BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Troll Debate Week 3: Satan and Morals

===Pro Case===C1. Satan Causing Good and Evil.In order to see exactly where and how my opponent's point fails, I think it would be best to examine everything Satan did in the Garden and the immediate repercussions of such actions. My opponent claims Satan to be the cause of good and evil so in his argument he provided a case where Satan did something to directly facilitate the creation of morality. The claim by my beloved opponent here is that by prodding the weak-minded woman (surprise surprise) into eating the forbidden fruit, that Satan is somehow *creating* morality. But is he? Really? To say that Satan created anything is pure folly though Pure poppycock actually. All Satan did was show Adam and Eve what God had already determined was right and wrong. Otherwise how does one explain that the "Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil" already existed prior to Eve's unsurprising damning of the human race. The existence of such a thing implies that there were already properties to go along with it. Satan didn't create morality, he just showed us what God had already determined it to be.C2. Good Existing Without Evil.Cool point. Though there are a few problems. Babydingo doesn't show why it is Satan that creates morality and not God. For instance, he says good cannot exist without evil. But can evil exist without good? Probably not as per my opponent's own argument and the fact that the logic behind both positions is identical. So my opponent doesn't really prove anything other than that the two positions (good and evil) are necessary for each other one's existence. So the question is then, which entity is more likely to be the source of morality, God (who created the world and everything in it, therefore including morality) or one of God's punk ex-associates (who he also created). The answer is clear. God as the ultimate originator of all that exists and ever will exist is the ultimate definer of morality.C3. Dinosaurs.While Babydingo has certainly made a scientific breakthrough regarding the origin of the various species known as dinosaurs in his contention, I'm afraid it has nothing to do with the origin of morality. So while this point deserves a vote for Babydingo for a Clarke Medal[1], his point falls short of deserving a vote in his favor for this debate.C4. Airplanes and Evil, Platypi and Virtue.I've done the math, ran the numbers, did science stuff, and have arrived at the conclusion that conceding this totally unrelated point to the resolution would not affect my case. Therefore I concede that airplanes are evil, that the TSA ought to be severely punished for allowing so many vulnerable citizens to board those death machines, and that Southwest Airlines ought to be charged with crimes against humanity. But I do not concede Satan's role in the conception of morality good sir. Satan was not an engineer and Babydingo has not proved any Satanic involvement in the Wright brother's unholy creation of evil. P.s. burn in hell Wright brothers.troll.jpg===Sources===[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Homosexuality and Gay Marriage are Morally Wrong

Thank you for your response, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Please answer the following questions in your next argument... 1) How do you discern what is right or wrong, conventionalism, utilitarianism...? How? 2) If God does not exist, then can there be OBJECTIVE morals? If yes, then HOW? !!!!!NOTICE: QUESTION (2) IS NOT THE FOLLOWING!!!!! 1) Does one have to believe in God to live moral lives? I am NOT claiming that. 2) Can one recognize objective morals without God? I am NOT claiming that either. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>"The Bible gives no REASON for why homosexuality is immoral other than it is an "abomination," which actually means (in Hebrew), "foreign practice." That's not compelling. Eating dogs is a foreign practice (China, other Asian countries), but this does not make it IMMORAL.<<< The Bible does not only say that homosexuality is an abomination, it also refers to it as unnatural, unlawful, and sexually immoral. In Genesis the Bible compares homosexuality to pedophile and bestiality. So according to the Bible there are other reasons to why homosexuality is immoral. Also when saying that homosexuality is foreign, it is not the same as eating dogs in Asia(paraphrased). When the Bible is referring to homosexuality as "foreign" it is saying what it is. Homosexuality is foreign in the sense that it is "unnatural," thus foreign to the natural sexual orientation which is heterosexuality. >>>"Why is the Bible inadmissible? Simply put, because it is another biased source."<<< How is the Bible biased? How is it any more inadmissible than any other source or statistic? Every source and statistic is "biased". Every statistic you've used in your own favor has been filtered through the perceptions of hundreds of people, everyone with their own predisposition. And like I said, making the claim that "God is not required for moral reasoning," is futile. Without the Bible, there can be no morality. Without God, every man decides his own morals. There is no objectivity. I can do what I want, and you can only stop me by brute force. It's chaos and there is no meaning to life. Because if there is no God, then we as humans are the ultimate beings. And who are you to tell me that I am doing something morally wrong, if my perceptions and beliefs are just as valid as yours. Words like "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "bad" are impossible. They hold no weight. Thus, existence is random, meaningless, and it's every man for himself in the survival for the fittest. How can you claim that homosexuality is "not immoral." How can you put me or anyone else under your self made morality.
Dumb people are generally happier.

According to a scientific, pchycological study, stupid people seem to be more happier, hence the famous quote "Ignorance is bliss". The studies in social science are not that credible. They could never know if people are actually feeling happy all the time; dumb people may be more likely to lie to appear better. Because people like other to perceive they are happy. Social Science psychology they usually just ask them or give them questionaries’ with the definition of happiness is just guessed or vaguely defines. Social Science is not even a real science. . The good psychology is in Cognitive Science… they mix neuroscience with psychological testing. As Ernst Hemmingway said, "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." I quite agree with this statement because Ignorance is bliss. Intellect people usually think more, therefore thinking about problems. They could also think about more positive things. Intellect people are more self-critical. The Fool: Self critique can lead to advantages later. It may push to do more with your life then settle for what’s ever around. I agree that: Ignorance is often bliss, but not necessarily over a life time. For we may say that intelligent people are less happy because they are more likely to notice problems that the ignorant may not recognize, but it can pay off in the end. e.g The intelligent can recognize more options, and capitalise on opportunities, when will have a more happy outcome the intelligent secure their future. They would also be able to avoid pit falls. Where the ignorant live blindly, but the world appear more random, because of lack of explanation that can better predict future thus increasing the ability to make more efficient decision. The ignorant has short term investment, problem will appear out of nowhere and they won’t be prepared to deal with them. No body start smoking crack when they really understand the complication. They begin when they are naive of the capacity to be able to stop when they want. And so for the first while they may enjoy, a very small while in that case. But then the problem will eventually emerge and before it’s too late. They are forced to feel the full brunt of a problem that could have been avoided. You could use any example, and the probabilty will be in Favour intellegence.. that doesn't mean all intellegent people will be happier. but increased the general probablity. Another question would you rather be ignorant? None of us would say yes, maybe of some temporary things, but certainly not on a general level. Why because you lose freedom. Understand the world you have more option. More option is more freedom. That is freedom depend upon what you know, and in this sense knowledge is power and freedom, because you more efficiently organized and change the world, and more option which can lead to and over all happiness. e.g. science gives us the ability to manipulate the physical world in our favour.
Dumb people are generally happier.

According to a scientific, pchycological study, stupid people seem to be more happier, hence the famous quote "Ignorance is bliss". As Ernst Hemmingway said, "Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know." I quite agree with this statement because 1. Ignorance is bliss. Intellect people usually think more, therefore thinking about problems. 2.Intellect people are more self-critical.
The "mosque" near Ground Zero has every right to be built

First of all I would like to say good luck :) ------------------------------------------------- My opponent has stated it is not a mosque and they are right it is a and I quote "A Islamic community center and prayer room planned near Ground Zero" and yes it is true they have a right to build it here there any were but how would you feel if your family was in there when this happened there is no law that says they cant build it. But morally this is wrong, wrong to the country itself and Americans that were in ground zero when it happened wrong to their family and wrong for them to know this good and well and still want to build it! Also my opponent has stated that again I quote" A majority of protesters of this "mosque" are racist" maybe there not racist just people who feel like someone put a giant f*** you sticker on the sight of this national tragedy. Maybe just maybe they are fellow American patriots who feel obligated to tell them that hey go build it any were but here?! Also it is sad that we have mistaken three people two of them happening to be men on a California Christian tv channel the other a hard working American citizen, but yelling go home is not a racist act and dose not signify that we want all Muslims to 'go away' or go home. thirdly my oppont stated that once again I quote 'To deny American citizens their first constitutional right is outright ludicrous' this may be true but we were not denying them and are not denying them anything there building it are they not? But where in the constitution dose It say that we can not firmly disagree whit what they are doing America is as much a home to them as it is to us but it dose not make any more right to build on the site of a NATIONAL tragedy.
Peta helps save animals.

As was easily proved in this debate, Peta helps save animals. I have not needed to make the claim of them being particularly effective at actually saving animals, so long as they help. Their ads are memorable, and teach important lessons about what a few less calories can cause someone to look like... Further even when con logged in two days ago, they still did refute the claims against their single source (or at least concede properly).I suggest a strong vote for pro (me), based on the following criteria.CONDUCT (pro): Full Forfeit.S&G (tied): No remarks.ARGUMENT (pro): The resolution was strongly affirmed, presented well with pictures, backed up by evidence, and counter cases not merely refuted but outright flipped.SOURCES (pro if accepting con's was flipped, otherwise tied): While the four sources provided by pro were not strong enough to outright claim the source points as opposed to just making them lean over, the claiming of a hostile source heavily tips the balance in his favor. No comment if tied.(Yes I did just provide a voting walkthrough for new members. This could be considered a strike against conduct, but I feel the missed rounds will greatly outweight such.)
Peta helps save animals.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (henceforth referred to as Peta), does indeed help save animals. The main way they do this is through political rhetoric, to slowly encourage people to give up habits which contribute to inhumane treatment of animals; such as getting people to become vegetarian, thereby saving some animals from the fate of slaughter houses; and discouraging people from wearing fur, thereby saving some animals from being skinned.They use naked celebrity ad campaigns, to encourage people to become vegetarian. If even one person has made the switch from it, they estimate that saves thousand of animals during that persons lifetime. Among their more notable accomplishments "PETA persuaded Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats had become trapped in the shafts and been burned to death" [1]. In their efforts to encourage people to not eat meat, they even mail out free Vegetarian Starters Kits [2]. Rebuttals:Companies like KFC and Outback Steakhouse, fund various smear campaigns against Peta; including petakillsanimals.com [3]. However such is irrelevant to the resolution "Peta helps save animals," as whatever else they may do, does not change if they do or do not help save some animals.To use an analogy: If we were debating Hitler's art career; the holocaust would be useless as evidence.To flip instead of merely dismiss Con's source... If their KFC financed website Petakillsanimals.com has encouraged anyone to save any animals, that very website being inspired by Peta, in turn makes Peta ultimately have helped save those animals.Sources:[1] http://www.peta.org...[2] http://www.peta.org...[3] http://yourlife.usatoday.com...
Peta helps save animals.

Good Luck. Now for my argument. Last year alone Peta killed 89.4% of it's adoptable dogs and cats. They kill an average of 30 pets per week. In 2012 1,843 pets were recieved, 1,647 were killed. The others were adopted or transferred. In 2007, 2 Peta employees were caught dumping the bodies of dead cats and dogs in dumpsters. Peta claimed that the animals they kill are injured or are too sick to be adopted. The thing is, when evidence was shown during the trial, the animal they killed were considered "adorable and "perfect". Sources: http://petakillsanimals.com...
The Christian god cannot logically exist.

"We can be sure according to the laws of logic. It is positively fallacious to just elevate god above the laws of logic without actually positing an argument." I believe my supporting argument immediately followed the statement in question. I said: "To support this as a possibility: as far as our human knowledge and cognitive abilities allow, we can't be sure that there isn't some truth - be it deep in the realm of mathematics or quantum physics - that allows for the extraordinary." What I'm referring to has ties to epistemology and all the classical problems that have been raised in the form of philosophical zombies, evil daemons and the like. We can never be 100% absolutely certain of anything. Within practical (i.e. useful for every day purposes) logic, we can adopt positions based on what seems to most likely represent reality. An example here would be the flying teapot, the portion of relevance to the point at hand being that we cannot prove it's not there nor know absolutely for certain that it's not. In our every day lives, we may accept for practical reasons that there's probably not a flying teapot out there somewhere, but we can't logically rule it out. The same thing applies to a loophole allowing logic-contradicting logic. We cannot know that there isn't such a thing in the deepest unknowns of existence. What followed in my original post were two examples to help point in the right direction of what I was ultimately trying to say. Your argument against my second example half confirmed what I was saying and was half irrelevant (I don't recognise a connection between not understanding the fundamentals of consciousness and assuming the existence of God). Your argument against my first example was also insufficient regarding its own individual subject matter. However, as (a) these examples were only included to help better present a stand-alone concept, (b) the argument does not rely on them for its own validity and (c) I feel it'd be inappropriate to begin a whole exploration of the origins of the universe in this particular debate, I won't say any more about those examples. "I defined the being as all powerful, all knowing, and all caring. It does not matter to me how others define god. This is how I define it." There may have been some confusion here - possibly partly due to bad wording on my part - about what exactly I meant regarding the definition of the Christian God in question. When you say "The Christian God" do you mean (a) the entity that Christians believe in or (b) the entity that Christianity describes? As an example scenario: There is a man named Ted who is a used car salesman. His family members, however, tell everyone that Ted is a doctor. If Ted were God and his family God's followers, would you be saying that (a) Ted doesn't exist or (b) Doctor Ted doesn't exist? Hopefully this version of my position is clearer.
The Christian god cannot logically exist.

"My opponent has posted no opening arguments, but given his choice of word definitions and the number of times I have encountered this debate before, I feel I have a good chance at guessing the arguments he will likely be making. " I apologize. I should have clarified that the first round would be reserved for acceptance of the debate and defitions regarding the resolution. However, as con decided to post his opening arguments I will respond to them accordingly. "By definition, it is stated that omnipotence is not bound by logic. To support this as a possibility: as far as our human knowledge and cognitive abilities allow, we can't be sure that there isn't some truth" We can be sure according to the laws of logic. It is positively fallacious to just elevate god above the laws of logic without actually positing an argument. "The existence of the universe is also subject to paradoxes. If it came to exist, how did something come from nothing? If it's always been here, how can something exist stretching infinitely back in time - can something even exist without an origin?" This is not a paradox as time is a construct of the universe. The universe never had a beginning because time did not come into being until the big bang. "The hard problems of consciousness have proven difficult to understand. We may understand how on a biological level light is converted into electrical signals of varying colour values - and on a higher level, a possible mathematical explanation of how the brain condenses the massive amounts of visual input it receives per second into something it can more easily process - but how exactly we come to consciously experience colour (see also: qualia) remains a mystery. Perhaps this also is a phenomenon with roots in areas that we've not yet uncovered." This is merely an argument from ignorance. You are assuming god's existence and puttig the BOP on the one who sees the logical fallacy. "As a slightly weaker argument, you may also question the intended use of the "omni-" words. Perhaps it was never intended to literally mean "can do absolutely anything conceivable, even in spite of itself" but rather just to poetically express the immense and realistic might of this divine entity." I defined the being as all powerful, all knowing, and all caring. It does not matter to me how others define god. This is how I define it. "As the Christian God hasn't been completely described in this debate, the term's meaning in the debate is open to interpretation." I did describe it. The Christian god according to my definition is all powerful, all knowing, and all caring.
The Christian god cannot logically exist.

I will take the pro position that the Christian god, who is all powerful, all knowing, and all caring cannot logically exist. Con will take the position that the Christian god can logically exist. Definitions: Omniscient: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things. http://dictionary.reference.com... Omnipotent: almighty or infinite in power, as God. http://dictionary.reference.com... Omnibenevolence: unlimited or infinite benevolence http://www.reference.com... Logically: according to or agreeing with the principles of logic http://dictionary.reference.com... Exist: to have actual being; be http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Christian god cannot logically exist.

"What I'm referring to has ties to epistemology and all the classical problems that have been raised in the form of philosophical zombies, evil daemons and the like. We can never be 100% absolutely certain of anything. " Just like you can use the laws of logic to prove behind a reasonable doubt that red is red and not green, because by definition red is red, you can apply the laws of logic to god. "The same thing applies to a loophole allowing logic-contradicting logic. We cannot know that there isn't such a thing in the deepest unknowns of existence. " You seem to have not read the resolution properly. I wrote that LOGICALLY the christian god cannot exist. If the Christian god does exist and it supersedes logic then, while possible and I am not ruling it out, cannot LOGICALLY exist. You're whole point about how we can never be 100% about anything is irrevelant. If god exist it does not abide by the laws of logic and is therefore illogical. "There may have been some confusion here - possibly partly due to bad wording on my part - about what exactly I meant regarding the definition of the Christian God in question. When you say "The Christian God" do you mean (a) the entity that Christians believe in or (b) the entity that Christianity describes? " And my definition is exactly how I described it. The Christian god in my definition is all powerful, all caring, and all knowing. There should have been no confusion. And you're first argument that god can actually exist actually affirms my own argument as you showed that if god does exist then it is not abiding by the laws of logic and is therefore illogical.