BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You Should NOT fear Death

If we are going to debate the matter or fear as a basis of why death should NOT be feared then I will bring in the words of Lars Svendsen who agrees that Fear is a powerful emotion, and although it can be an emotion that can save lives, from its avoidance of risk taking behavior (or as you stated making us aware of a risk " such as in letting us know that something is "wrong" inside) it also "robs us of our freedom". Betrand Russel has said that "to conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom". This is my point, once we realize that death is not to be feared we open the door to lead a more fulfilling life. In response to my argument that fear is a product of man"s inability to accept their own mortality and limits this is definitely the case. For fear is an emotional reaction based on instinct. It causes a fight-or-flight response to a threat of survival " which is exactly what "man"s inability to accept mortality is". The failure to be able to admit that your survival is in actuality controlled by the fact that you are mortal is the exact cause of the fear response which comes from instinct. This causes a quick, instinctive reaction which paralyzes our ability to think clearly and concisely about what it is we actually fear. If we take the time to analyze the what we are fearing (DEATH) we can deliberate and conclude through clear and concise analytical reasoning that in fact there is nothing to fear. As far as your hypothetical situation of minds being controlled, I am unsure what point you are attempting to make other than the fact that you are attempting to state that because physical pain is not present that this is the only pain that exists in the world. There are different forms of pain, emotional " which sounds like what you described, as not being able to have your freewill, - this would indicate a form of pain " wouldn"t you think? If my freewill was taken away and I felt as if I lost my sense of freewill I would feel some type of emotional pain. So the scenario does not work, nor make a point. As far as pain being categorized as good or bad, it is historically and socially the norm for pain to be categorically a "bad" emotion. Just as each emotion has either a positive or negative connotation "pain" remains to be seen as a bad undertone. Just as happy is good, sad is bad, and crying is bad and smiling is good. As with all things there always is an instance of an exception however trying to indicate that because I used pain in my argument and attempting to disqualify it as a bad emotion under the exception that pain alerts us to medical ailments just doesn"t work for the statement that Death is NOT to be feared.
You Should NOT fear Death

Alright to begin with, it seems that your concept of Fear involves a object of attention, meaning one needs to know/aware who or what is out there in order to begin to fear. This means that Fear is learned through our environment. This is my counter argument; That Fear is a instinct we contain that is involves with our "Survival Instinct". Think of it as this, "What is the point of being scare?" "Why do we have fear to begin with?""What is the benefit of having Fear?" Although many would identified Fear as an product of "man's inability to accept their own mortality and limits", that is not the case. Fear plays a huge role when assisting the organism to survive. When confronting with a bear, Fear is able to warn the organism that the Bear is potentially dangerous to the well-being of the organism whether or not the conscious of the mind is aware of it." Fear needs not a source since True Fear have no source although there are fears that do have sources. Now you mention pain as something bad without stating the Goodness of pain or what benefits we get for having pains. Pain, besides typically being unpleasant, it a method for our body to notify us that there is something wrong with us whether it is a virus, bug bite, changes in temperature, et cetera. Without pain, we would have trouble in find what is wrong with us and where is the source of pain coming from. Lastly mentioned "it cannot be bad since there is no pain involved". Is pain a indicator of Good and Bad?" In order to prove this wrong, I have to make a case where Pain does not indicate whether something is good or bad. Imagine a situation where everyone is being controlled by an individual with the ability to controlled the minds of individual. The purpose of this is to prevent anymore pain that wars and even battles themselves have cause. With this world where essentially everyone in the world is being controlled while living their every-day life without any form of pain or better yet any pain including physical, emotional, and psychological senses of pain except aging, is it Good or Bad? Most would say bad since we are being controlled and lost our sense of freewill. Although no pain was involved, the loss of freewill make this situation a bad one since the life of the individual would be false. There Pain is not a indicator of Good or Bad
You Should NOT fear Death

Death should NOT be feared as it is a natural process in life and there is nothing bad about death to fear. Epicurus views death in that it is "nothing" That the fear of death is irrational and should therefore be non-existent. Since death is nothing it doesn"t involve pleasure nor pain. Therefore it cannot be bad since there is no pain involved. The only bad thing for us is pain. We avoid pain as being it being bad. Epicurus even goes to state that terminally ill still enjoy pleasure, such as pleasure of their loved ones" As far as Lucretius, he states that "Therefore death is nothing to us, of no concern whatsoever, once it is appreciated that the mind is mortal" Once you accept your mortality you no longer fear death or the imminence of such. "Hence you may live to see out as many centuries as you like: no less will everlasting death await you. No shorter will be the period of nonexistence for one who has ended his life from today than for one who perished many months or years ago." The Paradox of life and death is such that if we grasped the concept that death should NOT BE FEARED that we would live a more successful life. Once you are able to grasp the concept that death is nothing to be feared you will be able to live a much more successful and plentiful life. Socrates believes death is either nothingness, or something involving an afterlife. Both arguments prove that death is not to be feared then. If nothing, it is more like an endless sleep and to many sleep is a state of calmness and serenity " almost dreamlike. Most people associate sleep with a feeling of tranquility if there is feeling at all as it is an unconscious state where Socrates believes there is a lack of awareness therefore a state of nothingness. If it consists of a state of nothingness than conceptually there is NOTHING for someone to fear. To expand on this nothingness he also believed it foolish for someone for to fear something unknown. Socrates also believed there may be another option that the soul migrated to another place through metaphysics. And if this was the case, then Death truly I not to be feared. So you see, Death being feared is just silly and a man-made anxiety coming from man"s inability to accept their own mortality and limits. Death is only feared by those who don"t understand the limits of the themselves who live under a false illusion of control or who believe in the fact that they somehow know something about death that everyone else does not.
Why gender is a social construct

I welcome the opportunity to expand in knowledge through research on various topics and to learn from others. This debate is not about the superiority of men or women. No such relationship is admitted by Con. As Con has shown from sources on the etymology of "gender", from its origin to its current usage, the term is commonly applied to the physical sex of an individual. Pro has not cited any sources to the contrary. Pro argues without documentation that men are not born stronger than women. This argument is demonstrably false. Of course, we do not argue from the specific to the general, which is a logical fallacy. We do not argue since one particular woman is stronger than one particular man, the axiom does not hold any longer that men are physically more powerful. There are numerous fitness and medical sources which attest to the fact of men having greater strength. (1)(2)(3) This is not a social construct. It is a genetic fact of gender. Pro also states without supporting evidence that anthropological study has produced the knowledge that gender roles (not to be confused with "gender") are cultural. However this, also, is documented to be incorrect, that males and females have differing roles due to differing methods of processing information. (4) As to the original, contextual meaning of the word "gender" in this debate: The context was clearly related to physical attributes, with Pro using their unusual physical situation setting the context and as shown, the two terms, sex and gender, are used interchangeably in society. If Pro had wanted to debate solely the cultural roles of males and females, Con believes the result would have been the same. As Pro did not narrow it, either by definition, or by debating "Gender Roles Are a Social Construct", there is no reason to limit the debate to part of the meaning of gender. It is worth noting that all 4 sources used in this round, from fitness to government to medical, use gender and sex interchangeably. Con has proven that both cultural and physical differences within the genders are not social constructs, but are genetic in nature. . http://www.livestrong.com... . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... . http://www.shapefit.com... . http://www.cerebromente.org.br...
Why gender is a social construct

Gender" is an idea that is based on what we socially believe. Am I a woman because when I was a kid my female mother wanted me to play with dolls and not GI Joes? Of course, these social cues are what mainly divides men from women. Men are supposed to be tough because society made them that way. Women are weak because society made them that way. We're not born this way, we are made this way. Anthropologists that have studied cultures around the world know that a lot of the traditional gender roles we see in the west are just products of culture and not necessarily innate. For the most part, culture forces people into behaving in certain ways. That said, almost all cultures do end up having gender roles that, whatever they are, align with physical sex in some way.
Why gender is a social construct

Pro opens the debate in round #1 with the following: "gender is a social construct cuse we are told when we are first born by a dude what gender but if he didnt tell us that we woudnt have a gender its only cuse he told us that gender that we are that gender i myself am an Androgenic masculine female attracted hermophro female and i am standing up against sexism and male patrechy" Gender defined: 1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical formsb : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclassc : an inflectional form showing membership in such a subclass 2a : sex b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex (1) Argument Etymology of "gender": The term "gender" has been in use to denote sex since the late 14th century, and has become more commonly so recently, as the term "sex" took on a meaning less regarding one"s genitalia and became more commonly used to reference the sex act. (2). In general use, gender and sex have become synonymous in referring to males and females. Con disagrees with the claim. The proposition that, we are told what our gender is after birth is proof that it is a social construct, is simply not the case. The physicians and other medical staff make a determination of the gender of a newborn based on physical characteristics, i. e. , genitalia, which are unique to a given gender. They do not decide and assign gender. They recognize what is. Simply denying the obvious gender of a newborn does not change the fact of it. Pro goes on to claim that if we were not told our gender our gender would not exist. We know this is not the case. Everyone is aware that the gender of a child is already factual prior to the pronouncement by medical staff. A child does not enter the world without gender and suddenly develop genitalia in accordance to the spoken decree of the attendees. If pro insists on going deeper into the substance of the individual, those gender differences are based on the 23rd pair of chromosomes in humans, with females having 2 X chromosomes and males having an X and a Y chromosome in the 23rd pair. (3) (4) The last sentence of Pro"s Round #1 argument is not disputed. Con would point however to Pro"s use of female in the description of herself. Con finds Pro"s argument that gender is an arbitrary assignment by a male at birth as part of an anti female world preposterous and wholly without merit. Con"s argument is refuted. Gender is not a social construct. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... . http://www.etymonline.com... . https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov... . https://www.britannica.com...
Colin Kaepernick has no good reason why he didn't stand up during the National Anthem

So, I think as a lot of people already knew, Colin Kaepernick refused to stand up during the U.S. national anthem, saying "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder" [1]Before you attack me, I want to clarify that his decision not to stand up is protected by the First Amendment (freedom of speech). He can stand, sit, squat or even sleep during the U.S. national anthem if he wants to. What bothers me is his reason why he chose not to stand up, arguing that people of colour are being oppressed in the United States. This debate should examine if people of colour, that is, other than the white people are truly being oppressed. My position is NO.Definition of oppressed [2]:1. to burden with cruel or unjust impositions or restraints; subject to aburdensome or harsh exercise of authority or power I don't see that the "oppression" of people of colour Kaepernick is talking about fits the definition. ROUND ONE: Acceptance & opening statement only ROUND TWO: ArgumentsROUND THREE: Rebuttal to argumentsROUND FOUR: Further defense of your argument & closing statementPlease no trolling!SOURCES: [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.dictionary.com...
Why roblox IS better than Minecraft!

I accept. Though I have never played Roblox so I will definitely be bad. Though I have watched my cousin play Roblox before. 1. You can create your own Minecraft skins that can look more realistic. 2. I have seen a mob where there is hundreds of monsters and when you kill them (like a flying Colossal Squid) you can become those animals. Another one: Clay Soldiers. You can create clay men. And give them resources to create buildings, or give them nuggets for crowns. Give them Pegasi to ride or make them fight eachother. 3. There is more versions of Minecraft other than on the computer. 4. Minecraft only has huge amounts of lag if you are wit many players, exploding a lot of TNT or flying around world. Et cetera. When I played Minecraft on the Xbox in the basement with my friend. It was fine other than quick jolts when we opened up chests. 5. Most people I play with on Minecraft (mostly a few) were fine. Though I'm guessing the reason why they don't want to help you is because they feel like you should work on your own. Like I remember a guy that was trailing my friend, asking for resources because he didn't want to get them himself. 6. Texture packs, texture mods in the millions for Minecraft. 7. I've never been to the forums for either, so I can't comment. 8. More updates doesn't mean quality updates. 9. You don't need to be flying and crouched to attack enemies when you are hovering 10. Just because you 'can get a job' on a mmo game doesn't mean you will get work experience and get enough to eanr a living. Most youcould probably make with crazy ads is like 10 bucks a year, maybe way more if you know a lot of people and can create a BIG quality product. 11. I wouldn't call wasting life on youtube when they have over a million fanbase and can create good things to add to that community. 12. I agree that the minigames suck since 1. It is a sandbox and it isn't for mingames, it's for the buildings (Have you seen the castles people have made?) 13. Castle Miner, Castle Miner Z I would add more but I have to do something and we have five rounds so brb
Why roblox IS better than Minecraft!

Note: Yes it is a debate on roblox and, minecraft. i want to see if i can beat someone. Please vote for who did better Please no favorites, i dont hate minecraft, i own it, just telling why roblox is better. 1. There's more physics in roblox like,falling back, falling apart when killed, mare walking animation. 2,. Their is way more items in roblox and can be created too. than minecraft even with mods. 3. You can create more monsters or mobs with scripting than Minecraft. 4. Minecraft has very huge amounts of lag. 5. People are so mean on minecraft they dont help you. 6. you can learn code in roblox. LEARN not just do, but learn. 7.Roblox can have more block, you can fully design any block you want. size to color to Graphic. 8. The graphics are better , because you can upload any graphic you want on roblox, minecraft is just pixels. 9. you can have hats, more hats than the hats mod. and more types. 10. the clothes look better than Large pixels. 11. Roblox is free who says you havt to get BC 12, You can make REAL money on roblox, using the trade currency, OBC required and can make about $10,000 a month ( http://blog.roblox.com...) 13, the minecraft forums is just fighting. the roblox forums is for useful info about roblox and some goofing off. 14. More updates than minecraft. 15. Bet you cant sit in a flying couch attacking enemies 16. Roblox has millions of variety of games. Minecraft even with mods is just mining fighting and building. Dont like that, get mods to help you cheat. 17. Roblox has a point, creating a game on roblox, advertising and making money, its like all ready learning on how to get a job. 18. people on roblox don't waste their life on youtube making videos. some do buy like 3 about. 19. Minecraft servers are all the same minigames, factions and pvp. Boring. mine fight and build. as roblox is mainly servers with a variety. 20. roblox is offline too, roblox studio. does not take internet to script. 21 There is a feature where you can play games solo... 22. There is more animation in the new update dancing is the main one, also crawling falling falling, and emotions 23. roblox has 15 million users and counting. Minecraft has 11 million and counting. plus minecraft had a chart showing how many got the game. Bragging? 24. roblox all you have to pay for it BC... Minecraft you have to buy realms server upgrades, and a cape?? i found some on ebay and they were like $200 0_o 25.You can work at roblox ,careers. 26. Roblox has more shapes, circles, rectangles, and triangles. more to learn with. 27 is more social, you can have and make friends, unlike minecraft, all they do is ignore you kick you . cause there "too busy" 28. roblox came first and is more classic. so notch had ideas from roblox. 29. you can have profiles, be in groups. and find out what player are doing 30. roblox has moderators, then look for bad people "SAYING" things not doing saying...
Should students be aloud to sell at school

So I assume that what you are telling me is that you are Pro for allowing students to sell in school. Why should students sell in school? They are there to learn. With enough of our students slacking off in schools (compared to Asia and Europe), why should students have one more distraction to prevent them from learning correctly? Now to address your points: Students can learn about both of those in Business class or a Personal Finance class. Over to your Pro
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

I further believe con will lose this argument because he’s done this debate a total of 7 times now, with a general feedback of distaste from most people. He’s been repeatedly accused in these debates of using this resolution to boost his stats, and those who agree with that sentiment will vote for me simply because they believe he shouldn’t be able to continue to do so. He may argue that I’ve done something unscrupulous by giving him so little time to reply, asking voters to vote against me because of this, but I’ve only made the “game”, as he calls it, more challenging. If he wasn’t up for the challenge, he shouldn’t have accepted. It shows the time you have for each debate before you accept. I further argue he will lose because he forfeited his last round. This is a clear loss for round two of the game, meaning I get the win for that round.
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

I believe my opponent will lose because his task is tedious and time consuming, and he has been allotted only 5 minutes to write each round. He may claim this was unfair, but he garnered 6 wins himself using a variation of the same tactic. The time allotted to write your arguments is disclosed before you accept, and by the definition of the word itself, this is a rule he must adhere to. If he contests this rule, or attempts to argue it’s unfair, then according to rule 1, having broken rule 5, he’d automatically lose. I only said I’d copy your resolution, not every rule of the debate. And regardless, you had all information disclosed before you accepted; if you were opposed to the rules, you should have been more careful. This seems only fair since you would have had more time to prepare yourself for your own resolution. Happy Debating. :)
My Opponent Will Lose This Debate

-- In this debate, the cards will be stacked against Con (this debate is essentially a challenge game for Con). If Con accepts, it means that he also accepts the rules by default, so please, no disputing a rule after accepting the debate -- Rule 1: If a rule is broken (directly or indirectly), then an automatic 7 point forfeit results for whoever broke the rule, assuming that rule applies to them. Rule 2: Rules with a * directly beside them only apply to my opponent *Rule 3: First round is just for acceptance *Rule 4: With regards to the entire debate, every other letter must be a capital letter, with the remaining letters being lower case letters (For example, "aBcDeF..." but obviously they don't have to be in alphabetical order). Every line must start with an upper case letter, and my opponent can chose as many lines as he/ she wishes. Rule 5: No contesting a rule after the debate has been accepted Rule 6: Shared burden of proof Have fun, it should be entertaining ha
Rape victims are whiners

Ok ok we get it you got raped. GET OVER IT!!! I don't care if you got raped, I got raped by someone once. His name was schauntel and he's the reason for the 4th of my seven abortions. I got over it bacause im awesome and obviously those rape victims are not. The ones that complain are probly the ones that just took it. I honestly don't care if you have trust issues because some guy thought you were hot. It's probly your fault anyway that you got raped because you were probably flauntin your stuff all around Bel-air. I seriously want to rape people who complain because they were raped just to shut them up. I mean there are way bigger problems in the world. Like for example: Justin Bieber just cut his hair and changed the style THIS IS A SERIOUS ISSUE I LOVE THAT LITTLE GIRL! If you con this you are probably a complaining rape victim. :)