or about 33%)=200) so there is no compelling reason why someone would switch answers. So good job and I look forward to reading your thoughts on the subjects.
I will not contradict myself

Pretty good so far. So without further hesitation... 1. Is late term abortion (say 6 months old or later) the same as murder? 2. Is wanting something a justification for getting it? 3. You are a mayor of a small town of 600 people. A zombie outbreak has occurred. You have a plan that will for sure save 200 people. However, your chief of police presents a risker plan that has a 33% chance at saving everyone and a 66% chance at killing everyone. Do you stick with your plan? 4. Should laws that treat killing pregnant women as two murders be repealed? 5. A train is barreling down a railroad track, heading for a group of 50 people. You have no way to save those people, other than pulling a lever that will send the train down a different track. At the end of this track is one person, who will surely die. Do you pull the lever? 6. Do you think life begins at conception? 7. A train is barreling down a railroad track, heading for a group of people. You have no way to save those people, except for tossing a very obese man in front of the train and stopping it. This man will surely die. Do you throw the man in front of the train? 8. You're town is safe from the zombies. Now a deadly virus has broken out. Your best plan has a 33% chance that no one will die and a 66% chance that 600 people will die. However, your chief of police says that if you do his plan now, he can keep casualties to 400 people dead. Do you stick with your plan? 9. Suppose you have been living on this alien planet for a few years and it is starting to take its toll on your health. Medical science is extremely advanced on this space colony; so much to the point where you can be frozen in suspended animation until a cure is found for whatever is endangering your health. However, scientists have recently made a remarkable discovery--it turns out there is something like the 'soul' that exists. It's almost like a parasitic ghost that lives in your body. Once you die, it travels to a new host organism. It doesn't carry any of your memories and only mildly influences behavior and personality. The catch is that the soul dies at frozen temperatures. Given this information, would you still be willing to be frozen? 10. Suppose there are two burning buildings: In one there is a 34 year old woman; In the other there are 500 six month old fetuses being grown outside the womb. Would you save the one with the 34 year old woman?
I will not contradict myself

"Q1: Does aborting a first trimester fetus carry the same moral weight as ending the life of a teenage girl?" No. "Q2: Does a person continue to exist in non-physical form after they die?" I don't know; such information is not avaliable to me. "Q3: Is a military draft ever permissible?" No. "Q4: Should the rich be allowed to buy body organs from poor people if they are willing to sell?" Yes. "Q5: Does an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God exist?" I don't know; such information is not avaliable to me. "Q6: Should voluntary euthanasia remain illegal?" No. "Q7: If you were faced with a choice where you had to choose between saving a burning building full of 500 people or a burning building with only one person in it, would you save the one with 500 people in it?" Yes. "Q8: Suppose you are being sent to a far off planet. There is a considerable chance you will die on the spacecraft ride. However, there is a new teleportation device that works with 100% accuracy. The catch is that it works like a fax machine: it scans your atoms, destroys your body here on earth, and then assembles it with new atoms at your destination. Would you be willing to use this teleporation device?" That would depend on the "considerable chance." If the considerable chance is high enough, yes. "Q9: Suppose you made it to the planet. However, you've contracted a virus and had to get an artificial leg. Now the virus is spreading to your brain. It isn't lethal--a few neurons will be disrupted, you'll have a slight change in personality and a few memories will be lost. But you won't be in a wheelchair or anything like that. However, the same scientists who made your artificial leg can build you an artificial brain: it would be a silicon copy of your current brain. This procedure does have some risks associated with it. Would you take this brain?" That would depend on the "risks associated with [the procedure]." "Q10: If a person is dangerously drunk and still wants to drink, should the bartender give him/her another drink?" No.
I will not contradict myself

Q1: Does aborting a first trimester fetus carry the same moral weight as ending the life of a teenage girl? Q2: Does a person continue to exist in non-physical form after they die? Q3: Is a military draft ever permissible? Q4: Should the rich be allowed to buy body organs from poor people if they are willing to sell? Q5: Does an all powerful, all knowing, all loving God exist? Q6: Should voluntary euthanasia remain illegal? Q7: If you were faced with a choice where you had to choose between saving a burning building full of 500 people or a burning building with only one person in it, would you save the one with 500 people in it? Q8: Suppose you are being sent to a far off planet. There is a considerable chance you will die on the spacecraft ride. However, there is a new teleportation device that works with 100% accuracy. The catch is that it works like a fax machine: it scans your atoms, destroys your body here on earth, and then assembles it with new atoms at your destination. Would you be willing to use this teleporation device? Q9: Suppose you made it to the planet. However, you've contracted a virus and had to get an artificial leg. Now the virus is spreading to your brain. It isn't lethal--a few neurons will be disrupted, you'll have a slight change in personality and a few memories will be lost. But you won't be in a wheelchair or anything like that. However, the same scientists who made your artificial leg can build you an artificial brain: it would be a silicon copy of your current brain. This procedure does have some risks associated with it. Would you take this brain? Q10: If a person is dangerously drunk and still wants to drink, should the bartender give him/her another drink?
I will not contradict myself

Remember, before posting your second round, you must challenge me to a similar debate, as per Rule 12. "Q1: Do objective moral standards exist? " Yes. "Q2: Is Atheism, like religion, a faith because you can't prove the non-existence of god? " No. "Q3: Are judgments about works of art are purely subjective? " Sometimes. "Q4: Are 'alternative' medicines as valuable as conventional medicine? That would depend on the economics of these two groups of medicines, including effectiveness, cost to produce, and side-effects, of which I don't know. "Q5: Is Capitalism the best system, or least bad, because it leads to high consumer satisfaction? " In my opinion, that is one of many reasons that capitalism is the best economic system. "Q6: Is the right to life so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives? " No. "Q7: Is it morally wrong to let a child suffer needlessly when it could easily be prevented? " Depends on how easily it is preventable, and what state the child will be in after saving it. "Q8: Do individuals have sole rights over their own bodies? " As long as nobody else is in their body, yes. "Q9: Is organic food better because it is natural? " I don't really compare organic food to artificial food, so I really don't know which would be better. "Q10: Is it always wrong to take another person's life? " No.
I will not contradict myself

Q1: Do objective moral standards exist? Q2: Is Atheism, like religion, a faith because you can't prove the non-existence of god? Q3: Are judgments about works of art are purely subjective? Q4: Are "alternative" medicines as valuable as conventional medicine? Q5: Is Capitalism the best system, or least bad, because it leads to high consumer satisfaction? Q6: Is the right to life so fundamental that financial considerations are irrelevant in any effort to save lives? Q7: Is it morally wrong to let a child suffer needlessly when it could easily be prevented? Q8: Do individuals have sole rights over their own bodies? Q9: Is organic food better because it is natural? Q10: Is it always wrong to take another person's life?
I will not contradict myself

Contradiction: http://en.wikipedia.org... Rules: 1. In Rounds 1-3, CON will ask PRO ten Yes/No questions. 2. In Rounds 2-4, PRO will answer all of CON's questions with Yes, No, or an explanation as to why neither answer would be completely correct. 3. In Rounds 2-4, CON can point out any contradictions that he or she believes to be present in PRO's answers. 4. When CON points out a contradiction, PRO may use all of the following rounds to defend the accused contradiction until either CON drops the accusation or PRO admits defeat, or when the debate is over. 5. If CON ever fails to ask PRO exactly ten Yes/No questions when necessary, CON automatically loses. 6. If PRO ever fails to answer every question asked in the previous round by the rules, PRO automatically loses. 7. If PRO is never found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO wins. 8. If PRO is ever found to have contradicted himself in this debate, PRO loses. 9. Because sources are largely irrelevant, and can really only be used by CON most of the time, the two points associated with sources will be given to the victor of the debate. 10. A contradiction may only be pointed out if both parts of the contradiction are brought up in this debate. 11. For any questions involved in a contradiction, PRO may define any words in the question or the answer using the online Merriam-Webster dictionary at his own discretion, unless the words were already defined by CON when the question was asked. http://www.merriam-webster.com... 12. Before posting his or her Round 2 argument, CON must challenge PRO to a debate that is an exact copy of this debate, except that Rule 12 must be absent. Good luck.
State's Rights

You do not even live in America, how can you determine whether it is good for America or not? In America, the states do NOT have enough power. Obamacare, gay rights, gun control, abortion, etc. should all be handled at the state level because of drastic differences in the regional needs or beliefs of a state, but it is not. If the states do not have this power, how could they possibly have enough rights? You seem to think that no law can be effective if it does not take effect on the whole country; however, laws can not be effective if they are not enforced and made by the individual states. Crime is higher in Illinois than in Georgia, obviously it will be harder to enforce a law in Illinois than Georgia. Furthermore, people in Tennessee don't want gay marriage but people in California do. Why should the nation make gay marriage legal across the nation to appease California at the expense of Tennessee or vice versa? Why not just let California legalize gay marriage? Gun control may be effective in New York but not in Georgia. Why should the national governmnet outlaw guns across the nation to make New York safer at the expense of the lives of the innocent citizens in Georgia. I have already made this exact point before but yet you continue to think that state's rights are a bad idea and that national laws are better than state laws. Again, your beliefs are highly illogical and state's rights are the most logical method to ensure the most effective laws are instituted across the nation.
State's Rights

By talking about gun control, I once mentioned before that it is very important issue. So that is why I do not see the reasons for not accepting this law by whole country. In my opinion, the states already have enough rights. They have their own laws and rules, what is next? I just do not understand, why and for what reason states should get more rights than they have now. In my own country, we also have a country divided into regions. But all the regions obey to the one legislative branch above, there is one Constitution and laws for whole country. And if the government accepts new law, for instance, about fight against terrorism, all regions accept that, despite for fact that some regions simply "want" it or not. And it also works pretty well.
State's Rights

1. Yes, there might be some dislike of people from other states. I think that this is unlikely and may only happen in very rare cases. I do not think that this should be a reason not to grant other states' rights. 2. As far as gun control goes, there is no way to apply one method of gun control to the entire country and it all work out equally well. It is impossible. There are many laws not accepted by the whole country that work fine. Any legislation put forth by the state as opposed to the fed's is significantly more effective because it is designed to fit the exact needs of the state. 3. As far as your point about the secession threats. This is just a few people in each state. The vast majority did not want to seceed. And if states got their own rights, they could not blame the nation as much for their problems and would have no reason to seceed anyways. I am not saying that states should seceed, just that they get more power. 4. I doubt that you can argue that legislation that meets the specific needs of one area is better than legislation that ATTEMPTS to fit the need of 350 million people who live in all walks of life. I doubt that you can argue that states' rights is not practical, because it is more practical than federal rights. It is for these reasons that I support states' rights and it is for these reasons it is illogical not to support them.
State's Rights

1. With all my respect, I meant not government misunderstandings, but more on life level. I used to face with expressions from my American friends like "He is from Texas, so no wonder he is weird". I guess that the reason was difference in political or more like in law system. Do you see where my point is leading to? People used to face with something, that maybe in their state could be accepted as unusual while others assume it totally fine. So that's why people get more separated while they are wanted to be one nation. 2. Speaking about your gun control point, I would like to say that there are still some fights about that. So I don't think that America deals with that too well. Of course, issues like this are not solved in a moment and I realise it. But we have faced with the situation when it could be dangerous and lead to tragic events again. There should not be differences in this kind of questions when it concerns a life of peaceful people. So it does not make any sense when one state has accepted the gun control law and all celebrate it while others have not because of some reasons that I think in this situations are just selfish. The law does not work if it is not accepted by the whole country. 3. Speaking about Civil war of 19th century and consequent separation of America into confederate South and "Yankee" North, I would like to say that people from different states were against some laws so it anyway would lead to the Civil War. It is a history then, we can not say talk about with "If..." I did not say anything about nationalism and I agree that it is a bad phenomenon. So that is why I do not see the reason we could argue about that. And also in defense of my arguments I would like to emphasize one fact. In news from 15th November of 2012 there is quite interesting thing. About 20 states of the USA wanted to be separated from the country. But it was not just a consequence of Obama's election but more like economic and financial problems. In my opinion, every country lives through some difficulties and the USA are not an exception. But people can not quit every time, when they are not satisfied with the policy of government or something, they have to stand in a row with other citizens to fortify the state of country. But possibility of separation makes people weak, they are not able to face with problems. I think that you will not argue with that point.
State's Rights

I would rather disagree with this pointn because of the following reasons: 1. Differences between states would cause misunderstandings. 2. Especially this point makes sense in case of law and Constitution. As is was said before, each state has its own rules and laws but I don't assume it as good appearance. For example, the same gay marriage. Gay-couple living in the state where it's prohibited will move to another state and live there. It's not an easy situtation when in one state everything is okay with such marriages while in others they argue with that 3. And finally, differences between states would lead to separation inside one country, It's better to assume it as one nation rather than people from different states.
State's Rights

I am arguing for state's rights. I am currently learning about the ideals behind sectionalism and state's rights as well as those behind nationalism. I believe that sectional forces are stronger and more beneficial to the nation as a whole. Basic Arguments: 1. The state's can choose how they want to handle political issues. For example, New York may want gun control but Tennessee does not. State's rights would settle this issue. 2. The state's can do what works best for them. Different states have different climates, economies, infrastructure, etc. It is illogical to treat them all the same. 3. The state's have different moral beliefs in part because of different religious denominations and other moral values. Georgia can have no gay marriage and New York can allow it. This is all I can think of, at least until I receive a counter argument.
State's Rights

With all my respect, I do not think that you can decide whether my arguments are logical or illogical. It will be decided by voters. I have studied this issue before I wanted to debate about it, so I know pretty enough about it to discuss. I just compared division of two countries into states and regions. The different thing is just a freedom given to states to do whatever they want as if they were countries by themselves. I realize that people are different in different states. However, they are citizens of one country, so that is why in my opinion, they all should obey to one law, rather than create a hundreds of different ones in each single state. I see your point you are talking about, however, I am still on my point of view. I think that I gave you enough strong arguments so you can review yours.
god or nut

Creation by design is improbable at best. We know this is not only possible, but extremely likely, as stated by the theroy of evolution. Furthermore, God most definitely does not exist, because of glaring contradictions with the god theroy such as the omnipotence paradox, [Modernally stated as "Can god create a stone to heavy for himself to lift?], Which proves that total omnipotence is completely and logically invalid.
The drinking age should be lowered to 18

To respond to your argument, that lowering the age limit for alcohol consumption would curb the teens feeling the need to rebel....I think that right there shows that it would not be a good idea to lower the drinking age. If these "kids" feel the need to rebel, that tells me they are not mature enough to make "adult" decisions. I believe rebelliousness is a factor in immaturity. Past studies have shown that when the age limit for drinking was lower, accidents from drunk driving were higher. Also, the younger you start drinking, the more chance you have of developing a drinking problem (i.e. alcoholism). http://www.startribune.com...
The drinking age should be lowered to 18

Going back to the point on maturity for a moment, I will concede that there are a number of adolescents that are not mature. Then again, there is also a good number of adults that are not mature, and probably never will be. It will be worthwhile to keep in mind that we are talking about the majority of individuals in a group. We have all heard stories about the immaturity of adolescents, and the negative impact that those decision have on themselves and others. However, just because we have heard these types of stories before does not mean that these specific individuals accurately represent the entire age group. Just something to keep in mind moving forward. A point I would like to elaborate on is the fact that this might actually lower the number of teenagers that drink while they're underage. Lowering it to 18 would effectively squander the rebellious attitude that they have concerning alcohol consumption. Teenagers usually don't drink alcohol just because they like to drink, there can be a myriad of reasons why they would. One of which is to defy their parents, the law, and basically the rest of the world. Lowering the drinking age would take this out of the equation.