BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Colonialism; YAY OR NAY

Before I start my argument, I think that you are getting the misconception that I am denying that any oppression in colonizing existed. I would like to point out that the detailed history lesson of how slavery came about was excessive and unnecessary. From your initial argument, you asserted how bad it is, and I argued that its not always bad. So, re-asserting yourself by claiming the existence of it, is back tracking, when we already agreed it did happen, indirectly. Moving onto my argument. I would like to start with the Native Americans. The indigenous tribes were at war with each other, hundreds if not thousands of years before the Spanish arrived. They conquered each other through intimidation and oppression, by cutting out their enemies heads or hearts. I am stating this fact, to emphasize how every culture has their oppressive ways. People in general are still very barbaric if it is not for check and balances. Oppressive governments that has been toppled, consequently, a lots of lives had to g with it. The revolutionized country were susceptible to new ideologies and laws. I feel, the revolution is another form of colonizing- less the infiltration of another land. So to say that, taking lives in order to save lives is unethical, is by all means a cowards state of thinking. Colonization is inevitable, human nature is greed. But, without the education and civilization that is past on by the western world, many countries like Africa and India would not be as contemporary as it is today. India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world today and disregarding the responsibility of Britain in that outcome is negligence.
Moral motivism is more probable than consequence theory

The Fool: A fool best interpretation of The Phantoms argument: Consequence theory - The theory that the moral worth (whether it is good or bad) of an action depends upon the affects, or consequences, the action has. However (if and only if) this was a correct moral theory [then] it would imply and absurd account to morality. e.g P1 that peoples actions with good intention/knowledge may turn out to have bad consequences. C1 Thus according to consequence theory they would be deemed bad action and may even bad people. On the other hand P2 that peoples actions with Bad intention/knowledge may turn out to have Good consequences. C2 But according to consequence theory there action are good and we may even attribute these people as Good people. Summary if consequence theory is true it would not be able to account for Good actions/people or Bad actions/people when opposite and inadvertent consequences happen to arise. The Fool: If these is not a fair and just summary of The phantasm argument I will stand corrected ion next round when hedemonstrates its injustness. A foolish charge! Begging the question: The Fool: My first attact would be to point out that the argument Begs the question that Motivism, is true. It suggests that consequentialism is wrong, because we should think the motive is what makes action good of bad. Strawman of consequentialism: Its an incomplete account to consequentialist theory. The Idea in consequentialism is that the most important calculation in moral decision is to take into account Consequence as part of the motive and knowledge base of the action. Not that the actual outcome post affect can go back in time and be the judge of the action or agent. Obviously this this would be absurd for the many intelligent proponent of consequentialism. IF it was that simple not body would hold this position. Its most more complicated than that. Fair?? Vote Fool!
Moral motivism is more probable than consequence theory

Resolution is in the title. I've set the restrictions so that only someone ranked as good as or better than me can accept. ======Burden of proof====== The BoP is equal. We each have the same burden in proving which theory is better. ======Definitions====== There are three major theories in regards to this area of morality; motivism, consequence and deontological theory. Deontological theory will not be discussed here. Motivism - The theory that the moral worth (whether it is good or bad) of an action depends upon the motive from which the act was done. Immanuel Kant is one noted motivist philosopher. Consequence theory - The theory that the moral worth (whether it is good or bad) of an action depends upon the affects, or consequences, the action has. Utilitarianism is one noted moral philosophy that holds to consequence theory. ======Rules/structure/clarifications====== No semantics Objective morality is presupposed for this debate. One forfeit results in loss of the conduct point. Two forfeits results in loss of the debate. Voters are not to vote on the source point. If claims are made that require sources but no sources are given, simply treat those claims as weak and unsubstantiated claims.
Show me a game with better story and graphics then Horizon Zero Dawn

I will take some of the blame for this debate by stating this debate was supposed to be "Show me a better VIDEO game with better story and graphics then Horizon Zero Dawn. Right now this debate has become about general entertainment and what's better, a video game or board game. I am trying to debate with someone about a video game they think is better then Horizon Zero Dawn and why, we can debate about the graphics, the gameplay, the AI, the story length. I'm not interested in debating board games that have expired in the entertainment business in the late 90's unless you are over 60 years old. Nobody cares about board games, and neither do I, so this debate has turned into for example a debate about is this song better then this tv show. It's not the same form of entertainment. Board games suck and I don't care about them, Horizon Zero Dawn is the best VIDEO game, nothing better out there.
Show me a game with better story and graphics then Horizon Zero Dawn

First of all Horizon Zero Dawn is a big blockbuster game not some indy game like Meatboy or Cubehead or other 2 hour lame games. Now Monopoly is a classic game but it lacks any excitement. Going around the board to collect $200 or buying up properties does not sound exciting like fighting machines that are huge and using strategies like stealth or full out battling in HZD. The adorable millionaire who also stars as the train conductor in Thomas The Train is a lame character for a game. Monopoly might fill you with nostalgia if you are a senior in your 60's or 70's but for current entertainment nothing compares to Horizon Zero Dawn. Three games come to mind that could be close to HZD, GTA5, The Witcher 3 or Fallout 4, all of these games have huge worlds like HZD. There is more to these games then just going around in a circle to buy up properties or maybe end up in jail Ooohh wow so exciting I bought Park Venue wow let me go get my invalid ring because my butt is getting sore from going around the board for hours. You can use the thimbles for your pieces but you don't get to customize them like HZD, your character levels up with new abilities, you get to buy new weapons, you get modifications for the weapons, you collect ancient artifacts and you have to make arrows and other items using the environment. What does your thimble do, move from square piece on the board to another. You can discuss a 100 year old game and how you enjoy it but by todays standard the only people playing it is seniors with nothing better to do. Horizon Zero Dawn is about humanity reverting back to ancient civilization times with a mix of future tech machines. The story could be made into a movie, while Monopoly is a board game. For entertainment value 90 out of a 100 people would prefer to play Horizon Zero Dawn rather then a board game that lost it's appeal in the 90's before the main stream computers came into effect. HZD has the best story, long campaign, a DLC now included and over 100 hours of original story in a realistic world not some made up properties that you buy while rolling a dice. It's like comparing a hoola hoop or slinky to a modern video game for entertainment. What would people prefer to play? I think only seniors would agree with you to play Monopoly only because their arthritis hands can't hold a controller or have quick enough motor skills to handle the action of HZD. Case closed (mic drop)
Show me a game with better story and graphics then Horizon Zero Dawn

I know a game with a far better story and graphics than your horrific indie game "Horizon zero dawn". I cite the classic board game "Monopoly." It has the greatest story and graphics I can think of. First, it has an endearing cast of characters: Uncle Pennybags, the adorable millionaire with the top hat and mustache, Officer Edgar Mallory, the Keystone cop like policeman who perpetually blows his whistle, and Jake the Jailbird, the physical embodiment of urban crime. Not only are the characters endearing, the game is a wonderful representation of 1920s America. Look at the chance or community chest cards. They fill the viewer with a sense of immediate nostalgia, they have a kitschy retro feel, and the art is crisp and clean. the playing pieces aren't only pieces, they're objects from a bygone era. Monopoly is the only time that humans use thimbles. Think about that for a moment. The playing pieces could potentially be used as historical artifacts. The car and the boat are both accurate. Everything about monopoly is a living record of retro America, and due to the accuracy of the game, the twenties can live on forever. Monopoly is highly interactive and the game can go in any direction at any time. I await your next argument.
Show me a game with better story and graphics then Horizon Zero Dawn

That's right you can't. Horizon Zero Dawn has the best graphics with a 24 hour day and night cycle, rain, snow, blowing sand, all environments from snowy mountains to desert canyons, smart robot machines that will look for you, scan the environment and a great story. You want a real great adventure game with amazing graphics, play this game, it's way better then anything else out there. With a 100+ hour story this is the best game for your moneys worth. Fallout, Skyrim, The Witcher you come close but not as good as this game!!!
Crisis Pregnancy Centers Should Be Regulated As Healthcare Providers

Firstly, this regulation would by no means force the organization to provide abortions. This would only hold them accountable for the privacy of their patients, the medical information they would provide, and that they are licensed to perform any medical procedures such as an ultrasound. They should be held to the same standards as a Catholic hospital. While yes, I have a slew of problems with Catholic hospitals, they at least are in accordance with HIPPA, and do their best to provide sound information, which is commendable. CPCs are wildly different. As I have said, they dispense medical misinformation, especially on the subject of the safety of abortion, and the efficacy of birth control. Being a faith-based organization has very little to do with regulating healthcare. What if your someone posing as a dentist told you that getting a root canal would give you cancer? Because that's what CPCs do. Many of them use the word choice in their names, and disguise themselves as clinics, because at that same conference Abby Johnson said that "the best client that you'll have is a client thinking you're an abortion clinic." If you were a woman who had been raped, and you wanted an abortion, would you like into one of these centers and be shamed, be manipulated into making a choice you didn't want to make? No, of course you wouldn't. You'd just want the situation to be over with. That is my problem with CPCs. Their complete lack of transparency, and their gross incompetence in running a medical center. Spreading misinformation as dangerous as they do is the true problem. Not religion. Not being pro-life. Hurting people because you don't like the choices that they may make.
Crisis Pregnancy Centers Should Be Regulated As Healthcare Providers

I will offer my Point of View on this Issue and then I will respond to your Points in the Next Round. It is the View of the CON aka Me that Crisis Pregnancy Centers should not be regulated as Healthcare Providers. Government does not have the Power to regulate Faith Based Enterprises. Doing so would violate the First Amendment Right to Practice One's Religion Freely without any Obstacle. For sure Abortion is a Controversial Issue, and one could debate it for days and days. BUT.....It doesn't mean that the Government could overextend it's Reach. Since Crisis Pregnancy Clinics are Non Profit and Faith Based, The Government can not regulate it the same as A Planned Parenthood Center. The Government can not regulate Non Commercial Speech. And these Crisis Clinics are NonCommercial. They are NONPROFIT. A Similar Situation happened around 2 Years ago. https://www.washingtontimes.com... The ACLU filed a Lawsuit forcing a Catholic Hospital to provide Abortions. The Federal Court shot it down..... the Government can't regulate a Religious Based Group and force it to provide the type of Services that would Violate their Beliefs.
Attempting to force a state of equality is immoral.

Definitions: Equality: the state of being equal - the state of all qualities between two or more entities being the same (at least in a particular area). Force: The use of private or governmental coercion would be considered to be the use of force. Morality: The field of study concerning how any given individual (or group) should act in life. In this debate, PRO will argue that initiating the use of force to achieve equality as defined above is moral and desirable. The first round will be for acceptance only - I will present my argument in the second round, and my opponent will present his, along with any objections to my arguments that he sees fit to write. The third round will be used for counter-arguments and defences, as well as new arguments. The fourth round will contain no new arguments, and will only serve to allow the debaters a chance to both give final counter-arguments targeting the already-established arguments put forward earlier in the debate, as well as letting them conclude their arguments. The BOP is split as follows- PRO must give arguments in favour of forced equality, and he must also refute the counter arguments made by CON. CON needs to explain why the arguments PRO makes are invalid to win the debate. You will have 72 hours to post a round, can use up to 8,000 characters per round, and the debate will be in the voting period for two weeks. I don't care much about voting, but please be fair.
Bible > Science / USA is a Christian Country

Big Bang THEORY THEORY of Evolution Big Crunch THEORY The TRUTH, you have faith sir, when you sit down in a chair you expect it can hold you. You don't think before every time you sit? You have faith in a chair so why not have faith in God? Two things are eternal, the soul and the word of God/Gospel of His son Jesus Christ. You nor anyone can take the truth away, never. And you and your conscience will be forever in the new earth or in hell. Eternity of paradise or torture, you choose. You choose to have someone love you, watch over you, and prepare you treasures. All you must do is believe and love everybody. Treat your parents right, don't lie, never fall in love with money or any useless material object you cannot take with you. Love your neighbor and appreciate life. Thank God for life and you can be alive, living in his image. And just live and let live. Do I preach a bad agenda. Do I preach hate and hypocrisy? Tell me if I do sir. You must take the step to let the Holy Spirit enter, first you must genuinely believe. Let the power of God take over you and affect every second of your waking moment to be better, treat others better and repent your sins. And spread the word of God to others, so all can receive light. Amen.
Bible > Science / USA is a Christian Country

Alright Sir, I see you having problems understanding, so let me refute again. "My inter point was that Science means the belief and practice of believing evolution. Evolution is a religion not a science." Religion is define as The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (1), which does not at all apply to the theory of evolution. So Buddhism is not a religion? They believe in no God or super intelligent being. Evolution is a theory and it can't be proven true just like any religion. Also one of Darwin's closest advocates said the only reason to believe evolution is because we know nothing else yet and its better than believing a God he said. Evolution takes a lot of faith to believe in and of course no one will never be able to totally prove it or even observe it. "The forefathers laid a separation, but used the Bible a base for the republic." Really? Slavery is illegal in the US, yet it is clearly advocated in the Bible. The concept of voting is not in the Bible. The Bible advocates the death penalty for things that are not even considered crime in the US. Only two of the ten commandments are laws. There is NO mention of Christianity in the Constitution. Again your dead wrong, slavery was legal in the US until it was no longer needed, just like Bible shows you needed slaves 3500 years ago to support the community, most people treated their slaves like lowers but not anything like the cruel evil ways of the Caucasian man onto the African. Also you refer to laws only for the Jews and only until the Messiah arrives oh wait sorry, He already did. "In the year of our Lord (Jesus Christ) 1787." - US Constitution Yes your right Jesus is probably on the left of things. The Bible states the Earth is like a circular compass if translated to proper Hebrew. Evolution can never be used in the name of science until official proven which will be never.
Bible > Science / USA is a Christian Country

Thank you for your response. I want to point out that you did not address any of my rebuttals, should I consider these points conceded then?"My inter point was that Science means the belief and practice of believing evolution.Evolution is a religion not a science." Religion is define as The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods (1), which does not at all apply to the theory of evolution."The forefathers laid a separation, but used the Bible a base for the republic." Really? Slavery is illegal in the US, yet it is clearly advocated in the Bible. The concept of voting is not in the Bible. The Bible advocates the death penalty for things that are not even considered crime in the US. Only two of the ten commandments are laws. There is NO mention of Christianity in the Constitution."This country goes off a s free trade and private land. A somewhat closer idea to Jesus' ideologies than current Europe monarchs." I'm pretty sure that if Jesus was president, taxes would be through the roof and health care would be free."You can choose to do almost whatever you want on your land and tell the police if no warrant to get off" Is that in the Bible?"Police=Government" Police is actually a subset of the government."We are kind of free, and along with slave practice came thoughts and ideas thrown from the Bible.Eventually technologies and enough cash made slavery not needed and the good moral side won the war." I'm pretty sure slavery was never needed. And I do not see how technologies had anything to do with the abolition of slavery."Genesis, Exodus and the next few early books are literal words of God spoken to Moses atop Mt. Sinai" That's a nice assertion."Congress officials declare the Bible the true word of God in 1983." According to what I have read, this was simply an acknowledgment that the Bible has had a big impact on US history.Where does the Bible contradict science? Here:- The age of the Earth and the Universe.- Evolution- Genetics- The shape of the Earth- Global flood 4000 years ago- etc.
Bible > Science / USA is a Christian Country

My inter point was that Science means the belief and practice of believing evolution. Evolution is a religion not a science. The forefathers laid a separation, but used the Bible a base for the republic. This country goes off a s free trade and private land. A somewhat closer idea to Jesus' ideologies than current Europe monarchs. You can choose to do almost whatever you want on your land and tell the police if no warrant to get off. Police=Government We are kind of free, and along with slave practice came thoughts and ideas thrown from the Bible. Eventually technologies and enough cash made slavery not needed and the good moral side won the war. Genesis, Exodus and the next few early books are literal words of God spoken to Moses atop Mt. Sinai Congress officials declare the Bible the true word of God in 1983.
Bible > Science / USA is a Christian Country

Thank you for your arguments. And yes, I am skeptical."He hangs the earth upon nothing" Setting aside the fact that "nothing" is a very nebulous term, nobody is hanging the Earth. This implies that without him, the Earth would fall, which is wrong. Also, isn't the Earth suppose to rest on pillars according to 1 Sam 2:8?"things which are seen were not made of thing which do appear" Not only is this INCREDIBLY nebulous, but it also fails to mention that these things are small; they could also be invisible or simply gone. It could also be reference to God.Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5 point towards a flat Earth."Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" This quote has absolutely nothing to do with radio waves and x-rays. And it doesn't take a genius to look at lightning and say: "Wow! That is fast! And it makes noise!""Universal flood: 85% of the rock surface around the world is made up of sedimentary rock, indicating that some time in the past, the world was covered by water" Yes, but "some time in the past" refers to a time WAY beyond the existence of humans."Genesis and universe.Science expresses the universe in five terms: time, space, matter, power and motion.Genesis 1:2"In the beginning (time) God created (power) the heaven (space) and the earth (matter)...and the spirit of God moved (motion) upon the face of the waters." Are you for real?"Scientists who are ChristianNewton, Faraday,Maxwell,Kelvin, Boyle,Dalton, Ramsay, Kepler, Galileo, etc.." You're kidding right? Saying that scientist X believes in God is not an argument, it's a fallacious appeal to authority.I will show instances of the Bible being dead wrong on several issues in my next round.As for the US being a Christian country, I will simply point to the First Amendment which clearly states that religion will stay out of the government. Yes, many (if not all) of US presidents were Christians... so what? And I would agree that the Bible is, historically, a VERY important book, but acknowledging that fact does not mean anything.