BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
You pick

A. to say that everyone wants they same thing is a huge leap to make, and not even a logical one. Theoretically, in order to prove that assumption, you would have to explain away all the statements made by people who aren't in it for the money as well as prove through 7 billion surveys that everyone on earth wants to be purposelessly rich. This makes your argument non falsifiable at best and apparently and obviously wrong at worst. B. To say that you have world class skills is also a very big, and also immodest thing to say. If you truly have a world class level ability to plan and scheme as well as a unstoppable amount of knowledge and research capability, then why are you wasting your time on an amateur debate forum? Why aren't you getting out there and making money like you say you could? And better yet, what difference would it make in your ultimate goal of making money whether you do it morally or immorally if you truly have a beyond exceptional level of skill and intelligence? C. you clearly overlook the philosophical problem of being a kingpin. The more power you have, and the more you exert it, the more likely you are to lose it. All you need is someone who has a moral or personal problem with the way you run things and that could be enough to plant the seed of rebellion. Your organization would be in constant civil war and at risk of being busted by your own members. Who can you trust when everyone in your crime organization has the same Chaotic evil alignment you do? you would have tons of people plotting against you, and the lawful evil people would be even worse, because they would be more likely to bust you than to kill you. You'd be better off without a crime organization, which ultimately would invalidate your method of achieving wealth since that method would require loyal henchmen who wouldn't bust you if you didn't give them a pay raise. I'd also like to add that the moral alignment system is an unscientific system invented by gaming nerds who wanted a category to put themselves in. In reality, behavior is driven by values, traits, and beliefs, as well as the person's perception of the situation at hand. There is no such thing as moral alignment, and morality is really just a set of core values that a person acquires through exposure to teaching and cultural conditioning. Using the moral alignment system in a philosophical argument is no better than using the DIvergent factions in a psychoanalysis.
You pick

Those are excellent points so here are my debates to them. A. Criminal life is the lifestyle that all people desire minus the crime. Everyone wants to live in the mansions and drive the fancy cars and live the lavish life. Yet they can't so they go back to their menial work life. Just think sitting by the pool all day drinking martinis after you just scored a big hit. You have all the time off to enjoy your life. You pay off your gang, pay your lawyer and enjoy the luxuries that most can't afford. B. The tedious work of planning a money heist, a robbery, going over the blue prints of the bank, drug smuggle, law enforcement shift changes, observing of staff for weaknesses, sound AMAZING, better then sitting in some office on a keyboard all day or discussing bar graphs at a meeting Yawn!! Prison is actually a great place for recruitment of new gang members plus making new connections once you get outside, new areas to hit, new money potential, plus there is always someone in there that will have a new plan to get rich that might be plausible to consider. And I get 3 free meals, I don't pay rent, and I get free education, what can be better then that??? I don't have to play bills, man I'm laughing. I have plenty of world class and talent, the key is research, research research, only the dumb idiots go in with a shotgun to a convenience store and rob it for $22.00. I'm talking about elaborate plans that haul millions, fencing Picasso & Gogan's after you rob the art gallery. Smuggling thousands of pounds of coke from Mexico or Columbia, running guns to Mexico, the career options are endless. But the key is to plan, plan for a long time, sometimes 6 months to a year of just surveillance. But I will take that over your measly $50,000 a year salary for being someones bitch at an office. C. You get what you paid for, I want millions, I need to have a million dollar lawyer on retainer to get me off on any possible charges, after all I am a legitimate business man in the eyes of the law, prove any of it. I strictly work in imports and exports (not) but that's the story the judge and cops get. I also have enough body guards who get compensated very well and most make more in a month then an average person does in a year. So I'm not worried about security. Besides I can buy off anyone, money talks. Hey did you want to join my organization?? I bet I can get you to join, everyone has a price. What's yours?? I can start you off with 300K now plus a Lotus or do you want a Ferrari? I'm looking for new heist area Manager and need an inside man to scope out potential art galleries and government institutions. Dress code, Armani pin stripe suit, what's your size? Criminals live the life, I will let the lawful good overachievers work hard and pay those taxes, I have to go I hear my name being called at the pool bar down here in Bora Bora
You pick

A. you talk about life as a criminal being 'appealing', but appealing from what standpoint? Personal appeal is not only subjective, but also fickle and constantly changing, therefore your viewpoint is not applicable across all situations B. even from your idea of what's appealing, which I take to be composed of 3 facets, money, sensual thrill, and lack of responsibility, those 3 facets are unattainable in a realistic sense. You would still have to do tedious work to get rich even by breaking the law if you don't want to get caught, and being in prison is worse than even the most average life. On top of that, the more you escape, the tougher the prison you get put in, which will eventually create a dead end with no way around it. Finally, in order to successfully pull off that kind of life, you would have to have world class skill and talent, and if you're going to slave over that, you might as well live an honest life. C. Your idea of an appealing life is still possible to achieve without criminal acts, and realistically criminal behavior only jeopardizes your ability to get rich rather than aids it because of the amount of money that would need to be spent on protecting yourself from the police. There are also plenty of examples of successful and well educated law abiding individuals, Bill gates being a conceded example. Also, is it really possible to thoroughly enjoy your wealth when you're in constant threat of losing it unless you drug yourself, which will only increase your chances of being caught due to damaged cognitive function?
You pick

Although most criminals do end up dead or in jail, they live the life of luxury and do not have to engage in the grind of everyday work life such as traffic jams getting to work, the 9-5 hours and the boredom of every day life such as discussing the weather around the cooler at work or chatting with neighbors about your lawn. Criminals live somewhat exiting lives with the law breathing down their necks. It's not for the faint hearted but it's exciting and stressful with turf wars and other criminals competing with you. But if you want to look at it from the financial side, criminals can make millions of dollars, buy all they toys they want and get all the women/men they want and have all the material things that most people can only imagine to have. I would also like to point out that there are many white collar criminals who live lavish lives thanks to fraud, pyramid schemes and corporate scams. Just look at Bernie Maydoff, how many mansions and cars did he have. Sure he is in jail now but he lived a pretty lavish life for a while and with the champagne and caviar and women he got to live like a king even if it didn't last forever. The problem is criminals do not know when to walk away. Just make your millions and retire from crime while the honest person works their tedious job for 40 years so they can retire on a measly little pension. The criminal is the one with the mansion the fancy cars and the freedom to do what they like, while the honest person can only say "I did the right thing" and I'm still struggling to make ends meet. Lets see how my opponent makes life as an honest law abiding citizen sound more appealing then being a criminal.
You pick

Great topic! So these are my points A. The fallibility of the human mind makes it nearly impossible to make it through life as a criminal. Because of the human tendency to make mistakes, the risk of being caught is very high. B. Humans being social beings, means that the life of the criminal would backfire. Most people perceive themselves as law abiding citizens who would be loathe to be friends with a criminal. Because of the negative perception of criminals as well as the necessity of keeping to yourself in order to minimize risk, there would be very few options to meet your social needs. C. The purpose of the law: the law actually keeps order that aids in our survival as a human race. Without decent laws, the world would be in nuclear chaos and have a lack of environmental regulations. This not only creates a moral need to work within the law, but a logical necessity in order to survive. D. The lack of intrinsic reward: the life of a criminal does aid in achieving great wealth and status, but there is no intrinsic reward in being a criminal. Unless you were a psychopath, you would have to go through great lengths to justify your actions to yourself, and although morality is pretty much subjective, cultural influence makes up half of of psychology. This means that you would be at war between your conscious desire to achieve greater wealth and your environmental conditioning, causing a large amount of cognitive dissonance that you would have to go great lengths to repair. E. Not everyone shares that definition of success. If everyone's goal was to make money, then why do so many people pursue goals outside of becoming rich? And 'living the dream' is a very subjective way of looking at it. Some people dream of utopia, others dream of romance, and still others dream of going to space, and while money is required for all of those things, many people do not have the end goal of being rich. I will however concede that on the basis of a person's ever changing whims, if their goal is to make money, being an immoral and unlawful person is the most reasonable course of action.
You pick

Ok lets debate. Here is the topic. I'm going to be pro on this It's better to be a criminal then an honest person, you tell me why being a law abiding citizen is better then being a criminal (better life). I will jump right in and post my first argument for pro being a criminal, lets go In today's capitalistic society most success is measured by the amount of fortune or money a person possesses. I'm going to argue for being a criminal. Criminals are the ones with the big mansions, the fancy Ferrari cars and all the best dinner locations, women, parties, jewelry , while the honest hard working person gets by with barely making ends meet unless you are Bill Gates, most people have to work very hard and they will never live in a mansion or drive a Ferrari. If I'm a big criminal, I can have anything I want, so what, that the law is after me and I might not sleep good at night, with some highly paid lawyers I will get off and live the dream, while the honest person will just have to settle on the fact that they don't have a guilty conscience.
You pick

Pick a topic and a position and I will argue against it. Since I am not the one picking, I suppose I will just post an introduction instead of an argument. Hi,I am an anonymous user here to sharpen myself intellectually and expose the absurdity of every belief, glad to meet you. I'm sure we will have a lot of fun, especially since I am not here to win and I am only here for the sheer pleasure of criticizing a philosophical position. I will not reveal any of my beliefs, nor will I ever take a side. I will simply revel in the intellectual pleasure of debate without any personal testament.
Fall Is The Best Season

First off, I believe fall is the best season due to the weather. Out of all the other times of year, the weather is most pleasant. Its weather ranges from approximately 50 degrees to 75 degrees. This weather is most comfortable. We can go outside in just a t-shirt or only having to wear a light sweater or jacket. Also, people are not dripping wet from sweating as they would if it were summer. They aren't drenched in water because of the consistent rain we get during the spring. Most of all, they aren't freezing cold, getting frostbite and pneumonia from the frigid winter. Also, within fall, there are some of the greatest moments and holidays. During fall, students are starting or returning to school. Halloween is in October for all children and adults to have a great time dressing up in costumes, having parties, and going trick-or-treating which makes a wonderful time for families to also have some bonding time together. Furthermore, Jewish people have Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashanah to celebrate in the month of September. For Catholics, we have All Saints and All Souls Day in November as religious holidays. Last and most highly recognized of all, we have Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving is one of the most sincere, heart-felt, family/friend-oriented holidays. We learn to share with those who are less fortunate and give thanks for the things we do have rather then dwell on the things we desire to possess. It is in fact a day that makes the fall such a special time for all. My final primary reason for why I feel fall is the best season is because during the fall we have the best scenery to observe. The beginning of fall is the most beautiful time in nature to take photographs and explore nature. The trees are all losing their leaves slowly. However, the amazing bright colors of red, orange, green, and brown are absolutely breathtaking. There is no greater visual then to be driving around the side of a mountain and overlooking across you spot another mountain and all you see is thousands of trees. It is a lovely sight.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is enough of a risk for us to take immediate action against it

"The Earth is warming." The Earth has been known to increase and decrease temperature, with or without human pollutants. "Global warming is a result from the Green House Effect." Hmm... yes that may be true, but the gases are not coming from us. "We are increasing the green house effect, by increasing the gas CO2 to unnatural levels." Example? "While other causes are slightly possible, AGW is by far the most probable." Like I said in arguement one, the Earth has been known to rise temperature and lower temperature at random intervals. "Global Warming is bad." Science has shown that people have been living longer lives ever since the Earth warmed up, and same for plants. >>>New Arguement<<< If Global Warming was real, would you care to explain the heavy snow in last year's winter? What about this year's winter? both are/were pretty bad right now.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is enough of a risk for us to take immediate action against it

Don't expect to leave such a comment on one of MY debates and not receive a challenge. Let this stay as a debate of science-- not words. Leave out circumstantial evidence and stupid consensuses. And names of any political figure or anyone else, unless if you are using them to prove a scientific point. Now here are my main points, please make and I can't stress this enough SCIENTIFIC arguments against them, I will add evidence once you have made your arguments against them: The Earth is warming. Global warming is a result from the Green House Effect. We are increasing the green house effect, by increasing the gas CO2 to unnatural levels. We are causing Global Warming. While other causes are slightly possible, AGW is by far the most probable. Global Warming is bad. And because of those reasons anthropogenic global warming is enough of a risk for us to take immediate action against it. If you do not disprove the majority of these points with in the next few rounds, my assertion is correct.
Conservatives will be better off with Hillary as president, rather than Obama

This is a two-round debate. Either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama are going to be president, as of January 20, 2009. The Republicans' best hope, Rudy Giuliani, just flamed out last night. The GOP race is down to four, and the only remaining candidate who could possibly beat Hillary or Obama (Ron Paul) is, barring a miracle brokered convention, not going to be on the ticket. So conservatives must resign ourselves to the fact that not only are we not going to have a conservative in the White House for the first time in 112 years (Grover Cleveland), we are going to have an overt domestic socialist wielding all of the aggrandized executive power illegally assumed by the corrupt Bush/Cheney regime. The question now is, Who should conservatives root for? Solarman likes Obama. From a political perspective, there is very little difference between Obama the socialist and Mitt Romney (solarman's choice) the corporate fascist welfare-state inflationist / militarist liberal. Of course, there isn't that much difference between either of these two men and Hillary, other than she has intestinal fortitude (i.e. balls) than either of these two welfare-state sissy boys. Why then does solarman hate Hillary so much? Why is he joined in this hatred by other anti-intellectual faux conservatives? It matters not. The important thing is THE HATRED EXISTS. Whereas the hatred does not exist for Obama. This is precisely why conservatives of every stripe (i.e. real conservatives like me and faux conservatives like supporters of Republicans other than Ron Paul) should be rooting for Hillary to use the "Arkansas Mafia" Clinton machine to crush Obama. If Hillary is elected, Republicans in Congress will return to their supposed principles and resist the socialization of our country on all fronts (except the ever-expanding Wilsonian military-police state, of course). However, if Obama is elected, "conservatives" will hesitate to oppose his domestic agenda. After all, he is a likable guy. But more importantly, he will be the first black president (contrary to Hillary's husband's racist and demeaning claim to the contrary), and history (written by liberal / Marxist historians) will not look kindly on white, male "conservative" Republicans who resist him. They will go along to get along, all in the name of their own historical legacies. Hillary Clinton's election will set the cause of socialism back several decades. We should cheer her on every step of the way!
The Big Bang-Abiogenesis-Evolution VS Creationism

*I am Pro*You are Con*No round rules*NO ACCEPTANCE ROUND; just start debating.ResolutionThe Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are likely true and creationism is likely not true.Burden of Proof is sharedProHas only 3 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution are all likely true (Pro's BoP) and refute Con.ConHas 4 sets of 10,000 characters to demonstrate that creationism is likely true (Con's BoP) and refute Pro.*Definitions can be changed in the comments section, before posting your first argument, as long as Pro and Con both agree to the change. Otherwise...*Definitions below are agreed on by posting your first argument.Definitions (from Google definitions)The Big Bang - the rapid expansion of matter from a state of extremely high density and temperature that marked the origin of the universe.Abiogenesis - the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic substances.Evolution - the process by which different kinds of living organisms have developed and diversified from earlier forms.Creationism - the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation rather than by natural processes.*I must stress that "rather than by natural processes" must be a part of Con's idea of creationism; this particular definition cannot be changed.likely - probablytrue - in accordance with fact or reality.May the better argument win.
Counter Point to the Kindergarten Cookie Ration argument

The point that I have commonly heard among those advocating for communism goes like this, "Just Look at the cookies in kindergarten, they took the cookies and they gave the kids each cookies and everyone was happy" There are multiple problems with this I will lay out now: 1: The reason the kids were happy (at least the overwhelming majority who weren't incredibly poor) is because in school you don't get to enjoy the freedoms you do at home like at home you could have cookies and milk, or a bag of chips or something to your specific liking and it suggests that school is equatable to home life 2: If we are going to go by the setting of school, think about what happened when the teacher offered a piece of candy, the kids worked like hell. Do you want to know why? Because people generally will work for a reward, it just makes sense, people work for a reward, it's the fundamental fatal flaw with communism or rather Marxism, from a purely pragmatic standpoint it gives absolutely no incentive to do anything beyond turning the economy into an honor system, and even if you force people to work you're at the point where you are forcing people into jobs they will be unhappy and most likely horrible at, just leaving the economy in complete shambles where the parts are in the wrong place