BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Does aliens exist? - Serious debate

So, what would I say in the last round? I am sure that extraterrestrial life forms exist. As the Doctor said in my favorite TV show, Doctor Who, "It's a big universe. Anything happens somewhere." I agree that there are many challenges in the way of becoming an intelligent creature, but think. The numbers are huge. The possibilities are almost infinite. Yes, most of the creatures will fail and stay only as primitive life forms. Yes, it will take time to become evolved enough. But it will happen eventually. If you try enough time, there will be intelligent aliens. Isn't 14 billion years enough? All you need is one. Only one. One life form to colonise the galaxy. And it won't take long, about 50 million years. (http://www.sentientdevelopments.com...) 50 million might sound a long time, but remember that the universe is 14 BILLION years old, so even if an intelligent alien is quite young, it surely has colonised the galaxy already, and as I've said earlier, there are many reasons why we haven't got a message from this alien yet. If there are no intelligent aliens out there, why do we keep looking for them? NASA invests a lot of money in efforts to receive messages from outer space, in a gigantic project called Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (aka SETI). The people of NASA aren't dumb, they will not look for aliens if there can't be some. Trust NASA. Trust me. And more important, trust your belief. Because if you don't believe, what you have left?
"Love exists in the life" - does not prove its value!

TUF, do you know it if somebody struggles only for his interests he turns the struggle into the fight or quarrel, if somebody struggles for the truth he goes on the struggle until to find it?So, the purpose of the challenge was to show “the length or the lifetime of love in the life is shorter than the length or the lifetime of life in the love (that’s life based on the love). But you have started blaming me for turning this into a mild form a odd and communicative banter…You call this “a debate” or not, of course it is your business. But I say it “a philosophical proposition”. Look, you are still asking me what I decided to prove with this saying. But I am not trying anything to prove, I wrote a saying which was proved by the all great messengers, by the all devoted mothers to their husbands, by the all real friends…in history. There is nothing to prove. But here you could not understand the gist of the word “Life”. You confused that is why started blaming me in dropping, conceding… that is why you are turning to voters.Why do you seem to not care about making relevant arguments to half of everything I have said to you? Because I have not still received even a one argument from your side, which may count worthy to take account. Really, you did not understand the gist of the saying. Because it is beyond your belief, way of your life and your outlook.Just I am go on this debate because the rounds have not finished. You wrote: He agrees with me on basically all my points to some degree. Lol, I have not agreed with your even one statement. Where did you take it? You are happy because I thanked you for explaining me the debate.org rules?!I do not want to repeat and understand all that you are not able to understand. To me with you to nowhere.
"Love exists in the life" - does not prove its value!

Well, TUF, first of all I thank you for your reply to my challenge or debate proposition. But It very surprised me when you wrote some framework rules. Except a couple of points as if the rest were directed to win the debate taking occasion to lack in my English grammar knowledge. I think we both should pay or give priority to the validity and logicality of statements, right? -------------------------------------------------- First thing you should had taken account was logical understand my saying. I wrote: "theory of "Love exists in the life" is much more weak than the theory of "Life exists in the love". I does not mean that love does not exist in the life. I have never said it and will not. You began your debate with giving definitions to words separately as if we were analyzing its words. And you chose the definition which would made you more comfortable to go on this philosophical discussion. I strongly say and give you a golden advice "Never do that". Because if you choose something yourself when that thing is belonged not only you it is counted a single-sided decision. Okay, let's skip it. You paid you attention to dividing the One saying into the parts, in result you came to nothing more than its technical aspects. Philosophical sayings are never based on dictionaries' pages. They are full of logical and feeling aspects - the step which you face on next stations with. Therefore I prefer to skip all the definitions you gave. --------------------------------------------------- About your contentions now. You were absolutely true in "In order for love to exist, life must first exist". Even you stated the famous classic argument of "Did the chicken come before the egg?". - But don't you know, The God created us with Love? - But don't you know, before to begin life with a girl we base on: I love her/him or do not? The rest of your contentions are continued on the base of your first contention. Therefore I am to skip them too. Have you ever read or heard the story about "The Mom with one eye"?. If not, try to understand a reason of why your mom does not desert you if she loves you? She loves you that's why your family life is continuing. Dear, TUF, I know that love exists in the life, but I said "Life exists in the love". When you love somebody or something then the mutual attitudes last long long time. This is LIFE! ------------ For anyway, my respect to YOU.
"Love exists in the life" - does not prove its value!

You do not know anything but laughing, abasing and blackmail. Because you are not able to make a thought beyond having a "fun time" and humburger. Having a "fun time" (you wrote it as a normal life living style) and humburger - it is your all you will have and reserve after you in this life. dear debate.org viwers and checkers, voters! Please give him the priority. Because within the debate he repeatedly has been turning to you. He extermely wants to winn. TUF, from this time I offer you to join the debate if you understand its gist, its philosophical meaning. Thanks to audience.
The idea that morals come from the Bible.

I'd just like to start out by thanking my opponent for agreeing to this debate.Now I'd like to begin by saying that it seems like a relatively obvious fact that morals do not come from the Christian Bible, but are in fact a human creation. Let's start by looking at ancient civilization:Back in Ancient Greece, as early as 620 BC (remember, this means 620+ years before Christ or the Bible were ever created) laws were created to govern the land. The first written law of Ancient Greece was that of Draco the lawgiver, who set that the punishment for homicide would be exile. Around 25 years later in 594 BC, Solon, who was appointed new lawgiver at this time, created laws with 4 categories: Tort, Family, Public, and Procedural Laws. The main one I'm going to focus on in this argument is Tort Laws. A Tort occurs "when someone does harm to you or to your property." These laws stated that, like previously talked about, the punishment for murder was exile. The Tort Laws also included a monetary payment of 100 drachmas for rape, and a varying amount for thievery (depending on amount stolen). These laws just go to show that society, even 600 years before Christ and the Bible, realized that killing, rape, and stealing were morally wrong and should be punishable. People weren't just wandering the streets killing and looting anything that moved. They were well aware of the idea of morals. People didn't kill others because they new they would be punished for it. The only way that man could have decided what was punishable and what wasn't is to have the ability to decide what is okay and what is evil, and, since this occurred 6 centuries before the Bible, it would seem that morals can and are created by man.Source: http://www.crystalinks.com... http://www.canadianlawsite.ca...
The idea that morals come from the Bible.

I thank my oppoent for this debate! I think I should provide some further ground work before we procede. I think we should start by properly defining what it is we are dicussing. Definitions: 1. Idea- any content of the mind: an individual's conception of something. 2. Morals- Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: conforming to the rules of right conduct: a justified person. 3. Come- to move into view; appear: to extend; reach. 4. From- used to indicate source or origin. 5. Bible- any book, reference work, periodical, etc., accepted as authoritative, informative, or reliable: the sacred writings of any religion. http://dictionary.reference.com... By these definitions our debate may procede. Resolution: The idea of morals did not come from the Bible. Rules: 1. Opponent who makes the most convincong arguement WINS debate. 2. Sources must be provided. 3. Debate must stay on topic about where Morality came from and where started. Since it is my opponents place to provide the arguement I will let him make his case first and I follow. I thank you for the chance at debating such a great topic And Now with no futher wait- I turn the floor over to my new opponent.GL!(`;')
The idea that morals come from the Bible.

I'll be starting this debate with my argument being that morals do not come from the Christian Bible, and in fact are a basic human concept that we all use; basically, humans create their own morals, and some of these morals become accepted as a society, forming laws.Also, just some info: this is my first debate on this site as I just created my account, so I may be a little rusty.Just some ground rules: Round 1 will be used for stating our position Round 2 will be used for stating our first argument Round 3 will be for our counter argument Round 4 will be for our rebuttal Round 5 will be used for our closing statement, and any last comments
Human life begins at implantation.

Well sorry about the forfit had some stuff in life to take care of but con basicly shoots himself in the foot with his last round with saying life doesn't start at implantation when you are one trying to prove that human life starts at implantation and it is a fact life begins at implantation as both the sperm and egg are cells and cells are the most basic form of life ante are living organisms. But with that still pro has not given me any reason to debate his topic and has not given me a reasonal rebuttal worth of a debate. And as such pro has never cited his sources or tryed to back up his clames with facts and thus I end the debate and leave it to the voters.
Human life begins at implantation.

I have clearly given my side of the debate and pro has refused to even give a rebuttal so I well wait for next round for pro to give me something worth debating and not being rhetorical as I already proved my point but con is still trying to make his point I disproved just with different wording so far I am disappointed with pros argument nothing but a few sentences and not even logical or even debatable just plain wrong, so please pro give me a point worth debating.
Human life begins at implantation.

"To be an individual life form, one must be a genetically distinct organism and have a source of oxygen." Ok let"s start what"s wrong with this with this sentence technically your statement of saying to be an organism you have to be genetically distinct well that is not true as we can look at bacteria and many other single celled organisms that just do asexual reproduction and thus are not genetically different and are exactly the same; and saying they have to have a source of oxygen is not true as there are organisms that do not use oxygen to live and well even die if exposed to oxygen this includes single celled organisms and even some multicellular. With that out of the way you also say that oxygen is the building blocks of life like I stated before that is not true in all cases and to be specific life on earth is carbon based and the building blocks of life are amino acids. Now let"s start the actual debate you state that human life starts at conception that is not true when the sperm fuses with the egg anything at that point can happen the intended goal is making a human but anything can truly happen. Now this next part read the whole thing and do not take too literally but try to understand my point. Humans and bananas share 50% of the same genetic makeup so technically it is possible if say the DNA were corrupted and only the genetic makeup left is the same that makes up the banana survives and is built its not necessarily true that a banana would be formed as we know it but a human would also not be formed while this scenario is highly unlikely by the odds of probability it is possibly but would probably never happen but is possible. The point of this weird point I bring up is that even after conception it doesn"t mean a human well be made anything could happen to the DNA or the building process of the cells that would prevent a human from being formed the only way a human can be distinguished is then complex processes like a conciseness, brain function, organs being formed, and the shape of the body being formed. http://genecuisine.blogspot.com... http://biology.about.com... http://www.scientificamerican.com... http://www.astrobio.net...
Resolved: Capital Punishment Is a Morally Justifiable Means of Punishment

I comply with the definitions as proposed by my opponent. My opponent does a great job of explaining the system on which my argument is based. While Aristotle is indeed one of the oldest sources of moral rights and wrongs, the principle still holds clear: those that wrong a society in a way without remorse/moral compass are unfit to live. Thus, the argument still stands that the vicious (immoral) are subject to capital punishment. The idea is clear: no extent of jail time will be able to change the ways of the vicious individual and therefore, the person is a threat to all of moral society. Capital punishment, though brutal, is a way of dealing with this issue in the line of Nicomachean Ethics. The influence of the wicked to corrupt character, even if they are put behind bars, is untouched. Just as virtue can be developed with the presence of virtuous people, so too does vice develop from the presence of the wicked. While my opponent tries to bring up the moral implications of such an act, these argument are predicated on ethical systems that also have limitations onto whom these rights apply. For Locke, they apply to those who follow the social contract (ergo following the laws of a society). For Kant, which my opponent uses as a basis for his argument, it is the rational. Both these systems deny these rights to the non law abiding and the irrational, which are qualities of the vicious person. By extension, these systems offer no protection of the vicious and the Aristotelian method remains intact. They do not extend to all people, as my opponent claims. While thinkers like Kant are entirely correct in their beliefs in the end-in-itself and other ideas like it, the word murder does not apply. Instead, there is lack of malice, where almost in a utilitarian perspective, the betterment of society is upheld. IF such people were to be allowed to live in prison, they would simply remain symbols of violence, terror, and fear in our lives. This fear is removed if capital punishment is exerted. As written previously, no amount of time in a correctional facility will give a person a conscience. We now have the capacity to just seclude, but the living manifestation of evil is like a seed of immorality that is just enough to start corrupting a society. In this light, it is clear that capital punishment is a regrettable, but necessary means of punishment in this country.
Resolved: Capital Punishment Is a Morally Justifiable Means of Punishment

My opponent's case rests upon the argument that capital punishment is not needed as a means to achieve justice, but I will take my case from the four types of agents defined by Aristotle. There are some people (classified as "wicked" in the Aristotelian case) that do not have a moral understanding of the consequences of their actions and thus may believe a "vice" (defined as anything that is not virtuous) to be their "telos" (or goal) rather than the moral pursuit of true happiness "eudaimonia. " Aristotle proposed the seclusion or execution of such people because any sort of punitive system would not correct such flawed behavior. In the light of Nicomachean Ethics, I affirm the resolution that Capital Punishment is a Morally Justifiable Means of Punishment. I will wait until my opponent offers his full case against the resolution.
Resolved: Capital Punishment Is a Morally Justifiable Means of Punishment

First of all, my opponent actually affirms a majority of my argumentation viz. “While thinkers like Kant are entirely correct in their beliefs in the end-in-itself and other ideas like it” and “We now have the capacity to just seclude [these individuals]”. Effectively, he confirms that the end-in-itself notion is a valid one and thus no human being, rational or irrational, can be used as a means to achieve anything. Being human is an innate quality and cannot be dictated by personal endeavors, even if they are grossly immoral or indefensible. Moreover, my opponent actually asserts that prisoners in jail are “seed[s] of immorality that [are] just enough to start corrupting a society”, almost as if immorality is a disease that you can contract. To give an example, it’s almost as if standing by tall people will make you taller or dark-skinned people will make you darker. Please weigh this when voting. Restating the Exegetical Task Again, I would like to stress to the voters that we must undertake the exegetical task when weighing this debate meaning that we must apply the original message and normative ethical system to our era. Like my opponent has stated, we now have the systems in which we may adequately contain these criminals and still offer them a chance to repent and correct their wrongs. This is another absurd claim my opponent has made. He states that “no amount of time in a correctional facility will give a person a conscience” and while I agree you can’t artificially graft a moral system to a prisoner, you can condition him/her to change their behavior and come to reason. In an article by the New York Times, award-winning clinical psychologist James Gilligan denotes that rehabilitation works infinitely better than punishment; people have the ability to right their wrongs and become productive members of society: “My colleague Bandy Lee and I have shown that an intensive re-educational program with violent male offenders in the San Francisco jails reduced the level of violence in the jail to zero for a year at a time. Even more important, participation in this program for as little as four months reduced the frequency of violent reoffending after leaving the jail by 83 percent” As Dr. Gillian explicates, executing a prisoner only serves to perpetuate the notion that violence solves violence and that “revenge” takes precedence over compassion. In addition, capital punishment is largely predicated on the idea that punishment supersedes the primary goal of the punitive jail system; to rehabilitate. According to the ACLU, “The vast majority of law enforcement professionals surveyed agree that capital punishment does not deter violent crime” and deconstructs my opponents idea that these human beings are incapable of accepting reason. Also, promoting violence to correct for violence has been proven only to, obviously, perpetuate it “The FBI has found the states with the death penalty have the highest murder rates”. Therefore we can see the direct implications of the death penalty in that promoting violence as a means to counteract violence leads to more violence.
Is their a god? And or do you think religious people and atheist could come to a mutual agreement.

I am God. And Satan. I am an omnipotent being with an IQ of well over 9000. You mortals mean nothing to me. I could destroy your entire civilization with the snap of my hand. The only way you can save yourselves is to cut off each of your fingers one by one and arrange them in a pentagram while singing your praises to me, The lord of the universe. If you fail to do this, I will know and you will find yourself slowly being pulled apart in an infinitely big space devoid of matter. Your pain will never end, And you will spend eternity regretting the fact that you ever decided not to listen to me. I have taken interest in you humans and your customs and I have decided to be worshiped by you, And when I decide something, Those who try to stop it disappear from your universe. It would be very wise of you to do what I say.
Pascals Wager is a valid argument for believing in God

Pascal's wager is not a valid argument for god. Pachal's wager, for those who don't know, is basically a decision matrix of sorts. Basically, the wager states that the only possible outcomes of life are: 1. God exists 2. God does not exist And your choices are: 1. To believe in god 2. To not believe in god So already Pascal's wager is a false dichotomy[1], as there are more possibilities to the afterlife than just going to hell for disbelief in god or going to heaven for belief in god. What if there is a god, but he's a goody-goody god and lets everyone into heaven, or what if the opposite is true and he sends everyone to hell? There's more possibilities than just the two Pascal's wager names. Secondly, Pascal's wager is null if god does not exist, which we can assume because there's no evidence for him. The possibilities of either outcome are not equal, it's more a 99.9 percent chance there is no god and a .01 percent chance there is a god. Until someone provides valid evidence for god, I won't even consider Pascal's wager as an argument. Third, Pascal's wager is flawed because there are so many different religions out there. There are around 20 major religions and over 34,000 different Christian religions alone[2]. So, if we choose to worship a god, which god should we worship? If we choose the wrong one, we'll go to hell anyways, so that leaves us with almost no chance of getting to heaven anyways. Fourth, many if not most religions say that you must truly believe in this god and worship him if you want to go to heaven. Thus it is useless to try to pretend you believe in god just to win pascal's wager, as he would simply see through you considering he is omnipotent and omniscient. Any atheists could not accept Pascal's wager. From these four arguments I conclude that Pascal's wager is not a valid reason to believe in god. I hand it over to my opponent. For more info on Pascal's wager, you can go here[3]. Sources: 1. http://mind.ucsd.edu... 2. http://www.religioustolerance.org... 3. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Wager