BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Prove you are a human.

I only have five rounds to prove I'm human...Okay. Fair enough. You know those scrambled letter and number puzzles we decipher and retype to get access to websites? I can do ever single one of them. I have a child, and very distinctive parts. now that makes me a mammal, because I have hair, give live birth, and live on land. I walk on to feet and have thumbs. (this is going to end terribly)
Is Isis actually acting upon their religion

#1. hahadah, profession of faith, is the first pillar of Islam. Muslims bear witness to the oneness of God by reciting the creed "There is no God but God and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." This simple yet profound statement expresses a Muslim's complete acceptance of and total commitment to Islam. #2. Salah, prayer, is the second pillar. The Islamic faith is based on the belief that individuals have a direct relationship with God. The world's Muslims turn individually and collectively to Makkah, Islam's holiest city, to offer five daily prayers at dawn, noon, mid-afternoon, sunset and evening. In addition, Friday congregational service is also required. Although salah can he performed alone, it is meritorious to perform it with another or with a group. It is permissible to pray at home, at work, or even outdoors; however it is recommended that Muslims perform salah in a mosque. #3. Zakat, almsgiving, is the third pillar. Social responsibility is considered part of one's service to God; the obligatory act of zakat enshrines this duty. Zakat prescribes payment of fixed proportions of a Muslim's possessions for the welfare of the entire community and in particular for its neediest members. It is equal to 2.5 percent of an individual's total net worth, excluding obligations and family expenses. #4. Sawm, fasting during the holy month of Ramadan, is the fourth pillar of Islam. Ordained in the Holy Qur'an, the fast is an act of deep personal worship in which Muslims seek a richer perception of God. Fasting is also an exercise in self-control whereby one's sensitivity is heightened to the sufferings of the poor. Ramadan, the month during which the Holy Qur'an was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, begins with the sighting of the new moon, after which abstention from eating, drinking and other sensual pleasures is obligatory from dawn to sunset. Ramadan is also a joyful month. Muslims break their fast at sunset with a special meal, iftar, perform additional nocturnal worship, tarawih, after evening prayer; and throng the streets in moods that are festive and communal. The end of Ramadan is observed by three days of celebration called Eid Al-Fitr, the feast of the breaking of the fast. Customarily, it is a time for family reunion and the favored holiday for children who receive new clothing and gifts. #5. Hajj, the pilgrimage to Makkah, is the fifth pillar and the most significant manifestation of Islamic faith and unity in the world. For those Muslims who are physically and financially able to make the journey to Makkah, the Hajj is a once in a lifetime duty that is the peak of their religious life. The Hajj is a remarkable spiritual gathering of over two million Muslims from all over the world to the holy city. In performing the Hajj, a pilgrim follows the order of ritual that the Prophet Muhammad performed during his last pilgrimage.
Is Isis actually acting upon their religion

Yes, Isis is acting upon their religion, infact they are following all of the Qur'an rules exactly in accordance to the 5 pillars of Islam, those are: #1- Abuse women (Qur'an 4:34, Qur'an 2:223) #2- Kill infidels (Qur'an 2:191-193, Qur'an 4:89) #3- Kill Jews (Sahih Muslim 41.6981-41.6985, Sahih al-Burkhari 4:52:177) #4- Be terrorists (Qur'an 3:151, Qur'an 8:12) #5- Own and sell sex slaves (Qur'an 33:50, 23:5-6)
The Bible is Perfect.

Resolution : The bible is perfect ( or without error), and all the events in it should be considered credible, viable, and empirical sources. Pro is acknowledging the bible should be read literally and not metaphorically and that all the stories and accounts in the bible are true. We are taking on a shared BOP.Rules(1) Forfeit of a round will result in the loss of a conduct point. Forfeit of both rounds will result in a full 7 point win for the opposite contender. (2) No new evidence shall be presented in the last round that is meant for rebuttals and crystallizing points.(3) Evidence should be cited(4) Valid RFDs must be provided for votes. (5) 24 hour argument time(6) 10,000 word limit(7) Failure from Pro to type "no round as agreed upon" in the last round will be considered a concession and result in his/her loss by a full 7 points, seeing as how this will give him/her an extra round. StructureMeR1: Position and rulesR2: Opening Argument no rebuttalsR3 : Rebuttals, re building previous points, and closing argumentsAdversary R1: Opening ArgumentsR2 : Rebuttals, re building previous points, and closing argumentsR3 : Shall type "no round as agreed upon"
The Bible is Perfect.

My adversary has offered a concession. Notice in the resolution, I typed pro is acknowledging that the bible should be read literally. Pro has claimed in his R1 stance that it should not. He has changed the resolution and therefore there is nothing to debate. Remember he has taken the debate under the guidelines and rules above. I clearly state that the resolution is as follows "Resolution : The bible is perfect ( or without error), and all the events in it should be considered credible, viable, and empirical sources. Pro is acknowledging the bible should be read literally and not metaphorically and that all the stories and accounts in the bible are true. " Pro has conceded this debate by changing the resolution.
The Abrahamic God exists

When you pass through the waters, I will be with you, And the waves will not Overcome you. Do not fear, For I have redeemed you, I have called you by name, You are Mine.For I am the Lord your God I am the Lord your God The Holy One of Israel Your Savior For I am the Lord your God I am the Lord your GodThe Holy One of Israel Your Savior I am the Lord (do not fear) I am the Lord (do not fear) I am the Lord (do not fear) I am the Lord (do not fear)When you walk through the fire You'll not be burned, And the flames will not Consume you. Do not fear, For I have redeemed you, I have called you by name, You are Mine.http://www.youtube.com...;
The Abrahamic God exists

Thank you for the friend request and debate accept! I hope to have a stimulating conversation with you. I'd like to open with the classical "argument from evil", an argument probably better named as the "argument from suffering". P1. In theory, God can stop any suffering (He is omnipotent) P2. In theory, God wants to stop any suffering (He is omnibenevolent) P3. Suffering exists C. God cannot exist
The Abrahamic God exists

Thanks to Con for this debate challenge.Con's definition includes an entity with the qualities omnipotence, omnibenevolence, creativity, and judgement. I take it that proof of any extra baggage based on the revelation of religious literature—i.e. that this God also delivered the Israelites from Egypt, or that He became incarnate in Christ—is not necessary. As such, my argument will be relying only on natural theology—specifically, the philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the thirteenth-century Catholic theologian.Back to Con.
The Abrahamic God exists

The argument will be that the Abrahamic (Judeo-christo-islamic) god exists. I am taking the CON (atheistic) position. First round is for stating your position and any terms you want to define. My position is that there is no proof for the existence of the Abrahamic god (hereafter referred to as God with a capital G), and in some respects God is also logically impossible. Definition of God: He is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, he created the universe, and he judges, punishes and rewards people. All claims must be backed up by logic (please state your premises and conclusions) and/or evidence (please use sources to provide evidence). Good luck!
The ideas of law, justice and ethics are primarily subjective concepts.

I did not intend to encompass the scientific laws in my contextual usage of "law" as they are a very different definition. I intended to focus solely on the "legal laws" (inferable with the coinciding use of "justice" and "ethics"). I apologise for the lack of clarity on my part.This is a philosophical discourse. While I agree with your statement, I can claim that developmental issues and other consequential contingencies are of no relevance since the focus of this debate is on the fundamental nature of these concepts. I'd also like to clarify that what I mentioned was that ethics is based on "seemingly collective morals". This statement was used to illustrate the propensity that both ethics and the law adhere to the interests of the healthy majority, and not an attempt to assert a fact.Regardless of whether 80%, 1%, or 99.99% of humans have coinciding moral opinions on a specific moral principle, anything less than absolute (100%) cannot be considered as true fact, since truths are invariable. You may assert that 99.99% suffices to be fact, but that 0.01% accounts for the variability in the asserted fact -- meaning that it is disputable. In contrast to moral opinions, a true fact would be that both you and I exist as our own, individual consciousness, which is objective absolute and indisputable.The similarities observed in the psychological tests only serve to prove that humans have very comparable physical and mental frameworks, since there is a strong correlation between the propensity to agree on what is "right and wrong" and the lack of external influence. I assert that these mental similarities are bound by physical consistencies: genetic makeup, evolutionary background, chemical balance, and ethical development based on the history of humanity as well as the time period they reside in. I have reason to believe that the idea of "right and wrong" will differ if we would theoretically take a modern person's opinions and contrast them to those of a person from 20,000 years ago. This difference would be onset by the vastly differing cultural and logical background and environment, as a direct result of the time gap and lack of comparable stimuli and experiences throughout the course of their lives.You agree that morals are primarily subjective. Relative to the legal action, justice is indeed primairly objective when based off of written legal laws. However, if legal laws on a fundamental level are primarily subjective based upon individual opinions, wouldn't justice and ethics naturally be primarily subjective too? Are they not merely extensions of coinciding indivudal (=seemingly collective) moral concepts (=ethics) used as a tool to strengthen the integrity of a given region/society through enforcement (=justice)? We developed into the civilization we have today due to the use of these concepts in practice, but that does not necessarily mean they are not primarily subjective concepts.
The ideas of law, justice and ethics are primarily subjective concepts.

One of life's important learning curves is the formation of a "conscience". The understanding of "right and wrong" that is fundamental to the formation of ethics. justice & laws. While I can admit that ethics and justice are abstract concepts - I feel that saying that they are subjective would certainly open up some interesting developmental issues as well as seriously questioning how we developed into the civilization we have today. Take for example a rather famous law: Newtons 3rd Law. It states that "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." This is an observed effect that occurs on every level of observation and is not down the personal interpretation. While the writing and description of this effect may vary between cultures and societies - the very fact that it is true for everything (hence it's use in our SETI & First Contact principles) means that laws - by this definition are completely objective. If we are to take this idea of a law that, while based upon a collection of subjective tests/ideas/observers - Is the result of observed effect. This can be then transferred to what I would define as "Legal Law" - the outcome of an event based upon morals. Before I move into more about legal laws - lets first discuss their framework - ethics & morals. You argue that prominent degrees of variability within a given society's ethics and its occupants' morals mean that all of this is subjective based upon the individual. I believe that morals are not subjective 100% as subjective as you define. Subjective thought requires a sense of self, knowledge of a situation/outcome and its effect. Experience is one of the key attributes of this - a collective experience as you mentioned that make's up our ethics. Or does it? A recent study done by Psychologists on babies to confirm if a sense of "right or wrong" is nature or nurture. The results of which (while can be viewed as subjective) were compiled in an objective, scientific method are very interesting. 6-12 month old children cannot communicate or be communicated with in normal terms. They don't grasp complex processes or thoughts (that we know of - I'm all for genius babies) - yet 80% of these babies displayed an understanding of "right and wrong" and the conditions of these tests. [2] Surely this display indicates that behaviour and understanding of moral issues is also inherent and thus not completely subjective. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://phys.org...
The ideas of law, justice and ethics are primarily subjective concepts.

I thank you for accepting the challenge, I noticed that you commented on another debate I instigated and am looking forward to this debate!The ideas of both law and justice are provisional concepts of righteousness derived from the ethical code of a given region/society. Ethics is a system of consolidated beliefs founded based on seemingly agreed moral principles within a given region/society. I believe that we can both agree on the fact that morals are essentially subjective.Assuming that an action deemed unjust (against the law) was taken, the convicted would naturally be prosecuted under standard procedure of the law. In this scenario, it can only be inferred that it violated the ethics of the certain region/society. Since the law is based on set rules that govern the moral functionality of a society. Offenders are those who performs actions opposing such rules, regardless of whether it violates individual moral principals. In practice, the system of justice obeys nothing but the law, ignoring all other ethical/moral oppositions or alternatives.The law is based on ethics (= seemingly collective morals) of a society, yet people can have differing or even opposing opinions on what is deemed "right", "wrong", "just", or "unjust". If laws, justice, and ethics were indeed primarily objective, why is there such a prominent potential of variability within a given society's ethics and its occupants' morals? One would assume that anything primarily objective would reasonably be indisputable and one-sided in terms of truth (e.g. A human is standing on the table, the fact that he is standing on the table is objective).With the addition of your set definition, I'd also like to state that:Despite facts being objective, the individual interpretations of them are subjective and variable by person.
Absolute morals

Let me start with the rebuttals: 1. Your quote of Aristotle is still out of context, I do not understand how it connects to the topic, perhaps if you had given a sources then I would have read the paragraph and understood it; you however presented no source. As I do not fully get what the quote was I do not understand how it challenges summum bonum: however I can tell you that morality leads a person so that happiness is attained from virtue, this in itself is human transcendence. 2, The difference between morality coming from God, and morality coming from you has a tremendous difference, as you are confined to human reason, a priori and empirical knowledge. You are neither omnipotent nor are you omniscient. As for quoting Euthyphro's Dilemma you must realize you are arguing besides the point. The argument I lay forth has nothing to do with God in the premise. Remember I stated that morality is absolute, and my argument for that was both ontological, logical and synthetic a priori. You have not directly tackled my arguments, you have provided a counter. But still the reason Euthyphro's Dilemma does not play out here is because we assume only one God ( I most certainly was arguing for 1). And so the issue of division is removed and Socrates will be happy. Not to mention God is by definition good (see Theodice by Leibniz) and his opposite is Satan. It is perfectly logical to argue that morality comes from God. Needless to say my argument doesn't say that, it says morality is innate, something you did not tackle. 3. I never spoke of the Bible or of religion in general. As for how we can understand absolute morals, how to realize them , I will not take the added burden. My argument was: 1. If there is an objective law, then there is a God 2. There is an objective moral law, 3. There is a God In such the sub argument was of the second premise of innate and ontology. This was what you had to tackle however did not. 4. As for you giving the democratic structure such great authority you did not tackle the point of how there is a difference between goodness and morality and how morality is based on intention. You did not tell me how morals are based on empirical means. I feel Benji ( I have his permission to call him that) you ran a parallel debate, I gave my arguments and you left them untouched while I systematically refuted each of your claims, even when they were red herrings. I feel that my entire argument was not engaged and as the Opposition if you failed to show the absurdity within my logic, my argument will be assumed correct. Lastly, in the perhaps 5 or 6 rounds we have had, Benji, I have had great fun. I hope to debate you another time, and surely you no longer despise me either. Sincerely, Ajab
Absolute morals

Like most philosophical concepts, morality was created by man. If you claim that there was a higher power involved, why don't we see morality in nature? In the animal kingdom? If god is the architect of all life, why would he give morals to man and not animals? how do we know that morals are objective. Your argument of summum bonum could be challanged by Aristotle's words: ,,will one who has had a vision of the Idea itself become thereby a better doctor or general?" Morality is subjective on the individual level, but in a civilized democratic society, the majority rules. If the majority deems something to be moral, then it forms the basis of morality and takes precedence over any individuals convictions. This serves as the basis for common law. The collective wisdom is ALWAYS supersede the individuals' convictions or opinions. I believe that peanut butter is the best flavor of milkshake, but it's irrelevant because my opinion should not be taken as gospel, nor should the opinion of any other individual (especially when it pertains to fetal homicide).
There Are Only 2 Genders

First off, I am not a sex=gender person. Like I said before, I am a sex determines gender person. They aren't the same word, But they are largely related. Sex is determined by your chromosomes, And gender is the state of being male or female. And by the way, To answer your question about why we have 2 words for the same thing, We don't. Like I explained, They are different. I find that to be a ridiculous question, Because there are so many other different words that mean the same thing (. I. E. Same/identical). Language doesn't have much to do with this argument. I'm going to assume you know that biologically, There are 2 sexes. That is why you are clinging on to language so much. The only language that is really important here are the definitions of sex and gender, Which I thought we already went over. This debate isn't about if a man feels feminine, Or is a girl feels masculine, It is about biology. The term 'male girl' makes absolutely no sense. It just contradicts itself, So 'feminine boy' makes more sense, Because feminine is a way to describe someone/thing, And isn't a sex. Regarding intersex, It is definitionally a disorder. A disorder doesn't mean that they have a disadvantage, It means a disruption of normal physical or mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition. I think you can agree that an intersex person meets that description. By the way, I never said intersex people don't exist, And I never said they have to fit into a certain category, Even though 99% of intersex people have defining traits that make them a male or a female, Like a micro penis or enlarged clitoris. They do actually try to force you to use their pronouns. I got screamed at once for saying i'm not going to call someone by their preferred pronouns. Your argument on names vs. Pronouns is ridiculous. Pronouns are directly tied to someone's gender, And names aren't. You can change your name, But not your gender. Other people might call people by their preferred pronouns, But not me. That is just my belief. I'm not arguing that language doesn't change. It's pretty obvious that it does. Language does not, In fact, Change basic biology. To your point on multiple genders, I know they exist. But only in language. In biology, The thought of more than 2 genders is complete bullcrap. You have also talked a lot about the behavior of people, But that has absolutely no impact on gender. If you act like a by, It doesn't make you one. If you feel like a girl, That doesn't make you one. The reality is that there are 2 genders. There are 2 *normal* combinations of chromosomes. Everyone else, Whether it be XXY, XXYY, XXX, Or whatever else, Isn't normal. Like I said before, It's normal to have 10 fingers. Obviously, There are people born with 11 fingers, But that makes them abnormal. If there are more than 2 genders, What is the purpose of the 3rd? Or 4th? I don't call people by their preferred pronouns because I don't like them, It is because it's my belief, And also biology's belief, That they are not the sex to which they claim to be. Even if it is harder, I do it because I believe in it. That is fine if you disagree.