BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
People should donate 10% of their money and/or time to charity

But, why?Why help others, when you have yourself to worry about?You have your own property, your own family, your own life.Society will never improve because there are too many idiotsThe weak die, and the strong survive.It doesnt matter. When you start giving all you have, you lose yourselfAt least I have, my grandpa had prostate cancer, we donated and donated.nothingWe lost him in 2004.
People should donate 10% of their money and/or time to charity

There are people that do not view helping people as a lose. There are Mormons that view giving as something spiritual. There are people that feel happy giving. They might also be gaining something directly if they give. For example, if they are into the arts then supporting the local theatre would give them something back. One can also get some of the money back on tax so you are not losing all of it. I would disagree that it is immoral to give to charity because they might not deserve it. For one that comment about deserving is usually based on a fallacy that the bulk of people are lazy and they brought on their own poverty. Charity is also not just about helping the poor and homeless. It can also include medical charities that are trying to find cures which by the way would also help the people not giving. You wrote that you only care about people you know and love then giving to charity is a way for you to help them because it can improve the society in which they live. I find your comment about violating someone's freedom of will interesting. Can you explain that? It is not correct to say no one would abide by this. There are people that already do but of course many do not.
People should donate 10% of their money and/or time to charity

Ultimately, this would be impossible for the whole world to do that.If everyone followed what the Bible said then the world would be in chaos.If people you mean everyone and their salary is lets say 50,000.That's 10,000 lost. 10,000 dollars of their hard earned cash that the person who is losing it will never get back.Take Bill Gates $11.5 billion is his yearly salary (as of 2014)One billion one hundred fifty million is what is taken thats 10%, And I quote "at least 10% of their money"Taking money that he has earned and just giving it to people who dont neccesarily "deserve" it is just morally wrongHey, I mean I never donate because I know that their lives do not matter at all to meI do not care about the parents in Africa who starve to barely feed their childrenI care about people who I know and loveIt is also violating peoples freedom of will. No one would abide to this.
Hoteliers should have the right to refuse the custom of undesirable guests

Before I proceed, I’d like to form a sentence using the British troglodyte colloquialism. “You’ve just been full of beans. I dare say you seemed quite fruity. In fact, you cocked up only a few times and that’s quite impressive for such a shambolic novice. Continue in your queer ways, and worry not that you been soundly flogged, Arse over tit.” [1] Final Rebuttal: My opponent proposes that a restaurant with a Christian customer base can evict a client on the following violations: Eating take-out Indian food Drinking Alcohol Snorting Drugs Loudly discussing sex toys Singing Satanic anthems Presumably, the following are traits of being a “desirable” consumer: Being openly Gay Having a shaved head Displaying Tattoos Hough Grant said: “If the hotel did chuck them out, though, it would not be because they were gay, just that they were deemed "undesirable" by that particular establishment they should have the right to refuse their custom.” Rebuttal: My opponent has failed to prove that being gay is desirable, or at the very least not undesirable. Simply stating as an axiom: “We can kick out undesirables, but not Gays”, presumes that being Gay is desirable. While I much suspected that Pro desires to be Gay, or at the least he does not find the idea of being Gay undesirable, it serves little purpose to his cause. If undesirables can be denied service, then we must define “undesirable”. I clearly defined that the Hotel desires a Christian customer base; therefor the rainbow brigade is not desired. Thus, the Lollipop Platoon can be denied service as long as they meet the condition of being “undesirable”. I find my opponent conceded this point, since he failed to prove that being a queer bit funny is “desirable”, or at least not undesirable. I rest my case. Tally Ho, don’t vote for Pro. http://www.effingpot.com...; [1]
Hoteliers should have the right to refuse the custom of undesirable guests

If I read my opponent's contribution correctly, he makes the point that, with hotels, it's "horses for courses" that is to say, various types of hotels cater for various types of clientele. I broadly agree with this. For example: Christians planning their next vacation might like to consider The Pleasaunce Hotel on the east coast of England. There's no pool, no fairground rides, no amusement arcades, no foam parties, no spa, no gym, no watersports facilities but the hotel does offer thrill-seeking Christian families "safe, modern play areas for children, and delightful gardens in which to stroll, sit or enjoy the peaceful surroundings of the rose garden, or to lose oneself in a book in a sunny corner of the sunken garden, or in the sheltered cloisters, with just the sound of the sea & the birds as one"s sole accompaniment. " And if all that excitement is not enough, although there's no bar, casino or nightclub, in the evenings guests can go wild playing table tennis or completing one of the hotel's "huge" jigsaw puzzles. Best of all, from the point of view of conservative English guests, there"s no swarthy waiters serving strange foreign food while chatting up their daughters (mainly because there's no restaurant). (1) However, I fear this genteel resort might not be the ideal choice for people who normally take their vacations in destinations such as Orlando, Las Vegas, New York, Amsterdam, Monte Carlo, Cap d'Agde, Ibiza, Pattaya or Hong Kong, just as a conservative Christian couples might not be comfortable staying at Hedonism II in Jamaica where people frolic naked on the beach and engage is wild orgies in the pool. (2) So, we can see if the two gay skinheads with the tattoos checked-in to The Pleasaunce Hotel and every night brought in bottles of vodka and takeaway curries, got drunk, sniffed poppers, volubly discussed the merits of various sex toys and sang "YMCA" and "It"s Raining Men" at the tops of their voices while the other residents read Bible stories, did jigsaw puzzles or tried to concentrate on their needlework, basket-weaving and flower-pressing, the gay couple would probably attract some complaints and the hotel management might well ask them to leave. If the hotel did chuck them out, though, it would not be because they were gay, just that they were deemed "undesirable" by that particular establishment they should have the right to refuse their custom. Thank you. (1) . http://www.pleasaunce.co.uk... (2) . http://www.lonelyplanet.com...
Hoteliers should have the right to refuse the custom of undesirable guests

The opponent clearly missed the premise of his own arguments.Consider:Two rancid, uncultured she-hounds from the depth of London's sewers staggered into one of Britain's best hotel. Most likely, the two heffers visited one of the following posh locations:11. Hole of Horcum, North Yorkshire - The Horsenut Bed and Breakfast10. Slag Lane, Merseyside - The Queen's Bosom 9. Shitterton, Dorset - Sheep Shagger Inn8. Back Passage, London - Holiday Inn Express 7. Fingringhoe, Essex - The Wet Noodle Motel6. Muff, Northern Ireland - La Quinta 5. Sandy Balls, Hampshire - The Outhouse Pub and Inn 4. Twatt, Orkney - Clam Hotel 3. Bell End, Birmingham - The InnTown Suites 2. Minge Lane, Worcestershire - Yer Mudders House 1. Cocks, Cornwall - Dank Alley Inn Let's assume that the Innkeeper tossed the two trollips on their spunky bottoms because their mere presence upset the Customers.Can we not conclude that the Hotel is catering to target customer base?In this case, the customer base is "affluent, desirable men and women who aren't Irish or darker than a Spaniard". Now, we could assume that the Hotel owners are biggoted Christians, but I would much more presume that the Hotel's target customer base is biggoted Christians. The owners are probably Turkish immigrants.Therefore I present Premise 1:Any buisness that can legally filter clients to maintain a target customer base has no moral obligation to buffer it's filter for those who are....light in the loafers.Over to you....
Hoteliers should have the right to refuse the custom of undesirable guests

If a couple of stinking, flea-bitten tramps find a big wad of cash under a bush and decide to check-in to the Hotel de Posh for the night, it is likely that the hotel staff would turn them away. Why? Well, because the sight of two vagabonds scoffing big plates of grub in the hotel's opulent restaurant or supping copious amounts of booze in the cocktail lounge is likely to deter other guests from spending money in those facilities, and their presence might also damage the hotel's reputation. So, if the hotel would be justified in turning away tramps, what about a couple of shaven-headed, heavily-tattooed yobs? I'm sure they would be about as welcome as a ginger son-in-law and, as such, the hotel would be justified in ejecting them from the premises. But what if those yobs happened to be gay? Should a hotel be allowed to turn them away then? The answer would seem to be "no", at least if the hotel is located in the UK where, yesterday, two gay men who had been turned away at a small family-run hotel won compensation in court for "injury to feelings". (1) It may well have been the case that the owners of the hotel in question were bigoted Christians who turned the homosexual couple away on religious grounds, but that shouldn't have meant that they didn't have the right to refuse their custom, no matter what reason they gave. Thank you. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
Rap Battle: Team Deathmatch

Okay, this is like the other battles fine With this to anger me i'm about to draw the line And to cross that is a mountain too tall for you to climb Im a god compared to you yeah you ought to build a shrine Because the alliance a natural born disgrace Rapping so slow, I am faster than his pace Because when you look at Shyre in person you would throw up at his face I could beat Shyre, even with my bars misplaced See how the leader of one is the leader of many? You are absolute trash not even worth a penny Killing of the weaks? Why are you killing yourself? Oh wait I know, you are just a wondering lost elf You gonna teach me??? You need to be taught before that Got the mic in my hands I would spit for that The most you could be was the lil' hip hop cat We can all see that this battle would just resolve at The fact that ShyreWolf can't rap here To fight me is a suicide misson dear And my power is growing to your fear Be careful little wolf, your death is very near
Rap Battle: Team Deathmatch

D Boy tryna fuk with me Try and keep up biitch cuz your nuh'un to me Bars of a God, Intentions of a murderer and when im done, it's gonna be the last that i've heard of ya Cuz Imma merciless ruler, here to kill off the weak Your death will only add on to my killingstreak cuz when Shyre has the mic, it's fxcking game over Not like ND Boy, a fake a$$ poser Your rap game is weak, inferior to mine biitch, someone outta teach you how to rhyme. But that won't be needed cuz you die here Hope you've said your prayers I'm gonna make this quick Got ur momma over here, riding on this dickk.
Rap Battle: Team Deathmatch

Alright. Shyre lets me start, his lossI'm only taking part in, this 'causeI have a group to defend with, quick drawsThe Rapversity capable of making people, switch jawsWhile you may have more members, we're newSo that gives us an excuse as we, here knewFocus not on the content focus more on the causeBecause even myself can take the alliance and crush, their coresShyre makss a challege, leader's logicBut the gift he make me and him, neither want itNever seen you rap before so ima cut this shortBut notice NHK is reduced to a quick snort
Life is meaningless without God.

Since my opponent has sadly forfeited this last round, I will give a concise summary of my points that have been made and expanded upon in detail in earlier arguments. - Each individual has the freedom and power to assign meaning to life. God is not necessary for this. - It is, in fact, MORE meaningful to not have God's assignation of a value to life, as shown in the artist metaphor. Would you rather make your own meaning in life or have the same meaning as billions of others handed to you by some mysterious god? - Something inherently purposeless, such as the painting example or life without God, is given meaning by a person. Purpose does not equal meaning and something does not need a purpose to be meaningful - Subjectivity in meaning does not equal subjectivity in morality, as I proved in my earlier rounds. My opponent just misinterpreted the two to be the same thing. - If you find your life to be meaningful, then it is meaningful. God is not necessary. I have shown not only that individuals can assign meaning to a life without God, but that it is in fact more meaningful to do so, arguably. Subjectivity in meaning is not something that needs to be escaped. There are no negative consequences. It should be embraced and it allows for humans to create and see the value in their own lives without some overbearing supernatural deity forcing meaning down their throats. Thank you, and thank you to my opponent for the very good rounds that he posted. My opponent did forfeit one round, which is unfortunate for our debate since it was such a good one, I felt.
Life is meaningless without God.

Thanks for the response. Looking forward to another one. First, I'll address your definition. To have meaning is to have significance or importance. The only way anything can be important is if there is something that matters it can effect. To be able to judge what is important and unimportant we need a purpose against which to measure the influence of it. If all value and significance is assigned subjectively then there is no objective standard to measure an action and be able to call it meaningful. http://dictionary.reference.com... Your argument, essentially, is that humans assign their own meaning to their own lives and therefore do not require God to provide one. Your argument is one for subjectivity; that each individual has their own perspective of what is valuable. In your painting example an individual can assign meaning to an otherwise meaningless painting. If the value of some object or action is determined by any individual perspective, every possible perspective is equally valuable to the others. For example, Hitler would find the Holocaust meaningful, while we would not. Without an objective standard, Hitler's opinion is equal to ours and his position is legitimate. Who are we to say someone else's perspective is inferior to ours without a standard of meaning to appeal to? In this way, God gives us a superior standard to determine meaning. Without God, what is it to say something is meaningful? For your art enthusiast, to say "I find meaning in that abstract painting" is just to say "I like that painting". But meaning extends past personal approval by its very definition. To have meaning is to be significant and the only way we can assign significance is by measuring its effect on a purpose. Humans are unable to establish that necessary purpose because we are unable to escape subjectivity.
Life is meaningless without God.

Hey,thanks for posting the debate. If you could define 'meaning' in your next round I would really appreciate it. Good luck. What God really represents is an objective standard with which to measure our lives and actions. Without that objective standard all human actions and therefore the very existence of humanity boils down to subjectivity. No one person can identify a purpose or goal that holds any 'value'. We seem to think that the life of someone like Mother Theresa is 'meaningful', but in order to claim something like that we need to be able to identify a significant goal that her actions would work towards. In a world without god (an objective standard) all of our varying opinions about 'good' and 'progress' are invalid and meaningless because there is no rule or quality we can appeal to in determining worth. How are we to establish meaning without a standard that determines what is significant? We are all just perspectives in a perpetuating pool of subjective existence.
Life is meaningless without God.

My stance is that life is not meaningless without God. Meaning can be found in life even if some deity does not exist. I will expand further in the next rounds as to how, but I wish to give a definition of God first. Any deity can be used in this argument if it follows these basic tenets: 1. The god is supernatural. 2. The god had to do with the creation of life/the universe/mankind in some way. 3. The god is some being (or beings - having multiple deities for this argument is perfectly alright) that is said to exist.
doctors who perform illegal abortions for trivial reason are essentially the same as serial muderers

If it is approved, then it isn't illegal though. There wouldn't be procedures in place without a reason to do so. About brain activity, perhaps, it depends on how late in the pregnancy it would be. It is not as if they don't go in front of a medical review board to see if an abortion is viable. Abortion if approved, isn't illegal even if it is after that date that is the point of the approval. I think you'd find that the society is split on the morality of abortions, a lot of this split for pro-life is due to religion and it is slowly moving towards pro choice, I refer you to this debate.org opinion issue (http://www.debate.org...). Instead of performing an ad hominem fallacy, it'd be preferred if you stuck to the original debate and argument. I don't disagree that it is of the human species but whether it is moral to abort or not is completely different. It is obviously a different case if the baby is closer to being born that is why these laws are in place. I don't disagree with the laws, I think they are just. If there is an approval process then it has been reviewed to apply to the laws based on the current social view on the topic. I still think that it is a long shot to call doctors, serial killers and the view of society as shown above is that most people view is as okay within reason. To call doctors, serial killers, it reads as a media headline, exaggerating the truth. Serial killers have obvious mental issues, I can't say that I nor the rest of the population could say the same about doctors.
doctors who perform illegal abortions for trivial reason are essentially the same as serial muderers

http://www.operationrescue.org...that is an example of the abortion to go to a rock concert. if the it is illegal to do hte abortion the baby must have rights, which means its a person. you might not like calling it a person, but it is.if the abortion is illegal it must be later in the pregnancy, that means the brain waves are there as even you concede. i assume con is just being sloppy on this point as he's trying to act as if the brain waves arent there. the doctor might not view his killing as wrong, and different than killing an adult. but society as determined the abortion is illegal, and the baby must be too similar to an adult as to not justify an abortion. you and the doctor can cry about itall you want, but society and reality have spoken.
doctors who perform illegal abortions for trivial reason are essentially the same as serial muderers

1) Doctors still have to follow the law, where I am from, abortions are legal up to a certain week, depends on the state. I think the situation you provided is unreasonable and I'd like proper evidence of it happening for trivial reasons. I presume this situation is hypothetical and a reasonable person would think that if they want an abortion to go to a rock concert, they probably would have gotten one earlier. It would be a huge risk to the doctors career performing illegal operations and unless you have contrary evidence, I would doubt they would risk their job over a trivial reason if it was illegal.2) "im sure conspirators who want to kill a third party in terms of adults, might not feel their act is wrongful." Do you have evidence of such? In this case, the community agrees that a life has been taken and the rights of the individual have been breached. In the terms of an unborn baby, you've mentioned the words "killed an innocent third party". This would only be looked upon as wrong if you consider the baby to be a person. I argue that the baby is not fully formed and hasn't been born yet and in almost all cases would not have proper brain function and would not be immoral to abort the pregnancy. Doctors of all people would have the proper recognised training to understand what stage the baby is in. Further more, I think you have simplified the situation too much, 1st to agree they are serial murderers we have to agree it is murder which I think it wouldn't be classed as murder for the reasons above, they are without the vital functions of a fully developed human. 2nd they do not have the same mental state, I think you'd be hard pressed to find this theoretical doctor who disregards human life as serial murderers do but rather argue that life hasn't even begun. It is a question of morality and the general public would agree that doctors who flick the switch on comatose patients are different than serial killers however according to your logic they are the same.There are a couple of points of mine that you didn't answer last round too.
doctors who perform illegal abortions for trivial reason are essentially the same as serial muderers

"what reasons would be trivial. Is it viable to "ruin" ones possibly more lives when it can be prevented. I don't believe it is appropriate for judgment to be placed on the individuals nor the doctors based on choices they are making which will affect the rest of your life."the statement is stand alone self evident. if something is considered trivial, then the doctor shouldn't be doing it. im sure they wouldn't do it if they thought it was trivial, but this is about looking for a more objective status of the act. surely we can place judgment on the situation for how we perceive it. like the example given, the mom wanted to go to a rock concert so had an illegal abortion. "To address the actual topic, I believe they can be separated due to the legal term 'mens rea' which translates to guilty mind. In this case the intentions of the doctor would be for benefit of the mother (or child or family), another life (shouldn't one life be equal to another?). Where as serial murderers are psychologically damaged and their actions have no benefit."im sure conspirators who want to kill a third party in terms of adults, might not feel their act is wrongful. with abortion and with a conspirator sitatuion of adults, it takes away the consent of the person being killed. it kills an innocent third party, bottom line.