BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
America is falling

America was built around the idea of being free of religion. You could be apart of any religion you want and would not be criticized. America was the place to be because you were free from criticism and hatred. Now look at us now a country based around what. Greed. Nobody cares about anything accept money. Over seas there are medicines with no side effects what so ever and look at America almost all of our medications have side affects. And why is that. Because everyone wants more and more money. Now look at this thing with ISIS we know where they are and yet we do nothing. We are proving we are worthless cowards. Sure we try to fight them and where is that getting us. Nowhere at all just more and more bombings murders and riots. Police can't do there jobs in fear of being called a racist and being fired sentenced to jail and even all of the blacks rioting because they are upset for some punk they don't even know. Instead of trying to handle it they riot and destroy there own town burning down buildings stealing from there stores, because a police officer did his job and did what was right. America is falling we are getting weaker and weaker by the day.
Which day is holy unto God Saturday or Sunday? I believe Saturday is!

Hello Newbesty! The Bible does not 100% specify/ordain a certain day of the week to be set apart for rest and worship, but declares that we should have one. I believe that Sunday should be the Sabbath because of the past tradition of the early church. The Sabbath was created to ensure that we, finite and fallen humans, do not overwork our bodies and have a holy time to focus our entire attention on God and worship him. God could have easily created the universe in any period of time because he is not constrained to the physical chains that we are shackled in. He determined that 7 "days" was sufficient for creating the universe. (I quote days as to not start a debate on old earth vs. new earth Christianity). God had no reason to rest on the 7th day but decided to do it to set an example for his followers that you should set apart time to rest and worship him. In the Israelites' time, much of the work was manual labor, and a day of rest would have more of a significance then than it does today. As Christians and followers of God, we are instructed to worship him. Having a day set apart with no work increases the time that someone has to worship God. From athletes to fast food workers, in today's world, people sometimes have a very busy schedule that does not allow for an off day or along period of worship or rest. The 4th Commandment is an open agreement, allowing us to choose which day we are able to rest and focus on him, given that we allocate our time correctly. Traditionally in the Jewish faith, the Sabbath was considered to be on Saturday. After the early church was founded, the Sabbath was slowly transferred to Sunday, marking the start of the Gregorian week and the end of what some would consider the "business" week. As the 1900's rolled around, Sunday was further cemented as the Sabbath day in American culture due to the majority of citizens being Christian. Stores and restaurants typically closed on Sundays to let the employees go to church and rest, and also, customers tended to not buy on Sundays. In recent history, many stores and restaurants have now opened their doors on Sundays, while others continue to follow the tradition All in all, every day is considered holy by God because he let it exist and be good. God calls us to have a day of rest so we don't overwork ourselves and have a specific time to worship him. I believe that any day of the week can be considered a Sabbath day because God does not specify a certain day and that our schedules are so hectic at times. Because the early church's wisdom should be used direct a christian's beliefs, I believe that, normally, Sunday should be considered the Sabbath day.
Which day is holy unto God Saturday or Sunday? I believe Saturday is!

The Bible says remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy, according to Exodus 20:8-11, Is there a new sabbath day we should keep that was issued by God or man? Please share your thoughts? This is the focus of my thesis: Exodus 20:8-11King James Version (KJV) "8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
Social Darwinism

My opponent has no time for this debate so he forfeited round 2. I will take this opportunity to further my argument. What people of leftist standing fail to see is that "production for profit" and "production for use" are essentially the same thing. Except the former is more efficient in all areas. "Production for profit" would be manufacturing something with the intent of selling it at a price higher than the manufacturing cost (the sale price). "Production for use" would be manufacturing something with the intent of selling it at a break-even price (no profit). But if you take into account that while people are spending less money, they are also making less money, then it really turns out the same. But it doesn't, "production for profit" works better. "Why?" my opponent asks. Because people will not produce something unless they are going to profit. This is human nature. So the less someone is payed, the less effort they will put into something. Under communism, the solution to this problem is to force them to work through militarized collectivism (a.k.a. slavery). Under capitalism, the solution to this problem is to let every individual and corporation make as much money as possible as long as every transaction is voluntary. Social Darwinism is the idea that the latter is the way to go. It also explains that market competition leads to inequality, which is not a bad thing. So comparing the incomes of different people and highlighting the stark contrasts between them (which is my opponent's next resort) is moot. There is no logical way to deny this, as it works in theory and in practice.
Social Darwinism

Just because a person does not have complete control over their lives, they should take responsibility for their actions. The people that rise to the top are the people that worked harder than those who have fell to the bottom. My opponent has said that "competing for wealth is a system that encourages greed". He is right to a certain extent, but is greed in THIS sense actually bad? So-called "greed" in the economy is what makes a man who has a billion dollars (more than enough to live luxuriously for the rest of his life) participate in the economy, and therefore contribute more to society that he needed to in order to get by. This primary instinct to serve one's self is innate in all of us, the actions people make are largely selfish. But all of these selfish acts (under a system of social Darwinism) synchronize to form an economy. What my opponent does not understand, is that "competing primarily for wealth accumulation" and "the greater purpose of the work they contribute" is the same thing in a capitalist economy. No one can get money without providing a service of some kind. Your salary is derived from the value of your work. Unlike under communism, your work is not valued by some strange class-based government, but by the people who receive the work you are providing! This ensures that everyone is paid fairly, with the alternative being that people are paid relatively the same for jobs varying starkly in value. "Regulations to ensure that salaries never exceed or drop below a calculated threshold"?! My opponent has lost his mind at this point. Have you no grasp of economics? Besides what I just explained, I must point out that that is called redistribution, and is, in fact, theft. You are essentially saying that people who have worked their way up the social ladder are inferior to those who have chose to stay at (or fall to) the bottom. You are also implying that it is okay to steal from people who are successful. I can clearly observe that I will win this debate, as my opponent has no idea how the market works.
Social Darwinism

It is not objective to claim that a persons failures are always their own fault. In fact the outcome of a persons actions is influenced by a multitude of factors. When someone fails, their failure could predominantly have been caused by factors that were out of their control and therefore not their fault. Indeed a person cannot be faulted for their lack of control over every single occurrence. A person could be partially at fault for causing their failure, but never totally at fault. Whether a person chooses to accept their faults is a matter of personal choice. Indeed some persons might choose to believe that any imperfection in their performance is the fault of external factors beyond their control. Competing for wealth is a system that encourages greed. The aim of the competition is to continually seek to possess a greater amount of wealth than everyone else. This state of continually seeking to accumuate resources beyond that which is required to maintain a comfortable standard of living, is the inefficient and intrinsically irresponsible mind state of citizens enrolled in a capitalist system. Competing primarily for wealth accumulation, undermines the greater purpose of the work that they contribute. Indeed a greater satisfaction would be achieved by knowing that Society no longer condones wealth perversion, and manages to significantly imrove the life standards of the masses with regulations to ensure that salaries never exceed or drop below a calculated threshold. Peoples long term goals in their work places should be to achieve this highest band of income beyond which their primary purpose is liberated from the burden of greed, and they can learn to value the importance of contributing to a fairer system of wealth distribution than currently operates in modern capitalist society
Social Darwinism

Debate perimeters: This debate is on the subject of social Darwinism, the economic idea and philosophy that people act individually and compete within the market for resources and in doing so create wealth. Those who create the most wealth have done so by their own free will and those who have created the least have also done so by their own free will. This debate will be argued using fact and reason, no emotional opinions or subjectively heavy thoughts are used in the debate. To my opponent, you will lose this debate; let this be an example of social Darwinism in practice. ...................................................................................................................................................... First of all, people do act individually and do not act as part of a great "collective". Participation in groups occur only when it is in the best interest of the individual involved. Thus, all actions in a free-market are voluntary and are made in the best interest of those making them. There is no doubt to this because it is human nature to be self-minded. The result of such economic activity is of course, the best possible result. Objectively speaking, when someone fails, it is their own fault. If you do not accept your faults, you cannot accept your successes. This is what social Darwinism professes. To deny any of this is of course, illogical. Economic competition is not- as opponents call it -the law of the jungle. Competition in nature by animals is the fight over limited resources. Competition in a civilized capitalist economy is the positive creation of new resources which rewards those who create it. This is a balanced system which is self-regulating. Social Darwinism is an explanation for why capitalism works and why some fail and some succeed. In a non-free-market economy, people do not succeed the same way they do in a free-market economy. Kings and Lords and Knights succeed, while Serfs, Peasants, and Slaves fail; but this is because of "chance". "Chance" means they are born with no free will over their life because they are born into a class (under Communism, everyone is born into the lower-class). Under capitalism, people are born into their own class, which they spend their lives deciding what that will be. Some people may have it easy because they are born with upper-class parents, but this is unavoidable because the alternative would be the theft of the babies by the government and the raising of them by the government, this would result in tyranny and something of an Ayn Rand novel. Therefore, the inequalities of result we see in our capitalist society are good. They mean freedom and prosperity and choice and social Darwinism.
Borders and boundaries

Thanks to Pro for a great debate. Due to a ridiculous lack of time, I am unable to post a full response. So I'll just sum up my previous ones. Borders help sustain sovereignty. Without them, people would just run around everywhere and we'd have no control over who comes into the country. It seems like most of the "elites" my opponent is talking about actually advocate for OPEN borders. Finally, based on my arguments above, a lack of borders would result in anarchy, which according to Merriam-Webster is "a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority. " The absence of the governmental authority, in this case, being borders. Borders help to establish laws, and a lack of them may lead to anarchy. Thanks to As_A_Whole for starting list debate, 'twas fun.
Borders and boundaries

We need to come together and discuss matters like these more often so that laws and policies that have been in place can continue to be successful. For me to use the quotes and opinions of others to prove my side of this debate would misrepresent a part of why I started this debate or why I debate any subject. I believe that if we were given more opportunities to decide on the bigger issues that man faces on a daily basis, conflict and war would greatly reduce. If we were shown how to think for ourselves more and allowed to act on these thoughts, people would, through comprises, get along better. I chose to share my own personal experiences because with out question these are proven experiences that I'm 100% confident have helped my life. Statements given by others are good for influencing a decision but should not determine the decisions of everyone who is affected by a matter. Be a free thinker and put a bit more trust in the average everyday person experiencing life and stop allowing credentials to determine how you and I decide. Too many "elites" have violated our trust and have shared opinions that they feel were good for an image they wanted to portray so they can get what they want. Thank again TheDragon5. Hope you and I can do this again my friend.
Borders and boundaries

Thanks to Con for his arguments. Sovereignty - the authority of a state to govern itself or another state. As Glynn Custred from the Center for immigration studies says, "The instrumental functions of international boundaries are to mark the place on the ground where one sovereignty ends and another begins. It is along these lines that a state has the legal right to exercise control over the movement of goods and people to and from the sovereign territory and whose violation by outside forces defines invasion." The evaporation of borders would cause all countries to lose their sovereignty. LA Times: "Borders are to distinct countries what fences are to neighbors: means of demarcating that something on one side is different from what lies on the other side. Borders amplify the innate human desire to own and protect property and physical space, which is impossible to do unless it is seen " and can be so understood " as distinct and separate. Clearly delineated borders and their enforcement, either by walls and fences or by security patrols, won"t go away because they go to the heart of the human condition " what jurists from Rome to the Scottish Enlightenment called meum et tuum, mine and yours. Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace." My opponent has provided no sources to back up his claims. And as one of my sources said, with the friendlies, unfenced borders are okay, but with the unfriendy people, they are in place to keep peace. Good luck to Con in the next round. Sources: http://www.latimes.com... http://cis.org... https://www.google.com...;*
Borders and boundaries

Very well stated Pro. I am happy to here this opposite view in such a way. This leaves us the opportunity to gather more information on how to restructure the way we approach any border issues. I personally believe that our world would be a lot more peaceful if the claim of lands weren't based on ownership. We need more a of a true free trade or common exchange between our fellow man. Greed needs to be dropped and sharing our resources and labors to strengthen one another is a much better platform walls. Walls have been used in the past and in the end the destruction of these walls have proven to be more effective. Take a system like boarders and boundaries and treat it the same way two neighbors do and I promise you will see a better world. I police my neighborhood better than any politician or police officer can. Its my home. For police and politicians, who need these borders to get paid, they just see a house or houses. It's our HOME and we know what's best for each of our mini community's within the greater community. Let us decide our needs and give the power back to the people. After all loving our land is not just job to us, its our HOME.
Borders and boundaries

Thanks to Con for starting this debate. Borders are necessary. They help us determine who is wanting to come into this country, so we can vet them and determine whether it would be a good idea to permit them in at all. As an op-ed from the Los Angeles Times says, "The truth is that formal borders do not create difference " they reflect it. Elites" continued attempts to erase borders are both futile and destructive." Comparing an internet game to real life is inappropriate. Things are not always as simple as they appear. Good luck to Con. Sources: http://www.latimes.com...
Borders and boundaries

Today our world is running into these imaginary borders created by power hungry humans. I've recently started playing an online game where my team consist of members from all over our homeland , earth. We argue only about the greatness of our teams but have always made amends over heated arguments. It's only a game. A game we all love. If the Internet has done so well without borders and boundaries why can't the physical world follow suit? After all Earth is a home we all love.
It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence

ARGUMENTS 1)IQ's aren't passed by genes I understand that in your first speech you stated its by imitation. In that argument i was just making sure everything was clear. 2)Kant's categorical imperative clearly he doesn't understand the categorical imperative so i will better try to explain it. it is pretty much saying that it is wrong or it is right, right then at that exact moment it doesn't matter of what it produces. say if for example your friend was dying. killing him would be against kants categorical imperative even if you thought it was the best for him in the long run. 3)Doctors and architects Doctors and architects do stand ground in this because they have alot higher suicide rate than the average person with a below average IQ. so therefore you will actually be increasing crime if you get rid of the below average. 4)Value Justice is defined as - "the quality of being just or fair" -- to be just or fair you have to have the social welfare so since justice can uphold social welfare then it should be tooken over the social welfare. 5)Value Criterion I'm not bringing towards more child abuse or higher crime rates as i showed in my third point he is and so he just helped my case NEW ARGUMENTS 1)Imitation He said that people learn from imitation but people can also learn positively from imitation. if my dad beats me and i don't like that chances are that i won't beat my kids so i will be an overall better father than he was to me. 2)Discursive he has still not argued my discursive argument so it also still stands in the round 3)IQ's will slowly rise He did not answer this argument either so it still stands. Thank You
It is justified to sterilize citizens with below average intelligence

I will first begin by attacking my opponents case and moving on to defend mine. His value of Justice. He Just says justice. Doesn't define what is being wronged or if something is wrong and needs justice. It is very unclear. Same with Kant's categorical imperative which I will elaborate later in my case. Con 1- "it's are not passed on from generation to generation A. how smart someone is is not encrypted into their d. n. a it is based soley on the fact of how much they learn as they grow up. " While this may be true, I mentioned in my Contentions that the actions of an child will be Learned from the Low IQ parent. Whatever caused the parent to have a low IQ, the child will learn the same type of lifestyle by imitation. Since that is all that the parent knew that will be all that the child will know, as I said in my contentions. cont 2- "sterlizing citizens is against kants categorical imperative which is the only way to measure morality. A. kant describes his categorical imperative as a standard or law governing our behavior. a categorical imperative sees the act as good in itself and of nothing it produces. so a categorical imperative is true no matter what. " Well they way you put Kant's C. I. P. it is justifying what I'm achieving this is out of good for society to lower child abuse and crime. So in the sense you put it in yes I'm doing good for society and therefore I don't go against Kant. Defense-Attack on Con1 sub A) "pass personality traits by genes"-true but they can be learned by the child. Attack on Con1 sub B) "this statement might prove that they have trouble coping with certain issues but it was proven that doctors and architects ahve a higher chance of committing suicide than a lower middle class person does. "-Statement is irrelevant. Doctors and architects have a higher IQ than 98 so they are excluded from this debate. Value-No it can't you just described Societal welfare. VC-While he says he is bringing good towards everyone he is not because he is still allowing child abuse to rise and crime rates to rise so utili is better than Kant's C. I. P. Thank you