BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
There are NO absolutes ethically.

Jumping right in. "My theory does not treat survival as a purpose but as the first and most important of our guaranteed rights. "Guaranteed rights can only be the result of a social contract. Nobody is obligated or under any ultimate governing authority to adhere to or recognize these rights. Therefore the person rejecting that assertion that people have "certain unalienable rights" would be correct because "unalienable rights" automatically determines these rights exist objectively as part of being human. Again, if humans are the result of spontaneous, random processes without purpose, then it follows that no objective purpose or moral ethic in the form of "unalienable rights" can objectively exist. Humans are just as capable for claiming that they are justified in causing harm to other humans because they aren't bound by any ethical absolutes and don't derive purpose from purposeless natural proceses that naturally result in the propagation of our species. By stating that there is an "inescapable moral truth" requiring equality and justice that we must treat each life with equal respect, you are basically arguing that ethical absolutes exist in this form. If it is "inescapable" then no other possible moral route is plausible - thus defeating your argument that no ethical absolutes exist. "I also disagree with your claim that there are absolute wrongs, such as murder and rape. Murder for the sake of pleasure is wrong"Notice that in my first post I specifically stated that "murder without cause" and "rape against someone's will" is always objectively wrong. All I need to prove is that murder and rape are always unjustified in at least one specific case to show that ethical absolutes exist. In this case, murder without cause and rape against someone's will is always wrong - it automatically follows that this is an ethical absolute. I agree with you that murder can be situationally ethical. We could argue that our military "murders" foreign enemies but this is not "murder" without cause. It has also been a pleasure debating with you too.
There are NO absolutes ethically.

My theory does not treat survival as a purpose but as the first and most important of our guaranteed rights. The purpose for existence is subjective to the individual. We all hold high and unique values (I may value science, you literature. I may value religious faith, you proven fact). The inescapable moral truth is that in the consideration of equality and of justice that we cannot give precedence to anyone of any specific value system, but instead must treat each life with equal respect. That is why Maslow"s Hierarchy comes into play as a decision making tool. It gives us an order of rights and the closest thing to an absolute SYSTEM of decision making that my theory suggests. When you proceed to define survival, you do so in a natural way (survival of the fittest/natural selection, procreation/propagation). Obviously those cannot be held to any moral standard, because as you stated and is undeniably so, these are simply the realities of existence. Survival becomes the first obligation of morality when life and death is directly correlated to the choices of the moral decision maker. When we can save any life, that must be our most earnest endeavor, in any quantity, before more trivial issues like safety and quality of life come into question. For example, it is immoral for us to contentedly eat gluttonously, live luxuriously, and spend mindlessly when our human brothers and sisters in impoverished nations struggle to simply exist on a daily basis. I also disagree with your claim that there are absolute wrongs, such as murder and rape. Murder for the sake of pleasure is wrong. Murder for the sake of some higher quality of life is wrong. However, if one had to choose between the murder of 1 or the death of 100, murder becomes the moral conclusion. This is why ethics are situational, and not absolute. This situation may be unusual and a bit outlandish, but it is a valid situation and one in which one could not argue that it would be better to let the whole group die. We must consider every choice situationally, respect each individual"s rights equally, and when all else fails, make the ultimate decision to favor the majority. It has been a pleasure debating with you.
There are NO absolutes ethically.

Thanks pro. I accept.You've argued that morals are set in place for a purpose. That purpose is to 1) do the greatest good for the greatest number, 2) do what is ethical based on circumstance, and 3) to treat humans with inalienable rights.If no objective purpose for the human race exists, purposeful morals for doing "the greatest good" cannot exist because good and bad don't exist. You presuppose a purpose when you argue for morals promoting survival. Natural selection promoting the ongoing propagation of our species is a process, not a purpose. If you derive purpose from natural processes, should we derive purpose from all natural processes? Including the natural process of death?Ethics, in the form of absolutes, must exist. The existence of absolute ethics are supported by the fact that regardless of culture, nation, or time-period, murder without cause and rape against someone's will is always wrong. I'm NOT arguing that all morals are objective. I am arguing that objective morality exists because there is at least one case in which this is true.
There are NO absolutes ethically.

My premise is simple and my introductory statement will be short. There are NO absolutes ethically. The entire world of ethics revolves around a principle that I call "Utilitarian Situational Rights". This proposed theory of "right and wrong" takes the useful elements of the three prominent ethical theories in the following manner. 1.) Utilitarian- Doing the greatest good for the greatest number. 2.) Situational- What is the moral/ethical course of action is determined entirely based upon the given circumstances 3.) Rights- The concept that each human being has certain inalienable rights. These three concepts combine to form a makeshift equation. The first necessity of this equation is the order of priority of the before mentioned inalienable rights. For that I refer to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The situational right is determined in a utilitarian way, but utilitarianism is immoral when it ceases to balance the needs of all according to Maslow's theory. In short- until EVERY individual has the right of survival, none are to be given precedence to attain safety. Even if 999,999 individuals achieved safety at the cost of the survival of one, that would be immoral. However, if 999,999 gained survival at the cost of the active taking away of one's survival, that act would be justifiable. I believe this adequately summarizes my theory in its entirety, but if there is any lack of clarity or seemingly flawed reasoning, I will be glad to address it in my rebuttal.
On balance, the world would better if there was one language everyone could speak

Pro (me) has to prove that the world would be better if there was one language everyone could speak and Con has to prove that the world would be worse if there was one language everyone could speak. First round is acceptance only. Con cannot introduce any new arguments in the final round as Pro has no chance to rebut it (only respond to anything Pro said). We'll say for the debate that there would be one language in everyday use, but some may still study others (like people do today with Latin).
should not true stories be aloud in articles

This is the first debate I have been challenged too, if my memory serves me correctly. I accept. Here are some definitions from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary to clarify the round: true: real or genuine should: expresses obligation story: a news article or broadcast allow: to permit article: a piece of writing about a particular subject that is included in a magazine, newspaper, etc. I hope my first challenge debate will be a thriller. I await Con's arguments.
should not true stories be aloud in articles

Sadly, Con has forfeited. Just for the sake of it, here was the basic outline of the cases I was going to run: 1 - Sarcasm, e. g. the Onion, is "untrue" but totally newsworthy. 2 - Untrue stories should be allowed in articles because it is illegal to prevent any document from being published in the U. S. (except for national security documents). Only after the piece has been allowed in a story can it be removed or can the author be sued.
The Earth is not 4.5 billion years old - But is young

"Argument #1 - The Earths Magnetic Field" You must understand that in astronomy, there is a lot of luck involved, as space is so vast, and our instruments cover such a small part of the sky at a time, that many of the things that are discovered (especially one-time events like supernovae) happen by chance. I sourced the second fallacy from a paper refuting the whole theory in the previous round. I am not rejecting the modern measurements (although my third source asserts that the data was from the 1800's, which would clearly lead to less accurate results) as much as I am showing that there are other measurements that contradict those, and therefore each method must be looked at in detail to explain the discrepancy. On that point of discrepancy, when we look into further detail about that 5% every 100 years, we find that Barnes is asserting that it is perfectly valid to extrapolate a ~150 year timeline to over 10,000 years [1]! To further refute that extrapolation as a valid assertion, the table of dipole moments per year that Barnes insists were from the ESSA contain no uncertainties whatsoever. Any scientific measurement should always have an uncertainty value, as the instruments that measure them are never 100% accurate, and therefore the failure of any stated uncertainty values is not only unscientific, but brings into question the validity the accuracy of the sourced information [2][3]. More refutation of the alleged exponential decay is that he assumes that the decay was exponential because the points roughly correlated with a line on semi-log coordinate paper without actually mathematically proving it [3]. I am not asserting that the magnetic field of the Earth is due to tidal ocean forces, but that tidal ocean forces are due to Lunar gravitational interactions with the Earth. It was relevant due to tidal heating effects on molten ferrous currents. "Argument #2 - Helium Diffusion in Zircon crystals" First off, you are pro, and therefore you have the burden of proof. Secondly, I must again reiterate the fact that there were sources, specifically numbers four and five from round one. You also failed to source your side when you defended your point about temperature insignificance. Furthermore, it doesn't help your side that my evidence appears to help your side, since the numbers are so different that the evidence on both sides is questionable. Again, you fail to prove how they are ignoring the evidence. As for the ignoring, let me quote your statement to prove to you that he did in-fact ignore evidence, I have yet to see you refute your own quote: "...experts recommend ignoring the initial steps. Our experimenter recommended that, and that is exactly what we did". I have shown how that is a logical fallacy, as that is cherry picking, and you didn't refute it. "Argument #3 - Lunar Recession from the earth" You fail to assert any proof on your part, and fail to defend my rebuttals, so they therefore hold into the next round. 1. http://www.tim-thompson.com... 2. http://www.ndt-ed.org... 3. www.talkorigins.org/faqs/magfields.html
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Yes, PETA needs to exist. We need an American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an ASPCA if you will. Oh wait, we already have one and it's called exactly that. What is PETA's purpose then? - Simple. ASPCA is about protecting PETS and DOMESTICATED animals. PETA would be about protecting ALL animals. So having PETA, is basically our American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to ALL Animals. ASPCA is an Animal Welfare organization and PETA is an Animal Rights organization. Animal Rights opposes products and uses for animals. Meat, milk, fur, circus animals, zoos, ect. Is it to kill animals? In 2004 and 2005 alone, PETA personally had over 4000 animals euthanized. They even rescued over 30 animals from a research facility, only to have them euthanized. - Where did you get this statistic ? Are you aware that euthanized means - 1. The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. 2. A quiet, painless death. Do you consider this cruel ? Is it not possible that the animals they "rescued" could possibly be suffering. It is cruel to let an animal live who is in pain, do you not agree ? Why should anyone support such a corrupt organization? - PETA basically focuses on factory farms, laboratories, the fur trade, and the entertainment industry. And like I said they are a group for ALL animals including the cruel killing of beavers, birds, and other "pests" and the abuse of dogs. Someone should support them if they are obviously against cruelty towards animals.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Yes, PETA needs to exist. We need an American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, an ASPCA if you will. Oh wait, we already have one and it's called exactly that. What is PETA's purpose then? Is it fear-mongering? It certainly seems that way considering the fact that PETA has comparing making leather handbags to the Holocaust. How could we not have seen the connection between purses and the death of 11 million people in concentration camps? Is it to accomplish their goals by ANY means necessary? PETA has allied themselves with the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front, both of which have been labeled "special interest extremist groups" by the Counterterrorism Department of the US government. Is it to kill animals? In 2004 and 2005 alone, PETA personally had over 4000 animals euthanized. They even rescued over 30 animals from a research facility, only to have them euthanized. Why should anyone support such a corrupt organization?
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)

Let's just sum up what's happened and clear the slate, I will refute a last argument and bring into final focus the reason you should vote in affirmation of this resolution. "-Thank you for helping my case by showing that a key member of member of PETA, someone they have allowed to rise to power in their organization, supports destroying property of others instead of more peaceful methods. " Do you not find Bruce's whole quote to be shown as figuratively? "as a movement blowing things up" figuratlvey, that could be said as making an effort to promote PETA in stoping animal cruelty, such as their campagin strategy. 'Everybody is entitled to his or her own opinion, but freedom of thought is not the same thing as freedom of action. You are free to believe whatever you want as long as you don't hurt others. You may believe that animals should be killed, that black people should be enslaved, or that women should be beaten, but you don't always have the right to put your beliefs into practice. The very nature of reform movements is to tell others what to do—don't use humans as slaves, don't sexually harass women, etc. —and all movements initially encounter opposition from people who want to continue to take part in the criticized behavior. ' In all honesty, we should support PETA because they are another group working towards animals cruelty. The postive affects from PETA heavily outweighs those of the negative. Thank you too everyone who has read this debate, and have a good night, day, weekend, whatever. Till next this is "gdaysamantha" signing off.
elitism leads to barbarism

The U.S. is a prime example that even with the rift of the rich and the poor both can still live together in harmony. Other nations have adopted this similar capitalistic economy scheme as they departed from communism and have flourished towards a well-being. There is laws that protect the rights of all man and will be treated as equals. The elite did not attain their position without working for it. Children that inherit the leadership of their elite parents have to still prove themselves worthy of that sector, negligible parents would not mentor them into adopting a high position in life so it's not necessarily true that children would immediately be placed in the elite when they are adults, in fact it's harder for children of the elite to match the success of their parents if it's too high. But for the common man, their children can succeed their parents much more easily with or without good parenting. Of course if you set the odds the elite children would likely end up in a more comfy position than the children of the commoners, but in the U.S. people are rewarded for their accomplishments not their inheritance and that's why it's the country of opportunity. The children that inherit the money from their elite parents must still know how to manage the enterprise that creates this flow of income and if they lack the experience and know-how they would easily be dominated by their parent's rivals as the politics there would eat them alive because they did not attain that position. Any education the children receive does not amount to the education that results from parenting, so good parents and bad parents still exist among common man and the elite so the dice is still rolling regardless of how much wealth the parents have. A country where the government makes the vow to be the "public servants" to the people is for humility and to use their position to set long term goals for the population
elitism leads to barbarism

I would Just like to mention before I go into my argument that it has been a good debate which I have thoroughly enjoyed partaking in. Now for my argument, There is a difference between being elite and being paramount in keeping society functioning. The elite should not automatically deserve more praise than any other person in the community as everyone has put in a certain amount of effort into creating the society we now live in. Despite the fact they do put in extra effort it is disproportional to the benefits of being elite, for example, bonuses handed out of over millions of dollars to bankers and the private tuition provided to the elite and their offspring. Not only this, but is it fair that you do not even get a second glance if you are someone classified as working or poor class? and is it fair that children who have fathers with contacts in all different types of industry are much more likely to attain success? Another point you make pertaining to the 'incentives' of the rich is understandable, but regardless of whether the actions occur through spite or not does no excuse the fact that there needs can and have caused millions to struggle, the saying goes "with great power comes great responsibility" and it is no different here, is it ok for you to suffer because the intentions of the well off weren't "cruel"? One final point I would like to make is that not all people have worked hard for there money and/or position in society; take for instance the nouveau riche, people who have large amounts money but inherited it. To recapitulate, the needs and exploitation of the elite may lead to the culmination of society but ultimately end in the deterioration of society into barbarism.
elitism leads to barbarism

The elite's existence is inevitable. People that know how to extract resources and organize the flow of goods is a demand from the common people, thus business CEOs provides and they are paid. Without the compensation for their work they wouldn't attempt to work up the ladder to gain the position without these members in society there would not longer be easy access to foods, shortage of gasoline, lack of electricity and other problems that would reduce the country into a third world country. Business CEOs are also effective in taking resources and money from other nations becoming the hunter-gatherer of the modern age so to speak. Furthermore there must be an incentive for doctors to go to their respective schools and spend a portion of their lives for the education and training. If they're not paid a high salary nobody would become a doctor leaving the nation with no medical care unless the expectations of doctors go down then their salary can be lowered to a common man's salary but imagine how unprofessional doctors will become if the amount of effort to become one was as similar to that of a janitor. We would have quack doctors up and about would the common man want to go to the hospital for a check up from these types of doctors? There would be more trouble than before. There is no cruel actions behind the elite, the ones that would try to stifle them from their expenditures are the ones that are irrational. The elite has no reason to have enmity with the common man and neither does the common man have for the elite. Common man makes up the majority of the workforce, they make up the arms and legs of businesses, the military, labor force and any other company owned by the elite.
elitism leads to barbarism

Regardless of whether talent can be found in individuals it is the fact that it is exploited by people in corporations who in turn gain the most profit or end result, for example, the people that designed the script for superman were pretty much broke regardless of the fact they were innovative the elite does not strive for competition but competition is a necessity for the elite to achieve his desired goal but it is definitely not sufficient. The predominance of digital media has leveled the playing field slightly to allow for people to reach better positions but again we live in a capitalist age and even on the internet you need something to help you get going money for advertisements and so forth and with all the risk involved peopled get deterred to try. The reason why Income is important is again because our society is based on capitalism and that a high income means better and bigger head start; being able to explore the world gain and gain a rigorous understanding of the world requires a substantial income.
elitism leads to barbarism

Income is different for every individual but talent can be found in any individual whether they're sitting on a golden throne or sweeping the corners of a warehouse. Corporations always look for fresh talents off the streets, innovation cannot be bought unless it's in the form of a product. Those with innovation regardless of social status can attract the attention of the elite and be bought or connected into the network. This is the networking age, elite and the common man are more closer to one another as long as the common man develops a connection with someone in the upper ranks there would be no difference. Smaller businesses that are being pushed by a monopoly are bought off, money still given as a compensation. Taxation are larger and lawsuits are more rampant in the life of the elite, for the common man they experience less of these situations. The elite and the common man have a relationship. The elite acts as the sink, the common man as the source. An elite garners competition, a need to strive to be a better you or the elite shines the career path you are fixated on and need an organization that would amplify it.