BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
God is a causal agent

God is responsible for events. Let's say person a has a remarkable dream. In the dream god tells him to go and give money to the poor. If that person gives money to the poor as a result of the dream, it can be said that god was indirectly responsible. Whether or not god caused it or it was just a figment of his mind is unimportant. What is important is that it can be traced to what he believes is god. Since he believes that an entity is responsible and traces the action back to god, and since the existence of God cannot be disproven it therefor would make god responsible.
Morality Is determined by the individual.

Morality. Morality is determined by the individual. Definitions : Axiom – a self-evident truth that requires no proof -dictionary.com STATEMENT 1 "Humans are conscious of their actions." EXPLAINATION: The above statement is an "axiom" or a self evident truth. [1] The reason it is self evident is because to negate the statement requires an action. Not only an action, but a conscious action. Since thinking is a conscious action and so is negation. Thus one cannot negate STATEMENT 1 without being irrational. Now STATEMENT 1 does not win me the round automatically since that would ruin the premise of this debate. Argument from STATEMENT 1 Since humans are conscious of their actions (under average conditions,) humans have choice. Since individuals have choice, they can choose what ideas to accept, or not. These ideas could be anything, belief in gravity, belief in Christianity, belief in existence, belief in Atheism ect. Also other ideas individuals could accept are particular morals or moral systems. Since individuals may choose to accept certain morals and moral systems morality is dictated by each separate individual for themselves. OBJECTION 1 A common objection of the argument I have presented is that morality is determined by society. Such morals include, that it is immoral to kill another person. I myself believe murder to be immoral but murderers still kill. Soldiers also kill. And some people believe the death penalty is moral so thus apparently society does not dictate a singular standard of morality for everyone to abide by since people have different interpretations of morality. Society does enforce its morality, but people still object to society's morals. A person may choose to follow the laws and morals of society of his own free will and there is nothing wrong with that. Although people still break laws, so one comes to the conclusion that people do not accept those laws as moral. OBJECTION 2 Religion dictates morality. A common objection to my argument is that "God" chooses what right or wrong and that mortals should adhere to his moral system. First even if a God dictated such it is proven man has free will so thus an individual would choose whether to accept this God's moral system. Secondly, if one believes in this God's moral system that's their choice. It does not mean that your morality is what we judge all morality by. I myself believe in certain morals, that's my morality and through my eyes certain things are immoral. But the resolution states "Morality is determined by the individual." Even though I have my own morality, that's my decision and mine alone. SUMMARY: Because humans have free will, we choose what to accept. Humans accept certain morals and reject other ones. Because of this morality is determined by the individuals. In my case I provided 2 "Objections" to try and counter any future arguments the con may have and also to better illustrate my point. [1] http://aynrandlexicon.com...
Morality Is determined by the individual.

This is perhaps the greatest argument that faces man kind. ( In my opinion) This topic is open for anyone to debate but they must have a concept of what morality is. Morality- A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct - free dictionary. com Individual (noun) - single human considered apart from a society or community free dictionary. com Resolved:Morality Is determined by the individual. This definition has to be accepted so both sides may debate the topic fairly Round 1 acceptance Round 2-4 arguments The con may present any idea of were morality comes from but it is the point of the Pro (me) case to prove that morality comes from the individual. Rules: 1. )No semantics ( It would be interesting to see someone try but it is not a voting argument so it would be wasted space) 2. ) One cannot set fire to the rain, it is metaphysically impossible 3. ) This is not a humorous debate, but it would help to have a dry sense of humor 4. ) The effect of forfeiting means all seven points go to the remaining individual 5. ) Since this is a philosophic debate the burden of proof is logic. Sources help but are not a deciding factor (I hate to put this but after its philosophy not politics) 6. ) I hope that trolling is considered misconduct. 7. )
Abortion are immoral

I will accept pro's definition of murder, but it invalidates his point because both definitions on his reference use the word "unlawful" and abortion is currently legal. But I'm not talking about legal "unlawful". I'm talking about social laws.Therefore by his own definition abortion is disqualified as murder. See above.Also, a fetus might be technically alive, but so are plants and animals. Are pulling weeds, reaping from a garden, or hunting immoral?It falls on the fact that a fetus is a human. It is unlawful to kill a human with malice. As to the morality of abortion itself, it depends on your reasoning. If a mother cannot carry the baby to term without danger to herself, is the life of the fetus more important than her own? In the case of rape, I would actually advise it. Why women have abortions1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).[1] About 93% ,the vast majority, is against this point. Would it be lawful to let abortion happen because it puts only 6% of women at risk? About 1.37 million humans die by abortion. It harms humans I think we can all agree that a rapist has something wrong mentally, like a form of psychosis. Is it moral to pass that psychosis on to the child and take a chance of history repeating itself? Not all rapists are 'wrong mentally'. I also don't think that pasychosis can be passed down.As to regular, "I don't want this baby" abortions, carrying a baby to term is a lot of work, a huge risk to the mother, and in general not something that a woman should have to go through if she doesn't want a baby. The typical counter is adoption, but pregnancy is an awful lot to go through for someone else.Well sure. But it is still better then letting a human die off by your own hand. But yes.Adoption works. What I believe separates moral (gardening, hunting, etc) from immoral killing is sentient thought and self awareness. This does not happen until the brain is developed passed a certain point, and that is passed the time frame that abortion is legal. http://www.americanpregnancy.org......http://www.nlm.nih.gov......I will touch off on this later.Attack points.C1Aliments caused by abortion. Complications of spontaneous miscarriages and therapeutic abortions include the following: Postabortion triad (ie, pain, bleeding, low-grade fever) Hematometra Retained products of conception Uterine perforation Bowel and bladder injury Cervical shock Cervical laceration [2] http://emedicine.medscape.com......; [2] C2: adoption is another option Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion and accomplishes the same result. And with 1.5 million American families wanting to adopt a child, there is no such thing as an unwanted child. [3] http://www.physiciansforlife.org......;[3]
Abortion are immoral

I will accept pro's definition of murder, but it invalidates his point because both definitions on his reference use the word "unlawful" and abortion is currently legal. Therefore by his own definition abortion is disqualified as murder. Also, a fetus might be technically alive, but so are plants and animals. Are pulling weeds, reaping from a garden, or hunting immoral? As to the morality of abortion itself, it depends on your reasoning. If a mother cannot carry the baby to term without danger to herself, is the life of the fetus more important than her own? In the case of rape, I would actually advise it. I think we can all agree that a rapist has something wrong mentally, like a form of psychosis. Is it moral to pass that psychosis on to the child and take a chance of history repeating itself? As to regular, "I don't want this baby" abortions, carrying a baby to term is a lot of work, a huge risk to the mother, and in general not something that a woman should have to go through if she doesn't want a baby. The typical counter is adoption, but pregnancy is an awful lot to go through for someone else. What I believe separates moral (gardening, hunting, etc) from immoral killing is sentient thought and self awareness. This does not happen until the brain is developed passed a certain point, and that is passed the time frame that abortion is legal. http://www.americanpregnancy.org... http://www.nlm.nih.gov...
Abortion are immoral

I am sorry. I was busy with finals.To answer your question this will be abortions in general.Here is my points. Abortion- Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...... C1. Abortion is murder.http://dictionary.reference.com...If a fetus is a human then that means abortion would kill a human. First, I will prove that a fetus is alive. This can be found in any basic Biogoly textbook..1. Living things are highly organized. 2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy. 3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment. 4. All living things have an ability to reproduce. 5. All living things have an ability to adapt.Life begins at fertilization, when a sperm unites with an human oocyte. From this time, the being is highly organized, has the ability to acquire materials and energy, has the ability to respond to his or her environment, has the ability to adapt, and has the ability to reproduce (the cells divide, then divide again, etc)So It can be understood that a fetus is alive. It is also easy to assume that the fetus is undenaliably human.Sorry for the short arguement.
Abortion is wrong and therefore should be illegal under all circumstances

To further clarify; the removal of an embryo in the occurrence of an ectopic pregnancy is a lesser evil and should therefore only be carried out until such point that modern medicine can find an alternative that will save the child. In address to your question about underage rape cases: I'm not sure which element you're attributing the power to allow for an abortion. Is it necessary that the woman be underage? Is it sufficient? Is it necessary that the woman be raped? Is it sufficient? Also, what would you consider underage? Under 18, or simply under the biological age that allows her to bear children? If, for example, a 16 year old was raped and became pregnant I'm assuming you would justify her action of getting an abortion. But look at it this way; if she was 18 and consented to the sex would it be wrong for her to get the abortion? You would say yes, but I would ask why. Why does the fact that one has been wronged allow them to commit a wrong to another? It doesn't. Also, the fact that different judges and juries will rule in different ways means that the decision to allow the child to live, in your example of underage rape, would be completely arbitrary. Life has intrinsic value that should respected regardless of what any judge or jury might conclude. In a side note; you don't seem to have a strong conviction about preserving human life when you can reduce it to just "small bits of cells" when an abortion is more convenient than the alternative. A true belief in a principle means that one believes it even when it is difficult, painful, or costly.
Abortion is wrong and therefore should be illegal under all circumstances

Let me clarify, I am against abortion, read my previous debate on the topic. I believe your typical abortion is evil just the same. I also believe that your typical abortion should be illegal as well. BUT, to say that it should be illegal no matter the circumstance is simply evil in itself. The fact is, is that there is not technology to save every ectopic pregnancy, therefore the female should have the option to abort it. To deny a woman an abortion, that is sentenced to death if otherwise is simply horrible and it is wrong. Also, how about making the exception for underage rape cases? Only, however if it has been proven in court and was ruled rape. Small underage woman should not be forced into unspeakable hardships, and possibly life threatening processes, because she got raped. Do you think that is okay? Picture this, your daughter, or maybe an old friend gets brutally raped and ends up pregnant. Not only has she gone through an extremely traumatizing experience, but now she must undergo 9 months of pregnancy, which is an unbelievable hardship and on top of it, it is possible that she will not make it. My opponent is placing the lives of small bits of cells above living breathing woman. That is wrong, and it contradicts my opponents purpose of making it illegal.
Abortion is wrong and therefore should be illegal under all circumstances

The point I'm making is that any effort that is made to kill an embryo/fetus, or neglecting to act when it is possible to save the life, is evil. Therefore it should be illegal. Society as a whole should be making strides to prevent the death of the unborn. The fact that with current technology and knowledge we cannot save the child, would alter the circumstances and thus make it not murder. When we are able to save the life and don't; that would be murder. Does this clarify?
Abortion is wrong and therefore should be illegal under all circumstances

I do not concede that abortion should be illegal. Abortion SHOULD be illegal under all circumstances because it is murder. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy the potential for life is removed so therefore you are not altering that young human's fate. However, the medical field should be actively seeking a solution to ectopic pregnancies that will allow both the mother and child to live. The only reason intervention should be permitted now is if/because we don't have the means to save the child's life.
Abortion is wrong and therefore should be illegal under all circumstances

As i see it, my task is simple, all i must do it prove why abortions should not be illegal under ALL circumstances. My opponent makes the argument that abortion is murder, well. .. Well i don't necessarily disagree, however what about ectopic pregnancies? Pregnancies that are often fatal to the woman, should we sentence those woman to death because of an abnormal pregnancy? Please tell me how that is justified. I await the start of the next round.
"That Arnold Schwarzenegger should be able to become president"

Well first of all let me ask this: is this debate about Arnold or immigrants in general? So, voters and bigbass3000, in this round, keep in mind that I will be trying to address both, since it has become unclear which we are debating. In this country, it is nearly impossible for one group to control the Senate. Yes, one could argue that white men control the Senate, but they aren't doing anything to prevent immigrants to joining Congress. Now, you say Arnold does, in fact, defend American interests. But, whether that is true or not, is irrelevant. Because one person does, doesn't mean all people will. If we make an exception for Arnold, then other people will want exceptions for their leader. Either everyone is ok, or no one is (I realize that part of your contention is that everyone is ok, but I will refute that claim later). "...there can always be a law to guarantee naturalized citizens to be here." What exactly do you mean by this? I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at, but I think that there is even an amendment to the Constitution that says anyone who is born here is automatically a citizen. Please clarify. "It is not bad and there can be restrictions..." Those restrictions you talk about are what I'm debating for. I realize that not every immigrant is out to ruin America, but as a safety precaution, we should not allow foreign immigrants to hold the presidential office, because it only takes one guy/girl to ruin a country. Besides, almost every other public office is available, except for President (and maybe Vice President; not sure). There are plenty of other options, so it's not like immigrants are left out of the loop. Also, how many immigrant leaders have complain about this law? There isn't exactly a high interest in a immigrant president, at least to those in office. Maybe if there were more candidates for an immigrant president, but it would have to take a lot.
"That Arnold Schwarzenegger should be able to become president"

To slam down this arguement, If this is true, that immigrants can get into every office, then they could control the senate, and even though the president only enforces laws, he can only veto it some many times, before it gets passed. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not go counter to our interests, any ways, otherwise, he would not be I.E. a Governor. Immigrants work to the best of the country, there can always be a law to guarantee naturalized citizens to be here. Besides some immigrants know, more about our interests, then we do. It is not bad and there can be restrictions, besides, the people vote for the President, and don't they know the interests for our nation, and if does go counter we can impeach him.
"That Arnold Schwarzenegger should be able to become president"

As much as I support immigrant rights, I don't think that immigrants should be allowed to become presidents. Only because if an immigrant became president, he/she might have conflicting interests with America and their home country. I'm not saying all immigrants are out to infiltrate the US government, but to ensure that American interests are being preserved, citizens whom have been born and raised in the States would be less bias. Of course, there is always the opportunity to become a representative, governor, or even senator. In these offices, immigrants can still be represented without taking executive control. Again, it's not that immigrants aren't able or would only pass laws benefiting their demographic, but we need a citizen that has been born and raised here in order to ensure that American interests are put first.
The Kemetic Religion is a Force for Good in the World

I propose that my religion, Kemetism, is a force for good in society. Though it currently operates on a small scale, it is constantly growing, and likely will continue to do so for a long time. I believe this will be a good thing, as Kemetism itself is a positive influence on what little it currently affects.Definitions:Kemetism - The modern-day revival of the worship of the Ancient Egyptian pantheon. All sects and groups of Kemetism are included. Wiccans and non-specific pagans who adopt Kemetic gods for their rituals and worship are not included.Force for Good - Having a positive impact on society and on the lives of individuals while having little or no negative impact.Thank you in advance, and I look forward to a civil and friendly debate.
mandatory vaccination

My opponent has dropped all points in this debate and I extend them across the table. My opponent's last round is irrelivant in the scope of this debate as we are debating the merrits of mandatory vaccinations, not the punishments against them. There would likely be fines attatched to it or having things like how unvaccinated children cannot atttend schools. Stuff like this would be how the situation would likely be gone about. Not litterally force them or jail them. I agree that would be over the top that's why these things would have to be more realistic such as the example that I have brought up.
mandatory vaccination

My opponent has conceded a great deal of arguments, but he does has a few left and I shall refute those. ConsitutionalityMy opponent states that forcing individuals to get vaccines is unconstitutional, but it's not actually. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the US Constiution reads:"1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;" [1]I have defined what the general welfare is in my first contention that I have provided in my opening arguments in my Utilitarianism arguments. It is for the betterment of the general welfare of the nation that these vaccines be manditory. I extend my arguments across. The last argument that my opponenet argues is that some people don't want to get vaccinated, so it doesn't matter. This is not true. I have shown in my first round of what happens when heard immunity drops, we see tons of people die and the economy suffers. Not requiring vaccines will have a substantial harm to the general public. Sources1. US Constitution Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1.
School Uniforms

I don't think school should be treated the way you would a job. This is a crucial time for young people to develop their sense of selves. While I do agree you should present yourself professionally in a work environment, not all jobs adhere to such strict dress codes, I don't think school should be one of the places that does. & as for conforming just to you, most schools do have a dress code barring showing of midriff, shoulders, and thighs. As long as you're covered, I think you should be allowed to wear casual things, like jeans & t-shirts
Communism is Bad

Be it resolved that communism is bad. Re-reading my second point, I see I failed to get my intentions through. I said. What I tried to say was that each individual will look after his own needs and self interests, Even if its bad for the economy. The unfortunate truth is the majority of the population does not know how to lead a economy. The majority of people have not studied political law. In fact, Only 33. 5% of people have their bachelors degree. Democracy solves this by narrowing the demographic. The people we elect are politicians who have spent their time and effort studying political law. Correct me if I misunderstood, But in your system, People are selected from everyone in the population. This presents a flaw as I stated before, Most people don't know how to lead a nation state. Also, Concerning the matter of democracy, We have the senate to represent minorities. Granted, The senate is flawed because they are elected by the majority of each state, But at least if one state isn't represented elsewhere they do have a senator to represent them. Concerning the number of people leading a nation state. I worry about how the number of people you decided would work in practice. In theory, It should work perfectly, But in practice, 20, 000 people with equal power trying to make decisions would be slow and indecisive. Also, How would they make those decisions? If they put it to a vote, Then we still have the problem of the majority. And if not, Who says what should be done? I chose 12 in my earlier argument because of your jury example. If we had twelve random people, It is likely that they could come to a unanimous decision. If not, It gets put to a vote by the general populace (just realized I solved my own problem, Never mind). Just some things to think about, I look forward to your response.