BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality

QuestionsFirst, I would like to ask Con a question. I want to know if they are attesting to the notion that there exists some form of objective morality, be it similar moral traits found in different cultures, or morality human beings can develop through evaluation and rationale? Because, in my previous round, a major attempt made by me was too prove that there can exist objective morality. If Con concedes to this point (which I will take on assumption they do), I will continue on in a suitable manner. 2. ) Moral NihilismThe statement I am most concerned with about moral nihilism is the statement that "anything is permissible". This statement is dangerous because it gives room for people to act on their own accord, and not give thought to moral principles that they do not believe exist. Now, I am not saying that every moral nihilists acts in an immoral fashion (I assume both Con and I agree that objective morality and immorality exist), but the idea itself could lead to one acting in such a fashion (of immorality). Now, if there is objective morality, but moral nihilism states that there exists no morality, and that everything is permissible, this would lead people preforming (what would objectively be) immoral acts (as they would be acting only on their will and want's, and not on a guiding, moral principle). Thus, since moral nihilism leads to immorality (in the statement that "everything is permissible"), it should thus be used as a standard for immorality.3. ) ConclusionI know this was a short argument, but I assume Con and I are on the same page on many matters.
Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality

DefinitionsMoral Nihilism- Ethical nihilism or moral nihilism rejects the possibility of absolute moral or ethical values. Instead, good and evil are nebulous, and values addressing such are the product of nothing more than social and emotive pressures. . http://www.iep.utm.edu...Standard- "Something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example". http://www.merriam-webster.com...Immorality- The quality or state of being immoral. http://www.merriam-webster.com...Structure1st Round: Acceptance Only2nd Round: Opening Statements3rd and 4th Rounds: Rebuttals/ Arguments5th Round: Closing StatementsBy accepting this debate, Con agree's to the structure, and agree's to take the position of Con. VotersI ask that the voters vote on if they think, based on the arguments presented, Moral Nihilism is a standard for immorality.
Moral Nihilism is a standard of immorality

You are welcome Pro for my accommodation, trying to help by giving you more time to manage your work load reducing stress. It was the moral thing to do, and in return, I too received positive feedback (happiness) by helping you out. Each debate has a life of its own, having its own Unalienable Rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of” the debate’s objectives (Happiness). I find the debate's objectives as a constructive learning experience rather than who wins or loses. Therefore, I always look forward in a debate, by selecting a subject I wish to learn more about; hence, “happiness.” The life of this debate had liberty to the mutual accommodation of agreeing to forfeit Round 4 to help reduce Pro's work load stress factor.I have learn from Pro's philosophy about Nihilism and why he thinks it should be a standard of immorality. And with that, I thank Pro. My objective is to find that “universal morality” Stanford makes claim to, but yet to be empirically define via the scientific method. There are clues via the physical Constructal Law of a “universal morality” and there are those who are trying to pinpoint this moral construct. http://www.scientificamerican.com...Pro's hypothesis composition and empirical evidence presented, needs more work to claim a proof. If Pro is interested in this subject, I recommend the latest research by Michael Shermer's recent book on the subject.http://www.amazon.com... Michael is using science trying to close the gap between metaphysics and the physical Laws of Nature, in search of that “universal morality.” I regret to say, after reading Michael's 500+ page book, the term Nihilism was not referenced. According to Pro's link on Nihilism, the first sentence of the definition states the following: http://www.iep.utm.edu...“Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated.”The scientific method is all about the quest of knowing and to communicate knowledge. My recommendations to Pro is to take the path of the scientific method not Nihilism in search for that “universal morality,” an absolute standard for both morality and its counterpart, immorality. And in closing, I wish Pro a long prosperous life, with ample freedom (liberty), in the moral pursuit of happiness. And I look forward in meeting Pro again on the debating floor.
Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street are gay lovers

Sesame street has announced that Bert and Ernie will get married in the new season for 2019. To show support for same sex marriage Bert and Ernie will have a wedding at their apartment with Big Bird, Cookie Monster and the rest of the Sesame gang joining, The guest star for that episode will be Ellen DeGeneres and her wife. https://www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=PkpIZCqGuuM https://www. Cinemablend. Com/pop/Bert-Ernie-Celebrate-Gay-Marriage-Yorker-Cover-57089. Html Case closed, Bert and Ernie are GAY!
Going out is all about making an effort, about suiting the clothes to the activity.

I reiterate: I never said that we have to spend thousands, or even hundreds of dollars. Making an effort is not about breaking the bank, it's just that: Making an effort, honoring the occasion, using what you have to dress up for the occasion. If you're wearing the same clothes that you always do, it will take away the special-ness of the occasion for most people. If a person is going to a wedding or funeral, he or she should dress according to the family's wishes, or if no direction is given, dress in clothes that are traditionally suitable for such an occasion. Dressing up is one part of showing respect for people or an event. Yes, there are people who get married in jeans, but they are far outnumbered by people who wear the fancy dress and tuxedo. You will be hard-pressed to find a little girl who does not dream of her princess dress and fantastic wedding.
Going out is all about making an effort, about suiting the clothes to the activity.

But why should we spend thousands, or even hundreds, of dollars? You have yet to demonstrate a rational reason to do any such thing. Are special things less special if you're wearing different clothing? Is the birth of your first child more special if you show up to the hospital in a tuxedo or evening gown? Is the death of a loved one somehow more poignant if you're dressed for the occassion? Are you less married if you do so in jeans? Of course not.
Going out is all about making an effort, about suiting the clothes to the activity.

You don't have to spend thousands of dollars to make an effort. Thrift stores sell nice clothes; there's even stores that sell secondhand wedding dresses and bridesmaid dresses for a fraction of the original cost. And you ask, why should any of of make an effort? I view it as a sign of respect. If I'm going to the opera or ballet or theater, I know that the people putting on the production have put a lot of work into making a great show for myself and others to come watch. If I'm eating at a restaurant where I had to have reservations for several months to get a table, that's a very special thing and I'm going to treat it as such.
Going out is all about making an effort, about suiting the clothes to the activity.

My question is, quite frankly, why "dressing up" is considered a good thing. What benefit does it confer, other than acting as a status symbol? In same cases, it seems almost counter productive. As you said, there are stores full of dresses and tuxes, that people only wear at weddings. But let us consider this more closely. The bride and groom, especially, are supposed to dress up more than anyone else. The bride in a wedding will typically wear a dress costing hundreds if not thousands of dollars. Why? Because she is supposed to. This clothing does not allow for some special function. You're not only capable of getting married in a horrifyingly expensive dress. At a time when two people are going through a lot of stress, and entering a new time in their life, we expect them to throw a giant party, and then to spend ridiculous amounts of money on clothing, when that money could be much better spent on something else that they could probably use a lot more. A down payment on a house or a car, some new furniture, something. And the same is true in lots of other situations. Wearing expensive clothing is just a status symbol, and looked at rationally it is a waste of resources that could be better spent. Additionally, when viewed from the status symbol angle, these clothing arguments become a sort of de facto argument for aristocratic symbols. After all, if one must be wearing a full tux with tails to see an opera, you have effectively priced a large number of people out of doing so.
Going out is all about making an effort, about suiting the clothes to the activity.

People dress down too much these days. I go to the opera and see adults wearing jeans. I go to a wedding and see one of the bridesmaids wearing Crocs. I go to one of those super fancy, reservations-only restaurants and see a guy wearing a t-shirt and cut-off shorts looking like he just wandered away from his weekend warrior work into this restaurant. Is the dressing-down of America a good thing? Why do stores carry those beautiful dresses and tuxedos if the only place where people dress up these days is at weddings (and even then, that is not guaranteed)? Do people dressed-down in traditionally dressed-up places need to be asked to leave, or is it us dressed-up people who are inappropriately dressed?
Candy should be used as a reward for students

First I would like to refute my opponents points First my opponent stated in a refutation to my argument "bribes" I can't see how it matters It matters because if we BRIBE our children into wanting to get smarter, they won't have those bribes when they get older. So THAT'S why it's important; children will be confused when they get a job. "Good work Simmons,"" Where's my candy sir? " (that's a watered down dramatized way of examining it but it competes the point) They argued against my obesity argument They said why don't we give them healthy candy? "AS THE SECOND SPEAKER FOR THE DEBATE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO PROPOSE A PROPOSAL THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE IN THE FIRST SPEECH so, so that proposal will be ignored. Also this debate is about CANDY, this may include healthy candy, yes, but it also includes VERY NON HEALTHY CANDY: which kids seem to like more, for example, milk duds, rollos, Hershey's, Mr good bar, snickers, milk ways, and twix. just to name a few. They also stated that 200 calories isn't a large impact on their health: WITH THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC ON THE LOOSE, why should we add ANY MORE TO A Child's DAY? The Pro has NOT CLEARLY STATED IN REFUTATION TO MY POINTS WHY CANDY IS BAD? Now onto their points They said that children associate doing good things with rewards and doing bad things with punishment: This is not true: after a while kids get too much reward and start getting greedy, competitive, and cruel to the students who don't get rewards. I even remember at my old school that kids would be laughing at the kids who didn't get a pace of a Hershey bar. Saying "HA HA your not smart cause you didn't get candy. " Do we WANT this to happen? For their second point they said moderation: "MODERATION IS NOT HAPPENING: if we give them one to two pieces PER PERIOD IN THE DAY, (which is six to seven) THE CANDY WILL AD UP TO A WHOPPING 12-14 PIECES A DAY 12- 14 PIECES A DAY IS NOT TEACHING GOOD EATING HABITS, BUT REVERSINGTHEM TELLING THEM THAT MORE THAN 10 PIECES OF CANDY IS FINE DO WE WANT THIS?
Candy should be used as a reward for students

.. First i would like to introduce my points I. Bribes a. Some child development experts also describe rewards and incentives for good behavior as bribes. Dr. Martin E. Ford of Stanford University does not believe parents should offer rewards when a child behaves, "In the short-run, bribes produce a high degree of effort from children, but they can have negative long-term consequences. " ["Parent & Child," Lawrence Kutner, The New York Times, 1991] b. Small rewards, such as stickers, can be helpful in teaching young children to complete tasks. These however, can cause dependence on outside motivators rather than learning internal motivation and developing a sense of pride for "a job well done. " One drawback to incentive reading is the complaint that students are reading for rewards. They are not being intrinsically motivated to read books on their own or finding the passion for reading. Many times students are working towards a prize instead of reading for pleasure. Another teacher complaint with AR is that the reading quizzes that students take to receive points are many times mainly lower level comprehension questions. II. Mixed message. a. By rewarding students with candy we are giving them the mixed message that whenever they get a question right they will get a reward. b. This isn't the way it works in college, and because of the lack of candy reward they might not like learning in college. c. Shouldn't learning be it's own reward? i. If a student answers a question right, he has a sense of pride, candy or not. ii. When you answer a question right, that's its own reward. III. Promotes obesity a. In every class lets say you earn one piece of candy i. And you have 6 classes without PE so that would make 6 pieces of candy per day. ii. With 6 pieces of candy, each on average being 28 calories. This adds up to 200 calories! (the Rollo website) iii.200 calories added to the number eaten for meals each day is not exactly helping when it comes to preventing obesity.
Candy should be used as a reward for students

"THE FACT is that kids prefer sugar candy" 1. How is that a fact? 2. Regardless, they still prefer sugar-free candy to no candy at all, which is what CON is giving them. "the amount of teachers who give fat free non sugar candy is extremely small. " 1. Says who? I would imagine that most teachers are more prone to give the less harmful candy to their students. 2. I'm arguing that we SHOULD give candy, not that we ARE doing it currently. "Why would teachers give candy that kids don't even like. .. as a reward. .. " 1. Most sugar-free candy is delicious. As long as it's candy the kids are happy. 2. They don't have to eat it. "in a survey by tolona polls there was a poll stating all candy. The non fat candy (ex. red vines) were under 1%" 1. I have no idea what 'tolona polls' is. 2. It would take 5 seconds to post a URL to verify this if it were actually real. 3. This is gibberish anyway. 1% of what? --- "he stated that i don't make claims only questions, i made claims on my first speech" Find a claim in this: "They also stated that 200 calories isn't a large impact on their health: WITH THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC ON THE LOOSE, why should we add ANY MORE TO A Child's DAY? The Pro has NOT CLEARLY STATED IN REFUTATION TO MY POINTS WHY CANDY IS BAD? " --- "I have ALREADY stated that 200 CALORIES ADDED TO A DIET THAT COULD BE SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL BECAUSE OF THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC. " This isn't even a complete sentence. I'm not quite sure the message my opponent is trying to convey. A piece of candy a day is going to spiral into an obesity epidemic? "WE ARE PROMOTING OBESITY BY GIVING KIDS CANDY THEY DONT NEED" Entirely the opposite. Read my point about moderation. --- "EDUCATION IS IT'S OWN REWARD" For my opponent, education is its own reward. He has been rewarded simply from having an educated discussion with me. I, however, am not intrinsicly motivated to learn. I need external stimulus to take interest in education.
Candy should be used as a reward for students

In a refutation to my point "Kids seem to like non healthy candy" my opponent stated that if we have sugar free candy why would we give them sugar candy: THE FACT is that kids prefer sugar candy and the amount of teachers who give fat free non sugar candy is extremely small. Why would teachers give candy that kids don't even like... as a reward... in a survey by tolona polls there was a poll stating all candy. The non fat candy (ex. red vines) were under 1% so to say that these candy should be given out is extremely false Now onto his rude comments during his speech he stated that i don't make claims only questions, i made claims on my first speech, now i ask the questions and you fail to answer them, he only insults me and has not clearly and weakly refuted my points ---- Now onto the points that he has said i have not refuted ---- I have ALREADY stated that 200 CALORIES ADDED TO A DIET THAT COULD BE SPIRALING OUT OF CONTROL BECAUSE OF THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC. WE ARE PROMOTING OBESITY BY GIVING KIDS CANDY THEY DONT NEED EDUCATION IS IT'S OWN REWARD for all these reasons w have won
Candy should be used as a reward for students

==== Bribes ==== "First my opponent stated in a refutation to my argument "bribes" I can't see how it matters It matters because if we BRIBE our children into wanting to get smarter, they won't have those bribes when they get older. So THAT'S why it's important; children will be confused when they get a job. 'Good work Simmons,b 'Where's my candy sir?' (that's a watered down dramatized way of examining it but it competes the point)" --Pay attention to your own numbering system. "I can't see how it matters" was addressed at your (a) which was just a quote from someone (allegedly) saying candy is bad. I gave a rebuttal to (b) underneath it which you haven't at all responded to. ===== Obesity ===== "AS THE SECOND SPEAKER FOR THE DEBATE THEY DO NOT HAVE THE POWER TO PROPOSE A PROPOSAL THIS CAN ONLY BE DONE IN THE FIRST SPEECH so, so that proposal will be ignored." --Why? "this may include healthy candy, yes, but it also includes VERY NON HEALTHY CANDY: which kids seem to like more" --Why? If we have suger-free candy, why would we give them sugary candy? "They also stated that 200 calories isn't a large impact on their health: WITH THE OBESITY EPIDEMIC ON THE LOOSE, why should we add ANY MORE TO A Child's DAY? The Pro has NOT CLEARLY STATED IN REFUTATION TO MY POINTS WHY CANDY IS BAD?" Not bad for a non-responsive appeal to emotion. 1. He doesn't make any claims, just questions. 2. He ignores my last argument which is that 200 calories (which is an extreme exaggeration of 1-2 sugar-free candies per day) won't have much of an impact. =============== Positive Reinforcement =============== "They said that children associate doing good things with rewards and doing bad things with punishment: This is not true: after a while kids get too much reward and start getting greedy, competitive, and cruel to the students who don't get rewards." --This is empirically denied. Google 'positive reinforcement' and you'll find that all experts suggest it is one of the best methods for teaching children correct behavior. "I even remember at my old school that kids would be laughing at the kids who didn't get a pace of a Hershey bar. Saying 'HA HA your not smart cause you didn't get candy.' Do we WANT this to happen?" --Sure we do. That's motivation to do better. ======= Moderation ======= "MODERATION IS NOT HAPPENING: if we give them one to two pieces PER PERIOD IN THE DAY, (which is six to seven) THE CANDY WILL AD UP TO A WHOPPING 12-14 PIECES A DAY 12- 14 PIECES A DAY IS NOT TEACHING GOOD EATING HABITS, BUT REVERSINGTHEM TELLING THEM THAT MORE THAN 10 PIECES OF CANDY IS FINE DO WE WANT THIS?" --Like I said in my first speech, the solution is to only give out candy conservatively. There is no reason to give out "two pieces PER PERIOD IN THE DAY." I await my opponent's last rebuttal.
Zeus' existence can not be proven or disproved

There is no way to prove the nonexistence or existence of a deity as there is no quantifiable test that can prove existence or nonexistence. The argument stating "proof can be found by simply dying" is an invalid argument as that argument would also have to argue the existence of a soul as we all know a dead man cannot know anything. As I have made the mistake before of overestimating my opponents intelligence(previous debate not this one) I must emphasize that it must be a WORLD accepted fact.
Zeus' existence can not be proven or disproved

I accept, and will be disproving the existence of Zeus in this debate. Zeus (In mythology): The ruler of the Greek Gods and Goddesses, husband of Hera, and God of the sky. I'll be using some stories about this character in order to support my argument that Zues does not exist. I'll let my opponent make his arguments now, good luck and thank you for instigating this debate!
Zeus' existence can not be proven or disproved

Disproving Zues: This is a pretty popular argument that I'll use to disprove Zeus. P1) A being that owes its existence to other beings cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived. This is fairly obvious. One who requires a certain set of beings to make it exist cannot be greater than said beings by definition. It's self evident that this is true. P2) Zeus owes his existence to other beings. Zeus owes his existence to the Greeks. Conclusion: Therefore, Zeus cannot be the being than which none greater can be conceived. Follows logically from the premises. Essentially, because humans exist and created Zeus, Zeus cannot be greater than them. Seeing as how Zeus is supposedly the greatest of all that exists, it is a clear contradiction which disproves him. Because my opponent and I both only offered one round of arguments (Pro made *no* attempt to argue in his other rounds, meaning they might as we'll have been forfeits) please evaluate them based off of which one is more convincing rather than who rebutted the other's best.
Should We Join ISIS

I have many reasons not to join ISIS #1 Islam #2 Non-believers are to be killed #3 Religious Extremism #4 I don't believe in god #1 - Islam The first reason I would never join ISIS, or the main reason many moderate muslims wouldn't voluntarily join ISIS, is that ISIS follows the extreme ends of Islam, such as killing gays, or stoning women, while some moderate muslims do hold these views, never would they think of putting them into practice. #2 - Non-believers are to be killed It literally says in the Koran that non-believers are to be killed, hence I could not even join if I wanted to without converting. Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" #3 Religious Extremism Extremism in any ideology is terrible, wether it's the Communists on the left, or the Fascists on the right, there are many ideologies that are fine, such as religion, but when taken to the extreme, and blood is drawn, ceases to exist in my mind as sane. #4 I don't believe in god I'm an Athiest, which means I have no belief in any higher being, however I do draw some of my principles of libertarianism from some Religious texts. Never would I lay my life down for such a terrible organisation, when I can take the other side and do my part to take down these bastards! In the end, ISIS is a terrible organisation, and never, ever, will it be redeemed. And I'm pretty sure if God was real, sitting up there in all his awesomeness, that he would strange the *******