BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

To start off, opinions are just a small part of the argument. The Holocaust and Christopher Columbus were used to prove a point about how majority rules in ethics. I am not going to rip you apart, but trying is the least of which I am doing. If that is all you are doing, that is fine. Ethics are judged in the eyes of others. That is why laws are being brought up as a valid argument. Laws are the first thing you are being judged for. It is the main thing in which we as individuals can judge you. We compare it to whether it is legal or not. That is the only way we can decide, but it is a useful way and is rarely used where a decision is not made. You bring up a great point about the Nazi"s actions and I will expand my thought. Nazi"s actions are bad ethically to both me and you and even them, but Hitler was the leader and told them to do it. It was ethically good, as weird as that sounds, because as the leader, Hitler had the final say and had the power to control Germany. Columbus" genocide is not confirmed nor is it part of the history both you and I learned in school, therefore I will leave it as I stated earlier. The majority is not based on just our class. It was voted upon Americans and that is how it is decided whether it is a law or not. It is not a poll, it"s a vote. The government is right. We, as Americans, have to face that fact. That is not my opinion, I just follow the leader. If you have not been arrested, you are living ethically right because that is the only way we can judge. The laws are not my opinion, but if I judge you based on what I believe, that makes me just as wrong as you. If I judged you based on the laws, that"s right because it is the right thing. I thought same sex marriage was messed up three years ago, but love is love. My view changed when the government"s view changed. The same happened for millions of people. Do not forget that unlike Nazi Germany, we do not have one man in charge, we choose what we want as a group of people. Until the majority changes, our views will not change. I also don"t believe the government will take a 180 degree turn on some things. Even if we think some things are ethically right or ethically wrong, the answer is still ethically right or ethically wrong. I conclude this debate with the same things I have been mentioning throughout the last three arguments. Laws are the only thing we can judge someone else"s ethics on. That means that there are right and wrong, good and bad answers in ethics. Right ethics abide by the law and wrong ethics break the law. Though the laws change from country to country, state to state, and even household to household, we abide to some rules that are set for us by a higher power and with that, breaking the rules are bad ethics while following the rules is good ethics. While some of the stuff is opinion based, the government being our higher power is not one. I can prove that government has laws set out for us and we must, as citizens of the United States, follow those laws.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

I say believe because it is what I am told to believe by the government. Ethics do differ between different individuals but there is a set of laws to tell us what to believe; what to do, say, and act. No matter what you do, if you follow the rules, you are ethically right. The Southerners are not ethically right, no matter what they believe. The government cares about your opinion, but if you in the minority, which is the South in this situation, it is wrong. The same thing is going on with same sex marriage. The government is letting the state settle this debate. Our wonderful state has allowed it, thus making it ethically right. The debate whether marijuana should be legal is a complicated one. Washington and Colorado is the only two states where the drug is legal. It is illegal in our state. Does smoking it make your action ethically bad? Yes. It is illegal. When the majority rules on a subject, we assume it is right because the majority say so. If one or two people say that Christopher Columbus did not come over here in the 1400s, do we believe them? No because the majority of historians say that he did come over. The same thing goes for The Holocaust. Some people say it never happened. I was not there but the majority say it happened. When the majority rule on something, we assume it is right. The same goes here. The laws are the laws and we have little to no chance to change the laws. Most mass killers end up having mental illnesses. The ones who do not may believe it was right but it was not. The laws and beliefs of the majority show that. That is an extreme case that should not be compared to hurting an individual. One"s ethics are not better than another. It is not placed on a scale. It simply is right or wrong. It is simply good or bad. My household ethics are either good or bad, as are your ethics. But if you break a rule, it is bad as stated by your household rules. Once your feet are outside the household, your actions are judged on the country scale. If we travel to different countries, we follow their rules. If someone traveled here, they must follow our rules. It is pretty black and white. It is not our jobs to control their women, but we have to agree that in that country, it is bad for women to drive. We might disagree, as I see you do, but it is their law. If a foreigner comes to New York and sees he cannot purchase a Big Gulp at the local 7-Eleven. He might disagree with it, but it"s a law. The government is the highest power. They rule but you have opinions. You control your actions. If you break a law, and you thought you were ethically right, it is ethically wrong. There is no way around it. There are right and wrong answers in ethics. The Constitution helps us realize the right decisions to make. Our parents help up make the right decisions. No matter if you believe otherwise, you have to let the "man" be the "man" and follow the rules. Some seem like stupid rules, but they are ethically accepted. Laws are needed to help make the right decisions and in a way, be ethically good and right.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

As I previously stated, no matter what we believe is right or wrong, there is an ethically right and wrong, as proved to us in society. There are sets of rules and laws to show us what is right and what is wrong. No matter if the Southerner believes that his actions against African Americans are right in society, there are laws against what he believes and he is ethically wrong. The government, whether you like it or not, sets up laws which judge what is right. That also sets precedent to what I believe or what my neighbor believes because it is what has to be right. If you commit a crime, it is ethically bad and wrong. No matter whether if you thought it was ethically right; it is not. Once again, faith has an exception in my belief. What is preached to you is a different story and what is great about this country is that there is nothing against your beliefs. There are sins in your beliefs to act as your law or government. Individuals should act accordingly. Your counter point to my example was if the person you were hurting is a murderer or trying to murder you. Of course with every situation, there are exceptions. For the most part, if you hurt a random stranger on the street, that is bad and there is no way around it. You can"t turn a bad situation into a good one by simply stating you thought it was good morally. Nothing you do that is bad is good just by thinking it. There are laws forbidding certain acts and you as a citizen are to abide by those laws. Also, different countries abide by different laws. So what you are saying about different thoughts depending where you live is correct in that context. My next example is on a lesser scale. In a household, my parents want me to follow their rules. Their rules are different than your rules, but they are right in my household. Of course when you step outside, you have to abide by the country or state rules. But inside my household, a certain set is right or wrong. If I beat my brother on Xbox and then I showboat, that is wrong. Your family could make a statement to getting better by saying you can showboat if you win, so go and win next time. No matter how you think about it, it is right or wrong. I can"t look at a situation and say, "that"s both right and wrong." That means there is a right or wrong, no matter if my opinion is different from yours. If we are talking about me and my brother, we follow our household rules. But if we are talking about me and you, we follow the country"s law. If we go to a different county, we follow their laws, simply because that is was the majority believe is ethically right. Your opinion matters to you and if you want to change the thought of me or my neighbor, you have to talk to some decision maker. So to summarize what I believe and what I am trying to argue here is that no matter if you, I, or Joe has an opinion, whether our decision is ethically good or bad, right or wrong, is decided before we make that decision. It is decided by the government, because that"s what the majority of the country believes is the right thing.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Though you are right when you mention that each person as an individual has their own set of ethics that they should follow, we as humans understand what is right and what is wrong. The example of helping an older lady cross the street is good ethics. No matter how you look at it, if you don"t help her you aren"t doing the right thing. Decisions are much bigger than deciding whether to help an old lady or not. Decisions in life as you get older are harder than the ones when you are younger. Some decisions like choosing the right college have no effect on ethics but what if you are put in a situation where you two choices are life or death. Let"s say you hurt someone: that is ethically bad. One set of ethics is justice. Justice is the actions in fairness and regard of others. If others are in harm, you are showing bad ethics. Laws are created to keep people in check. The help you make decisions that are viewed as ethically right or good. There are no good jobs in regards to breaking laws. On that reason alone, ethics should be viewed as good or bad. The other example you stated has to do with faith. Faith is tricky because your views can change because of what your preached or taught. But even with that in mind, sins are included. There are no such thing as a good sin. They are all bad and are brought by bad actions and bad ethics. While I may view some things as ethically bad but you think it may be ethically good, there is still laws that are agreed upon to dispute that notion for most decisions made. There may be some things that can be swayed back and forth but for the most part, a decision can be divided into the category good or bad, right or wrong, by both members involved and a third party view. As individuals, we are very judgmental. We can decide on an event or decision what is ethically good or what is ethically bad. Though that can change as eyes of people change, we are still judging whether they are right or wrong. As we become familiar to what is right or what is wrong, though my right might be your wrong, society has proved to us what is viewed as right by the majority of humans. Whether is a difference of legality or just an action like helping an elderly person cross a busy street, society has proved to us that helping them would be the ethically good, right decision. And even though people rarely help, this ethically bad decision does not affect us in our lives but decisions that can affect our lives for the better are considered good but if the affect us or others for the worse, that is an ethically bad. An example of this is when you are with a group of friends. One day they walk through the hallways during class, which is ethically bad, proved by the rules against it. They see a kid at his locker, they knock his books down and slam is locker close. As Americans, we know this is frowned upon. You could be scolded for it. Therefore is ethically bad, even if you think it"s funny. When there are a set of rules against it, its ethically bad. Other than that, you can used your beliefs to decide whether it"s good or bad.
There are no right or wrong answers in ethics.

Ryan Molenaar: Pro: There are no right or wrong answers in ethics. Before delving into whether there is right and wrong in ethics, I think it would be appropriate to understand what ethics actually are. Ethics are defined as the moral values of an individual and how they conduct themselves accordingly. Within the study of ethics it is important to understand that there is no universally set rule of ethics that we all live by. It is up to the individual to set their own moral ethics and it is their personal choice if they live by them or not. That being said I believe that there are no right or wrong answers in ethics. Why do I believe this? Well for one, someone's individual ethics, while they may be similar to someone else's, could possibly be entirely different than someone they are arguing with or dealing with in a situation. To say that someone's ethics are wrong would be entirely incorrect and wrong in it of itself because you, personally, do not know how that person defines themselves. Our own ethics and moral well-being is instilled within us as young children and as we grow, we determine what is wrong and what is right in a certain situation. For example, if we see an old lady trying to cross the street, some of us would help her while other s would ignore her. Each person believes they are doing the right thing. However, each may look at the other as though they are wrong. The reality is that neither is right nor wrong because each has their own moral code that they live by. This could stem from how they are raised as kids and continue as they grow up. As we grow, we are influenced by those around us and what we may think was once ethically wrong could be changed because we want to fit in. So that one thing that was once thought as wrong becomes a part of our own ethical code and we no longer think it is wrong. This skewed line of right and wrong leaves a lot of grey areas within ethics that in reality is not even there at all. As I stated in the above situation, as we grow older our ethical outlook on life changes. Another key factor in our development of ethics is the media and what we see on television or in videogames. We may see something on television that we think is unethical but as we see it more and more we become numb to it and adopt it as a part of our own ethical morality. Each individual's ethics is what they themselves define as right or wrong. We cannot tell someone that what they believe is wrong just because we think it is. That is the way they were raised and who are we to tell them what is right and wrong based on what we personally believe? It is just like religion. If we believe in a certain God, who are we to tell someone else who believes in a different God that they are wrong? Ethics are very subjective and are based on our own individual feelings and the way we were raised. I reiterate that there are no right or wrong answers in ethics. Ethics are based entirely on what we as individuals perceive as being right or wrong.
Ten Hour Music Loops are Immoral

Simple Answer: No-ish Long Answer: YouTube, as a platform, is designed for people to share what they have created with other people. It is meant to be viewed by other people, nothing else (unless explicitly stated by the creator). Therefore, people may view it, but they may not take that content, brand it their own (even if the original artist name is present, ten hour loops are on their channels), and subsequently steal viewers and money. It is ok to view the video as many times as you like, but in the context of ten hour loops, it is not free for use without explicit permission. Final Thought: These videos are essentially thievery. However, they don't just take money, they also take viewers and ideas. This is immoral.
Ten Hour Music Loops are Immoral

I'm going to address the last question first. According to a couple of studies, YouTube actually makes artist a lot more money than would be found in album sales [1]. On average, YouTube steals $1 million, but makes $1 billion dollars [1]. YouTube pays an average of $1.30 per 1,000 music streams/views [1]. In the case of Anaconda (as of 4/3/2016), the videos has 576,654,884 views [2]. If you put the views into this formula: Views / 1,000 Views * $1.30 = Profit, you get $749,651.35 in profit. The two ten hour loops I could find have 42,027 views [3 & 4]. So, given that each view constitutes a minimum of an hour watching, we can assume that these people, if they had actually watched and repeated the video, could have added a total of 504,324 views, or $655.62. This may not seem like much, but it is still money. This means that people are still stealing money for their own purposes. All they did is make an audio clip, that someone else put hours, even days, into, loop for ten hours. Do this enough times, and you might have a small fortune. Sources: 1) http://www.fool.com... 2) 3) 4)
Ten Hour Music Loops are Immoral

I am so sorry! I didn't realize you were talking about copyright. I completely agree with your side of the debate but I'll argue the other side to be a good sport. Do you have any actual statistics or proof that 10 hour music loops decrease the profits of artists? (Who make enough money anyways.) Besides, artists make most of their money off of touring, not on music from iTunes. 10 hour music loops are also tedious and people are more likely to just preview the song on there and then buy it from the store, especially when they can put it into playlists then. You could also just listen to the music video anyway and keep replaying it. How is this any different?
Is the United States justified in torturing terrorist suspects.

First, I would like to clarify the subject, which has been written as a question rather than an assertion. I have taken the debate as "The United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects", for which I am taking the pro position. Could we also settle on a definition of torture from the outset. Can we agree that the definition of torture is anything made illegal by the United Nations Convention Against Torture? Now, with the housekeeping out of the way, let me present the pro case. I assert that logic does not break down when dealing with emotive or ethical issues. In a situation where it is necessary to kill one person in order to save many, I assert it is logical and right to do so. There have existed, and will exist in the future, occasions where information is needed from a person in order to save lives. If it is possible to extract this information from this person, it is logical and right that it should be extracted. If the only available method is torture, then so be it. You can also, of course, view this subject emotively. Take on one side of a balance the sum of the years of despair, loss and loneliness that will be felt by the families and friends of the victims, if the information wasn't extracted. Put on the other side a few hours of pain felt by an individual. In such circumstances it is ethical to torture. I am asserting that the United States is justified in torturing terrorist suspects under these circumstances. I abhor the idea of the United States ritualising this activity. I also abhor the idea of using torture as anything other than a tool to gain information - it should never be used for retribution or to make the torturers feel superior. Torture, like (though obviously on a completely different scale) excluding children from schools or abortion, is not nice. In a perfect world it would not be needed. In this imperfect world it unfortunately is.
Assurance that we have for real messed up the next origination of Americans

Well,heres what I think, parents have not changed in relation to how they are raising thir kids. of course, parenting changes slightly as technology progresses, but this change can be called an adaption, not a change for the worse. The negative influences that my opponent would have refered to had he survived long enough, are that of the internet, which is a completely new debate altogether. We in this debate however are working from the assumption that kids are being influenced or brought up badly, so I blame the internet and recent advances in technology for this. Of course, Im not going to waste my time supporting these claims because I doubt my oppoents cold body will be able to say anything from within his coffin. I would like to conclude this debate on the source of all corruption: . http://www.youtube.com...
Assurance that we have for real messed up the next origination of Americans

Ok, well, we dont have any material coming from Pro because of his forfeit. Here is my case that I wil represent in this debate. Parents are not doing a horrible job of raising kids, the standard has not shifted noticably as of late. My opponent points out obesity and injustly links that to poor parenting. Since it wasn't an actual argument, Ill be polite and let him properly dress it up. Along with the rest of his soon-to-be arguments. Considering that I am representing the negative side to the resolution, I will wait for the next round for the affirmative side to present his case and start the debate. If not, I'll present my own arguments in the hope that he will respond.
Assurance that we have for real messed up the next origination of Americans

I accept the challenge. As this debate is has no debatable topic, I shall use this round to make one. 'The Parents of America have messed up the lives of their children.' Definitions: Parent: a father or a mother. [1] America: USA messed up: ruined. [2] Children: The parents offspring. [3] I look forward to my opponents opening arguments. [1]http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]http://www.urbandictionary.com... [3]http://dictionary.reference.com...
Assurance that we have for real messed up the next origination of Americans

Inrto to what i thinkWhat in the world have we done to our kids? If you spend much time with them, you quickly realize that the next generation of Americans is woefully unprepared to deal with the real world. They are overweight, lazy, undisciplined, disrespectful, disobedient to their parents, selfish, self-centered, and completely addicted to entertainment. And that is just for starters. We feed them insane amounts of sugar and high fructose corn syrup and then when they become overactive we pump them full of prescription drugs to calm them down. Instead of raising our children ourselves, we allow the government schools and the entertainment industry to do it. By the time they reach the age of 18, they have spent far more time with their teachers, their video games and the television than they have spent with us.