BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't compatible to popular religions

Hello Duncan! Thanks for the entertaining introduction of how you came to debate.org. My first point would be to point out that Ayn Rand's objectivism is not meant to help people survive in society, but rather to ostracize them, thereby giving them peace and true happiness through fulfillment of things the individual valued. In The Fountainhead, Roark and Cameron demonstrate this specific point because they did purely what they were passionate about, and fitting in with the egotism of objectivism, they did this so purely that society hated them and attempted to destroy them (succeeding with Cameron). Another individual would be Gail Wynard, whom perversely bought the souls of men who carried similar ideals as Roark and Cameron with trinkets, which made them part of the soulless masses. As for the religious applicability, TRUE disciples of the mentioned faiths, have always followed an altruistic path in the regard that they, their own actual personal self, were part of something greater and were to look after their follow man. This being said, I think you take it a bit off track when you mention that Islam and Judaism specifically once took care of their tribe over others. It's a bit of a fallacy because, really your tribe, even though they are yours, are other people. It'd be the same as taking care of your family first and foremost before the needs of others, which isn't condoned by the religions but rather encouraged. Ayn Rand's philosophy is purely a selfish, self-centered one, and she never tried to hide that. Compared to the other mentioned religions, I will agree that her way of life, in a religious sense, is a new one. After all, she was a Russian writer from the mid-20th century, but none of the other religions, even in their earliest stages, truly had this unpopular, violent start that you say they do. Like I said, look to the true believers, not the zealots or radicals, and you will deduce similarly. Phaedrus
Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't compatible to popular religions

...Is it someone new?... I am Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? 'No!' says the man in Washington, 'It belongs to the poor.' 'No!' says the man in the Vatican, 'It belongs to God.' 'No!' says the man in Moscow, 'It belongs to everyone.' I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Debate.org, a site where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Debate.org can become your site as well. Ayn Rand's philosophy is a way of life that she believed was the most logical way to survive in society. It could be considered a religion as it is a way of life, a culture, and a belief, and while most religions involve a supernatural, her religion uses the concept of value as a thing to be worshipped. While you may say that religion teaches altruism, far from it. Religions such as Judaism and Islam hold their roots in a tribal way of life which involves furthering one's one tribe at the justified expense of others. Christianity followed suit. They may say thou shalt not kill, but that only means people in your own tribe. Others are fair game. You may point out that nowadays, the major world religions preach peace to try and regain some lost followers, nut their past remains. Ayn Rand's religion is a young one, still in the selfish and violent state, and would possibly grow to be more lenient if it were practiced in the real world, but their are few who follow that path. It holds the characteristics of a young religion, but a religion nevertheless. Awaiting your response, Duncan.
Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't compatible to popular religions

Hello all! This is my first debate on this website, so I'd like to begin by thanking you all for your intellectual insights and foreknowledge of debating online. I appreciate your time and look forward to learning how it is done. That being said, I would like to debate on the controversial author Ayn Rand on her philosophy, objectivism, particularly in the sense of religious applicability. In The Fountainhead, Rand describes Roark's passion for architecture as a religious zeal, as being the only religion he has in his life. Given that Rand uses Roark's character to model an active disciple of her philosophy, this seems, to me, to indicate that she, in fact, regards her philosophy as a religion. Would that make her philosophy compatible to other religions, specifically as applicable to those religions? I daresay that it is not. Even if you agree with religious relativism (which I do not), it isn't compatible to popular religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. This is due to the fact that they advocate altruism, which is the direct opposite of the egotist ideals Rand praises. Thanks again for anyone that chooses to provide a rebuttal; I look forward to a good first debate!
Sanctioned domestic partnership contracts are a legitimate government interest.

Hello, thank you for posting this debate and for laying out a simple set of ground rules. I interpret the rules to boil down to "good faith" debating with some very general presumptions the purpose of which is to avoid trolling. These presumptions are appreciated. Not only am I new to this forum, but I have not participated in a formal debate in a very long time. I look forward to this learning experience. Accept.
Time travel is possible.

Now onto my position on the possibility of time travel. 1. ) Your statement on the String and M theories hold true in your point here, or at least they hold true to the definition. It is also true that because time passes you are essentially "traveling through time". The definition you provided states that time travel entails "sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate)". That is were I find the flaw in your argument. According to the definition, time travel (at least from the present to the future) disregards the need to experience the intervening period between the two points in time (or at least at a normal rate) yet, in your argument, the simple passing and forward movement of time is time travel. If time has always moved at this rate then it would be safe to say that the said rate is "normal". If you are moving through time at a normal rate then you are not traveling in time (at least according to your definition). I understand that my point may seem weak but realize that as time passes (at it's normal rate) you are experiencing the passing of time "one second into the future from where you had been the previous second". 2. ) In response to this I'd like to speculate as to the difference between physical and perceptive time. You supported, in your first point, that time is always progressing forward and I, in my argument, determined that this progression is at a normal rate. I'd like to remark that first, Einstein's Theory of relativity does mention that the perceived rate of time decreases as an object reaches the speed of light. Your point is solid and undisputed, by myself, in this matter and I congratulate you on bringing up a very solid case and point, on perceived time. Now I ask you, what of physical time? The theory of relativity does not account for physical time. My point is that regardless of what seems to be five years at the speed of light, 50 years have still progressed. So, supporting your theory; you have moved 50 years into the future but thought you moved five. Supporting my theory; you thought you moved five years into the future but you moved 50 and are still 50 years older. 3. ) I would also like to note that you did not provide any subject matter on sending information or objects into the past. I patiently await your response. Thanks :)
Time travel is possible.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate round. I will now try and assert my position that time travel is in fact possible. Allow me, for clarification to the resolution, provide these definitions: Dictionary.com provides Time Travel: Time travel is the concept of moving between different points in time in a manner analogous to moving between different points in space, either sending objects (or in some cases just information) backwards in time to a moment before the present, or sending objects forward from the present to the future without the need to experience the intervening period (at least not at the normal rate). (I am fully aware that I could twist the definition and win by the abuse of semantics, but that tactic, to me, seems counter intuitive and immoral.) - - - - - - Holding the provided definition as valid I argue that not only is time travel possible but it is happening. 1.) The definition states that time travel is the passage through the dimension of time as one would pass through space. Based on String and M theory it is held true that time is simply another form of dimension (up/down, forward/backward, left/right and forward in time/backward in time are the four main dimensions we can perceive). So I therefore conclude that by the fact that time obviously passes that time travel is possible because the act of moving through time is time travel. Every second I have moved one second into the future from where I had been the previous second. 2.) The definition also states that time travel can pertain to a change in the rate of time. In support of this I will reference Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In it it is stated that as Velocity approaches the speed of light, the perceived rate of time decreases in a physical phenomenon known as time dilation. This follows the formula: Δt'= Δt/(1-V/C) where Δt' is the time interval experienced by the thing that is moving. Δt is the time interval experienced by the thing that is not moving significantly fast (is about = to 1) V is the velocity of the thing that is moving C is the speed of light following the curve here shown: http://upload.wikimedia.org... Therefore if you wanted to see what the world would be like many years from now but you cannot wait you could jump into a really fast space ship and travel as a significantly fast speed. The Δt for the Earth would be maybe 50 years while Δt' (the time you experience) may only be 5 or 6 years (depending on how fast you go). There is also Gravitational Time Dilation; This is uglier but the concept is as follows. Gravity effects the dimension of time, the less there is the faster perceived time will run. A real life example of this is of Astronauts. An experiment was done, taking two clocks both with the same exact time, one was sent up in a Space Shuttle on one of the missions, the other stayed on Earth. When it returned the clock sent to space was several seconds fast. I look forward to the rebuttal in negation, thank you.
Logic Game: My opponent will not win this debate.

This round will test your ability to reason and think outside of the box. ==== Hints ==== 1. Commonly used cipher encryption methods will do you little good here. I may be wrong, and I probably am, but I might be the only person in human history to ever create this specific type of cipher. Its not that hard though; don't let it overwhelm you. 2. The fresh baked apple pie holds the key to your salvation. ================ Understanding the puzzle ================ Don't become confused. 4658 638 3 4356936. 2122 312 1 2422231. = One line of text and 6 = one specific letter 1 There are three lines of text in total. =========== Puzzle number 2 =========== 4658 638 3 4356936. 2122 312 1 2422231. 59 935572 3 7945 6535: 6625 8644588. 22 213211 1 1321 1141: 1211 2211122. 548 6331 49 925384345 93 834589344597. 222 1142 23 331422121 25 212221112231. Good luck :)
Logic Game: My opponent will not win this debate.

This debate will challenge my opponent's ability to think abstractly and problem solve. Upon successful completion of the first round my second round puzzle will go into effect and if it is successfully completed then you will have won this debate. ======== Guidelines ======== 1.Forfeiting any round will result in a disqualification. 2.Only a successful completion of the second puzzle will result in a victory. 3.The correct answer to the first puzzle will provide the necessary clue to solve the second puzzle. 4.The clue to round number 2 will be found in analyzing the first rounds answer. 5.I will give two hints, of my choosing, in my round 2 response that will help decipher the second puzzle if the first puzzle has been deciphered correctly. I may include more hints but you are guaranteed to get at least two. 6.The only thing you have to write is the correct solution of the puzzle for any given round. 7.I promise that the second coded puzzle won't be ridiculously difficult. A reasonably intelligent person could figure it out. ====== Puzzle 1 ====== This message is written in code and must be deciphered. Qeb mfb qexq tb xqb ixpq kfdeq xq qljp elrpb txp abifzflrp.
The Bible is the most reliable resource we have to explain our origin.

To finish my argument, Christians believe in God because their lives were changed. We believe what the Bible tells us. If it says that the universe was created by God in six days, than we believe it. An Atheist couldn't understand this. They believe in their own reasoning, in evolution. To them Naturalism is their religion. A human can never fully comprehend the glory of God, but we for sure know that he created the universe. There is so much evidence of the Creation and so much evidence that proves the bigbang wrong. Therefore, the origin of life is undeniably Creation. Evolutionists just have to acknowledge that.
The Bible is the most reliable resource we have to explain our origin.

To start of with, Christianianity is not a religion, it ks a relationship with God which we can embrace through the Bible. The Bible to us is our guide to life basically. Now, The Bible has also very clearly explained the origin of life. It said that God created the universe in sex days and rested on th seventh. My only job as a christian is to believe that. The question is how can an Atheist believe that. I won't try to prove the exsistence of God, like I said in my first argument, that is a conviction. There is Plenty of evidence that creation did happen though. We can first see that if evolution, for example, couldn't have happened. How can a single celled organism multiply into multicellular organisms. It is impossible. There had to be an intelligent designer, such as God. He designed the tiniest cells to glorify his name. I'd like to mention the Big bang. Explain to me. If there was no unive
The Bible is the most reliable resource we have to explain our origin.

Creationists are often discriminated by Atheist for being biased towards Christianity. Well I argue that the argument stated by Atheist is not viable. Evolutionists are biased towards Naturalism and human reasoning. The Evolutionists are relying too much on Darwin's theory of evolution and/or the theory of the big bang, which is what I contradict. The definition of theory is simply an unproven idea to attempt to prove a point. The big bang does not have enough evidence to prove itself, in fact, many things actually contradict the theory. It only makes sense that there had to be an intelligent God who could have created this universe. I am not here to prove the existence of God, for that is a conviction that Christians receive, but to prove wrong the big bang theory.
School Uniforms

This topic is what got me interested in debating; my school chose me to be the fifth grade debater, and I was chosen to be on the against side. I cannot say I can argue this very well, sense I have not touched this topic after fifth grade. I believe that school uniforms are unnecessary. First, go to any school, and ask the students for their opinion on school. You'll get a lot of "I don't like it." Then ask them how their opinion would change if the school started using school uniforms. The students will most likely respond negatively. My source for this, though not reliable, is that I've done it. The next reason is that school uniforms often limit who can go to schools[1]. School uniforms can be costly,(I'm not saying these weird fashion trends aren't, either) and the fees of joining a school AND buying uniforms for EVERY day can be overwhelming for poorer families, and families who cannot afford all this cannot go to the school, while middle class and above can go just the same. Another common belief is that school uniforms will stop students from judging each other by how they look[2]. This is not true, as no matter how you limit students' looks, even if a country goes as far as segregation, students will always find a way that their peers are different and will always judge them this way. As my final argument for now, dressing students in fancy clothes does not make them more dedicated to school[3]. Clothes have very little relation to academics: I know of several child prodigies(not on source) that are terrible dressers. [1] http://education.newarchaeology.com... [2] http://www.angelfire.com... [3] http://www.articlesbase.com...
al high schools in the USA should allow students to bring/use cellphones in school

My opponent's contention is that students should not be allowed to bring OR use their cellphones in school because it will be a distraction. I will be arguing that while using a cellphone in school is a distraction, bringing one and keeping it on silent causes no harm, and on the contrary, can be beneficial, and should therefore be allowed.First and most importantly, my opponent labels here argument with a thing called "evidence," which she later does not present. The only evidence shown in her argument is that of her own personal experience, which ultimately, she says, proves cellphones are a distraction. Secondly, my opponent presents the impact that using cellphones will lead to low scores and bad grades. Which leads to what? A few irresponsible students getting bad grades because of their own decisions. That is not an impact. In impact is total war, a ten trillion dollar deficit, or even a zombie apocalypse. My opponent does not present an impact, but rather an opportunity to speed up natural selection, supporting the Pro cause.A disadvantage to my opponent's case that should be noted is the case of an emergency situation. Imagine Omar for a moment. Omar has asthma, which could strike at any random moment. One day, Omar excuses himself to go to the bathroom during class, but leaves his inhaler in his backpack. While in the bathroom, Omar has an asthma attack. Thanks to Con, Omar can't call 911 to save his life. Omar dies in the bathroom. Anything can happen. It's important that students have access to communication when it does. In short,>Con has not proven that children using their cellphones will lead to any major impact.>Con did not argue at all that bringing a silenced cellphone to school would lead to so much as a minior problem>Emergency situations dictate that students should have a phone handy for any instance.>Con's evidence wasn't even an appeal to emotion or logic. It was just a fact from her own personal experience.Therefore, all high schools in the U.S. should at least allow students to bring a silenced, non-distracting phone with them to schoolVote Pro
al high schools in the USA should allow students to bring/use cellphones in school

CONTENTION: students should not be allowed to bring/use their cellphones in school because this would be a distraction from school work. EVIDENCE: it is a trend now for teens to have all kinds of social media. Especially on their cellphones. On my personal cellphone i get texts, calls, notifications, emails etc all day. and with that, it will cause a distraction because students will be on their phone while in classes taking calls, texting, checking social media etc. IMPACT: having phones in school will cause students to be too busy with whats on their phone to be busy with school work and that will cause low test scores, bad grades etc.
All Sins are denial of the Word of God and are Blapshemy.

All Sins are denial of the Word of God and are Blapshemy. There is no forgiveness for your sins, only atonement, sacrifice, repentance and suffering. This is the teaching of all religions since ever. There is no contrary belief and NO argument can be made to suggest any religion ever suggested there is forgiveness for Sin. "God's arms are open sinners, hurry home before your crucifixion."
All Sins are denial of the Word of God and are Blapshemy.

Well, I almost missed my dead-line on this one. So to recap, this session. By definition of Blasphemy, It is denial of the Word of God - specifically the nature of the Word of God, but also directly acknowledgeable through the doctrine as well - and thus is unforgiveable. Denial of the Word of God to: be an adulterer is blasphemy and is unforgivable. Denial of the Word of God to: idolize or be jealous of adulterers is blasphemy and is unforgivable. As well as promoting them for personal gain, and to vindicate your own sins communally. Denial of the Word of God to: be a thief is blasphemy and is unforgivable. Even through false advertising, haggling, and capitalist money laundering (to take form poor people or from those who do the work). Denial of the Word of God to: hold enmity against God, instead of loving him, with the intent to explain and justify the sins of guilty men is blasphemy and is unforgivable. One must humbly admit that the sins of men is not God's fault, or they are held accountable for their rejection of God in their Own Hearts, and that impairs their own enlightenment Arrogantly. All you need to do is admit it is not his fault for the adultery, capitalism and criminal behaviour (criminal including slothenly boyfriends, and neglectful communities.) Denial of the Word of God to: be dishonorable to your parents is blasphemy and is unforgivable. You do not need to listen to them or respect them, but You must acknowledge the pattern patterns that they passed on to you, and the things that without Control over, they have come to expect form you with fare reason. These are Blasphemy because of the damage they do to the accused [to his mind, and moral ethics, and his influences], to others, and in turn the lack of positive contributions they missed out on ~ IN this Global effort to reach a Utopian culture. regardless, the Christian Bible and All other religions teach, that Denial of the Word of God, IS blasphemy and is unforgiveable for spiritual and physical reasons. (The Word of God = Truth / Wisdom / Logical Reasoning / Factual evidences / influential subjects / cause + effect | and more. It is Wisdom itself. Without defined parameters. The commandments are a few of it's profound characteristics.)
All Sins are denial of the Word of God and are Blapshemy.

May I ask first are we using the bible ? If we are may I suggest the use of the of the 1769 Cambridge King James Bible . If Christianity is not your religion could you please specify that . Now I must refute the statement " NO argument can be made to suggest any religion ever suggested theer is forgiveness of Sin" Well if that is true the Word of God you speak so sure of says this Psalms 130 : 3 If thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? 4 But there is FORGIVENESS with thee, that thou mayest be feared. Iniquity being a synonym of sin surely should suggest your argument is flawed . Forgiveness is not only suggested in this passage but it a characteristic of the God you speak of . This round is leaving food for thought I hope for a resourceful answer . Peace - Khayil